Rothschild’s Philosophy


 On February 17, 1950, James Paul Warburg confidently declared to the United States Senate: “We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent.” [1] James Paul Warburg (1896-1969) was the son of Paul Moritz Warburg, and a nephew of both Felix Warburg and Jacob Schiff, both associated with Kuhn, Loeb & Company which financed the Russian Revolution through James’ brother Max, banker to the government of Germany. [2] A world government is a world without borders, national sovereignty, constitutions, privacy, autonomy, individual liberties, religious freedoms, private property, the right to bear arms, the rights of marriage and family and a dramatic population reduction (two thirds). A world government establishes a slave/master environment wherein the state controls everything.

Unfortunately, in the United States, the Establishment’s goal of a One World Order is reaching fruition through complacent consent and subversive conquest. America, a Constitutional Republic, is plunging into the satanical One World Order facilitated by the calculated placement of unscrupulous individuals deeply dedicated to the goals of the secret societies they belong to. America, formerly the home of the brave and the free, is currently the home of the people who merely think they are free. None are more enslaved and manipulated than those who mistakenly view themselves as free, therefore rendering them exceptionally vulnerable.

Consent, using mass population management can be achieved by using elements of Hegelian DialecticsGeorg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831), [3] the political and social scientist and professor at the University of Berlin from 1817 until his death in 1831, clearly defined his philosophical/political concepts that came to be known as Hegelianism. His ideas are still taught [4] and authors continue to elaborate on his philosophies, [5] though inattentive Americans fail to acknowledge or even distinguish their application in our own society despite the obvious and devastating consequences.

“The philosophy which has dominated the Western world since the mid 19th century can be reduced to one tenet—ultimate peace comes only through conflict… It proposes that a clash between ideologies (thesis and antithesis) is a normal historical phenomenon which always results in compromise (synthesis) that advances civilization to a higher level of order. “Conflict, in other words, is good, and peace is not necessarily desirable (or profitable).” [6] The essence of Hegel’s dialectical process is that an idea (thesis) is challenged by its opposite (antithesis) creating a crisis, problem or conflict and the two are ultimately reconciled into a third idea (synthesis) or compromise which includes both. As compromise (synthesis) is achieved the process is incessantly repeated, with synthesis posturing as thesis, for sustained conflict-filled advancement. And like spectators at a tennis match, the populace is so totally distracted by the contrived contentious confrontations that we do not perceive the motives of the entire conflict charade. Government creates a crisis for which the public demands a solution. That solution instigates the changes that the government initially wanted but which the people would have been unwilling to accept. It is Order out of Chaos! Worldwide chaos will lead to worldwide solutions which will establish the One World Order.

Several current crises receiving media attention definitely demand serious scrutiny. Trust me; the government already has the perfect solution for each problem.

Crisis #1: Deliberate destabilization is occurring: well financed demonstrations donning foreign flags, government fines of small business, chaos, high crime rates, eradicated contagious diseases returning, bankrupt hospitals, high welfare burdens, lost American wages, and overcrowded schools are emotionally eviscerating Americans. Minutemen marches and justified activities are ineffective against the floodgate of the Mexican masses. Public demand is high as we witness the seemingly impotent government (thesis) which is apathetic to the voter’s wishes while their usually supportive squad of talk radio show shills and the Fox News faction posture as a very effective opposition (antithesis) purportedly embracing the average citizen’s viewpoint against the government.

Solution or synthesis: The completely orchestrated invasion by invitation is essentially the well planned stealthy strategic function of combining the countries of Canada, the United States and Mexico according to the treacherous treaty signed on March 23, 2005, by the top political leaders of the United States, Mexico and Canada: Bush, Fox and Martin. [7] Download the CFR associated document, Building a North American Community, Task Force Report 53 for comprehensive details. This invasion enables their goal with additional perks: thousands of additional jobless citizens will be available for perpetual warfare paid by borrowed funds from the international banking cabal. Rampant chaos, assisted by the predicted avian pandemic may necessitate permanent Martial Law or military order (as after 9-11) which may prevent the 2006 and 2008 “elections” from taking place. Those “representatives” loyal to the One World Order would then remain in office, an unlikely circumstance, if our votes actually counted, after their duplicity in this immigration fiasco.

For security, “voters” (people who actually think they have a voice) will settle for the compromise legislation that we were unwilling to accept originally. To prove our legality, we will be amenable to an implanted ID chip. We won’t complain too loudly about the incarceration of illegals in those FEMA Concentration Camps. This will make it easier for the government to imprison dissenters, whistleblowers and patriots. What they can do to one person, they can do to multitudes.

Crisis #2: Members of the government-friendly mass media are apparently attempting to provoke public alarm by castigating watchdog journalists who allegedly leak information which might affect our “national security.” One popular obedience-trained radio talk show shill suggested subpoenas instead of Pulitzers. William J. Bennett, Neo-con war hawk PNAC member said: “But these people who reveal our secrets, who hurt our war effort, who hurt the efforts of our CIA, who hurt efforts of the president’s people–they shouldn’t be given prizes and awards for this; they should be looked into–the Espionage Act, the investigation of these leaks.” [8]

Journalistic exposés about Randy “Duke” Cunningham (R-California), Bush’s warrant-less domestic surveillance program and the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal expose government abuse and corruption. Government is accountable to the people, not the other way around. In an attempt to prevent publication of Bush’s illegal assault on our privacy “Bush met with Executive Editor Bill Keller and Publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. to argue against publication.” [9] Gagging the press is censorship – typical only in a tyrannical government. Freedom of speech is always lost gradually – unfortunately with the consent of a propagandized frightened populace willing to give up their freedoms for a measure of security.

“Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.” – Harry S. Truman

Solution or synthesis: Full ramifications of the legislation already in place will unfold, which the unwitting populace will readily accept, with the next contrived crisis or pandemic – the 2007 Intelligence Authorization Act spells total control from just about every major bureaucratic agency. “H.R. 5020 provides strategic and substantial enhancements in funding for critical, world-wide intelligence capabilities, strengthens our overall capabilities, and gives America the modern, lean, mean, agile, and aggressive Intelligence Community it needs.” [10]

“Finally, the bill requires the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to develop a comprehensive overhead architecture program to eliminate waste and ensure rational and coordinated technical programs; improves coordination between the Intelligence Community and military to increase our efforts and effectiveness in the Global War on Terror; and increases House Intelligence and Armed Services coordination to advance common systems and capabilities to fight the Global War on Terror.” [11] The “war of terror” is significantly defined as global, the ominous foreshadowing of “perpetual war for perpetual peace”. Anti-war advocates will be classified as unpatriotic or worse – probably depicted as traitors via a daily “2-minute hate session.” “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.”

Obviously, there are other crises, orchestrated oppositions, for which Americans are and will demand solutions – premeditated plans that bring us closer to the One World Order. People are demanding a solution to the gas prices which affect every aspect of American life. It isn’t just about gas availability for summer vacations. Petitions against profanity from friends and family are wending their way through the Internet asking for a government solution. Hey people, police yourself and your children – turn the television off – read a book! Don’t hand the job of parenting to Big Brother! If they can eliminate profanity, they can eliminate anything – religion, etc.

Criminal activity, hyped in the news and exacerbated by numerous CSI style shows, creates the perception of pervasive crime which promotes a general feeling of fear and vulnerability. Some Chicago churches are compensating individuals for turning in their guns. Is this a faith-based initiative – churches collecting guns appears very benign compared to confiscation by uniformed government agents. Gun control is a major step! Only criminals and the government (excuse the redundancy) will have guns – now that is the scariest scenario.

“Our main agenda is to have all guns banned of course. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn’t matter if you have to distort facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed.” Sarah Brady, 1994

It is amazing that the government can predict the pandemic arrival of the avian flu Small business suffers while big multinational agri-business increases. And who knows what is in that vaccine serum – metal, mercury or some other waste product? Collateral benefit: Donald Rumsfeld makes big bucks on Gilead stock.

Is another war on the horizon? Should we preemptively nuke Iran – the threat is whatever the Ministry of Truth and the complicit news media says it is. Collateral benefit: war profits for the Carlyle Group, that well-connected defense contractor and don’t forget about Halliburton.

Warrantless domestic surveillance is an affront to our basic Constitutional freedoms but has been going on for decades. The latest incident was intentionally “leaked” to evaluate mass response to a more intense invasion of our privacy. Naïve citizens who aren’t “guilty of anything anyway” claim they don’t mind if Big Brother listens to their private conversations. “Just keep us safe from those bogeymen terrorists!”

Certainly, there is a massive amount of contrived crises but I hope I made my point regarding thesis, antithesis and synthesis.

To provide the ongoing application of these devilish dialectics individuals from well established covert societies, some more secret than others, finagle their way into powerful positions within the three branches of the federal government. This is accomplished through complicit consent and contrived choice. The quantity of such infiltration is insignificant especially if we consider the “one rotten apple in a basket” concept. Secret societies, the genuine conspiracies, are secret for a reason and they exist despite denials and well-placed “official” counter charges. Activities carried on under the darkness of concealment are most frequently illegal. Secrecy is not essential in the glaring light of day.

Antony Sutton stated: “Secret political organizations can be and have been extremely dangerous to the social health and constitutional validity of a society. In a truly free society the exercise of political power must always be open and known.” “Moreover, organizations devoted to violent overthrow of political structures have always, by necessity, been secret organizations. Communist revolutionary cells are an obvious example. In fact, such revolutionary organizations can only function if their existence was secret. In brief, secrecy in matters political is historically associated with coercion. Furthermore, the existence of secrecy in organizations with political ambitions or with a history of political actions is always suspect. Freedom is always associated with open political action and discussion while coercion is always associated with secrecy.” [12]We have been brainwashed into believing absolute secrecy is imperative for our national security.

President Kennedy said of Freemasonry: “The very word ‘secrecy’ is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it.”  President John F. Kennedy— address to newspaper publishers, April 27, 1961

Most of these groups or societies embrace One World Order goals; they include but are not limited to: The Illuminati, Club of Rome, the Bilderbergs, the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA), also known as The Chatham House Study Group founded 1919 in Great Britain and its sinister sister the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) founded 1921 in America. The CFR is the largest group. “The plans for these two groups were drawn up at the 1919 Paris Peace Conference. The RIIA was largely funded by the Astor family, The Rhodes Trust and certain British banks whilst the CFR was a front for JP Morgan &Co.” [13]

“The main purpose of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is promoting the disarmament of U.S. sovereignty and national independence and submergence into an all powerful, one world government.” Chester Ward, Rear Admiral and former Navy Judge Advocate 1956 – 1960 and a CFR member for 15 years. Is his attitude reflective of other military leaders who have also sworn to uphold the Constitution?

Both of these groups were established as proxies for the Rhodes-Milner Group which was founded at All Souls College, Oxford University by diamond tycoon Cecil Rhodes (Rhodesia was named for), inspired by John Ruskin, professor of Fine Arts at Oxford University and Lord Alfred Milner at the end of the 19th century. The Rhodes Scholarships were created as a result of an attachment to the 1902 will of Cecil Rhodes:

“The idea gliding and dancing before our eyes like a willow – a wish at last frames itself into a plan. Why should we not join (or form as other writers have interpreted Rhodes’ handwriting) a secret society with but one object: the furtherance of the British Empire, for the bringing of the whole uncivilized world under British rule, for the recovery of the United States, for the making the Anglo-Saxon race but one Empire.” [14]

The function of the Rhodes-Milner Group, now referred to as The Rhodes Trust, is to identify and give scholarships to specially-qualified individuals to study at Oxford University. Potential scholars must demonstrate an aptitude to function as political leaders, educators, military leaders and/or skillful communicators who demonstrate the necessary skills to ultimately influence others to accept the New World Order agenda. Students are introduced to certain concepts/values to implement within their respective countries. Names of just a few of these scholars appear on the following very brief list: CFR denotes membership in the Council on Foreign Relations and TC denotes membership in the Trilateral Commission, both organizations that promote and work for a New World Order:

·        Bill Clinton (CFR – TC) (The first Rhodes Scholar to be President)

  • ·        David Souter (Supreme Court Judge)
  • ·        R. James Woolsey (CFR) (ex-CIA Director 1993-1995)
  • ·        Alan Keith Henrikson (CFR) (The Fletcher Roundtable on a New World Order; Associate, Center for International Affairs, United Nations Development Programme)
  • ·        Richard Jeffrey Danzig (former Under Secretary of the Navy)
  • ·        Wesley Kanne Clark (CFR) (Supreme Allied Commander, NATO, 1997-2000; Democratic presidential candidate, 2004; West Point graduate and a big fan of Douglas MacArthur; author of The Fire This Time, a critique and exposé of the Bush administration and war crimes which possibly functions as orchestrated opposition)
  • ·        Naomi Wolf – charismatic author of several books on feminism. The feminist movement was initially a CIA-funded operation. She wrote The End of America: A Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot (2007), a book that may function as orchestrated opposition in preparation for the predictable 2008 regime change. She also wrote Give Me Liberty: A Handbook for American Revolutionaries (Simon & Schuster, 2008). She is married to a former Clinton speechwriter, David Shipley. She has appeared on numerous main stream media networks as well as several alternative radio networks.
  • ·        David Ruick Bock (spent 16 years at the World Bank)
  • ·        David Carter Hardesty Jr. (West Virginia University’s 21st president)
  • ·        Ronald Stanley Katz (CFR) (United States Department of State, Office of the Law of the Sea Negotiations; Deputy Director, 1977 – 1978 United States Justice Department)
  • ·        Stephen Alan Oxman (CFR) (Assistant Secretary of State for European and Canadian Affairs from 1993-1997)
  • ·        Dennis Cutler Blair (Joint Chiefs of Staff; U.S. Associate Director of Central Intelligence for Military Support)
  • ·        David Odell Beim (CFR) (executive vice president of the Export-Import Bank of the United States)
  • ·        Walter Becker Slocombe (CFR) (Under Secretary of Defense for Policy; was a member of the Program Analysis Office of the National Security Council staff. Senior Advisor for National Defense for the CPA, Baghdad, 2003)
  • ·        Willard Scott Thompson (CFR) (Director, U S Institute for Peace; Assistant Secretary of Defense)
  • ·        W. Bowman Cutter (CFR) (chairman of the Global Information Infrastructure Commission (GIIC) Steering Committee for the Center for Strategic & International Studies; Deputy Assistant to the President for Economic Policy under Clinton, Office of Management and Budget)
  • ·        Walter Isaacson (President of the Aspen Institute; Managing Editor of Time magazine (1995-2001); Chairman and CEO of CNN)
  • ·        Neil L. Rudenstine (CFR) (President of Harvard University; Executive Vice President of The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation; the American Philosophical Society; Committee for Economic Development)
  • ·        Robert B. Reich (American commentator and author; U.S. Secretary of Labor, 1993-1997)
  • ·        Boisfeuillet Jones, Jr. (Publisher and CEO of The Washington Post)
  • ·        Strobe Talbott (American diplomat and journalist; U.S. Deputy Secretary of State (1994-2001); President of the Brookings Institution)
  • ·        Richard N. Haass (CFR) (President of the Council on Foreign Relations; Director of the Policy Planning Staff at the U.S. Department of State, 2001-2003. From 1989-93, he was special assistant to President George Bush and senior director for Near East and South Asian affairs on the staff of the National Security Council.)
  • ·        E. J. Dionne (American journalist and Washington Post columnist)
  • ·        Paul Blustein (American author and journalist The Washington Post)
  • ·        Clark Kent Ervin (Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security)
  • ·        William Averell Harriman (CFR) (Initiated into the Skull and Bones Society with his friend Prescott Bush; Club of Rome; Charter Member – American Academy of Diplomacy; Knights of Pythias; and Psi Upsilon Fraternity. US Ambassador to Soviet Union 1943-1946; Ambassador to Britain in 1946; Secretary of Commerce; Ambassador at Large in the Kennedy Administration; Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs; Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs; Chief U.S. Negotiator Paris Peace Talks on Vietnam. He established W. A. Harriman & Co. in 1922 which was changed to Harriman Brothers & Co. when his brother E. Roland joined the company in 1927. They merged with Brown Bros. & Co. in 1931 to become Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. Employees included George Herbert Walker and Prescott Bush, who were likewise employed alongside E. R. Harriman at Union Banking Corporation (UBC), a company which was temporarily closed in 1943 by the U.S. Government for Trading with the Enemy[ii] Harriman was not a Rhodes Scholar but is included here because of his association with other elites who were.
  • ·        Ivan A. Getting (American weapons scientist and co-inventor of GPS technology) [iii]

See the complete list.

The Bilderberg Group, another very secret society, was under the chairmanship of H. R. H. Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, who served in that position for twenty-two years beginning in 1954. Creation of the group was not Bernhard’s brainchild but that of politically connected Dr Joseph H. Retinger. [iv] After decades of covert conniving, it was most likely the first formally scheduled meeting of the banking elite and other prominent individuals. The group’s purpose: coordination of American and European foreign policy towards establishing a New World Order. “At a small hotel near Arnhem in the deeply wooded uplands of eastern Holland on May 29-31, 1954, a group of eminent statesmen, financiers, and intellectuals from the principal nations of Europe and the United States met together in, perhaps, the most unusual international conference ever held until then.” [v]

The hotel was The Hotel de Bilderberg in the Dutch town of Oosterbeek from which the group takes its name. Since then, a yearly meeting, strictly secure and highly confidential, is held in various places where powerful people, who crave even more power, meet. See the lists of attendees since 1991; they include media, government, and corporate business owners. Governor Bill Clinton attended in 1991 – pre-approval of his presidency? Do a cross-check of the Bilderberg and the Rhodes Scholar list. Non-Catholic George W. Bush decided to visit the Pope in 2004 at the very same time as the Bilderbergs 50th anniversary conference in Stresa, Italy – what a coincidence! [vi]Additionally, Senator John Edwards was also there – perhaps to gain acceptance as Kerry’s running mate.

“It is a fact that in Europe, membership in the Bilderberger group guarantees political success. Not surprisingly, opposition to Bilderberger dogma results in loss of power and position.” [vii] European politicians adhere to the Bilderberg policies or suffer the consequences. Margaret Thatcher, former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, opposed the Bilderbergs and their target date of 1992 for consolidating the European Union along with the adoption of a standard European currency. Apparently she voiced her opposition at the annual meeting in Spain in May 1989 much to the detriment of her career. Thereafter, “Thatcher was viciously attacked by every known media source within days of the meeting. She was denounced in almost every European newspaper, television, and radio as a ‘provisionalist’ and an ‘Ultra-nationalist,’ and that was only the beginning. Within days, a parliamentary assault was initiated against her.” On November 28, 1990, she was succeeded by John Major.

The Bilderberg elite demanded that President Ronald Reagan provide $50 billion taxpayer dollars from the U.S. Treasury over the period of his eight-year presidency, to be given to third world countries through the World Bank and the IMF. Again, in the 1988 meeting, the group insisted that America implement a tax increase to further enhance the IMF and World Bank coffers. These deceptive acts constituted a redistribution of money from the American taxpayer’s pocket into the banker’s vaults. The poor rarely receive benefits. That tax increase apparently cost George H. W. Bush a second term. Perhaps his first-born son, George W. Bush, would be compensated later for his father’s political losses. It was the Bilderbergs who decided that hundreds of billions of American taxpayer dollars should fund the new democratic government in the former Soviet Union. We were also required to buy needless, over-priced, undelivered Soviet products to pump up their economy – more taxpayer dollars for covetous bankers and payola for accommodating third world Judases who also sacrificed their people. The Bilderbergers mandated the invasion of Bosnia. When the wicked rule, those who aren’t slaughtered mourn.

Though select members of the media have always attended Bilderberg meetings, they are very discreet. David Rockefeller, speaking at the June 1991, Bilderberger meeting in Baden Baden, Germany said: “We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national determination practiced in past centuries.” The media does, however, spin webs of deceit and furnish fluff and appropriate propaganda to advance pre-selected political candidates. Among other, Bilderberger Bill Kristol, publisher of The Weekly Standard, edited by Fred Barnes, wrote a remarkably favorable report portraying George W. Bush as the “heavyweight” candidate in anticipation of the 2000 elections. His purported business acuity was actually the result of family and business connections and had nothing to do with his personal skills.

The Illuminati, a secret society established to counter the positive influence of the clergy, was founded and structured after the Masonic model at the University of Ingolstadton May 1, 1776 by atheist Adam Weishaupt. The contest between good and evil embraced Manichean symbolism, a war between light and darkness, between the illumination of reason and the allegedly sordid dark ignorance of religious superstition. [viii] The Illuminati goal was a secularized, counterfeit perfection of mankind, minus Jesus Christ.

In an attempt to emulate Christianity reason postured as revelation and nature; creations, like the earth replaced the Creator. The Bible was/is the holy book for Christian enlightenment; the 36 volumes of the atheistic Diderot’s Encyclopedia provided the inspiration of the Enlightenment – all the while trying to eliminate God. This encyclopedia included imprints of Voltaire, Montesque, Rousseau, Buffon and Turgot. Significantly, the title page of Diderot’s first edition included a drawing of Lucifer, symbol of light and rebellion, standing next to the Masonic symbols of the square and the compass.

The Illuminati studied the Enlightenment philosophers to battle against the Jesuits and strengthen the Illuminati philosophy through their literature. Weishaupt stated: “Princes and Nations shall disappear from off the face of the earth! Yes, a time shall come when man shall acknowledge no other law but the great book of nature; this revelation shall be the work of Secret Societies and that is one of our grand mysteries.” [ix] The Illuminati had two to three thousand members and spread throughout Europe including Poland, Holland, England and France. Many functioned within illuminized Masonic Lodges. “Johann Gottfried von Herder (1744-1803), the German philosopher, Atheist and composer was an Illuminist. Johann Wolfgang Goethe (1749-1823), also a German philosopher, writer and privy councilor. Goethe is best known as the creator of Faust, perhaps, as speculated by many, an Illuminist allegory. [x] In 1785, the Order that was intent on restructuring the state and destroying the church was officially abolished, unless of course it merely resurfaced in America as the more sinister, more secretive Brotherhood of Death, also known as the Order of Skull and Bones.

Probably the most secretive group, the Order of Skull and Bones, also known as Chapter 322 or simply The Order, is the powerful all-male society that was established at Yale University for the elite children or grandchildren of the Wall Street Banking Establishment. George W. Bush, whose father and grandfather were also members, remarked: “My senior year, I joined Skull and Bones, a secret society, so secret I can’t say anything more.” The Order was co-founded by Alphonso Taft (Secretary of War in the Grant Administration) and William Huntington Russell and thirteen others. Skull and Bones “is a clear and obvious threat to the constitutional freedom of the United States. Its secrecy, power and use of influence are greater by far than the Masons, or any other semi-secret mutual or fraternal organization.” [xi]

The Order was incorporated as The Russell Trust in 1856 by Daniel Coit Gilman as treasurer and William H. Russell as president. For the next fourteen years Gilman consolidated the power of The Order. More about Gilman and his influence in the field of medicine will be given later.

William Russell’s cousin Samuel established Russell and Company in 1823 which was an opium empire which acquired opium in Turkey and smuggled it into China. More than one prominent American family made a fortune through drug smuggling. Warren Delano, Jr. (grandfather of Franklin Roosevelt) was Chief of Operations for Russell and Company in Canton. Other Russell business associates included John Cleve Green (financed Princeton), Abiel Low (financed construction of Columbia.), and Joseph Coolidge (his son organized United Fruit and grandson, Archibald C. Coolidge, was a co-founder of the Council on Foreign Relations.) [xii] Read about United Fruit and their monopolies in third world countries here.

The un-American chapter of a German Order was established at Yale on June 28, 1832 when Russell returned there after studying in Germany from 1831-1832 where he was exposed to Hegel’s philosophical ideas which found great popularity and ready acceptance in the German educational system. [xiii] It has been suggested that while William Huntington Russell was in Germany “he was initiated into a secret society with a skull and bones for its emblem. Some even claim that he was initiated into a continuation of the Illuminati and granted authorization to start a Yale chapter.” [xiv]

“Members are chosen in their junior year and spend only one year on campus, the senior year, with Skull & Bones. In other words, the organization is oriented to the post graduate outside world.” [xv] This society is by invitation only – just fifteen candidates each year for a total membership of about 2500. At any given time only about 600 or so members of The Order are alive. Of that number only 150 (about one-quarter) take an active role in the society. It is estimated that a core of perhaps 20-30 families run The Order. “The most likely potential member is from a Bones family, who is energetic, resourceful, political and probably an amoral team player. A man who understands that to get along you have to go along. A man who will sacrifice himself for the good of the team… In real life the thrust of The Order is to bring about certain objectives. Honors and financial rewards are guaranteed by the power of The Order.” [xvi]

Members of Skull & Bones have infiltrated “just about every significant research, policy, opinion-making organization in the United States, in addition to the church, business, law, government and politics. The evolution of American society is not, and has not been for a century, a voluntary development reflecting individual opinion, ideas and decisions at the grass roots. On the contrary, the broad direction has been created artificially and stimulated by The Order.” [xvii]

Bonesmen support one another in their quests for successful infiltration into various endeavors. A couple of Bonesmen supplied the finances to launch George Bush’s business career when he founded the Arbusto Oil Company; Bush acquired the money to buy a stake in the Texas Rangers from another Bonesman; and another fraternity member paid for the million dollar billboards that boosted Bush’s 2000 presidential campaign. After Bush’s installation as president, he threw a lavish dinner for his fraternity brothers, probably at the taxpayer’s expense. [xviii]

The super secretive Order of Skull and Bones (hereafter called The Order) is non partisan – it is neither right or left, conservative or liberal, Republican or Democrat. Of the secret groups, The Order and the Bilderberg Group are the most secretive. The Order may, in fact, be the core of the others. Each group appears to have specific activities towards the development of the One World Order. The activities of The Order are focused on changing our society and the world, to bring about a One World Order, a very structured society, encompassing all current countries. Individual freedoms will be more heavily restricted. There will be even less Constitutional protection, no national boundaries or cultural distinctions. [i] Therefore, The Order controls Republican Bonesmen and Democrat Bonesmen.

The Order’s methodology is a strict adherence to Hegelian Dialectics. Apply those dialectics to the two political parties. Essentially, political parties are artificial groupings designed to create cultural and emotional division. A contrived choice between two bad options, without recognizing alternative better choices, creates the perception of freedom. Ostensibly opposing ideologies generate deliberate distraction and polarization. It is the old divide and conquer tactic. The very public, distracting, lengthy, increasingly hostile battle between the Republicans, posing as thesis, and the Democrats posing as antithesis constitutes orchestrated opposition. Elections, staged for the masses, are completely irrelevant political tennis matches. Domestic and foreign policies remain intact, regardless of the political affiliation of the puppet president.

Despite popular misconceptions, our government is supposed to be a representative Republic, not a democracy, as deceptively asserted and popularly accepted. Citizens vote in both democracies and republics. That single act does not make you free. Those who finagle their way into office supposedly represent the voters who purportedly put them there. Moreover, they are to sustain an invariable written law – the Constitution which mandates civil law and our response to it. The non-negotiable Constitution is our explicit gauge of right and wrong, applicable to all without special considerations for occupation, political, social or cultural status, or ethnicity. Since Woodrow Wilson, we have descended into a Socialistic democracy with adaptable mob rule, adjustable laws and poll-driven public opinions. All democracies, in which selective enforcement of law is tolerated, are short lived, for they typically morph into oppressive tyrannies.

“Whenever laws are passed, under whatever form, if they do not represent the will of the majority of the people or their desires, then they represent oppression. That is to say, we in America today have an oppressive government because it passes laws against the will of the people. Thus, we no longer have a Republic. A strong case can be made that America in the 21st century is an Empire, as was Britain in the 19th. Any government that would even consider an issue as ludicrous as ‘hate crimes,’ i.e. the concept of policing thought, is in very serious jeopardy.” [ii]

Of the three branches of government, only the legislative branch is authorized to make law. Presidential executive orders have been unconstitutionally used to make law. The Judicial branch, the Supreme Court, is supposed to interpret the constitutionality of a law. Rather, they invent new interpretations never envisioned by the founding fathers. “It is the duty of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution as ratified by the states, not to invent preposterous meanings which were not originally intended by the authors. The judiciary makes law through changing precedents as well as by invention, neither of which are constitutionally authorized.” [iii]

Of the choices in 2004 we had two professional politicians, members of the same silver-spooned secret society whose dedicated function is the destruction of the country, pretending to relate to the working masses while the media sheltered the compromised loyalties of the candidates and ignored any other possibilities. The elite have achieved synthesis – a merging of the two parties into one which favors mammoth government, unrestrained illegals, out-of-control deficit spending, high taxes, continued abortion, big brother spying, loss of freedoms via such documents as Patriot Act, big business/big government cronyism, preemptive war, job losses and the authentic free market. Treasonous trade agreements are not about trade but about cheap labor and corporate profits. Impervious to party behavior as opposed to their rhetoric, conditioned party loyalists accept a multitude of misconceptions.

Lack of unification behind the Constitution, the law of the land, will lead U.S. citizens into unbearable bondage – while enjoying their perceptions of freedom. “We are either a united people, or we are not.  If the former, let us, in all maters of general concern act as a nation, which have national objects to promote, and a national character to support. If we are not, let us no longer act a farce by pretending to it.” George Washington (letter to James Madison, 30 November 1785) Reference: George Washington: A Collection, W.B. Allen, ed. (315)

We are sadly deceived. We do not select and then elect candidates. Influence and money determines the selection of acquiescent local and federal candidates. “Since its founding, the Bilderberg Group has functioned as a de facto private Global Politburo with 120 attendees at recent yearly meetings. Historically, the Group’s power is awesome. Bill Clinton, an obscure Arkansas governor, was tapped to run for president. Likewise, Margaret Thatcher, as well as Tony Blair, was tapped by the Bilderbergers to assume the reins of government in the United Kingdom. Congressman Gerald Ford, later U.S. president, also attended Group meetings in 1964 and 1966.” [iv] Georgia Governor Jimmy Carter, an unknown peanut farmer, joined forces with the Bilderberg Group. In all likelihood, every presidential candidate in the last five decades has collaborated with the Bilderberg.

Voters witness this contrived opposition in every national election. In the staged elections of 2000, our “choices” were Gore and Bush. Months before the November elections, Florida Governor, Jeb Bush ordered election supervisors to purge 58,000 voters on the grounds that they were felons and not entitled to vote. Actually, only a handful of those voters were felons. This purging prevented 50,000 people from voting. Ninety percent of those voters were Democrats. This incident, assuring older brother Bush’s victory, never made the news. [v] “In four states — Alabama, Kentucky, Virginia and Florida — people with any felony conviction are barred for life from the polls, unless the government grants them individual rights through a petition process.” [vi]

Puppet leaders in any country owe their allegiance to the entities that installed them into office, not to the masses they profess to lead. Political fixing involves several tactics: forced resignations, military coups, CIA assassinations of leaders who are antagonistic to American big business interests, paperless electronic voting machines, or illegal Supreme Court decisions. [vii] Installed dictators wreak havoc against their own citizens and other targeted countries to accommodate their handler’s world government goal.

Idealistically, individuals are elected to faithfully represent and proxy vote in the name of their constituents. However, there are variables – representatives may vote in several different ways:

  • ·        Vote their conscience
  • ·        Vote for what they think their constituents want
  • ·        Vote based on Executive Branch pressure
  • ·        Vote based on lobbyists’ perks
  • ·        Vote with the party leadership

The last, voting with the party leadership is the most common – it is party politics and is frequently at the expense of the people’s pocket. How many of us have ever requested a substantial raise for a congressional leader or a millionaire-maker, life-long pension or a family health care program that dwarfs any of the benefits or salaries of the average hard-working American? Yet, this routinely occurs. However, many of us have made numerous calls, sent abundant faxes, letters and emails requesting, nay demanding, constitutionally sound votes on such things as CAFTA to have our “representative” vote against the constitution, against their campaign rhetoric, against the citizens and in favor of their party financiers. I did get a reply from my pro-abortion, pro-big business Republican representative telling me that she had voted for the CAFTA (August 2, 2005) bill for three reasons:

1.     “It will help our manufacturers.

2.     It bolsters our national security as it helps strengthen relationships with six very important new governments in our own backyard.

3.     This agreement will help the anti-poor efforts in these six nations, stem the flow of illegal immigration to the U.S., and reverse China’s dominance in textiles and apparel.” [viii]

She ended her letter by saying: “I am sorry we did not see eye-to-eye on this issue, but I hope this information and the enclosed fact sheet on benefits for Illinois might help to allay some of your concerns about the agreement. Please don’t hesitate to contact me again on this or any other issue that interests you.” [ix] Representative Biggert’s belated response reminded me that she no longer represents the voter. It takes time and creativity to concoct the rational for congressional complicity in the destruction of U.S. sovereignty. Congressional members rarely read before signing legislation, written by interest groups or paid corporate lobbyists. It is rubber-stamp legislation according to the corporate-owned congress.

I am certain that the voter’s views of CAFTA paralleled their perceptions of NAFTA. The “representatives” didn’t read that bill either. It wasn’t even published until several weeks after the vote. Over 80% of the American population opposed NAFTA. Obviously, Biggert and other “representatives” didn’t bother to review the disastrous results of NAFTA on the American middle class and she apparently assumes that no one else will connect the huge demise of 7 million manufacturing jobs to treasonous trade treaties. Fifteen hundred manufacturing plants relocated to Mexico as a result of NAFTA. So why are so many Mexicans coming north to work in “jobs Americans won’t do”? Moving those plants should have provided motivation for workers to remain in their own country. Folks, we are lied to on a regular basis. Only a complicit politician ignores the cause and effect of any legislative disaster and hopes the voters won’t notice. Biggert and others of her ilk will continue to be reelected by amnesia-afflicted or ignorant voters who may currently work two jobs to stay afloat.

Suffice it to say – both parties are owned and reek with corruption. In the 2004 election the Establishment selected Kerry to run against the incumbent Bush, both committed members of The Order and both adept in the art of orchestrated opposition. The candidates deliberately ignored the real issues while focusing attention on insignificant distractions. Bush’s Bones membership would have been the very last issue that the Democrats would have mentioned. Instead attention to military and drug/DUI arrest records and Kerry’s possible lack of dedication to the Iraqi War with the intention of introducing the frightening possibility that Kerry couldn’t keep us safe from those bogeymen terrorists. That timely counterfeit Osama video, in addition to the dedicated, yet deceitful, Republicans monitoring the software in the Ohio voting machines clinched the staged election.

With the assistance of Katherine Harris and the U.S. Supreme Court, Bush “won” the election. [x] What a surprise!! – NOT! Papa George H. W. Bush nominated two of the Judges that sat on that Court. Three other Court members were: Sandra Day O’Connor, Steve G. Breyer, and Ruth B. Ginsburg, members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), another group dedicated to obliterating American sovereignty. [xi]

George W. Bush, despite threats of impending impeachment and indictments, and magazine articles [i] claiming he is the worst president in history has had a more incredibly successful presidential administration than any other in the last 100 years. We can attribute this to his character, his society affiliations, his astute political appointments, his Yale education, his experience and his Eastern Establishment family background. The vast and very vocal Christian right played a major part in his success. They were greatly influenced by Bush’s claim that his role model was Jesus Christ. He is the right man for this crucial time in history. His success and accomplishments are unmatched. His America First Acceptance Speech of 2000 bears absolutely no resemblance to his New World Order actions. [ii] Despite the globalist accomplishments of previous administrations, he has virtually left all of them in the dust. And speaking of leaving people in the dust – as a result of his invasion of Iraq, depleted uranium dust has covered more territory, crept into more water and affected the health of more people than at any other time in history.

George W. Bush is definitely his father’s son. The senior Bush, also a member of The Order, served the ignoble New World Order cause as a Vice-President, President, head of the CIA, ambassador to the People’s Republic of China and other influential positions. [iii] It is unfortunate that the citizens do not have a complete record of his many deeds and activities. This is partly due to Executive Order 13233 which conveniently restricts access to the records of former presidents. [iv] This was drafted by Alberto R. Gonzales, then White House council and issued by George W. Bush on November 1, 2001, just before the National Archives was due to release some very revealing records, “some of which might prove embarrassing to the President’s father, George H. W. Bush, due to his involvement in the Iran-Contra Affair.” [v]

Censorship by Executive Order or theft by former national security advisers suppresses or destroys a lot of evidence. Any “leak” is absolutely intentional! With the Bush administration, secrecy is epidemic, [vi] much more genuine than any impending crisis-driven bird flu outbreak. Donald H. Rumsfeld is one happy Gilead Sciences stock holder with this orchestrated improbable scare crisis. He was Chairman of the Board of Gilead until early 2001 when he became Secretary of Preemptive War. Tamiflu, made by Gilead, is the bird flu drug of choice in the world market. [vii] He will certainly not suffer any Martha Stewart style complications. Nor will the insider/insiders who made millions immediately before 9/11 because of their foreknowledge. Can insider trading be repetitive or addictive, I wonder…

The elder Bush appointed two Supreme Court judges: David Souter, a Rhodes Scholar and Clarence Thomas who is a member of the right-wing Federalist Society which tends to dominate the legal profession. Scalia is also a member of the Federalist Society. The Rhodes Trust is intent on overthrowing the American government. Both Scalia’s and Thomas’ votes were crucial in putting Bush into the White House in 2000 despite a minority of popular votes.

Son Bush has also pushed through two Supreme Court judges who will further the cause. Naïve Republican supporters focused on the abortion issue, the so-called “settled law of the land” when shoo-ins John Roberts and Samuel Alito were nominated after the Harriet Miers pretense. Anticipated rejection of Miers set up easier acceptance of successive nominees. “Conservatives” would have been wiser to focus on the nominee’s views of executive powers. Fathers with unfinished goals typically hope that their children can rise to the occasion and complete those unfinished tasks. [viii] George W. has certainly done this. In fact, to ensure continuation of the agenda, he has chosen or appointed many of the same accomplices as were in his father’s sphere of influence. [ix] Additionally, he has selected other CFR members to speed up the pace. [x]

President George H. W. Bush, a member of The Order of Skull and Bones, said in 1991: “We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations a new world order, a world where the rule of law, not the rule of the jungle, governs the conduct of nations. When we are successful, and we will be, we have a real chance at this new world order, an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the U.N.’s founders.” Nuclear clouds and deadly depleted uranium dust are rarely experienced in the natural interactions of the jungle, only human animals use such implements of death against their own kind.

Papa Bush is extremely loyal to the United Nations which is attempting to replace Christianity with a new world religion: “It is the sacred principles enshrined in the United Nations charter to which the American people will henceforth pledge their allegiance,” said President George Bush, Sr. addressing the General Assembly of the United Nations, February 1, 1992

Referring to Saddam Hussein, President George H. W. Bush on January 1991: “If we do not follow the dictates of our inner moral compass and stand up for human life, then his lawlessness will threaten the peace and democracy of the emerging new world order we now see, this long dreamed-of vision we’ve all worked toward for so long.” He said this just prior to bombing Iraq into the Stone Age and killing thousands of people. Lawlessness is lawlessness – whether it is Saddam Hussein using United States supplied weapons of mass destruction against the citizens of Iraq or a United States president using United States weapons of mass destruction against the citizens of Iraq. The results are the same: thousands of dead Iraqis! Only the captured, the mind-controlled or the losers in this war racket go to trial for crimes. Labels make all the difference: calling it war justifies the mounds of dead bodies attributed to the United States and the acquiescent accommodating taxpayers.

He couldn’t have done a better job if he were a dictator. “If this were a dictatorship, it’d be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I’m the dictator.” President-elect George W. Bush, CNN News, aired December 18, 2000. He is a member of The Order of Skull and Bones first and an American Republican second. Bush has taken the following oath twice: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” We do not have a copy of the oath for The Order of Skull and Bones – it is secret. That should tell volumes.

“Members of the Order (Skull and Bones) take an oath that absolves them from any allegiance to any nation or king or government or constitution, and that includes the negating of any subsequent oath which they may be required to take. They swear allegiance only to the Order and its goal of a New World Order…according to the oath Bush took when he was initiated into Skull and Bones, his oath of office as President of the United States means nothing.” [xi]

Just what has Bush achieved in taking America into the New World Order?

  • ·        He continually minimizes the Constitution by repeatedly demonstrating his unwillingness to follow it
  • ·        He has issued thousands of unconstitutional Presidential Executive Orders
  • ·        The invasion of Afghanistan 3,000 – 3,400 dead civilians [October 7, 2001 thru March 2002]
  • ·        Consequent resumption of poppy production in Afghanistan
  • ·        He got rid of the Bridas Corporation an obstacle to the United States controlling the Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline.
  • ·        The invasion of Iraq – see the population reducing Civilian body count
  • ·        The undefended invasion of America – 9-11
  • ·        He strengthened FEMA
  • ·        Invasion by invitation of America – 2000 -2008 by poverty stricken illegal aliens to be used as cheap labor
  • ·        Continued destruction of the middle class
  • ·        Increased the deficit – pouring trillions into the banker’s coffers.
  • ·        Politically blackmailed Congress into passing the un-read CAFTA
  • ·        Politically blackmailed Congress into passing the un-read Patriot Act 1 and 2
  • ·        Established the nefarious Department of Homeland Security
  • ·        Fooled ordinary Christians into believing he was one of them
  • ·        Returned the war hawk neo-cons to leadership positions in strategic fields
  • ·        Collaborated with two foreign countries about the dissolution of our borders
  • ·        Enriched his cronies and family through no-bid contracts
  • ·        Strengthened Detention and Removal Strategy for a Secure Homeland 2003-2012 – part of the Department of Homeland Security. PDF file
  • ·        Implemented the building of all of those detention centers by Halliburton
  • ·        Bush has claimed the authority to break more rules than any other president
  • ·        Sent billions of confiscated tax dollars out of the country – not his to give
  • ·        Abetted in the sale of national properties to foreign governments
  • ·        He told us to stop worrying about conspiracy theories and some people did
  • ·        He has responded to the concerns of the drug companies and agri-business
  • ·        Through his efforts there are higher profits for the pharmaceutical industry
  • ·        Got rid of that annoying Geneva Conventions requiring humane treatment
  • ·        He broadened the government’s wiretapping, surveillance and search-and-seizure authority
  • ·        He ushered in a new era of secrecy for presidential activities
  • ·        He has assumed sole authority to impose martial law, suspend habeas corpus and ignore the Posse Comitatus Act
  • ·        He bypassed the Senate and appointed John Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations.
  • ·        Instituted The National Security Strategy of the United States of America

Although he has accomplished many things there are a few areas where he has failed: he did not find Osama bin Laden. 750,000 Americans are homeless, 250,000 of them are Veterans. 1,600,000 jobs have been lost in the private sector since Bush took office. He didn’t get those warrants or the authority for all that wire tapping. And the number of lobbyists in Washington has increased. But, hey, we can’t quibble about the goals he didn’t accomplish when we see just how successful he has been!

Illegal entry into the country has doubled since Bush’s infamous guest worker flood-gate invitation. This has certainly ravaged our sovereignty and pitted the pro-amnesty against the no-amnesty factions. The illegals are mostly comprised of poor Mexicans, made poorer by illegal trade agreements like NAFTA. “George H. W. Bush’s government, along with the Conservative Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, spearheaded the negotiations of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which Bill Clinton signed in 1993.” [xii] NAFTA, which was staunchly supported by Governor George W. Bush, [xiii] is a major means of combining Canada, the United States and Mexico into the North American Community. The next plan to attack our sovereignty is another phony trade agreement, the FTAA.

July 18, 1993 — CFR member and Trilateralist Henry Kissinger writes in the Los Angeles Times concerning NAFTA: “What Congress will have before it is not a conventional trade agreement but the architecture of a new international system… a first step toward a new world order.”

“When NAFTA was passed, one of the primary arguments was that trading with Mexico would create new jobs in America. The argument prevailed despite historical and research studies indicating that a NAFTA would encourage movement of manufacturing and labor intensive jobs to Mexican nationals, at the expense of American jobs. The Mexicans spent millions on lobbyists, and in public meetings in Mexico, bragged about how with NAFTA they had ‘out-traded the Americans again’ and that a new flood of industrial jobs would come into Mexico. NAFTA passed, and the flow of capital into Mexico increased further. Mexico created new companies almost daily, but also incurred new debt. Of the some 70 billion dollars invested in Mexico, only 10 billion actually went into new factories, industry, capital creation, and job creation entities. The rest went into speculation, debt service, and into the coffers of the 32 wealthiest ‘haciendas’ of Mexico. Much of it flowed into offshore banks and investment houses.” [xiv]“Mexico is a land of 90,000,000 people. Perhaps 200,000 people in Mexico control most of the wealth, and some 32 families, all billionaires, control the vast majority of wealth in Mexico.” In this regard, there are similarities with the United States.

Unfortunately, Mexico, along with many other third world countries, was a victim of some economic hit men. Their tactics were recently revealed by John Perkins in his excellent, must-read book: Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. Mexico was generating about 30 billion dollars a year towards paying the debt service or interest on its international banking cabal loans. Yet the actual cost amounted to 40-45 billion dollars per year. Alan Greenspan, then chairman of the privately owned Federal Reserve increased the interest rates in late 1994 which “devastated the Mexican Economy.” [xv] In December 1994, Mexico devalued the peso by about 40 percent. [xvi] Congress immediately approved a $40 taxpayer funded billion dollar loan despite debt burdened Mexico’s inability to repay it. That loan was merely a transfer from our pockets into the international bankers’ coffers.

Spending confiscated taxpayer money to partially “fix” orchestrated problems furthers the New World Order goal. Government solutions deceptively deprive security seeking citizens of their liberties by installing totalitarian policies. This is the case with our current southern border problem. We have moved from a protective, American friendly immigration policy to an open Swiss cheese farce of a border. [xvii] While Americans take sides and witness Republican and Democrat congressmen pair up against us, we fail to recognize that the disbanding of both the southern and northern borders is part of an organized plan to reject national sovereignty and establish the North American Community encompassing Canada, Mexico and the United States. [xviii]

All the attending uproar and big-money-financed demonstrations are for mass media benefit. “In late December 2005, Mexican President Vicente Fox hired a lobbying firm to sweeten political sentiment in the US towards Mexicans and the immigration issue. The same PR expert and GOP political consultant helped George W. Bush defeat Ann Richards for the governorship of Texas in 1994 and worked on both Bush’s presidential campaigns.” [xix] This PR firm planned highly organized, expensive, flag-flying, controlled opposition demonstrations with the expected congressional treasonous response is designed to change mass American opposition into complacent acceptance – and provide justification for the impending national ID, which will serve as an alleged attempt to monitor all of those newly created citizens.

President George W. Bush said: “Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.” [xx] Is this another Bushism or the absolute truth – you decide! Or does “The Decider” get to make that decision?

“To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, loyalty to family tradition, national patriotism, and religious dogmas.” “We have swallowed all manner of poisonous certainties fed us by our parents, our Sunday and day school teachers, our politicians, our priests….The reinterpretation and eventual eradication of the concept of right and wrong which has been the basis of child training, the substitution of intelligent and rational thinking for faith in the certainties of old people, these are the belated objectives …for charting the changes in human behavior.” Brock Chisholm, 1959 Humanist of the Year and former head of World Health Organization, in the February 1946 issue of Psychiatry

The manipulating maneuvers of The Order of Skull and Bones (hereafter called The Order) have focused on specifically changing society with an eye towards the globalist goal of a One World Order. In order to drastically alter civilization, members of The Order infiltrate society’s institutions and use their influence, backed by the vast wealth of the international bankers, to gain absolute control. The societal elements as defined by Antony C. Sutton in An Introduction to the Order of Skull & Bones:

  • ·        Education – how the population of the future will behave.
  • ·        Money – the means of holding wealth and exchanging goods.
  • ·        Law – the authority to enforce the will of the state, a world law and a world court is needed for a world state.
  • ·        Politics – the direction of the state.
  • ·        Economy – the creation of wealth.
  • ·        History – what people believe happened in the past.
  • ·        Psychology – the means of controlling how people think.
  • ·        Philanthropy – so that the people think well of the controllers.
  • ·        Medicine – the power over health, life and death.
  • ·        Religion – people’s spiritual beliefs, the spur to action for many.
  • ·        Media – what people know and learn about current events.
  • ·        Continuity – the power to appoint who follows in your footsteps. [i]

I will briefly address, in this and forthcoming articles in this current series, each of these fundamental facets of society and how they have been controlled in order to devastate the American Republic and enslave every average American in the bonds of satanic globalism.

Real education, as opposed to brainwashing, should be a lifelong personal pursuit rather than a state scheduled mass indoctrination limited to just what the state wants you to know or believe in order to fulfill some stealthily crafted agenda for the dismal existence of the masses. Ideally, people, as they are exposed to a growing body of information and technology, should have the opportunity to exercise their inherent abilities in order to expand their understanding.

At birth, our minds are empty vessels waiting to be stimulated. We adapt to what we absorb. Perceptions about the world, about ourselves and others are developed primarily by our parents and then by our teachers, our relatives, friends, politicians and the media. Discrimination and wisdom increase with age – we must choose exactly what we wish to imbibe: facts which educate or fiction that merely entertains. Most entertainment leaves us ignorant and vulnerable to misinformation and deceptive propaganda. A dumbed-down, non reading adult society is much easier to influence and control than an alert, well educated principled population who have been schooled in history, classical literature, a foreign language, grammar, and have an understanding of their moral civic responsibilities. Education should inspire us how to think, not what to think – we have not learned if we merely regurgitate information on command. Our education should motivate us to scrutinize data, evaluate evidence, make comparisons and make appropriate application.

A principled population, not seeking government entitlements, would also demand responsible, principled leaders. Independent personal study after high school or college, beyond readily accessible information, requires time and is not effortlessly available to overtaxed individuals attempting to keep their heads above water in an economically depressed society. Yes, despite official contradictory claims, we are not merely depressed but bankrupt.

Obedience trained students read specific books, designed to produce globalist convictions, introduce faith shattering alternative beliefs and create distrust of traditionalism, but rarely read anything not required. Many graduates never open a book after they leave school. They are satisfied to read, if they are able, the newspaper headlines, Peoplemagazine or catch a few “news” shows on television. After all, why bother to read if one can tune into some familiar pleasant personality disseminating the “news”? People who do not read have no advantage over those who cannot read. Thus, ignorance, definitely not bliss but rather intellectually lethal, is unfortunately ubiquitous.

Current classrooms, as well as life in general, are chaotic. Reasonable discipline and mutual respect are absent. Moral relativism has replaced the moral compass of our Judeo-Christian foundation. Anything related to that foundation has been legally altered and unfortunately legalization gives credibility to decadence. Judges, who have falsely sworn to protect and abide by the Constitution, have verbally manipulated that foundational document into oblivion. They are globalists, sympathizers, or fellow travelers who trade principles for money, power or “just to get along.” It is not coincidental! The evidence surrounds us: our drugged disrespectful children cannot read, communicate without repetitive language laziness, write intelligibly, calculate numbers without a calculator or spell without a spell checker. It does not take a genius to acknowledge that there is something horribly amiss with our children. A brief comparison with previous generations provides justification for the obvious – the onslaught against our youth carried out by the government’s educational system is deviously deliberate. A spurious curriculum has been designed to inculcate America’s children to function as the submissive workers of the One World Order, compliments of the taxpayers.

Chester M. Pierce, Harvard University psychiatrist said the following at the 1973 International Education Seminar, as quoted in Educating For The New World Order (June 1991), [ii] an excellent book by Beverly K. Eakman: “Every child in America who enters school with an allegiance toward our elected officials, toward our founding fathers, toward our institutions, toward the preservation of this form of government… all of this proves the children are sick, because the truly well individual is one who has rejected all of those things and is what I would call the true international child of the future.” [iii]

There is certainly not a dearth of books that express views about America’s dismal educational problems as well as the other associated problems that affront our children. Another excellent, well researched and documented book is the deliberate dumbing down of america (September 1999) by educational whistle-blower Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt. This book is available free as a PDF file. It remains Barnes and Noble’s #1 bestseller in their History of Education category. Iserbyt is a former school board director in Camden, Maine and was co-founder and research analyst of Guardians of Education for Maine (GEM) from 1978 to 2000. During the first Reagan administration Iserbyt was the Senior Policy Advisor working in the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI). She was instrumental in revealing a “major technology initiative which would control curriculum in America’s classrooms. [iv]

A huge educational modification gradually occurred – America went from an academic education (1880–1960) to a values education (1960–1980) to a workforce training “education” (1980–2000). In Iserbyt’s book “the case is made that the values education period was critical to the transformation of education. It succeeded in persuading (brainwashing? duping?) Americans into accepting the belief that values were transient, flexible and situational—subject to the evolution of human society. Brave new values were integrated into curricula and instruction. The mind of the average American became ‘trained’ (conditioned) to accept the idea that education exists solely for the purpose of getting a good paying job in the global workforce economy.” [v]

This isn’t just about your own children. Everyone should thoroughly read her comprehensive book as well as the other books available on this important issue. See a list below.

The federal government should not be dictating curriculum. Local property taxes pay for schools but they have been seduced into accepting additional funds which always include federal regulations, policies and programs including Bush’s “No Child Left Behind.” This is nothing but a disguised UNESCO school to work program, a detriment to America’s children, her greatest resource.

Following is a much abbreviated timeline from Iserbyt’s must read book revealing tax-exempt financial backing and government compliance in the collapse of America’s educational system:

The General Education Board (GEB) was incorporated by an act of the United States Congress. Approved January 12, 1902, the General Education Board was endowed by Mr. John D. Rockefeller, Sr., for the purpose of establishing an educational laboratory to experiment with early innovations in education. [vi]

The Intercollegiate Socialist Society (ISS) was founded in New York City by Upton Sinclair, Jack London, Clarence Darrow and others. Its permanent headquarters were established at the Rand School of Social Studies in 1908 and ISS became the League for Industrial Democracy (LID) in 1921. John Dewey became president of the League for Industrial Democracy in 1939.

The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching was founded. [vii]

National Education Association (NEA) became a federally chartered association for teachers under the authority of H.R. 10501. [viii]

Italian educator, the late Maria Montessori (1870–1952), developed a method of teaching—relying on guidance and training of senses rather than more rigid control of children’s activities—which would be very influential throughout the rest of the century.

The Montessori Method was published in 1912 and much of Montessori’s work was printed by the Theosophical Publishing House.

Elizabeth Clare Prophet, the cultic head of the Church Universal and Triumphant, founded a group called Montessori International, and previous U.N. Deputy Secretary-General Robert Muller, the celebrated author of the New Age World Core Curriculum, claimed that the Montessori Method was one of the educational programs which would greatly benefit global children for the New Age. [ix]

Frederick T. Gates, director of charity for the Rockefeller foundation, set up the Southern Education Board (SEB), which was later incorporated into the General Education Board (GEB), setting in motion “the deliberate dumbing down of America.” Gates wrote The Country School of Tomorrow: Occasional Papers No. 1 (General EducationBoard: New York, 1913) [x]

In the January 13, 1918 issue of New York World William Boyce Thompson, Federal Reserve Bank director and founding member of the Council on Foreign Relations applauded Russia for their “sweeping world changes”.

Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations planned the demise of traditional academic education. Rockefeller’s focus would be national education; Carnegie would be in charge of international education. [xi]

“The Institute of International Education (IIE) was founded through a grant from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. The Institute’s purpose was to operate a student exchange program. The U.S.-Soviet Education Agreements were negotiated by the Carnegie Endowment’s parent organization, the Carnegie Corporation, fostering exchanges of curriculum, pedagogy and materials as well as students.”

“The Progressive Education Association (P.E.A.) was founded and organized by John Dewey, even though he would not become a member in its early years. P.E.A.’s goals and aims were projected for the last half of this century at a board meeting held November 15–17, 1943 in Chicago, Illinois.” [xii]

The league for Industrial Democracy changed its name from the Intercollegiate Socialist Society (ISS) and stated its purpose as: “Education for a new social order based on production and not for profit” (“A Chronology of Education,” Dorothy Dawson, 1978).

Harold Rugg, writer of social studies textbook series entitled The Frontier Thinkers (1921) published by the Progressive Education Association became president of the National Association of Directors of Education Research which would later become known as the American Educational Research Association.

“The Council on Foreign Relations was established through the efforts of Col. Edwin Mandell House. He was the initiator of the effort to establish this American branch of the English Royal Institute of International Affairs.” … “The late Professor Carroll Quigley of Georgetown University described the CFR as “a front for J.P. Morgan and Company in association with the very small American Round Table Group.” [xiii]

On December 15 the Council on Foreign Relations endorsed world government. [xiv]

The International Bureau of Education, formerly known as The Institute JeanJacques Rousseau, was established with a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation. The Bureau became part of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). [xv]

The following books, among many others, were published urging a New World Order facilitated, in large part, by the American educational system:

“Toward Soviet America” by William Z. Foster, Head of the Communist Party USA, Foster indicates that a National Department of Education would be one of the means used to develop a new socialist society in the U.S. [xvi]

“The New World Order” by F. S. Marvin, describing the League of Nations as the first attempt at a New World Order. Marvin says, “Nationality must rank below the claims of mankind as a whole.” [xvii]

“Dare the School Build a New Social Order?” by educator-author George Counts who asserts that “the teachers should deliberately reach for power and then make the most of their conquest” in order to “influence the social attitudes, ideals and behavior of the coming generation. The growth of science and technology has carried us into a new age where ignorance must be replaced by knowledge, competition by cooperation, and trust in Providence by careful planning and private capitalism by some form of social economy.” [xviii]

“Humanist Manifesto” (1933) co-author John Dewey, the noted philosopher and educator, calls for a synthesizing of all religions and “a socialized and cooperative economic order.” Co-signer C. F. Potter said in 1930, “Education is thus a most powerful ally of humanism, and every American public school is a school of humanism. What can the theistic Sunday schools, meeting for an hour once a week; teaching only a fraction of the children, do to stem the tide of a five-day program of humanistic teaching?” [xix]

“The Teacher and World Government” (1946) written by former editor of the “NEA Journal” (National Education Association) Joy Elmer Morgan. He says: “In the struggle to establish an adequate world government, the teacher can do much to prepare the hearts and minds of children for global understanding and cooperation. At the very heart of all the agencies which will assure the coming of world government must stand the school, the teacher, and the organized profession.” [xx]

“In 1940, teachers were asked what they regarded as the three major problems in American schools. They identified the three major problems as: Littering, noise, and chewing gum. Teachers last year were asked what the three major problems in American schools were, and they defined them as: Rape, assault, and suicide.”
William Bennett (1993) [xxi]

Suggested Books:

America’s Schools: The Battleground for Freedom By Allen Quist
Brave New Schools By Berit Kjos
Children No More: How We Lost a Generation By Brenda Scott
Cloning of the American Mind: Eradicating Morality through Education By B. K. Eakman
History of American Education: From Harvard Scholars to Worker Bees of the New World Order  By Vaughn Shatzer
Mental Health Screening: How Will it Affect Your Children? By Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D.
NEA Grab for Power By Dennis Cuddy, Ph. D.
Outcome-Based Education: The State’s Assault on Our Children’s Values By Peg Luksik and Pamela Hobbs Hoffecker
Pokemon & Harry Potter: A Fatal Attraction By Phil Arms
Public Schools, Public Menace, How Public Schools Lie to Parents and Betray Our Children
 By Joel Turtel
The Myth of ADHD And Other Learning Disabilities By Dr. Jan Strydom and Susan duPlessis
Who’s Watching The Playpen? By David Benoit

In conjunction with the deliberate dumbing down of America, the populace has surreptitiously been indoctrinated to abhor, tolerate, and then embrace the basest behavior in human sexuality. It is not coincidental that the raging, rebellious, out-of-control, bra burning sixties followed the deliberately decadent “research” of Alfred Charles Kinsey (1894-1956), a biologist and a professor of entomology and zoology, given credibility by the Indiana University in Bloomington. His insidious influence drastically affected American culture and society.

Kinsey was brought up in a “strict churchgoing Methodist household where dancing, tobacco, alcohol, and dating were forbidden.” [i] He joined the Boy Scouts at 17 and enjoyed camping and the other outdoor activities associated with scouting, an interest he retained for years. He later claimed that “adolescent homosexuality is a common phenomenon.” [ii] Whether this claim is a result of observation or participation is unknown. He went from agnosticism to atheism by the time he turned 26 – if God does not exist then neither does morality and right and wrong.

In 1914 he entered Bowdoin College in Brunswick, Maine, initially affiliated with the Congregational Church. In 1916 “Kinsey was elected to Phi Beta Kappa and graduated magna cum laude with degrees in biology and psychology. Charles Darwin was such a major influence that Kinsey quoted him in his commencement address when he graduated from Bowdoin.

Kinsey continued his graduate studies at Harvard University’s Bussey Institute, “a hotbed of Darwinism and the ‘New Biology’ that led scientists to envision improvement of the human species through ‘eugenics’.” Bussey Institute “had one of the most highly regarded biology programs in the United States… Kinsey was granted a Sc.D. degree in 1919 by Harvard University.” [iii] During his time at Harvard, Kinsey was active with the Bethany Boys’ Club. Kinsey preferred the company of boys and continued camping with younger males past college graduation.

Kinsey became a big proponent of Aldous Huxley and his brother Julian, a geneticist and the first director-general of UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization). Aldous Huxley wrote Brave New World (1932), required reading in many American schools. “It is often misunderstood as ‘science fiction,’ but was actually an exposé of the cosmopolitan eugenic vision of state-controlled free love and selective breeding.” [iv] Those who embraced the eugenics movement felt nothing but contempt for Judeo Christian beliefs. Unfortunately, “non-admiring” individuals researching the foundations of Kinsey’s personal and professional attitudes are not permitted entrance into the Kinsey Institute archives. [v] There are apparently many secrets that lay hidden from public scrutiny in those archives.

A Kinsey biographer said that he was “one of the scholarly pre-World War II eugenicists who issued a ‘terrifying’ call for the mass sterilization of ‘lower level’ Americans and a breeding plan for superior classes.” [vi] Not surprisingly, Margaret Sanger (1879-1966), a eugenicist and the founder of Planned Parenthood (population control) also believed that the lower classes should not be allowed to have children even if that meant sterilization. “The Margaret Sanger Papers Project is supported by the National Endowment for the Humanities, the National Historical Publications and Records Commission, and such private foundations as the Rockefeller Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and the Samuel Rubin Foundation, among others.” [vii] The Rockefeller Foundation and others support population control for the rest of us. [viii]

In 1920 Kinsey joined the Department of Zoology at Indiana University in Bloomington as an assistant professor. Once there, he joined a faculty discussion group whose friendship and support helped him to overcome some controversy later.

Despite a misogynistic attitude and frequently abusive treatment toward women, he married Clara Bracken McMillen, a chemistry student at Ohio State, after a casual, platonic relationship. They married on June 3, 1921 and spent their honeymoon on an all weather camping trip, climbing mountains and eating trail foods. They had four children, the first of which died at a young age. Clara and Alfred Kinsey, along with their surviving children, attended church and gave every indication of being a respectable, conservative, average Midwestern family.

While camping as a professor, he was quite comfortable parading around camp in the nude and participating in community baths with his male students. “Kinsey seemed totally oblivious to sexual taboos…as though he was determined to flaunt them…Kinsey had become a sexual rebel…manipulative and aggressive, a man who abused his professional authority and betrayed his trust as a teacher.” [ix]

Kinsey, who had gathered sexual data since 1935, aggressively created interest in a prospective human sexuality class through his controversial lectures. Eager students, future teachers and leaders allegedly petitioned the University to offer this class which he began teaching in 1938. Its popularity increased with each semester despite some justified general objections from other faculty members. However, “Indiana University marketed Kinsey, the free-sex crusader, as a disinterested scholar in an attempt to pacify Kinsey’s colleagues and the public.” [x] For whatever reason, the University president, Herman Wells, unmarried and living at home with his mother “enthusiastically approved Kinsey’s proposals for everything.” [xi]

In his classes, Kinsey promoted biological information devoid of any moral, legal or ethical instruction. He apparently had the same mentality as Magnus Hirschfeld, a professed homosexual, who headed the Institute for Sexology in Berlin, Germany. Hirschfeld was an active proponent of abortion, gay rights, and feminism and a participant in a global sexology movement which demanded worldwide elimination of prudish sex laws and sexual repression. [xii] Kinsey, an alleged Midwestern family man would prove to be a deceptively acceptable advocate of the same social, cultural suicide that Hirschfeld was disseminating in Germany.

Kinsey came to the attention of the Rockefeller Foundation which earmarked funds for sex “research.” The National Research Council and the Medical Division of the Rockefeller Foundation provided thousands of dollars towards studies in sexual physiology and behavior. The Rockefeller Foundation initially helped to organize and fund the American Social Hygiene Association in 1913 to alter public attitudes regarding prostitution, and to work for birth control and other social reforms. During the 1920s faulty research, designed to satisfy a specific agenda, was produced by Margaret Mead and others “while misleading the West with effusive claims about the supposedly positive, happy nature of wildly promiscuous ‘primitive’ sexuality.” [xiii]

Herman Wells, the president of Indiana University was in attendance in New York when the Rockefeller Foundation celebrated its prestigious fiftieth anniversary in 1963. For five full decades they had made important research grants that greatly impacted society. Dr. Robert S. Morison, head of the Medical Division of the Foundation explained to Wells, when asked, that the reason he was invited was because of the wide spread influence of Kinsey’s work which now appeared in the newest and best gynecology book for medical students. “You’re here because we consider the Institute financing one of the most significant things we ever did.” [xiv]

Kinsey, along with specially selected individuals – no prudes, no Christians, no females, began conducting surveys consisting of 350 questions, supposedly approved by the Indiana University Board of Trustees. These “research” assistants had to divulge their sexual history to determine their attitudes. Individuals who expressed negative attitudes towards premarital or extramarital intimacy, homosexuality, or relations with animals were not hired. Project secrecy, a source of power and/or blackmail, was essential in the ostensibly embarrassing sexual surveys which would currently constitute an invasion of privacy or worse – sexual harassment.

Those interviewed were purportedly randomly chosen, ordinary individuals. However, in order to skew the survey results to facilitate his agenda, the Kinsey group “resorted to reclassifying prostitutes as married women.” In addition, most women would be reticent to reveal such personal information. [xv] Obviously, this skewed the research results to accommodate that specific agenda. Other major irregularities should also be noted:

  • ·        Kinsey interviewed imprisoned sex offenders and portrayed them as normal
  • ·        Kinsey’s tactics included “unethical, possibly criminal, observations of children”
  • ·        Kinsey and cohorts classified 1,400+ criminals and sex offenders as normal
  • ·        Kinsey sought out the worst sex offenders avoiding the more common offenses such as statutory rape
  • ·        Kinsey professed interviewing many thousands more men than he did
  • ·        His scientific methodology was flawed – he only used the data that fit his hypothesis
  • ·        Kinsey and cohorts rejected anyone who had not experienced some form of sexual perversion
  • ·        Kinsey included so-called feebleminded subjects from the Michigan State Training School
  • ·        All the subjects were portrayed as average no matter their “unconventional” behavior [xvi]
  • ·        Clandestine homosexuality is relatively commonplace
  • ·        Most normal Americans hypocritically and secretly engage in illicit sex
  • ·        People are commonly bisexual
  • ·        Prejudice against homosexuality is hypocritical and based on ignorance [xvii]

Kinsey’s notorious books referred to as reports are a result of the imbalanced sex surveys: Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953). “For Kinsey, ‘normal’ was a non-word, as were ‘criminal’ and ‘crime’ … the terms ‘love’ and ‘childbirth’ do not appear in the indices.” Kinsey also rejected the idea of “motherhood” as a legitimate, average aspiration. Kinsey produced spurious statistics of babies born out of wedlock. [xviii] Otherwise the amoral Kinsey and cohorts didn’t define the very serious consequences of irresponsible, depraved behavior – one of the most profound – loss of one’s soul.

It is of interest that Hugh Hefner also published a book Playboy in 1953. Hefner provided generous financial support through his Playboy Foundation for the Kinsey Institute. One can only imagine the kinds of projects this foundation supports. Apparently each had their own targeted audience designed to tear society apart with an “anything goes” mentality. The trash they produced changed the mutual respect that the genders previously expressed for each other. It promoted crimes against the vulnerable, influenced the lonely, destroyed faith, and promoted pervasive flawed information that indoctrinated the masses. For what – money, fame? Money at the expense of morality!!

Kinsey’s books immediately created shock and outrage. “They challenged conventional beliefs about sexuality and because they discussed subjects that had previously been taboo. The belief that heterosexuality and abstinence were both ethical and statistical norms had never before been seriously challenged.” [xix] No matter the initial reactions – Kinsey’s noxious notions received Madison Avenue mass media acceptance.

“The Rockefeller Foundation believed that the media constituted a uniquely powerful force in modern society for imposing the will of the elite on the masses. Secret psychological war projects to control public opinion were supported by America’s tax-exempt foundations. For example, campaigns were developed to induce Americans to support U.S. entry into World War II.” [xx]

Kinsey’s “research” results were compatible with Rockefeller’s New World Order goal of changing “America’s way of life” – altering “breeding patterns”, respect for life and the sanctity of marriage and family. Kinsey contended that there was pervasive promiscuity throughout America in the late 1940s and early 1950s. There wasn’t – it would take a few decades for his influence to permeate the media the schools, and stealthily filter into America’s homes.

There were massive advertisements, free advance copies directed at the medical profession, and wining and dining of journalists. The publicity was designed to create a spontaneous clamor and curiosity for the books possibly similar to the same buildup for Dan Brown’s book and movie – The Da Vinci Code. Well known journalists and personalities endorsed and therefore lent credibility to Kinsey’s sexual philosophies which made them palatable to the public and led to manipulated mass purchases. W. B. Saunders, a very well known medical publisher, authenticated the books by publishing them.

In 1946, The Rockefeller Foundation began providing funds for “library” activities such as Kinsey’s production of very explicit films which soon found their way into medical schools. This activity became so important that a sophisticated photographic laboratory with a full time photographer was hired – all compliments of the Rockefeller Foundation. “Vernon Mark, a professor at Harvard Medical School, noted that the introduction of pornographic films into medical training, and the unwholesome influence of the films on individual doctors and the profession as a whole, was brought about by Kinsey. Physicians had traditionally been a highly respected class of spokesmen for sexual conservatism. Kinsey’s obscenity training served to erode that standard.” [xxi]

After Kinsey died, his close associate Wardell Pomeroy took charge of The Sex and Drug Forum, later called the Institute for the Advanced Study of Human Sexuality (IASHS) located in San Francisco. This organization spews forth the same decadent, culture destroying refuse that the Kinsey Institute did. It is the “leading institution in the sexology field (controlling conference selections, journal publications, lectures, etc.) IASHS has trained more than 100,000 sex educators, doctors and ‘safe sex’ instructors.”[xxii] After learning about desensitization (eradication of inhibitions) through a program like SAR (Sexual Attitude Restructuring) they are teaching this nation’s children unless parents have opted to home-school and save their offspring from nefarious programs like “No Child Left Behind.” The mass media has gradually desensitized anyone foolish enough to watch and/or read it day after day.

Then there is SIECUS (Sex Information and Education Council of the United States) which was initially funded by the Playboy Foundation. Were parents given an opportunity to evaluate any of the data or corporate connections? Do parents know that some of the same people who worked with Kinsey sit on the SIECUS Sex Education Curriculum Board? Just exactly what have they been teaching your children? Unfortunately, teachers who have also been influenced by this so-called credible “research” spend more hours influencing children than a lot of parents do.

Pomeroy explains that Kinsey’s “grand scheme” was to move “American society from its traditional moral standard based on marriage, to one predicated on ‘free love’. Images intended to promote and legitimize deviant behaviors were critical to this moral and cultural conversion.” [xxiii] He has attained a large measure of success – Our moral decline is not a coincidence but a devilish design. Rampant immorality tarnishes our national character. One does not have to look hard to discover the cause and effect surge of homosexuality, pervasive illicit sexual activity, loss of peace, self esteem, innocence, and self discipline often followed by physical consequences such as abortion, illness and death.

Kinsey’s books, data, fetid films, and his despicable amoral, totally insensitive brutal behavior and utter disrespect for others are unconscionable. He did not merit the title of scientist but brings dishonor to those engaged in true scientific research for the benefit of mankind. He was nothing more than an educated complicit, compromised sexual predator/criminal that was bent on bringing others down to his hellish level of perversity and immorality while destroying the basic unit of society – the family. And, unfortunately, his influence has outlived him.

“What is liberty without wisdom and without virtue? It is the greatest of all possible evils, for it is folly, vice, and madness, without restraint…” Edmund Burke

Full implementation of a one world government requires the annihilation of all defiant governments in order to establish central banks in every country, all under the control of the international banking elite. One World Order Proponent, Madeleine Albright, while Secretary of State, said: “If we have to use force, it is because we are America. We are the indispensable nation.” [i] While sounding arrogant and ego-driven, the establishment of the New World Order depends on our duplicitous military involvement for we are the military minions of the Power Elite. To garner popular acceptance for offensive invasions, those nations that resist the globalist agenda automatically become America’s enemies and are vilified as Communists, Marxists or terrorists.

Communist Party leaders proclaimed to its U.S. members in 1943: “When certain obstructionists become too irritating, label them, after suitable build-ups, as Fascist or Nazi or anti-Semitic; and use the prestige of anti-Fascist and tolerance organizations to discredit them. In the public mind constantly associate those who oppose us with those names which already have a bad smell.”

If the U.S. government, through the CIA, fails to install political puppets in target countries, then military interventions, using contrived reasons, are employed. Various subversive tactics include “shock and awe” invasions, armed occupation, economic sanctions or orchestrated economic collapse, and cultural, social and religious decimation perpetuated overtly by our super power military or covertly by our super secret CIA. The major function of secrecy in Washington is to keep the U.S. citizens ignorant, to keep them from knowing what their leaders are doing. “Secrecy is power. Secrecy is license.  Secrecy covers up mistakes. Secrecy covers up corruption.” [ii] Governments that function in secrecy are dictatorships!

Author John Stockwell stated: “Extrapolating the figures as best we can, there have been about 3,000 major covert operations and over 10,000 minor operations, all illegal, and all designed to disrupt, destabilize, or modify the activities of other countries.” [iii] The targets of CIA destabilization have included, but are not limited to, the following countries: Grenada, Jamaica, Cuba, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras, Panama, Iraq and Vietnam. [iv] Would they still be third world without our subversive economic destabilization efforts?

So please, despite cheerleader Laura Ingraham’s assertions, and other propaganda parrots, WE ARE NOT FIGHTING FOR OUR FREEDOM!! We won our freedom over two hundred years ago. Since that time we have fought in sixteen acknowledged wars. Our military has entered other countries for the purpose of influencing foreign governments approximately 200 times. It has never been about our freedom. The only entity attempting to deprive us of that hard-won freedom appears to be our own government with deceptive documents like the Patriot Act One and Two which defines the innovative crime of “domestic terrorism.” New laws will further criminalize political protest and dissent, impacting our freedom of speech. Many, including ex-military men are hesitant to speak for fear of the certain negative consequences to their reputations and pensions. Active duty military, suspected of probable squealing, are suicided. George Orwell said: “We are living in a world in which nobody is free, in which hardly anybody is secure, in which it is almost impossible to be honest and to remain alive.”

It is the presidents, the kings and other leaders, driven by the international bankers and their goals, abetted by the press, who inflame the compliant citizens to go into battle against people who allegedly have harmed us or who might harm us, despite their lack of an army or weapons. Since our wars with Great Britain, the battles waged by America have been offensive. Even our retaliation against Japan was the result of the contrived and provoked attack on Pearl Harbor. Our wars, police actions, deposing dictators and concealed CIA interventions have always been for economic reasons – to enrich the bankers who typically fund both sides of the conflict.

Caesar said: “Beware of the leader who bangs the drums of war to whip the citizenry into patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums have reached fever pitch, and the blood boils with hate and the mind is closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry, rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader, and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar.”

Acquiescent Americans have been seduced by pro-war propaganda. Our super power status has metastasized into a “police the world” super ego mentality that we apparently applaud with our voices and surrender our tax dollars for. Our questionable pride precludes any premonitions about our own demise. Other formerly strong empires fell because of decadence and corruption – do we claim immunity to a similar collapse? Wake up people! Turn off the TV and read.

Author Harold Thomas says in his booklet: “In their day to day lives, in their immediate physical environment, most Americans have no discernable enemies. It is always possible that there could be governments and other organizations that pose a genuine physical threat to the American people. However, it is virtually impossible for the people to know this for themselves. They must depend almost entirely upon information provided by government and the mainstream media.” [v]

Again Harold says: “In all of human behavior, what can be more serious than supporting acts of violence against people in faraway places? Or for that matter, at home! Is there not a profound, moral responsibility to be absolutely sure of both the accuracy and urgency of the situation before perpetrating acts of death and destruction upon other human beings? How difficult does this become when one is at the mercy of sources of information that cannot be verified? What if those sources have lied to you at other times and on other issues, and you know it? What if both intuition and available facts tell you that your government has not only been lying to you, but may have been involved in creating the very danger it now says will require the use of violence? Is it morally justifiable to support your government’s acts of violence against people anywhere when:

1)     You are not in immediate physical danger

2)     You feel strongly that you cannot trust your government

3)     You have no way to verify the information the government is providing as its excuse for violence?” [vi]

From infancy, Americans are media-conditioned to glorify war as a patriotic obligation. After years of viewing desensitizing violent multi-media marketing disseminated as entertainment or even news, naïve Americans are ready and willing to “fight for their country.” By graduation, high school seniors, who lack experience and real world awareness, are prime enlistment targets. After all the “good guys” should do everything possible to defeat the “bad guys” even if those actions go against individual, family, religious and moral values, right?

The government will proficiently train willing recruits, after instilling strict discipline, to use guns, knives, land mines, bombs, napalm, cruise missiles, smart bombs, cluster bombs and white phosphorous in order to kill or maim complete strangers – men, women and children, often referred to as collateral damage. Does that mean that the Power Elite regard the rest of us as commodities? After utilizing their expert killing skills during active duty, individuals are supposed to compartmentalize their horrific experiences and proceed psychologically and emotionally as if nothing had ever happened when they attempt to resume a civilian status.

Not only do we train our own citizens to be killing machines, we have trained some of the most sadistic people on the planet. We have established schools and have trained tens of thousands of military and police officers in countries all over Latin and Central America, and in Africa in three nations – Zaire, Ethiopia, and Uganda, and in Asia. [vii]These students were educated in techniques of population control, repression, and torture. In some instances, former Nazi officers from Hitler’s Third Reich functioned as instructors. [viii] U.S. Special Operations Forces trained 9,100 foreign soldiers in the 208 Joint Combined Exchange Training exercises. Under the International Military and Education Training program, U.S. forces trained 3,454 foreign forces, mostly officers. [ix] Drug trafficker Manuel Noriega and Roberto D’Aubuisson, the deadly architect of El Salvador’s right-wing death squad network graduated from The School of the Americas, just one of 150 such training facilities. [x]

One of our government’s major areas of training has been in the use of torture. When training films proved inadequate, beggars were rounded up as instructional guinea pigs. One homeless person, used as an instructional model, endured excruciating torture for over two years before international protests secured her release. One of America’s foremost torture instructors was Dan Mitrione, allegedly a typical family man, a devout Catholic, and a devoted father. Regardless, he dedicated his life to torturing people, some of whom he knew were innocent of any crime, simply because his government had decided to reject all humane considerations because of something called “national security.” These words somehow justified torture. [xi] Just how much evil has been perpetrated under the ambiguous term “national security?

To facilitate foreign torture our government issued over 350 export licenses from September 1991 to December 1993 for more than $27 million for saps, thumb-cuffs, thumb-screws, leg-irons, shackles, handcuffs, strait jackets, and plastic handcuffs. These were issued for 57 countries, many of them with deplorable human rights records. Additionally, over 2,000 licenses were issued for 105 countries under another export category, which combined electro-shock batons and cattle prods with shotguns and shells. The next time you are outraged by news of state-authorized torture in some faraway country, please consider that our CIA probably provided the brutal training and that our government licensed the exportation of the torture equipment that was used.

Torture is incompatible to our rhetorical history of espousing human rights and our current claims of compassionate concern for the Iraqis. But I suppose as long as this vile practice is concealed we can still maintain the appearance of Christian civility among the misinformed. The tortured are well aware of the source. George Orwell reminded us with this statement: “The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.”  [xii]

Our technology has surpassed our humanity. Our arsenals are overflowing to the point that we supply the arms or munitions to the entire world. Author David McGowan says: “From 1989 to 1996 the U.S. sold more than $117 billion of arms, about 45 percent of the global total.” In a ten year period of time the world-wide arms business jumped from 16 percent to 63 percent. “U.S. arms dealers sell $10 billion in weapons to non-democratic governments each year.” “In 1986 the United States accounted for 13 percent of worldwide arms exports, but by 1995 the market was 70 percent, most “to developing nations, many with fragile autocracies that are easily destabilized” [xiii]

Interesting Facts:

  • ·        Between 1993-1997 we sold or gave $190 billion in weapons to every nation on earth.
  • ·        Non-democratic Eritrea and Ethiopia fought each other using U.S. arms and training.
  • ·        Opponents Greece and Turkey are two of America’s biggest arms customers.
  • ·        U.S. military support was provided to 168 nations in 1998.
  • ·        U.S. arms sales doubled during Clinton’s first year in office.
  • ·        Five nations received over $1 billion in U.S. military support in 1997: Taiwan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Turkey and Egypt.
  • ·        Sixteen nations received over $100 million in military support.
  • ·        Of the 53 armed forces in Africa, 41 received U.S. military training.
  • ·        Of the eleven nations intervening in the civil war in the Congo in 1998, nine received U.S. arms and training in 1997.
  • ·        Since 1990, the government has given away more than $8 billion worth of surplus equipment from U.S. military stocks including 4,000 tanks, 500 bombers and 200,000 light arms to Bahrain, Colombia, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Mexico, Peru and Turkey.
  • ·        Lockheed Martin, the world’s largest arms maker, is selling sophisticated fighter airplanes and air defense systems to at least 21 nations. [xiv]
  • ·        The United States spends more on arms annually than the rest of the Security Council combined.
  • ·        The U.S. has more nuclear bombs, chemical and biological weapons, aircraft, rockets and delivery systems than the rest of the combined world.
  • ·        We have troops stationed at over 395 major military bases in over 35 countries. [xv]

In America’s last five armed conflicts, the opposing troops were battling adversaries who had previously received U.S. weapons, military technology, or training. [xvi]

Killing is more profitable than using our God-given genius to enrich and edify mankind – we use swords rather than plows. The resources of the world are enough and to spare but the power-hungry seize and use those resources to garner control over the souls of men to bind them with the awful chains of hell. There is something drastically wrong when an allegedly Christian nation that kills over 45 million innocent citizens in the name of women’s rights and wages preemptive wars against defenseless nations in the name of spreading or establishing democracy, protecting our national security, toppling previously-installed CIA dictators or some other noble-sounding, trumped-up justification. Our military superiority alleviates all competition – all one has to do is recall Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

John Fitzgerald Kennedy “People have not been horrified by war to a sufficient extent … War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige as the warrior does today.”
There have been many contrived justifications to goad Americans into spilling their blood and allowing their money to be confiscated for war: the explosion on the Maine, Pearl Harbor, which our government allowed to happen, the Tonkin Bay incident which we now know didn’t happen as stated, and most recently 9-11, a veritable shock and awe illustration that “evil-doers” are supposedly out to get America. That catastrophe had nothing to do with the citizens of Afghanistan or Iraq. Yet, statements, via the official Ministry of Truth television networks, CBS, ABC, CNN, NBC and FOX, repeated over and over and over, just the right combination of words: WMDs, terrorists, Osama bin Laden, and Saddam Hussein. Those words manipulated Americans into accepting yet another war. David Rockefeller said: “We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.” So David was 9-11 the “right” major crisis or are there others planned that might be more right?  The Vietnam anti-war movement is an example of an orchestrated opposition tactic. Some anti-war activists were government plants who were also acknowledged CIA assets. They easily attract followers and attract a mountain of press – intentionally negative to suggest that they are non-supportive and completely unpatriotic. Any anti-war movement, including the current, small but thoroughly justified, creates an opportunity for division. Media attention is designed to develop hatred towards anti-war activists like Cindy Sheehan. I admire her tenacity! Whether they are paid assets or not, they are labeled as unpatriotic. Combined with the media, they actually serve the pro-war agenda. If the anti-war mentality equals disloyalty, the mass majority will support the war which is the actual goal of the orchestrated opposition.

The government has always provided enemies and justifications for war: Operation Northwoods was a plan, written with the approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The plan suggested that innocent people be shot on American streets, or that boats full of refugees fleeing Cuba be sunk, or that a wave of violent terrorism be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. Innocent people, patsies, would then be framed and immediately eliminated (like Lee Harvey Oswald) for things they had not done. Or planes could be hijacked or shot down. Our government, using any of these strategies, could then attribute the terrorist attacks to Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer and his criminal cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, to launch a war. [i] It is, unfortunately, a typical false-flag technique.

George W. Bush, in speaking before the UN General Assembly on November 10, 2001 said: “We must speak the truth about terror. Let us never tolerate outrageousconspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th, malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists themselves, away from the guilty.”

With the Bush administration and every previous administration – truth becomes whatever lies they can get away with. Liars need excellent memories, unless of course one is a politician. Then it is the public that requires communal recollection. Alexander Solzhenitsyn, a Russian writer, and Soviet dissident, was imprisoned for 8 years for criticizing Stalin in a personal letter. He said: “The simple step of a courageous individual is not to take part in the lie. One word of truth outweighs the world.” [ii] The comfort zone of conformity keeps the masses ignorant and pliable. Majority belief, however sincere, is not assurance of verity. It is quite the opposite!

Financial benefits always follow military destruction. The U.S. military, accommodating the corporations, bomb and destroy. Then no-bid multi-million dollar contracts are passed out to well-connected corporations for reconstruction. Follow the money! War is always about money. Therefore, profitless peaceful alternatives are never an option. The Global War on Terror is a big farce based on an event as contrived as the Operation Northwoods plan.

The shameful intimacy between government and the military industrial complex results in legislatively-approved mass killing for profit. While some countries concentrate on building infrastructure and exportable products, we focus on a weapons buildup in preparation for preemptive invasion or alleged defense against bogeymen enemies of our own creation. The military buildup, deployed or not, results in enormous financial benefits for international military contractors. The citizens of other countries are manufacturing computers, cars, televisions and other life-enhancing commodities while we produce weapons of mass inhumanity. Japan and Germany, creditor nations, are technologically advanced, enjoy better health, have a manufacturing base, don’t have trade imbalances, and use their resources to benefit and feed their citizens.

Our massive military budget, the biggest in the world, is funneled directly into the pockets of government connected companies like the Carlyle Group, Halliburton, Brown & Root, Bechtel and others. The international bankers, who control the puppet politicians, reap huge financial profits. Additionally, the spoils of destabilization, offensive invasion, government infiltration and war fall under the control of the victor. This includes all of the natural resources, including the drug producing plants of the vanquished country. Drugs produce billions in laundered dollars.

How annoying for the major drug dealers that the Taliban halted poppy growth in favor of low profit edibles. However, cultivation levels have increased since the invasion and have a potential production of 4,950 metric tons of opium. This represents a 239 percent increase in the poppy crop and a 73 percent increase in potential opium production over 2003 estimates. [iii] Our invasion had nothing to do with the Taliban concealment of Osama bin Laden who supposedly, from a cave, shut down our entire defense system on 9/11 and has controlled the cover story ever since. The FBI maintains that it has no hard evidence of his involvement.

The Taliban offered, on September 20, 2001, to relinquish Osama bin Laden to a neutral Islamic country to stand trial, provided the U.S. supply them with substantial evidence that he was responsible for the attacks on New York and Washington. The U.S. rejected the offer. Invasion was preferable and already planned – circulating drug currency is much more profitable for the privileged elite than feeding Afghanis who might be categorized, along with other disadvantaged third world individuals, as useless eaters. The Power Elite claim that population has to decrease throughout the world, especially in the undeveloped countries. They claim there is an excess of population[iv]

The solution, then, they say is the euphemistically named “population control,” which in essence is the use of government power to discourage, compel, or restrict the the growth, or the numbers of people already in existence. [v]

Dr. Jacques Cousteau said: “350,000 people will have to be eliminated every day in order to sustain the planet. It’s a terrible thing to say but somebody has to say it.”

Martin Luther King III, the eldest son of legendary civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr., said: “We all have to be concerned about terrorism, but you will never end terrorism by terrorizing others.” [vi] More Americans die as a result of automobile accidents, tobacco related illnesses, cancer and heart disease than from terrorism. Over 100,000 people unexpectedly die at the hands of the medical establishment each year. A comparable number die from adverse legal drug reactions. Then we must also consider the once healthy U.S. non military citizens whose well-being has been compromised due to exposure to the numerous New Mexico and Nevada desert detonations[vii] of nuclear weapons[viii]

Population-decreasing wars are designed to enhance presidential ratings – Bush Sr., role model for son George, used this device in Panama and Iraq. Wars also distract us from escalating domestic problems: a skyrocketing deficit, decreasing standard of living, loss of our manufacturing base, genuine environmental issues, collapse of the U.S. economy, and loss of social services exacerbated by hoards of unrestrained illegal occupiers who were invited into the country by Señor Bush as part of his guest worker facade. Tenacious Mexicans will undoubtedly ultimately fill those positions vacated by tired, wounded second and third tour of duty soldiers or those sent home unceremoniously in body bags.

In conjunction with our wars our veterans face the very serious situation of homelessness. They willingly agreed to “fight for our country” and face possible death, but are quickly forgotten after their service. Apparently they are viewed as spent cannon fodder whose worth is no longer of value. Lacking marketable skills, opportunities and frequently suffering from war-related illnesses, they easily fall into justifiable discouragement, alcoholism and drug use. Whereas they used to fill the ranks of the military, they now fill the ranks of the homeless. Our government ignores or disputes their depleted uranium diseases caused by our use of dual-duty weapons created from our nuclear waste.

Our government has known for years, since the Gulf War, that depleted uranium, our nuclear waste, is deadly harmful to both our troops and those we use it against. “The Preventive Psychiatry Newsletter has written to its subscribers telling them that the real reason the former Veterans Affairs Secretary, Anthony Principi, recently resigned was because he has been involved in a massive scandal covering up the fact that Gulf War Syndrome was caused by the use of depleted uranium, according to the SF Bay View.”[ix] Despite this knowledge, along with substantial physical evidence and grievances by those whose lives are permanently shattered, the pentagon continues its use. The U.S. Army placed a $38 million order for more depleted uranium tank shells the end of February 2006. [x] Yes, what a pity they don’t warn our troops to give them the option of serving at their own risk, in addition to be wounded or killed by the “enemy.” Surely, it must have been just a government oversight?

Economic sanctions, another terrible inhumane tactic aimed at civilians, became part of the U.N. Charter in 1945 as a method of control. Deliberately depriving civilians of food and basic necessities until they are starving, miserable, desperate or dead is unconscionable. Yet, sanctions have been used fourteen times – twelve times since 1990. [xi]

This dreadful device says more about us than about our contrived enemies. The Iraqis, nor others, will ever hear a shred of remorse for these unforgivable crimes. The only mention of forgiveness had nothing to do with America. Given our propensity for similar brutality it is apropos that George H. W. Bush remarked: “Let’s forgive the Nazi war criminals.” [xii] He also spoke of the impending war in 1991 with Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, the on again/off again enemy, as a sign that the world was on the “threshold of a New World Order.” That war began January 12, 1991, and supposedly ended with a cease fire on February 22, 1991. In reality, it never ended. We opportunistically bombed Iraq from 1991 onward, along with our other offensive strategies. [xiii]

In 1996 “Lesley Stahl asked the previous U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Madeleine Albright about the half million Iraqi children that died. … “That is more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?” Albright answered: “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price, we think the price is worth it. [i]“THE PRICE IS WORTH IT?” Killing other people’s children should certainly provoke outrage and compassion. Apparently Albright and Powell, who were not concerned with civilian body counts, have much in common.” [ii] In 1998, Albright said: “I am willing to make a bet to anyone here that we care more about the Iraqi people than Saddam Hussein does.” [iii]

Given America’s apathy and ignorance, will we ever apologize to the parents of those 500,000 children who starved as a result of our sanctions? Quite the contrary, our leaders justify their actions and claim that it was worth it: In addition, will we ever apologize for the birth defects, accelerating cancers, or other toxic diseases caused byAmerica’s depleted uranium weapons of mass inhumanity?

We have not only lost our humanity, we have lost our humility – an accurate perception of our relationship to God and the other people who inhabit an increasingly contaminated earth. “Since the advent of the Nuclear Age, everything has changed but the way people think, thus, we drift towards unparalleled catastrophe.” Albert Einstein

Though understandable, if it were the Iraqis, they did not perpetrate the “shock and awe” of 9/11. Purportedly fifteen of the highjackers were from the New World Order compliant, Bush-friendly Saudi Arabia which automatically makes them our allies. Perhaps that is also the reason we could label fifteen of their citizens’ as terrorists?

Shifting the blame for misery has often been affective. Wretchedness is the goal of economic destabilization. We blamed the Sandinistas in Nicaragua and Castro for the economic woes in Cuba. George H. W. Bush easily blamed the serious post war health problems on Saddam Hussein. However, we purposely destroyed their entire infrastructure, their electrical capacity and their water supply which is egregious and completely against the Geneva Conventions. This is evidenced in a document dated November 15, 1991.” [iv] The art imitating life film The Manchurian Candidate may enlighten us to the farce trials of Moussaoui and Saddam Hussein.

Yes, of course, it’s true that Hussein killed Iraqi citizens. This also occurred when he was trained by our CIA before we installed him as our dictator in Iraq. The CIA helped him to murder thousands of political opponents; we even supplied the munitions for his war with Iran. Those are the same atrocities that we used, leaving out the CIA’s participation, to gain acceptance for deposing the tyrant that we helped to create.  We publicized his heinous atrocities against others only when it conveniently supported our own actions.

One popular pundit, subtly attempting to associate Iraq with the events of 9/11, recently read the following on her talk radio show regarding the skeletal remains found on the edge of the Ash Sham desert: “The man was thrown backward by automatic weapons fire, his eyes blindfolded and his arms tied behind his back, his skull jerked upward at the neck, his fleshless mouth gaping, his two rows of teeth stretched apart, as though in a primal scream.” [v] And then she craftily compared this man’s evident horror to the terror of those who jumped from the buildings on 9/11. Other hate-spewing pundits are merciless in their evaluations of anyone, such as the 9/11 widows, who dares verbalize opposing opinions.

Don’t be deceived; had Hussein been compliant to the New World Order agenda, he would have remained in power. Tyrants are tolerated if they are our tyrants and serve the banking and oil interests. The war that has thus far cost $3 trillion, wreaked havoc on our economy, decimated Iraq, destroyed the health of the Iraqis and many in our military and took the lives of over a million while displacing tens of thousands of others was really about the unconsummated oil proposal between Rockefeller and Hussein.[vi]

But for propaganda purposes, the vanquished, toppled tyrants, actors, patsies or whomever, face a tribunal or jury! And if a tribunal doesn’t work, air strikes effectively silence the alleged accused, as well as make a point and distract the masses. [vii] “Abu Musab Saddam Osama al-Zarqawi, the extremely elusive if not entirely mythical terrorist mastermind responsible for every single insurgent action in Iraq except for the ones caused by the red-tailed devils in Iran or the stripy-tailed devils in Syria, has reportedly been killed in an air strike in Hibhib, an area north of Baghdad, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki announced Thursday.” [viii]

Just exactly why are we hated – it shouldn’t take a genius to figure that out? The American government, without distinction to either political party, has a lot to apologize for. We have become a giant propagandized war machine, complete with all the unconstitutional, brutal, covert CIA style entities, abuse-of-power presidential directives and the elimination of the majority of all constitutional congressional responsibilities. Political power, pensions, perks and other unprincipled payola are obviously exceptional for Congress to turn a blind eye for. America is the biggest bully in the world’s playground and big bullies rarely exhibit regret or contrition.

We demand that other countries open their facilities for weapons inspections. These countries would never rationally assault us – it would be suicidal. The country which consistently uses weapons of mass inhumanity on civilian populations is the United States. The United States has signed international treaties, trashed in 2001, to halt the testing, manufacture and development of chemical and biological weapons. Thus we are required to allow United Nations inspectors to verify our compliance to the treaties. “In defiance of the treaties’ provisions, the United States Senate passed a bill in 1997 allowing the president to deny international inspections of U.S. weapons facilities ‘on the grounds of national security.’” [ix]

A government that does not value the life of its own citizens yet claims to demonstrate its compassion and concern by the “humanitarian bombing” of a populace in a foreign nation thousands of miles away is practicing extreme hypocrisy and devilish deceit. Unsurprisingly, governments consistently lie, including our own. This is particularly true as we experience the obvious farce of spreading democracy while consequentially killing thousands of Iraqi citizens.  There have been over a million citizens killed during the entire length of the Iraqi War. Larry Eagleburger, appearing on CNN on September 12, 2001 said the following: “There is only one way to deal with people like this, and that is you have to kill some of them, even if they are not directly involved in this thing.”

Since World War II, American military actions, in one form or another, have caused more death and destruction around the world than the actions of any other country. I understand that the government doesn’t tabulate civilian deaths but the survivors do. Josef Stalin once remarked: “One death is a tragedy, but a million deaths are merely a statistic.”

Orchestrated opposition enables a predetermined result. It is thesis versus antithesis which results in synthesis, used repeatedly. The Establishment’s goal (synthesis) is the New World Order. Opposition in all things is also a gospel principle and is frequently cited as the purpose of our existence – to experience tribulation in order to obtain strength through our diligence and faith. Lucifer is apparently also familiar with the function of opposition but applies it deceptively. Absent controlled conflict, this achievement could not be met. The unplanned actions of individuals within any society would not lead to this synthetic synthesis – it has to be created and highly calculated. Enter the International Banking cartel, including American firms, always receptive to mega profits at anyone’s expense. They have made billions in blood money by backing the Nazis, the Soviet Union, North Korea, North Vietnam, and the list goes – all against the United States. [x]

It is military musical chairs as the circumstances and the alleged villains have changed and the orchestrated opposition continues under a variety of justifications. The goal remains static: New World Order!!!! Making the world “safe for democracy” is as old as Woodrow Wilson’s promise when he led the United States into the First World War after attacks on American ships. “The State Department reported that the number of ‘significant’ terrorist attacks reached a record 655 in 2004, up from 175 in 2003.” Terrorism begets more terrorism! How long are the wealthy and their minions going to use that double-speak justification for bloodshed and mass murder? Democracy is rule by whoever has the weapons, the opportunity, and the motives to bomb others into compliance and submission.

Nuclear bombs, formerly known as atomic bombs, made a huge statement to the rest of the world. Towards the official end of World War Two and months after the Japanese offered to surrender, we used atomic bombs on the civilian population of two cities with a Christian majority. A small military flight crew with a bomb is a highly efficient killing machine – more so than ground troops. The official rationale for bombing instead of ground troops was to save Americans lives. Apparently Japanese lives have less value than American lives – what is the ratio, I wonder?

Collective guilt is much smoother to digest if one even acknowledges or shares the responsibility of the actions of their rogue government despite the fact that we finance those actions. Group-think is much safer and engenders less culpability than independent thinking. Thinking “outside of the box” takes one out of his/her comfort zone and might additionally bring criticism or the loss of friends.

History is replete with tales of the conquering hoards who explore, discover, confiscate and kill the citizens or merely leave them to die in desperate poverty. The principles of exploitation are eternal. Author John T. Flynn remarked: “Imperialism is an institution under which one nation asserts the right to seize the land or at least to control the government or resources of another people.” [xi]

There is a major difference between what happens to insiders and anyone else: sports figures, some movie stars and politicians often remain unscathed by their behavior. A commoner like John Walker Lindh was in the wrong place at the wrong time and is serving time. Liar Martha Stewart served time. Her biggest mistake is being an unconnected successful business woman. Liar Sandy Berger, Clinton’s national security adviser, the very height of irony, who claimed to have made an “honest mistake,” stole and then destroyed government property (evidence), merely paid a fine and served no jail time. [xii] Their lies were significantly different. But then, politicians lie incessantly and only appear to suffer legal consequences when it serves the Establishment’s purpose and/or to distract attention from foreign bombings by the United States.

Give up reality television and recognize that concentration camps, a censored press, a dictatorial secretive government, preemptive war against non-threatening countries are all genuine reality. As a youth I was outraged by what the Nazis did to the Jews and others. Why would the general population allow the inhumane torture, death and destruction directed at the citizens of their own country? Why did they invade Poland? My youthful anger at the Germans for not standing up against government tyranny and brutality was passionate, despite their claims of ignorance. How could they not know? Why do Americans tolerate the same behavior from our government?

George W. Bush remarked: “When I was coming up, it was a dangerous world, and you knew exactly who they were. It was us versus them, and it was clear who them was. Today, we are not so sure who the they are, but we know they’re there.” Well phrased, Mr. President! But, I think some of us might have it figured out.

Most of us are happy to have sufficient for our needs but with the elite, enough is never enough. It isn’t simply resource accumulation but an insatiable, obsessive demonic lust for power over others. Controlling others necessitates an absolute infiltration into every area of our lives including the source of our acquired knowledge and our perceptions about current events. To facilitate this goal, a suspension of the First Amendment, specifically our freedom of speech, is absolutely essential.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The First Amendment protects our freedom of speech and of the press. Absent the First Amendment, protestors could be silenced, the press could be censored, citizens could not criticize their government nor could they organize for social change. No rational individual would readily relinquish the vital freedoms of the First Amendment. But like the proverbial frog who remains in incrementally heated water, the masses are slowly surrendering all of their freedoms without so much of a whimper. Some people will even be relieved and anxious to surrender the freedoms patriots died for. With hardly a struggle or even majority acknowledgement, the allied elite have progressively seized ownership and control of the media.

The “free” press has been seized by mega media owners who are “free” to deliver mounds of distracting drivel camouflaged as news and information. Objectivity has been replaced by restraint. Instead of receiving unbiased information we are indoctrinated by the cultural, moral, economic and globalist philosophies and falsehoods supported by elite corporate owners.

In March 1915, the J. P. Morgan interests, the steel, shipbuilding and powder interests, and their subsidiary organizations, met with twelve men, influential in the newspaper world and employed them to select the most powerful newspapers in the United States and determine the number it would take to generally control the policy of the daily press of the United States. [1]

These twelve men selected 179 newspapers and then began, by an elimination process, to retain only those necessary for the purpose of controlling the general policy of the daily press throughout the country. They found it was only necessary to purchase the control of twenty-five of the greatest papers. The twenty-five papers were agreed upon and emissaries were sent to purchase the policy, national and international, of those papers. The policy of those papers was bought, to be paid for by the month. An editor was furnished for each paper to properly supervise and edit information regarding the questions of preparedness, militarism, financial policies, and other things of national and international nature considered vital to the interests of the purchasers. [2] This policy also included the suppression of everything in opposition to the wishes of the interests served. [3]

Bernard Baruch, American financier, stock market speculator, statesman, and presidential adviser, financially backed both newspapers and columnists. Arthur Krock, a columnist for the Louisville Courier-Journal was under Baruch’s influence and attended the Paris Peace Conference with Baruch and Herbert Hoover in 1919. Baruch convinced Adolph Ochs, publisher of the New York Times that he should hire Krock who reorganized the New York Times Washington bureau in 1932.

In 1926, Baruch invested $50,000 to assist David Lawrence to found the United States Daily, which became United States News and after World War II, it was re-name US News and World Report. Baruch also financed Maxwell Lincoln Schuster and Dick Simon to form Simon and Schuster. Baruch also made investments in VogueVanity Fair, Raleigh News and Observer, Our World Magazine and others. [4]

Simon & Schuster grew to include seven divisions – the Simon & Schuster Adult Publishing Group, Simon & Schuster Children’s Publishing, Simon & Schuster Audio, Simon & Schuster Online, Simon & Schuster UK, Simon & Schuster Canada and Simon & Schuster Australia. Their imprints and brand names include:  Simon & Schuster, Scribner, Pocket Books, Downtown Press, The Free Press, Atria, Fireside, Touchstone, Washington Square Press, Atheneum, Margaret K. McElderrry, Aladdin Paperbacks, Little Simon, Simon Spotlight, Simon Spotlight Entertainment, Star Trek, MTV Books and Wall Street Journal Books. [5]

Simon & Schuster published more than 2,000 titles annually. They have won fifty-four Pulitzer Prizes and have received numerous National Book Awards and National Book Critics Circle Awards. They have published both Rush Limbaugh’s and Howard Stern’s books.

Beginning in 1984, the company acquired more than sixty additional companies, including Prentice Hall and culminated in 1994 with the acquisition of Macmillan Publishing Company. In 2002, Simon & Schuster was integrated with the Paramount motion picture and television studios as part of the Viacom Entertainment Group. [6]Effective December 31, 2005, this corporate entity changed its name to CBS Corporation. The present firm known as Viacom beginning December 31, 2005 is a new spin-off company created during the CBS-Viacom split. [7]

A very comprehensive current list of media ownership is in the book Censored 2006, Chapter 6. You can download this must-read chapter as a PDF file. In 1985, there were fifty media conglomerates in the United States. Now there are ten top major media entities with connections to government, higher education, major institutions, banking and corporate America:  AOL Time Warner, Walt Disney, Gannett, Viacom (now CBS Corporation), New York Times, Washington Post, Knight-Ridder, The Tribune Company, General Electric and News Corporation. These media corporations share board members with a variety of other large corporations, including banks, investment companies, oil companies, health care and pharmaceutical companies and technology companies.” [8] The information contained in that file established a startling fact: media owners and their editor minions act as the unelected, unaccountable disseminators of all truth and information. They are free to distort, misinform, and skew all information to their financial benefit without repercussions because of their privileged government industry appointments and swinging-door connections.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn stated: “Such as it is, the press has become the greatest power within the Western World, more powerful than the legislature, the executive and judiciary. One would like to ask: by whom has it been elected, and to whom is it responsible?”  [9]

We can thank the Telecommunications Act of 1996 which was supposed to facilitate competition. Instead it allowed the big media companies to gobble up and digest the smaller companies, increasing their monopoly. What a coincidence – a law that does the exact opposite of what was intended.

Most of us believe that journalists have a particular responsibility to investigate and then divulge the information that they discover. To do otherwise is to perpetuate a facade of “reality” which is unconscionable and irresponsible. Withholding vital information, particularly when considering the election of our representatives, is grossly negligent and unfair to the voters, perpetuates corruption, and squanders the lives of our own citizens as well as foreigners. In addition, the very destruction of our country may be an imminent reality. The media has an obligation! The deliberate omission of truth or the calculated commission of a lie defines the measure of an individual’s integrity. It also denotes group integrity. George Orwell said: “During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.”

Newspaper editor John Swinton said: “There is no such thing in America as an independent press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who dares write his honest opinions, and if you did you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid… for keeping my honest opinions out of the paper … others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things… any of you who would be so foolish as to write his honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job… We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks; they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, possibilities, and lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes.” [10]

It is incompatible to be dishonest in one area of one’s life and honest in another. “Integrity comprises the personal inner sense of ‘wholeness’ deriving from honesty and consistent uprightness of character.” [11] Values should remain static, not situational or flexible. However, standards and integrity no longer apply – the rules are flexible, adjustable and situational to ensure that politicians, ethically-challenged corporate executives and others can escape the consequences of those annoying investigations by conscientious journalists. Currently we witness news executives “groveling for public forgiveness because something their reporters wrote offended powerful interests, or raised uncomfortable questions about the past. Stories that meet every traditional standard of objective journalism are retracted or renounced, not because they are false – but because they are true.” [12] Retractions, distortions and omissions are rampant.

CNN/Time Warner retracted a report on the CIA operation known as Tailwind at the request of a New York attorney, Floyd Abrams. [13] Abrams represented John Singlaub, a retired Army general who was the source of the June 7, 1998 report that accused the military of using nerve gas on Vietnam War-era defectors in Southeast Asia in the 1970s. The lead reporter, Peter Arnett, ultimately left the network. April Oliver, the gutsy CNN producer, was fired and ended up suing the network who defamed her “Charging that CNN retracted the 1998 story ‘to mollify the military establishment,’ Oliver accused senior network executives of approving the substance and sourcing of the explosive script, then surrendering to unfounded criticism after the reports aired.” Oliver said she would have gone to prison to protect Singlaub who she claims “smeared her to distance himself from the report.” [14] The Department of Defense whitewashed the whole incident with a timely news briefing on Tuesday, July 21, 1998.

This is from a Rumsfeld Department of Defense news briefing in February 2002: “Reports that say that something hasn’t happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns — the ones we don’t know we don’t know.” [15] That sounds to me like a lot of stammering, stalling double talk. Isn’t it frightening to realize we have had and continue to have such questionably qualified people in leadership positions?

Investigative reporters are routinely fired or arrested for reporting on government or corporate corruption perpetrated in other countries – against foreign strangers who are desperately vulnerable. Reporters have been forced to apologize and renounce their work. Afterwards, these conscientious reporters are reviled and ruined. One reporter, Mike Gallagher, [16] was ruined as a result of his exposé of Chiquita Brands International, a company known for their numerous CIA protected exploitations in Central and South America. [[17]] When money or politics are affected, truth appears to be irrelevant. I suppose one could say that you can buy anything in the world for money, including anonymity viewed as permission – yet others like journalists, pay the very high cost, often their lives, for the corruption and crimes of others.

Because of what amounts to imposed censorship, intimidation can induce journalists to restrict their writing to the approved party line. Privileged government status often tempts the wholly unprincipled to use that protected position for personal financial enhancement or for illegalities that are rarely revealed. And if exposed – just destroy the message by obliterating the credibility of the messenger. Governments can and do commit crimes against large segments of the population, foreign or domestic, without exposure and culpability.

Unaccustomed to independent thinking, distracted and lazy minds are susceptible to the improvised, official version of any propagandized orchestrated crisis. Those same complacent mental captives who feel well informed by snippets of “news” from the “Ministry of Truth” are immediately willing to support premeditated government schemes or legislation presented as a viable solution. Rule by crisis increases Big Brother government power, the bureaucracy, civil chaos and our gullibility and fear – of government and whatever enemy they have currently devised while rapidly decreasing our personal liberties, our savings accounts, our pensions, our health [18] and our jobs through constitutionally illegal trade agreements.

Dr. Joseph M. Goebbels, Propaganda Minister of Nazi Germany said: “The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth becomes the greatest enemy of the State.”

“In February 2003, A Florida Court Of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States.” [19]

I will close with quotes from two very wise and honest men, Patrick Henry said: “We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth…for my part, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst; and to provide for it.”  Thomas Jefferson said: “All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.”

Joseph Goebbels said: “The rank and file is usually much more primitive than we imagine. Propaganda must therefore always be essentially simple and repetitious. The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly… it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over.”

One very key point, repeated daily for decades, by the most vociferous voices, is that the media is liberal. The conservatives have a giant advantage over their appointed opponents, the liberals: a cohesive, complaining group who monopolize air time claiming that a liberal bias exists in the media. From rich to poor, the masses gain the majority of their information from the media and take great pride in being well-informed, morally superior, pro-war conservatives. One might doubt a premise from just one media source but multiple sources gives credibility despite any lack of clear-cut evidence on any issue. Switch channels or stations – it is all the same news and every network conceals the most egregious of the government’s actions.

Dissident voices are rare and quickly disqualified as treasonous, out of touch, unpatriotic, un-American or putting our troops in harm’s way or helping Al Qaeda – all a subtle excuse for media censorship and suspension of the 1st Amendment. Dissent is never allowed in a dictatorship, especially one that claims to promote freedom. One apparent exception is the illegal alien invasion, however misdirected the criticism really is. Typical voter apathy has turned to outrage over what is essentially an invasion by invitation. As usual, Congress languishes, pretending to work on the situation while Americans pay the price.

The purported conservative voices include but are not limited to: Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, Michael Savage, Laura Ingraham, Dennis Praeger, Bill Bennett, Sean Hannity, Michael Reagan, Matt Drudge, Oliver North, Ann Coulter, Michael Medved, Hugh Hewitt, Rusty Humphries, Larry Elder, Neal Boortz, Mark Davis, G. Gordon Liddy and don’t forget the televangelists. There are also numerous individuals who author newspaper columns and well publicized books. Who do the liberals have? Who iscomparable among the radio, television, and print personalities? If you can think of anyone – how regularly is he or she verbally vanquished and vilified by the conservatives?

So-called conservative talk show hosts do not educate or enlighten but present a deceptive dialogue of disinformation which promotes the theoretical global war of terror and supports the party line, despite which party is currently running the show. They brainwash their listeners and intimidate and insult their non compliant callers as they glorify death and war disguised as patriotism. Howard Zinn says that “patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.” [1]

Mark Hertzgaard said: “The biggest political joke in America is that we have a liberal press. It’s a joke taken seriously by a surprisingly large number of people. The myth of the liberal press has served as a political weapon for conservative and right-wing forces eager to discourage critical coverage of government and corporate power. Americans now have the worst of both worlds: a press that, at best, parrots the pronouncements of the powerful and, at worst, encourages people to be stupid with pseudo-news that illuminates nothing but the bottom line.”  [2]

In 1995 Bill Kristol confessed to the New Yorker: “The liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures.” [3]

The charges of liberal bias are just maneuvers in a cynical game explained Rich Bond, the former chairman of the Republican National Committee. The nasty accusations hurled at the liberals by angry wannabe victims function like the heckling of passionate sports spectators who scream and yell “unfair” over every single penalty. “The referee will think twice before blowing the whistle” and might “cut you a little slack on the next one. Conservatives have learned to ‘work the ref’ so diligently that their exclusion is one of the most widely discussed topics in the media – with them doing most of the talking.” [4] The poor, pitiful highly visible and very verbal, amply paid conservatives would have us believe that they are all “media outcasts” all the while hosting and appearing on numerous radio and television shows.

According to Mark Crispin Miller, the so-called liberal press was a consistent advocate for Bush and his collaborating cronies. The mainstream media either downplayed or suppressed the following brief list of fascistic incidences involving an insecure but dictatorial President Bush who obviously recognized his numerous shortcomings but could never tolerate any appearance of opposition:

  • ·        They hid the many evidences of Bush’s unpopularity;
  • ·        They repressed some of the worst news of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan;
  • ·        The media repressed news of war crimes repeatedly facilitated by the lies of the administration;
  • ·        The Bush White House withheld the October 19th CIA report on 9/11 until after the election;
  • ·        There was no mainstream coverage of Bush’s true standing in his party;
  • ·        Many well-known Republicans were actually backing Kerry;
  • ·        The press hid evidence of Bush’s low repute;
  • ·        The press was silent on Bush’s international unpopularity;
  • ·        In the 2004 campaign the press ignored any evidence that the president was not well liked;
  • ·        The press ignored new voters and many polls which preferred Kerry;
  • ·        The press did not report the egregious behavior on the part of Bush and company on the campaign trail such as barring people from events, or having others arrested who happened to voice any opposition;
  • ·        Hundreds, some not even protestors, were arrested and held illegally during the Republican convention in New York;
  • ·        Anyone not showing obvious enthusiasm on the convention floor was ousted;
  • ·        The TV networks refused to air ads for Michael Moore’s film Fahrenheit 911
  • ·        A couple in Corpus Christi were arrested for wearing anti-Bush T-shirts at a Bush speech. After their release she was fired from her FEMA job;
  • ·        Admission was denied to a Bush event for anyone wearing Kerry stickers on their clothes;
  • ·        The press ignored the fact that Bush selected certain groups to speak to on the campaign trail – perfect for photo ops.
  • ·        Hours and hours of air time and column space was given to the “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth,” an expensive propaganda tactic hatched by Karl Rove;
  • ·        There was hardly a mention of Bush’s military irregularities including the missing 1972 physical, 1970 pictures of Bush wearing medals he had not received and unexplained lengthy absences (AWOL);
  • ·        The press ignored the fact that Bush could not or would not produce a valid DD214 (discharge papers). [5]
    Our current president has refused to produce legitimate records regarding his birth, his college records or his records at Columbia University where no one can remember him.

One glaring incident involved Dan Rather, along with four television news producers, all formerly of CBS News. The four were Mary MapesBetsy WestJosh Howard, andMary Murphy[6] Their offense: they “exposed a rich kid whose powerful daddy got him out of the military draft during the war in Vietnam. The rich kid is the president; the daddy was another president.” [7] CBS appointed an Independent Review Panel, consisting of just two people, to determine the ethics of the five individuals. The two experts were Dick Thornburgh, Attorney General in the administration of George H. W. Bush and Louis Boccardi. Thornburgh, hardly objective, is known to have “whitewashed the investigation of the Exxon Valdez oil spill.” With his help, Exxon escaped full culpability. [8] Oil and water do not mix but oil and Bush have always been an interesting concoction.

Viacom, the owner of CBS, is the second-largest media company in the country and is owned by Sumner M. Redstone, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, a very rich media mogul. Viacom also owns Nickelodeon, MTV, Infinity Broadcasting, Paramount, Blockbuster and BET on cable, as well the UPN broadcast network. Redstone is the mega media mogul responsible for the ousting of Dan Rather who dared question the war president’s military record. Out with free speech, investigative reporting and in with political and corporate expediency.

“Reacting to the document scandal at CBS News, Sumner M. Redstone, chairman and chief executive of Viacom, CBS’ parent, vowed that the results of a recently announced probe would be ‘appropriate’ and the consequences will be appropriate.” [9] In December 2005, Viacom changed its name to CBS Corporation. See a list of CBS assets here. Viacom became a spin-off company.

Redstone spoke at the Forbes Global CEO Conference and stated that he was “very concerned” about a 60 Minutes story from September 8, 2004 by Dan Rather that suggested glaring irregularities in President George W. Bush’s military record. “CBS has since conceded that the documents on which the story was based could not be authenticated. Rather has apologized, and CBS News has said the story was a mistake.” [10] A lengthy career was over – and his name will always be associated with this incident – an inconvenient truth jeopardizing the One World Order agenda of a Bush second term. If the media were truly liberal, as frequently claimed, the exposure of the multiple skeletons in the Bush closet would have been quickly revealed by the so-called liberal media.

Prior to Rather’s CBS demise the former CBS anchor appeared on the BBC in June 2002. He appeared older, looked defeated and admitted that he dared not speak on American TV. He said: “Fear keeps journalists from asking the toughest of the tough questions.” Rather remarked that a deadly censorship had seized U.S. newsrooms, especially after the September 11 attack. He said that news on the U.S. tube was “bound and gagged.” He continued: “Any reporter who stepped out of line would be professionally lynched as un-American.” Certain reporters from The New York Times are currently finding this to be the case. Back in the U.S. Rather “smothered his professional conscience and told his TV audience, “George Bush is the president. He makes the decisions. If he wants me to line up, just tell me where.” [11]

In commenting on the upcoming U.S. presidential election, media mogul Redstone said that while Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) was a nice guy, the re-election of President Bush would be better for Viacom’s interests, since the Administration backed deregulation and other issues that would help the company. [12] Kerry, who did go to Vietnamcompared to Bush who didn’t, was the subject of Unfit for Duty, an explosive and very timely book allegedly exposing Kerry’s unearned medals and lack of courage. Private, corporate ownership of the media includes an exclusive opportunity, through firing and hiring practices, to greatly affect elections. The neo-cons stated in their PNAC Statement of Principles: “It is important to shape circumstances.” [13]

At 10:22 a.m. (EST) on the morning of November 3, 2004, the day after the election and before Kerry’s concession at 1:57 p.m., the president of the Heritage Foundation sent email to 200,000 members asking for a “generous contribution” to help the foundation do “what we have to do right now” – help “President Bush and his allies in Congress” to keep cutting taxes, “modernize Social Security, “weed out terrorists and perfect the military.” Jumping the gun and speeding ahead with one’s agenda is either arrogant overconfidence, supported by the corporate press or sure knowledge supplied by conspiratorial vote counters. [14]

“For the media owners, allegations of a liberal bias make it easier for them to impose the conservative bias they prefer. For the pseudo liberals who work in the media system, confessing to a liberal bias is far more comfortable than admitting that they’ve sold out their beliefs for a nice salary. It’s only because the mainstream media is so conservative that all these right-wing pundits can make accusations of liberal bias without opposition.” [15] Bernard Goldberg and Ann Coulter, just two outraged conservatives bravely battling the liberal dragon press, have successfully scammed the public with their big money-making, insubstantial accusations. Goldberg, a former correspondent, was associated with the same network CBS that career-crunched Dan Rather. His very biased book Bias was published on February 25, 2001 and propped up the conservative charade.

In addition to those issues mentioned above, I would like to see the following imperative issues covered in the so-called liberal mainstream media and the professed conservative news:

  • ·        Locations of the American concentration camps built by Kellogg, Brown and Root;
  • ·        Bush’s plan to merge Canada, Mexico and the United States;
  • ·        More news on the inland ports;
  • ·        Media reviews of Aaron Russo’s new movie: America: From Freedom to Fascism;
  • ·        An expose on the use of depleted uranium;
  • ·        Information about privatized military industry (PMI)
  • ·        An objective investigation of the irregularities of 9/11;
  • ·        Voting irregularities in 2000 and 2004;
  • ·        Bush’s regard for human rights and the Bill of Rights
  • ·        An expose of the Federal Reserve fraud;
  • ·        Why is the government selling off big chunks of America;
  • ·        Information on the Six-Point Agenda for Department of Homeland Security
  • ·        Tell the American citizens about the amero, the dollar replacement;
  • ·        How about all of those stories that Project Censored defines in their books;
  • ·        The real truth about job growth, not the jobs the government is creating;

What about those jobs? What are those employees manufacturing? Or are they being trained to implant ID chips, spy on their neighbors, and work as camp guards or perhaps work on that secret super highway?

We are not any freer than the controlled, contentious cover-up media. [16] Rush Limbaugh is the acclaimed original “right wing” radio talk jock who continues to successfully lambaste liberals and the purported liberal media bias even though he admitted in 2002 that liberal bias was non existent. [17] Several more have joined him in this crusade. They bash the allegedly morally decadent liberal left as compared to the “righteous” right who claim moral superiority despite ample evidence to the contrary.

Thousands of clueless disciples, in what propagandist Michael Medved calls “the greatest nation on God’s green earth,” tune in daily to get conservative views  as opposed to the big, bad, ugly, deceitful ‘liberal’ lies. Folks, it is orchestrated opposition – owned by the same entities. Whether you read the Twinkie Times, listen to tough fluff, pro-war Laura Ingraham, or watch any of the Fox “fair and balanced” shows, including the king of castigation – Bill O’Reilly, it is the same. [18] Devotees are daily rewarded and energized by the vicious attacks and criticism directed at the evil enemy – the liberal opposition. We are so distracted we fail to recognize the synthesized Republican/Democratic party. [19] The genuine dissenters supporting such things as anti-tax, pro-2nd Amendment rights, pro-Constitution, anti-big government, and anti-war can anticipate being lumped with the terrorists – “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.” [20] How can conservatives claim to prefer less government and in the same breath ask, among other things, the government to seize the church’s authority over marriage?

“Neo-con” talk radio has lent legitimacy to the Bush administration plus phony patriotic propaganda for continual preemptive war. War means the killing, the maiming, and the devastating illnesses of thousands of Middle-Eastern citizens because their leader was/is non-compliant to One World Order demands. And with the Bushs – like father, like son, nuclear air strikes are preferable to diplomacy for establishing power, instilling fear and furthering the work of death.

Christians should be the first to recognize the probability of secret societies or secret combinations and money interests intent on depriving others of their liberty or life. The death of Christ was the result of a conspiracy associated with currency. There were plots to kill Paul and numerous others. There were also those early day “public relations” groups who deliberately influenced the masses to perpetuate their covert agenda – remember, the admirers who bowed before Christ upon his entry into Jerusalem were the same people who, a mere few days, later clamored for his death. What changed?

Before citizens jump on that political war machine that promotes continual conflict, we must evaluate and scrutinize the sources of our perceptions – is it orchestrated opposition propaganda or real information?
According to the Hegelian Dialectics there must be a crisis, or controlled opposition, with a predetermined solution designed to move society towards a one world government. Opportunistic circumstances are devised by positioning effectual, charismatic people into situations where they can manipulate perceptions and then ultimately use their increasing power to establish and escalate minor concerns into major calamities. The elite manufactures and finances fear in order to generate weakness for the sole purpose of bringing the masses under their control. There are a few methods of positioning appropriate individuals into suitable circumstances: a contrived election, a coup d’état, CIA sponsorship and assignment, or a combination of the three with supportive, unmerited media promotion or the opposite – character assassination. And there are susceptible personalities, either unprincipled or incredibly naïve, who will permit globalist manipulation for a variety of reasons. Political assassinations (ritual public executions), allegedly carried out by crazed lone gunmen, fall into the category of the coup d’état.

The CIA, the primary functionary of big business and international banking, recruits naïve but willing college students, radical religious fundamentalists and anyone else who demonstrates charisma, aptitude, and guiltless mendacity and is willing to sacrifice integrity for financial rewards and power. These obliging, newly-trained individuals are systematically entrenched within every facet of society in order to obscure our perceptions, dismantle our values, falsify our history, corrupt our communities and destabilize families. Conventional appearing infiltrators, posturing as benefactors are embedded within the government, the courts, the media, the fields of medicine and psychology, and religion.

Soon after the establishment of the U.N. and the CIA our traditional values, stable marriages and morality rapidly began to decline while crime, drug use, divorce, promiscuity, pornography and perversion accelerated. Family destabilization is not happenstance but a very deliberate plan. The Rockefeller Foundation had funded the “research” efforts of the decadent Alfred Kinsey whose junk science instigated the family-destroying moral metamorphosis of America. Kinsey’s work was further enhanced by the American Law Institute’s Model Penal Code. The American Law Institute was created in 1923 as the educational arm of the American Bar Association. The development of the Model Penal Code was, not surprisingly, also funded by the Rockefeller Foundation. The Penal Code decreased criminal accountability for criminal predators engaging in serious crime against women and children.

Kinsey’s deliberately misleading research brought about predictable social behavior minus the appropriate liability. Sleazy speculation masquerading as authentic research took on an aura of respectability and credibility because it was highly publicized by allegedly trustworthy media people. The initial responses of shocked abhorrence gradually developed into acceptance. Inclusion of this “research,” in textbooks and daily newspapers apparently endorsed it despite the emerging societal cause and effect consequences. The successful escalation of every synchronized crisis depends on mass media deception. As defined by the founding fathers, a free press should serve the public interest, not the opportunistic tyrants who have absconded with the reins of government.

Another CIA asset, Gloria Steinem (Smith College graduate), was recruited by Cord Meyer after being referred to him by an acquaintance from the CIA financed National Student Association. Meyer was the head of the CIA’s International Organizations division. With CIA money, funneled through the tax-free Ford Foundation, [1] Steinem set up the Independent Research Service (part of Meyer’s Congress for Cultural Freedom) in order to organize a trip for a group of students, scholars and others to the seventh postwar World Youth Festival to be held in Vienna in 1959. [2] One World Order proponent Zbigniew Brzezinski, then an assistant professor at Harvard, accompanied Steinem to Vienna at CIA expense. [3]

Steinem’s feminist articles were published in Esquire and New York Magazine in the early 1960s through editor and publisher Clay Felker, another CIA asset. Her own monthly magazine Ms. Magazine, subsidized by Warner Communications, came out in the summer of 1972. The charismatic Steinem always had sufficient positive media coverage to perpetuate the globalist agenda which effectively implied and generated grassroots support. The feminist movement, a totally managed crisis, exploded into a viable vehicle which provoked competition and contention between the genders and deliberately wreaked havoc among families of every ethnic group.

The result of “liberating” women constituted enforced labor cloaked as a unique privilege but was calculatingly designed to benefit the abundantly rich international bankers through additional income tax revenue. Women could then work full time in addition to responsibilities at home. Besides, two incomes, frequently necessitated by continuous and intentional Federal Reserve inflation, compel mothers to abandon their precious children to strangers at daycare centers where their vulnerable minds can be saturated. Nothing fills the emotional void of missing one’s mother in the formative years – not even the extra guilt gifts that two incomes might produce.

The Supreme Court ruled on Roe v. Wade on 22 January 1973, which wasn’t really about women’s reproductive rights. The once desperate and pregnant Norma McCorvey, alias Jane Roe, recently testified before Congress: “I am not a trained spokesperson, nor a judge, but I am a real person – a living human being who was supposed to be helped by my lawyers and the courts in Roe v. Wade. But instead, I believe that I was used and abused by the court system in America. Instead of helping women in Roe v. Wade, I brought destruction to me and millions of women throughout the nation.” … “My lawyers wanted to eliminate the right of society to protect women and children from abortionists.” [4] After Kinsey and the Supreme Court, abortion statistics predictably accelerated into a national crisis. Private decisions between a woman and her doctor were now under government jurisdiction.

There was a textbook censorship case in Kanawha County, West Virginia, which energized local religious groups. The Kanawha school board approved 325 books on March 12, 1974 which incensed members of the local Ku Klux Klan.[5] However, it was publicized as a concerned parents’ rights issue. The “problem” concerned specific books written by some African-American authors that described their inequitable status before the law as well as their typically substandard lifestyles. Heaven forbid that middle-class American children should discover the realities of the dismal lives of those less fortunate for lack of opportunity. Bootstrap success is only achievable on a level playing field.

Three religious leaders, Reverend Marvin Horan, Reverend Ezra Graley and Ed Miller, a self-proclaimed Klansman organized rallies and instigated parent disapproval and participation. Additionally, Reverend Horan was charged with attempting to blow up one of the schools. Reverend Ezra Graley, a liaison to the newly organized Heritage Foundation, worked closely with Miller and Horan. They sent James T. McKenna, the general counsel to the Heritage Foundation in the mid 1970s, to represent the protesters. Congressman Phillip Crane, also in concert with the Heritage Foundation, appealed to constituents for funds for the protesters. Reverend James Lewis, pastor of the Charleston Episcopal Church attempted to counter the protestors and later testified that Crane refused to say what the funds were used for. McKenna was able to obtain press coverage through the Washington Post. [6]

Well-placed individuals and well-financed tax-free foundations (501 (c) (3), like the Heritage Foundation, fund political activists and disseminate disinformation and misinformation via the corporate media and extensive bulk mailings to concerned, provoked subscribers who ultimately finance their own demise through their contributions. “The early 1970s were the worst of times, and the best of times in which to launch a conservative think tank in Washington, D.C. Conservative leaders and conservative ideas were out of public favor.” [7]

And because it was the worst of times for Americans – from the bra-burning rebellious sixties through the extensive casualties (58,000) and the massive debt of the Vietnam War which understandably created a lot of anti-war sentiment – particularly after many Americans discovered the devastating nature of the weapons used in Vietnam. Many POWs were left behind, abandoned by our own government. [8] All of the losses were without a constitutional declaration of war. Americans supposedly battled against international Communism. The only benefactors were Wall Street brokers and Johnson’s business cronies in Texas, California and Washington. That prolonged war took the life of about one million Vietnamese – whole villages were needlessly destroyed.

Then there was the 1972 break-in at the national Democratic Party headquarters at the Watergate. This fiasco led to the resignation of Richard Nixon on August 9, 1974. Nixon was the president who signed SALT I giving the Soviet Union nuclear parity with America. He also instituted wage and price controls and tried to implement such welfare proposals as the Family Assistance Plan. He proudly proclaimed, “I am now a Keynesian in economics.” Justifiable distrust of government was prevalent. Such circumstances, not happenstance by any means, created the perfect social climate for multitudes of good versus evil (thesis versus antithesis) bitter battles.

On August 7, 1974, Congressmen John J. Rhodes, minority leader of the House of Representatives, joined Senators Barry M. Goldwater and Hugh D. Scott to inform Nixon that impeachment was inevitable if he did not resign. That meeting followed the release of the Watergate cover-up tapes on June 23, 1972, which revealed Nixon’s involvement. Nixon antagonists welcomed the resignation.

Albert Harold Quie [9] and John J. Rhodes, members of The Fellowship, an influential exclusive society, visited Vice President Gerald Ford at a special prayer meeting on August 8, 1974, the day before Ford was sworn in as president. Interestingly, Ford’s Chief of Staff was Dick Cheney. His Defense Secretary was Donald Rumsfeld and George H. W. Bush served as Director of the CIA. The elite repeatedly resurface. Allegedly, Nixon resigned at the suggestion of the powerful Fellowship. Chuck Colson, a Fellowship member, invited Nixon to join them in an attempt to salvage his image but he wanted nothing to do with them. [10]

Americans had little trust in their government and felt vulnerable, disillusioned and betrayed, the perfect environment for the candidacy of the perceived kinder, gentler James Earl Carter, a born again Christian. [11] He was not the first president to invoke religious rhetoric, accompanied by a plethora of social and moral ills. The religion tactic would now be more effective in generating votes than in past generations. The great awakening of a formerly silent section of the electorate began to be heard. Political activity and dialogue emanated from a distinct Christian group which helped elect Jimmy Carter.

For decades, we have not really elected the candidates of our choice – we merely go through the charade of voting for the pre selected individuals that will do the diabolical bidding of the elite. “Late in 1972, W. Averell Harriman (known at that time as the ‘grand old man of the Democrats’), Establishment strategist and CFR member, told Milton Katz (CFR member), Director of International Studies at Harvard: ‘We’ve got to get off our high horses and look at some of those southern governors.’ Carter was mentioned, and Katz informed Rockefeller. Rockefeller had met with Carter in 1971, when they had lunch in the Chase Manhattan’s Board of Director’s dining room, and was impressed with the fact that Carter had opened trade offices for the state of Georgia in Tokyo.” [12]

Beginning in 1973 the Republican’s “Southern Strategy” was cultivated and nurtured by George H. W. Bush, the then recently-installed chairman of the Republican National Committee – complete with two assistants who would do whatever it took to further the agenda : Karl Rove and Lee Atwater. With the additional strength and unique fundraising skills of Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Bob Jones, and other fundamentalist Christians the south fell into the welcome arms of the Republican Party.

Zbigniew Brzezinski, co-founder of the Trilateral Commission in 1973, along with David Rockefeller, said in an October 1973 speech: “The Democratic candidate will have to emphasize work, family, religion, and increasingly, patriotism, if he has any desire to be elected.” [13] “One of the commission’s primary goals was to place a Trilateral-influenced president in the White House in 1976, and to achieve that goal it was necessary to groom an appropriate candidate who would be willing to cooperate with trilateral aims.” [14] Carter had also attended an invitation-only Bilderberg meeting before his “election.” With assistance from the Establishment media [15] Carter, posing as an “outsider,” promised to clean up the mess in Washington. He stressed the very items that his mentor Brzezinski suggested: work, family, religion and patriotism. Carter’s religious convictions became a big part of his campaign.

Senator Barry M. Goldwater stated in his book With No Apologies: “This may cost me everything that I have, but I’ve got to get out an alert to the American people. The Trilateral Commission represents a skillfully coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power, political, monetary, intellectual, and ecclesiastical. What the Trilateralists intend is the creation of a world-wide economic power superior to the government of the nation states. In other words, what they are driving, orchestrating, meshing and gearing to accomplish is the New World Order, the one-world government.”

The 1976 election of the amiable Trilateralist (recommended for membership April 13, 1973) and CFR member Jimmy Carter, with all the appearances of a political anomaly, also had the right aptitude. To celebrate the Trilateral election, Carter was Time Magazine’s Man of the Year, January 3, 1977 (he also graced Time’s cover on July 26, 1976). Hedley Donovan, Time’s former Editor-in-Chief is a Trilateralist and a Rhodes Scholar. He was also Carter’s senior adviser on domestic affairs and media relations. “According to the Dektor Psychological Stress Evaluator, a lie detector which measures voice stress with an oscillograph, there was no stress in Carter’s voice when he lied, which would seem to indicate that he is a pathological liar.” [16] Imagine that, a politician that compulsively lies!

Zbigniew Brzezinski became Carter’s National Security Advisor and Cyrus Vance (nephew of John W. Davis, of the J. P. Morgan bank who was the first President of the CFR) was his Secretary of State. Foreign policy was clearly established and dictated by Brzezinski. Carter appointed dozens of CFR members [17] and about three dozen members [18] of the Trilateral Commission to the highest unelected offices in government. Many current officials also have connections and influence with the Trilateral Commission and the CFR.[19] From Carter on, each president has filled his administration with members of the CFR and the Trilateral Commission. The current president, Barack Obama, has filled his administration with members of the Trilateral Commission, a group determined to create a one-world economic system.

As soon as so-called conservative politicians realized that fundamentalists and other evangelicals might be encouraged to become more politically active and that it might be possible to mold political action to support Republican candidates, they provided financial resources to help create groups like the Moral Majority, the Christian Voice, and the Religious Roundtable in 1978 and 1979.” [20]

Leave it to the elite, with sufficient time to conspire, to orchestrate an election designed to manipulate America’s sleeping religious while implementing other nefarious objectives.

The movement known as the Religious Right did not suddenly emerge. New World Order proponents recognized that to fulfill their nefarious plans they would have to manipulate others to accomplish certain tasks – the destruction of the Republic and the Constitution via faulty interpretations, abuse and the lack of checks and balances, Executive Orders and other legally prohibited activities. To facilitate the objectives, individuals or organizations that Americans already trusted would be manipulated. Overt activities and obvious lies would never suffice. It would have to be subtle. As with Judas, someone familiar and nominally trustworthy would garner confidence. But half truths about genuine issues, combined with messages of hope and faith and a few lies, lead the passionate masses to accept the whole package. Useful idiots, knowledgeable minions or ego-driven, power-hungry individuals have always proven valuable to those attempting to establish the one world government.

Ostensibly the Religious Right is a social movement comprised mainly of evangelical Protestants, fundamentalist Christians and other conservatives who embrace the same religious goals and viewpoints regarding United States government policies. Allegedly the movement is not partisan. However, most participants are associated with the Republican Party. A cartoon character on the front cover of Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber’s book Banana Republicans says to the other: You’re either with the Republican Party – or you’re with the terrorists! There’s no middle ground! Don’t you agree? Despite claims to the contrary, GOP does not stand for God’s Own Party![1] A meaningful phrase about unity has been mangled and politicized to essentially evoke long-term support for war. Jesus said: “He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.” [2]

Theological conservatism does not make an individual a member of the Religious Right. Up until about 1975, Christians, focusing on their own sins, typically avoided the corrupt world of politics but were persuaded that they have a civic, as well as a religious, responsibility to participate. Now there are hundreds of Religious Right groups of various sizes and visibility. Some concentrate on a single issue and derive their finances through fundraising efforts and are incorporated as 501 (c) 3 or 4. A tax exempt status of 501 (c) 3 prohibits political activity and candidate endorsement. To skirt that prohibition, some organizations create legal departments and house a stable of lobbyists to conduct those efforts. Interestingly, selective prosecution enables the government-friendly groups to participate and direct otherwise questionable activities. Conversely, anti-war preachers who vocalize their concerns jeopardize everything. Here are a few “approved” groups:

  • ·         Christian Coalition of America: Founded in 1989 by Pat Robertson. He resigned in 2001. There are 30 chapters throughout the country. Robertson also foundedOperation Blessing, a cover for other activities?
  • ·        American Center for Law and Justice: Founded by Pat Robertson in 1990. Jay Sekulow is their Executive Director and Chief Counsel.
  • ·        Citizens for Excellence in Education: Founded by Robert L. Simonds. Against the separation of church and state. They have nationwide chapters.
  • ·        Concerned Women for America (CWA): Founded in 1979 by Beverly LaHaye. 500 regional groups across the country. This group is against separation of church and state. LaHaye is a trustee of Falwell’s Liberty University. CWA supported the Nicaraguan Contras. [3]
  • ·        Coral Ridge Ministries (CRM): founded in 1974 by Rev. D. James Kennedy, an ardent opponent of separation of church and state. “CRM has the greatest number of TV station affiliates of any religious program in the U.S. Altogether, nearly 3 million people listen weekly to CRM programming on radio or television.” [4]
  • ·        Eagle Forum: Founded in 1972 by Phyllis Schlafly to oppose the Equal Rights Amendment. Eagle Forum Education and Legal Defense Fund, the Eagle Forum’s foundation. Affiliate Groups: The Eagle Forum Collegians, a network for conservative college students. The Eagle Forum PAC contributes to right-wing political campaigns.
  • ·        Focus on the Family: Founded in 1977 by Dr. James Dobson who is broadcast daily on more than 3,000 radio facilities in North America and other places and reaches over 200 million people every day. Dobson has been very influential in Republican Administrations as a “family” expert. Donald Paul Hodel, FOF’s President, is a former Reagan Administration official who served as U.S. Under Secretary of the Interior, U.S. Secretary of Energy, and U.S. Secretary of the Interior. He also served as the president of the Christian Coalition from 1997 to 1999.
  • ·        Family Research Council: This group, located in Washington DC, was founded in 1981 by Dr. James Dobson. It was originally headed by Gary Bauer. It is now headed by Tony Perkins. Their objective is to establish a conservative Christian standard of morality in all of America’s domestic and foreign policy.
  • ·        National Legal Foundation: Founded in 1985 by Pat Robertson and funded by Robertson’s Christian Broadcasting Network (no longer affiliated). “The mission of the National Legal Foundation is to prayerfully create and implement innovative strategies that, through decisive action, will cause America’s public policy and legal system to support and facilitate God’s purpose for her.” [5]
  • ·        American Family Association (AFA): founded in 1977 by Rev. Donald Wildmon, a United Methodist minister. The original name was the National Federation for Decency. The focus of this group is media criticism. Wildmon called for a shutdown of PBS. They also attempt to restrict businesses that do not discriminate against such things as homosexuality. They perpetuate misinformation regarding the separation of church and state. They have 100 employees and five full-time lawyers. The Center for Law and Policy is an AFA affiliate. They sell a variety of books on their web site.
  • ·        Traditional Values Coalition: The largest church-lobby in the United States Founded in 1980 by Rev. Louis Sheldon.  This group claims over 43,000 churches nationwide representing 12 denominations.
  • ·        Chalcedon: Founded by the late Rousas John Rushdoony, father-in-law of Gary North and the creator of an 800 page explanation of the Ten Commandments and their cultural application for today. It is the original, defining text of Reconstructionism. Reconstructionists pattern their strict theological ideologies after John Calvin. Calvinism is very elitist.

Many of the issues these groups have embraced have captured the attention of other religious congregations who share their concerns. However, their commonality is that they are absolutely and mistakenly hostile to separation of church and state. Most of the movement’s ambitious, charismatic leaders claim biblical inerrancy and actively call for a fundamentalist return to the Bible and seek to impose their far-right positions on everyone else through the political process. The skillful leaders emotionally marshal the masses through radio and television. They realize that their greatest success is in building bottom-up support. Rather than focus on the White House or Congress, they encourage participation in local politics. Any successful movement must begin in the local neighborhoods.

This mobilization did not alter their primary goals – influence court appointments, elections and government policy with regard to a variety of social issues: pro-life, pro-family, home-schooling, prayers in school, anti-gay, etc. Why would anyone question a pro-family stance? Focusing on other people’s sins draws attention away from our own. Hatred isn’t inherent; it is learned and institutionalized by otherwise good citizens. Abhorrence of sin is often transferred to the sinner generating bigotry and often violence – that same sort of violence that enables otherwise good people to engage in warfare and kill men, women and children, conveniently labeled as terrorists.

Prohibition did not diminish drunkenness any more than a marriage amendment will curb homosexuality. The merging of religion and politics, a lethal mixture, may produce a Taliban-like tyranny. Some religicrats are attempting to create a sinless society by imposing restrictive regulations. There is a certain attraction, for many, in contributing to a cause to affect some sort of a change. This appeal, accompanied by money, rarely changes individuals. Men rarely change from the outside in but rather from the inside out. Dutiful contributors might feel heart swells while increasingly wealthy recipients shield their elite positions in tax exempt foundations. The best way for responsible individuals to make a difference in society is best accomplished by living honest, respectful lives and teaching their children respect and integrity, rare characteristics.

The implementation of legalized abortion set up the perfect environment for thousands of outraged Christians to be manipulated into thinking they could fight this moral monstrosity which a deliberately stacked Supreme Court passed. The Constitution guarantees life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Therefore the government has an obligation to protect the most vulnerable of all its citizens – the children. The planners orchestrated a divisive situation and, great during campaigns but forgotten after every election. The phrase, “freedom of choice” is a deadly misnomer.

The thoughts of our own sweet children produce outrage towards abortion, bringing moral people, easy targets, into a movement they may otherwise not comfortably join. Christians understand that aborted, martyred children return, in glory, to God. The blood of the innocent shall stand as a witness against the perpetrators. Even influential bystanders often cannot intercede in behalf of the innocent. These precious children are often discarded in the same violent manner that Christ was. However, God, not individuals, will judge all circumstances. Abortion will always exist despite big contributions and efforts to anti-abortion groups. One on one, we might inspire better choices. Mass opposition, often accompanied by violence, does not typically succeed. What is the ultimate goal of this or any other social movement?

Many feel that the single greatest threat to church-state separation in America is the movement known as the Religious Right. Organizations and leaders representing this religio-political crusade seek to impose a fundamentalist Christian viewpoint on all Americans through government action. [6] Righteousness cannot be enforced by government.

“Religious liberty and separation of church and state are the cornerstones of the American way of life. The Framers of the Constitution designed the First Amendment’s religion clauses to embrace two key concepts: the government will not endorse or oppose any particular religious viewpoint (or religion generally), and will not interfere with the right of citizens to practice their faith. As Thomas Jefferson put it, the American people created a ‘wall of separation between church and state.’” [7] The word “separation” is not mentioned in the Constitution but is allude to in the First Amendment. A thorough reading of the founding documents and the application of common sense should prevail.

Cultural conservatism has been the goal of the Neo-Right since the Reagan years. Americans witnessed the birth of a bevy of highly visible Religious Right preachers with a similar agenda. By 1990 the Free Congress Foundation, a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization founded in July 1974 by Paul Weyrich and Joseph Coors, had both sufficient members and money to target and defeat opponents at will. Chairman Paul Weyrich’s agenda as stated in Dallas in August 1980: “We are talking about Christianizing America. We are talking about simply spreading the gospel in a political context.” This sounds like a lofty, benign goal unless you evaluate exactly which brand of Christianity, among the many denominations, he is promoting. And what if you are not Christian?

When a government accepts and promotes one religion over another and adjusts laws to accommodate that religion, they are interfering with the most basic human right: to worship or not worship God according to one’s own conscience. The Savior did not work through the government to compel individual righteousness. His disciples did not engage lobbyists to travel to Rome to financially reward acquiescent government officials in order to force people to stop committing sin. His disciples did not procure armor and horses and preemptively attack the “evil axis” of their day. They did not encourage their version of our CIA to assassinate non compliant foreign leaders.

His message was a message of peace even to the point of turning the other cheek. Have you personally ever done that? It works – loving your enemy changes his or her heart. Praying for our enemy changes our heart. Religion is feeding the hungry, clothing the naked and visiting the sick. Charitable contributions should benefit individuals who have authentic needs. We shall always have the poor among us. It is up to religious leaders to inspire individuals to keep the commandments according to denominational ideals and principles; if Christian, then follow Him. Rather than focus on the many evils of society, we must each focus on our own sins. We all have them – it is just a matter of degree. I believe in a just God who takes our individual circumstances into account. The proper path to redemption does not require a political trip to Rome or Capital Hill. One begins the genuine journey with a broken heart, humble self-evaluation, repentance, personal obedience, and love of all others. This ultimately brings us peace and leads us to God.

Despite the guarantees of the First Amendment, America is one of the most propagandized countries on the planet due to government regulation, deregulation, selective licensing, discriminatory editing, substantial money from ideology-minded, tax exempt foundations, accelerated, unwarranted promotion of slanted print material, biased partisanship and network privatization. Freedom of the press (any and all media) could easily be redefined: the organizations, corporate, religious or government that maintain any degree of control over America’s information sources have unlimited freedom to willfully indoctrinate or distort our perceptions. As a result, Orwell’s 1984 has become our reality, with its massive “newspeak” vernacular fully functional.

In the last four or more decades, through character assassination, disinformation, misinformation, lack of objectivity, lack of reasonable dissent, deliberate omissions and downright dishonesty, the entire country has been culturally moved to the far right without so much as a whimper. Conservatives and their Religious Right colleagues seized control of the media while claiming they have no voice. One of their ignoble tactics is their unsubstantiated declaration of liberal bias – significantly hyped by checkbook journalists with such titles as Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News, Liberalism is a Mental Disorder, Persecution, How Liberals Are Waging War Against Christians, Godless: The Church of Liberalism, and  Slander.  

Liberalism, once the champion of social justice, is intentionally and aggressively associated with every contemptible, evil aspect of American culture. As a consequence, most individuals are anxious to be defined as conservative which, under the last administration, should be subject to scrutinizing interpretation. Distracted, polarized, lemming-like citizens have been brainwashed, propagandized and ultimately victimized into believing whatever the compromised corporate media dishes out. Too busy watching reality TV, many overlook reality. The masses accept the misinformation about poor suppressed, silenced conservatives because, they contend, how could dozens of claimants be wrong?

Ironically, leaders of the Religious Right, also very visible and vocal, claim media and public censorship of religion and religious phrases and words despite a vast multitude of Christian broadcasters. They are quick to cry bias and just as speedy in demanding additional censorship for those they disagree with by targeting advertisers.

The Trinity Broadcasting Network was founded by Dr. Paul Crouch Sr. and the Christian Broadcasting Network was created by Pat Robertson in 1960. It has had a long and diversehistory. Their trade organization is the National Religious Broadcasters Association which boasts 1600 members who disseminate their messages through radio, television, and the Internet. They claim to reach 141 million listeners and viewers.  Many of these same 1600 entities publish books, email newsletters and magazines. They also maintain substantial snail-mail databases through which they accrue financial pledges, amass huge amounts of cash and disseminate information and political recommendations. Read this very enlightening essay on this organization.

Unfortunately, according to Pew, 30 percent of all Americans obtain their news from talk radio and cable television – many never open a book. A large percentage get their “news” from the Fox Network whose employees receive the morning memo, a directive on how to spin the “news” of the day. Roger Ailes, autocratic president of Fox News, has a throng of “journalists” and guests who push right-wing propaganda disguised as news. They are notorious in their attacks on dissenting opinions. On other stations, people are frequently fired for divulging embarrassing facts. Others censor themselves in order to retain their jobs.

Despite his claim, Bill O’Reilly is not looking out for you; he is looking out for himself while making boatloads of money. In this regard, he is not unique among the Fox personalities, except for his notorious belligerent arrogance. While Fox, owned by Rupert Murdoch, appears to be the most right of center, many stations now promulgate the same government misinformation while demonizing any dissenters. Bill Kristol’s (PNAC*) Weekly Standard, established in 1995, was assisted by a $3 million annual subsidy from Murdoch. [1] Fox Network, experiencing wide viewer acceptance and financial success, has set the standard for other networks. Party propaganda is passed off as news on this alleged “fair and balanced” cable channel. They decide what to report and what to conceal. Don’t rely on news reports to form your opinions of the world or other people.

Obedience-trained Americans, aptly conditioned, often write letters to networks or newspapers that reveal unpleasant facts. Citizens don’t want to know about all the un-American activities that our government initiates in our country or in other countries. So obviously, with a see-no-evil, hear-no-evil mentality, the disobedient but objective journalist is erroneously considered treasonous, unpatriotic, or even worthy of incarceration. Just ask Peter Arnett! The Pentagon pressured CNN regarding Arnett’s enlightening segment entitled “Valley of Death” which revealed Operation Tailwind.

It is the job of the press to censure the government, not the other way around. The press has a watchdog responsibility: “A variety of court opinions have found that the press has an important function as a guardian of democracy and as a check upon governmental abuse. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black perhaps best summarized this vital theme of American constitutional law in his final concurring opinion in the 1971 ‘Pentagon Papers’ case: The government’s power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people.” [2]

“The courts have rejected most attempts by the government to impose prior censorship. The best-known recent example of such a government attempt was the Nixon administration’s call for a permanent injunction against publication of the “Pentagon Papers” by The New York Times and The Washington Post, based on the claim that publication of the highly classified documents on the history of U. S. involvement in Vietnam would cause grave damage to the United States. In a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court determined that the government failed to meet the “heavy burden of showing justification of such a restraint.” [3]

On the other hand, profanity, sexual innuendos and graphic portrayals masquerade as entertainment. Sex, an unfortunate selling point, pervades every aspect of our lives. Family-friendly shows disappeared and were replaced with “adult” programming. Many people were initially shocked. First we abhorred the the so-called entertainment, then we tolerated it and ultimately many have embraced what the networks daily dish out. Cultural tolerance establishes the real standards of programming integrity. People actually watch this rubbish which has incrementally descended from mildly offensive to outright vulgarity. Our “entertainment” reflects our own and the nation’s morality.

Most parents, Democrat or Republican, are justifiably alarmed and concerned for their children. As a result, we are anxiously amenable; we even request and embrace additional censorship laws to protect us from the vileness that pervades the corporate-owned airways. However, we already have federal laws, albeit infrequently enforced, that should suffice.[4] We do not need, nor should we desire, increased censorship but rather enforcement of existing decency standards. Stations have a public, moral responsibility that should supersede financial opportunities. Moreover, parents should supervise their children, and themselves, and not abdicate that responsibility to the government. Ideally, we chose our entertainment – no one forces morally destitute garbage upon the sanctity of our homes.

When broadcast radio began in November 1920, the airwave spectrum, according to official government theory, was in short supply. As a consequence, they determined that it was necessary to license and regulate the use of this public commodity. Obviously, anyone with a political or religious philosophy, product or service wanted airtime. Consequently, by 1922 there were 576 stations licensed by the Secretary of Commerce, Herbert Hoover. By 1925 there were sixty-three stations owned by churches or religious groups. [5] The Department of Commerce sponsored a series of conferences for major broadcasters. At the first meeting, a Westinghouse representative complained to Hoover that certain inferior stations, according to him, lacked substance and recommended that only preferred people be allowed to broadcast with a national limit of 12-15 stations. [6]

The Radio Act of 1927 established the Federal Radio Commission (FRC) which later became the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). In 1929 a set of guidelines known asGreat Lakes Broadcasting Co., apparently based on an acquisition by NBC, was issued by the FRC. Accordingly, a station was to accommodate the “tastes, needs and desires of all substantial groups among the listening public…in some fair proportion, by a well-rounded program, in which entertainment, consisting of music of both classical and lighter grades, religion, education and instruction, important public events, discussions of public questions, weather, market reports, and news, and matters of interest to all members of the family.”[7]

According to the official government story, regulation of some kind was essential due to a barrage of signal interference. Selectively licensing broadcasters solved the dilemma of allocating the alleged limited amount of airwave frequency. Government regulations, regardless of public airwave ownership, surely stifle the free dissemination of ideas in an open marketplace. The airwaves were defined as public property and put under the guardianship of the Commission especially selected by the government. [8]

Possible partisan or religious bias of both broadcasters and government-appointed commissioners was obviously an issue. “The station itself must be operated as if owned by the public….It is as if people of a community should own a station and turn it over to the best man in sight with this injunction: ‘Manage this station in our interest…’ The standing of every station is determined by that conception.” [9] Broadcasters began acting as public trustees and communities apparently made certain naïve assumptions that this charge would never be violated. See this page for a comprehensive discussion about the political ramifications of broadcast policy.

The Communications Act of 1934 [10] established the regulatory Federal Communications Commission (FCC) which began operating on July 11, 1934 with seven commissioners appointed by the President, and confirmed by the Senate. This was changed to five in 1983. [11]

In 1942 the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) was created by conservative evangelicals to raise awareness against those who they felt had abandoned the true gospel of Jesus Christ. “In 1944, the NAE formed the National Religious Broadcasters (NRB), whose goals were more specific to safeguarding access for its conservative evangelical membership to the airwaves, in addition to providing protection from competition with liberal denominational broadcasters and the United States government.” [12]

License renewals depended on compliance to FCC regulations. However, policy changes occurred in 1960 which allowed TV stations to sell additional airtime to religious broadcasters which appeared to fulfill the station’s public interest obligation. So, even more Televangelists began to fill the airwaves as well as their portfolios. Why preach and pass the plate to limited weekly congregations when one could captivate the spiritually starved multitudes willing to commit to monthly financial pledges for legitimate in addition to contrived causes that never culminate with any degree of measurable success.

The National Religious Broadcasters maintains that it regulates its broadcasters and views government regulation as interference. A congressional committee was convened to question the practices and behavior of many broadcasters but it was squelched. “When called before the oversight committee of the House Ways and Means Committee in October 1987, several of the nation’s leading religious broadcasters told Congressman J. J. Pickle (D-Tex.) and his colleagues that they were quite capable of regulating themselves.” [13]

The Fairness Doctrine, adopted by the FCC in 1949, reiterated the earlier policies that directed station licensees to provide ample opportunity for diversity and opposing opinions. As a result, licensees, under the auspices of the Fairness Doctrine, agreed to devote adequate airtime to concerns of public interest and to transmit conflicting opinions about those issues. “They must allow all points of view. That requirement was to be enforced by FCC mandate.” [14] President Kennedy invoked the Fairness Doctrine to challenge the imbalanced right-wing presentations of biased broadcasters. [15]

Mark S. Fowler, a communications lawyer appointed to head the FCC by President Ronald Reagan, aggressively opposed the Fairness Doctrine as well as the First Amendment. “He set about pruning, chopping, slashing, eliminating, burying and deep-sixing fifty years of regulations that guarded against monopolistic practices and excessive commercialism and protected the public interest standard.” [16]

There were some on the right who had manipulated the Fairness Doctrine in order to inculcate right-wing ideology into the media. Phyllis Schlafly, a Reagan revolution promoter, favored its retention but she was out-maneuvered by people like Terry Dolan. He was the co-founder and national chairman of the 300,000 – member National Conservative Political Action Committee (NCPAC) and organized and headed the Conservative Alliance (CALL). In 1984 NCPAC received $775,000 from Rev. Moon, a foreign entity. Dolan stated that the secret of fundraising, used to target opponents, is to “make them angry and stir up hostilities.” “The shriller you are, the easier it is to raise funds. That’s the nature of the beast.”[17] He raised 7.6 million in 1979-1980 and spent 3.3 million targeting Democratic senators. [18] “Most of the $1 million NCPAC spent on independent expenditures during the 1980 Senate races financed attack ads against incumbents. A NCPAC target could face as many as 72 negative radio ads a day and 200 television commercials per week, well before the election.” [19]

Billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife, heir to the Mellon banking, oil, and aluminum fortune, finances many right-wing activities through his organization Landmark Legal Foundationwhich was set up to influence education and attack EPA regulations. Scaife also used this foundation to challenge the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine. The Heritage Foundation, conservative right-wing think tank, also supported repeal. [20] The Landmark Legal Foundation receives donations from the Sarah Scaife Foundation, Scaife-funded Carthage Foundation, Castle Rock Foundation, and the John M. Olin foundation. Exxon Mobil has also made donations. [21]

The Fairness Doctrine, along with diversity, fairness, equal time and objectivity was rescinded in 1987. Television and radio stations were no longer required to present both sides of important or controversial issues nor give equal time to candidates. [22] Objectivity was replaced by opposition to anything contradictory to the party line. Apparently this mentality also applied to religion. The majority of all religious programs may be classified as conservative evangelical. Most, despite denomination, appear Republican-friendly. However, it is important to remember that the Religious Right does not represent every evangelical or every Christian.

The Religious Right merged with the conservative movement after the Communist boogeyman was vanquished and then, because of sheer numbers, ultimately began dictating Republican Party policy. This also includes discontinuing government funding to secular groups in favor of Religious Right groups. Right-wing fundamentalists, with a great network of committed members, were primed to take on society’s demons and clean up the country. The pious conservative crusade, accelerated in the last twenty five years, is often driven by bigotry, social intolerance and fanaticism under the umbrella of traditional values and a perverted interpretation of compassion. Cleaning the inner vessel has given way to cleaning up the whole country through government intervention.

It is difficult to perceive where the influence of the Religious Right ends and the Republican Party begins. Are the blind leading the blind in this symbiotic relationship? Falwell, now deceased, and Robertson both blamed liberalism for the events of 9/11, almost before the towers fell. However, it didn’t take too long before the Religious Right focused their antagonism at Islam, the new “axis of evil.” Franklin Graham, who led Bush’s inaugural prayer, denounced Islam on television as “a very evil and wicked religion.” Reverend Jerry Vines, a past president of the Southern Baptist Convention, which had strong ties to the Bush administration, called the Muslim prophet Muhammad a “demon-obsessed pedophile.” These remarks were widely reported in the Arab press but somehow failed to make the “fair and balanced” Fox News. [23] No wonder 70% of evangelical leaders assume that Islam is a “religion of violence.” Given the number of Iraqi deaths since Christian America’s invasion, it would appear that Christians are the most violent.

America has approximately 2,000 denominations – Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, Atheists and others. America is also full of sin. In political planning, particularly among the secret society elite, nothing is coincidental. The prevalence of sin would easily pave the way for the merging of religion and government. Politico-religionist activists, assuming the moral high road, are attempting to redeem America through government regulation while trashing the just law of the land – the Constitution, a secular document meant to protect each individual regardless of religious status.

*Project for a New American Century

Maneuvering the religious feelings of others to enhance one’s political career or influence voter acceptance is certainly not a new device. Hypocritically manipulating votersfor any ulterior motive is an egregious yet common practice. However, integrity is not a characteristic that we usually attribute to politicians – despite personal claims of religiosity. In fact, such claims should immediately arouse suspicion. Political rhetoric is professionally contrived to evoke emotion and support. After an election, when power reveals character, actions define motives more than campaign rhetoric as officials continue to solicit support for self aggrandizing programs that function in favor of the power elite, alias big contributors, while falsely promising benefits to the populace. If one will not uphold their oath to the Constitution which includes the phrase “so help me God,” why would we expect him or her to honor promises to their constituents – mere strangers at best?

A candidate’s religiosity should not play any part in the election or appointment process. George W. Bush asserts that he is a Christian. Whether he is sincere or not is insignificant unless he makes domestic or foreign relations decisions based on his ideology. Apparently his conversion was a direct result of his attempts to save his marriagefrom the effects of his habitual drinking. Did Bush’s new Christian piety replace his allegiance to Skull and Bones, the same secretive order that his father and grandfather had embraced? If we are to evaluate a tree by its fruit then what can we surmise from Bush’s actions? Are preemptive wars that have killed thousands of men, women and children compatible with Christianity? How about the death penalty? Do tax breaks for the wealthy fulfill Christ’s admonition to “feed the hungry and clothe the naked?” True Christianity is not just rhetoric but Christ-like behavior. Thomas Jefferson stated: “It is in our lives and not in our words that our religion must be read.” [1]

Genuine religion is a personal matter between an individual and God, not a contrivance to capture constituency support. Some presidential candidates have rightfully regarded religious preferences as personal. John F. Kennedy said: “I believe in a president whose views on religion are his own private affair, neither imposed upon him by the nation or imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office.” [2] Kennedy told the Greater Houston Ministerial Association: “I do not speak for my church on public matters and the church does not speak for me.” He reminded the religious group that other faiths had experienced intolerance in the past and could again. “Today, I may be the victim, but tomorrow it may be you.” [3]

George Washington wrote: “I have often expressed my sentiments, that every man, conducting himself as a good citizen, and being accountable to God alone for his religious opinions, ought to be protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience.” [4]

Thomas Jefferson wrote only one book, Notes on Virginia, which clarifies his opinions about religious freedom. In a letter to Benjamin Rush, he said “Religion is a subject on which I have ever been most scrupulously reserved.” Further, he stated “I have considered it as a matter between every man and his Maker, in which no other, and far less the public, had a right to intermeddle.” [5]

There should never be a religious litmus test for any political or appointed office. Article Six states: “but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” [6] According to Bush, so-called activist leftist judges would not be appointed because he, contrary to Article 6 of the Constitution,[7] said the following: “I believe that it points up the fact that we need common sense judges who understand that our rights were derived from God. Those are the kind of judges I intend to put on the bench.” [8] Technically our “rights” were determined by constitutional law or more precisely by the court’s interpretation of that constitutional law.

A litmus test on abortion is a deceptive, distractive, “horse already out of the barn” false carrot instigated for the majority of Americans who view this practice as abominable. Roe versus Wade was passed by 7 out of 9 judges based on a faulty interpretation of a document that guarantees life, liberty and happiness for every citizen. Abortion was deliberately legalized by a stacked court as a divisive, “divide and conquer” tactic. New Right political strategists turned abortion into an issue that energized the Religious Right into a mass movement. It brought people together, Protestants and Catholics, who had never before participated in politics. The images of dead babies propelled new political activists to evaluate other issues and ultimately mobilized and utilized them to facilitate the whole right-wing agenda. [9]

Both men and women want abortion repealed – enough citizens who will gladly endorse candidates who employ right-wing rhetoric regarding abortion. Candidate acceptance on that one issue cements voter approval despite questionable history, secret society affiliation, and other problematic issues. We idealistically elect candidates or approve of officials who portray themselves as anti-abortion but who eagerly, for self-promoting motives, vote against the Constitution in dozens of other vital issues such as CAFTA, the formation of the North American Community, suspension of the Geneva Conventions, acquiescing to preemptive war and other life-changing, Bill of Rights slashing issues. Naïve Americans put all their eggs into the abortion or marriage amendment basket – two moral issues that we have no ability to change or control no matter how many donations we make to organizations or political candidates who manipulate those issues for huge financial gains. There is no comprehensive litmus test to cover all of the evil designs that are created in the secret society board rooms of the financial elite.

Karl Rove, a long-time Bush operative, counseled Bush in his 1978 run for a Texas congressional seat. Still around in 2004, Rove, the evil genius, political attack strategist, advised the candidate to endorse a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. It was a political device designed to draw additional conservative votes. Religious leaders could then urge their parishioners to support this “compassionate conservative” who understood their moral concerns.

The very vocal, government-approved Christian Right has opposed civil rights for homosexuals for the last three decades. James Dobson claims that homosexuality undermines our entire society and is hurtling us towards Sodom and Gomorrah. What next – yellow insignias to define specific citizens not worthy of civil rights? One group should not exercise so much influence! Yet they seek to strip the rights of unpopular cultural minorities by pressuring the government. They send out tons of direct-mail appeals, employ voter blackmail against public officials (who should represent everyone) and have the means to employ expensive lobbyists.

It is more than just a matter of same-sex marriage. They could just as well have proposed an amendment against infidelity but that would have embarrassed a myriad of politicians who, only after being discovered, confess their indiscretions. The whole issue became more important with the passage of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts in 2003. Currently, in many states it is legal to fire an individual discovered to be gay, despite their job performance. Landlords may evict or refuse to rent to homosexual individuals. Laws have been enacted in some localities that ban such discrimination. The Christian Right opposes these antidiscrimination laws. [10]

Despite anyone’s feelings about homosexuality, no one should be targeted because of their personal moral decisions. Our rarely-read founding documents guarantee life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for everyone – including gays and lesbians. A government regulation that seeks to control our God-given agency in order to prevent certain behaviors is a satanical tyranny. The federal government does not have the constitutional authority to impose a moral code on the masses no matter how morally-depleted society has become.

To cement Bush’s Christian image, an alleged “documentary” was “independently” produced by Grizzly Adams Productions Inc. to counter Michael Moore’s anti-war movie Fahrenheit 9/11, which was released October 5, 2004. Supposedly, according to the introduction, this right-wing film was produced without involvement from Bush or his handlers. [11] This purportedly inspirational film, George W. Bush: Faith in the White House was loosely based on two books: Tom Freiling’s George W. Bush: on God and Country and David Aikman’s A Man of Faith: The Spiritual Journey of George W. Bush. It became available in Christian bookstores by August 30, 2004, just in time for the Republican convention in New York, and in mainstream stores by October 5, 2004. It was marketed for $14.95 but they freely distributed the DVD to as many as 300,000 churches, a very small expenditure considering the value of such a political endorsement. No one in this documentary acknowledged the constitutional boundary between church and state or the tax-exempt issue. [12] Interestingly, the churches that showed this film were not threatened by the IRS. What about churches that express anti-war sentiments?

When evangelical property developer and FITWH executive producer Ted Beckett was asked about the problems in the Middle East he replied, “I see it basically as a conflict between Christians and the religion of Islam, which is a religion of hate.” That statement sets the tone of the piece which reinforces the Bush theory that it’s best to rule unquestioningly from the Mouth of God.” [13]

Some Christian conservatives attended an invitation-only, no-press-allowed “Family, Faith and Freedom Rally,” on August 31, 2004 brought about by the efforts of Ralph Reed, former Christian Coalition Director, and Senator Sam Brownback as part of the Bush campaign. Brownback told the crowd: “We must win this culture war.” He also condemned same-sex marriage, abortion and criticized the principle of separation of church and state. [14]

Not content to merely return their man to the White House, after the 2004 election Focus on the Family warned their supporters, the “values voters,” about the grave “moral issues” and the activist judges that continue to put our nation in peril. In an email to their supporters Focus on the Family said: “The future of our nation is still in danger. We must be careful to not only protect what has been won, but move forward aggressively, pressing for the pro-family, pro-life and pro-mortality agenda we believe in. In other words, we must strike while the iron is hot.” [15] Many of the questionable judges were, in fact, appointed by Republicans but this exaggerated issue creates a viable diversion for right-wing activists and the complicit media.

“According to Time magazine, after Bush’s re-election, a group of evangelicals, known as “The Arlington Group,” wrote Karl Rove a letter signed by former presidential candidate Gary Bauer, Don Wildmon, Focus on the Family’s James Dobson, Paul Weyrich and Jerry Falwell demanding that Bush not waver and support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Rove is credited with turning out millions of fundamentalist voters in the 2004 presidential election. Rove also managed to turn out hundreds, if not thousands, of evangelical and fundamentalist election ‘fixers,’ who ensured that Democratic votes were suppressed, miscounted, undercounted, discounted, and not counted.” [16]

Several Catholic field coordinators were hired by the Republic National Committee to visit Catholic churches to urge support for George W. Bush. This is certainly counter to the First Amendment as well as IRS tax exempt policies. During a visit to Pope John Paul II, Bush’s top aids asked the pope’s advisors to push pressure on American bishops to become ensconced in politics and involved in cultural issues during the impending reelection campaign. [17]

Stylishly suited political candidates hire Madison Avenue type media advisors, speech writers and even religious advisors to properly package themselves for voter acceptance. George W. Bush hired David Barton as a religious advisor during his 2004 campaign. Barton, a dedicated history revisionist spin master, is also a well-known opponent of the religious clauses of separation of church and state contained in the First Amendment. [18] Barton was the vice-chair of the Texas Republican Party. George W. is certainly not the first to employ a religious advisor – his father used the same tactics for the same objectives.

Perception management is crucial on the campaign trail where winning is everything. He managed the move to the White House – twice. How has that elite “victory” impacted the civil and religious freedoms of other Americans?

Presidential candidate George H. W. Bush hired evangelist Doug Wead, a divorced Assemblies of God preacher as a consultant in order to “galvanize the Religious Right.”[1] Wead helped prepare Bush by acting out the part of televangelist Pat Robertson in a months-long series of exhaustively researched and well-financed mock presidential debates. [2] He coached the elder Bush on evangel-speak to help him connect with Christian fundamentalists.

A little more than a decade later, George W. Bush, already proficient in evangel-lingo, also hired Wead, the consultant. Evangelicals immediately recognize Bush as a professed “born-again Christian.” [3] Wead, unbeknownst to Bush, taped many of their telephone conversations over a two year period of time. “The conversations spend much time on Bush’s religious beliefs and his courting of the evangelical right.” [4]

After Bush had become president he told Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, “God wanted me to be president.” [5] Post election, Bush’s propagandists, like David Frum, could employ phrases like “axis of evil” for Bush’s State of the Union address on January 29, 2002.[6] It was sweet to the ears of his Religious Right constituency. Bush is surrounded by theocon handlers like Frum, author of The Right Man: The Surprise Presidency of George W. Bush. Chapter one opens with “Missed you at Bible study.” Frum co-authored An End To Evil: What’s Next in the War on Terror with Project for a New American Century (PNAC) charter member Richard Perle. Frum, like other Bush associates, has the perfect credentials – he was a senior fellow at the foundation-financed right-wing Manhattan Institute for Public Policy Research from 1995 to 2001. [7]

Bush’s first use of the word “crusade” was five days after 9/11 and divulged his Christian Zionist mentality. He said: “This is a new kind of — a new kind of evil.  And we understand.  And the American people are beginning to understand. This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while.” [8] This fallacious war on terror did not start with 9/11. Bush’s crusade, the Iraqi Invasion, was repackaged and expensively sold as Operation Iraqi Liberation and then Operation Iraqi Freedom. The benign words “liberation” and “freedom” are Orwellian 1984 “newspeak” used to deceptively evoke support for long term warfare. Bush recently discontinued using the ambiguous phrase “stay the course.” He was asked its meaning at a news conference on Oct. 11 but refused to be pinned down. [9]

“Stay the course means keep doing what you’re doing,” he said. “My attitude is, don’t do what you’re doing if it’s not working; change.” [10]

He added: “Stay the course also means don’t leave before the job is done. And that’s — we’re going to get the job done in Iraq. And it’s important that we do get the job done in Iraq.” [11] And what job is that – the establishment of permanent military bases on one of the earth’s biggest oil fields?

With continuous support from distinctive Christian theocons, Bush professes that the Iraqi quagmire is a “good versus evil” crusade and that he is on God’s errand. On June 4, 2003, Bush reportedly said: “God told me to strike at al-Qaeda and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East.” [12] He doesn’t mention that al-Qaeda and Saddam were both established and financed by the CIA. Nor does he acknowledge that monstrous sums of taxpayer dollars are pumping up administration-friendly companies who make millions of dollars as a result of the Iraqi invasion. Claiming that God approves of the horrific death toll and continuing violence against non threatening foreign citizens is a shameful effort to cover the stench of death emanating from theMiddle East.

James Robison, the televangelist, met with Karl Rove and Governor George Bush who told him: “I feel like God wants me to run for president.” … “I can’t explain it, but I sense my country is going to need me. I know it won’t be easy, on me or my family, but God wants me to do it.” Robison set up a meeting with a group of major Pentecostal and Southern Baptist preachers who gathered around Governor Bush to lay hands on him. At another meeting “one pastor led a prayer asking God to ‘put the mantle of a champion’ on Bush.” [13]

You define a tree by its fruit. George Bush invaded Iraq without just provocation despite his claims: “See, free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don’t attack each other. Free nations don’t develop weapons of mass destruction.” [14] America, a “free” nation, manufactures the majority of the world’s weapons, even those used against our own military during warfare. America, a “free” nation, invaded Iraq. According to Bush’s prerequisites, are we peaceful, are we free?

Laura Bush, revising history, claimed: “No American President ever wants to go to war. Abraham Lincoln didn’t want to go to war, but he knew saving the union required it. Franklin Roosevelt didn’t want to go to war—but he knew defeating tyranny demanded it. And my husband didn’t want to go to war, but he knew the safety and security of America and the world depended on it.” [15]  Humanitarian justifications are always used by the privileged elite, before or after the assault, to gain sympathetic support and to recruit canon fodder.

George W. Bush repeatedly claims that he has a direct pipeline to God. When discussing the imminent Iraqi invasion with Pat Robertson, “Bush insisted that he had a more direct pipeline to God than the pope!” [16] In 2003, Bush appeared before a cheering crowd at a Dallas Christian Youth Centre and told them about being “born again.” Behind him were two banners: “King of Kings,” and the other declared “Lord of Lords.” “The symbolism of how fervent Christianity has become deeply entwined with the most powerful man on the planet could not have been stronger.” [17]

This highly effective visual prepared for the impressionable is similar to the cleverly maneuvered “Mission Accomplished” exploitation on the correctly re-positioned USS Abraham Lincoln (minus San Diego in the background) when he gave a speech May 1, 2003. [18] The USS Abraham Lincoln and its sailors waited offshore for hours instead of heading into port after its 10-month voyage. Or, how about staged publicity production with the troops as props at Fort BraggVisual manipulation appears to be a tactic employed by the best of the Bush handlers, genius Karl Rove, “one of the most brilliant political operatives ever.” [19]

In addition to using religion, “Rove re-packaged Bush as a brand. Instead of a Yale graduate who was scion of a blue-blood Connecticut family, Bush was presented as a straight-shooting Texan. Instead of showing off his 10,000 square-foot house on an estate that is larger than the Kennedy and Kerry compounds combined, Bush told everyone he lived on a ranch. Instead of defending his being the only presidential candidate ever convicted of a felony (drunk driving), Bush shifted the debate to President Clinton’s adultery. While hobnobbing with Enron CEO Ken Lay, indicted Tom DeLay and influence-peddler Jack Abramoff, who has pled guilty to bribery of top government officials, Bush adroitly ‘positioned’ himself as a drugstore, truck-driving man.” [20]

“According to the General Accounting Office (GAO), Bush spends more than four times on PR than any of his predecessors. His PR department has twice as many employees as the Clinton administration. Public relations agency Ketchum was paid more than $1 million in taxpayer funds to produce video PR releases designed to look like news reports. The Bush administration used $240,000 of taxpayer money to pay conservative commentator Armstrong Williams to promote Bush’s education policies.”[21]

It is all about perception management and Bush’s expensive PR team will use any issue and spend any amount to create the right facade. Bush is a multi-faceted international bank puppet who functions according to any given situation or congregation, Jewish[22] or Christian.

“Religion is the most dangerous energy source known to humankind. The moment a person (or government or religion or organization) is convinced that God is either ordering or sanctioning a cause or project, anything goes. The history, worldwide, of religion-fueled hate, killing, and oppression is staggering.” [23]

“Religious crusades are often counterproductive; they tend to end up in unsustainable occupations of people who — surprise! — believe they have their own pipeline to the Almighty.” [24] Three years plus after the American invasion of Iraq, Americans are still dying along with thousands of Iraqis in a war purportedly against terror. Iran is also in the cross hairs. [25] The only benefactors are HalliburtonKBRBlackwaterCaci and L3Titan who are stepping over bodies to pick up dollars.

Jerry Falwell, the religious leader of a 501C3 organization, endorsed Bush by saying: “I believe it is the responsibility of every political conservative, every evangelical Christian, every pro-life Catholic, every traditional Jew, every Reagan Democrat, and everyone in between to get serious about re-electing President Bush.” [26] The New York Times, July 16, 2004

In certain cultures individuals attribute godly characteristics to their top political leader. Bush facilitates this belief because he represents himself as having a prophetic style of direct communication with deity. With God’s alleged stamp of approval, attested to by numerous religious leaders, it is easy to manipulate the constituency. On July 9, 2004 he told an Amish group: “I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn’t do my job.” [27]

Jim Jones’s history may hold an answer to this phenomenon. “He not only proved the obvious fact that people are blinded by their religious beliefs and will only impute goodness, mercy, and religious motivations to their leader, but Jim Jones proved the efficacy of the basic teaching of Machiavelli: a leader must only appear to have the qualities of goodness—he need not actually possess those attributes.” [28] The illusion of goodness proves as effective as goodness itself.

“In fact, Machiavelli taught that it is dangerous for a leader to practice goodness. Instead, he must pretend to be good and then do the opposite. Machiavelli taught that a leader will succeed on appearances alone. A good leader puts his finger to the wind and changes course whenever it is expedient to do so.” [29]

“After the Sept. 11 attacks, the White House carefully scripted the religious service in which the president declared war on terrorism from the pulpit of the National Cathedral. The president declared to the nation, ‘our responsibility to history is already clear: to answer these attacks and rid the world of evil.’ With most every member of the Cabinet and the Congress present, along with the nation’s religious leaders, it became a televised national liturgy affirming the divine character of the nation’s new war against terrorism, ending triumphantly with the ‘Battle Hymn of the Republic.’ War against evil would confer moral legitimacy on the nation’s foreign policy and even on a contested presidency.” [30]

“A simplistic ‘we are right and they are wrong’ theology rules out self-reflection and correction. It also covers over the crimes America has committed, which lead to widespread global resentment against us.” [31] Power, without principle, is tyranny. Proud nations or people, who suppose moral superiority, employ religious sentimentality and arrogantly boast in their own strength are frequently left to their own devices and ultimately fall into decadent destruction.

Jim Wallis reminds us that it matters more that we are on God’s side instead of claiming God is on our side. Does God really play favorites when both sides pray for assistance? Does God really care about who wins the high school football game? Shouldn’t any issue, particularly a life and death situation, be decided by correct principles rather than who has the most advanced weapons, a preemptive advantage, questionable motives and the most money and men?

Before the invasion, Bush said to a group of church leaders at the National Association of Religious Broadcasters conference in Nashville that he was totally “at peace” about striking the “evil” Saddam Hussein. “If anyone can be at peace, I am at peace about this.” Apparently this invasion had more to do with Bush’s religious ideology than anything else that would possibly warrant an invasion. Paul O’Neill, in his book The Price of Loyalty, states that “ideology ruled the White House.” “Ideology is a lot easier, because you don’t have to know anything or search for anything.” … “You already know the answer to everything.” [32]

General William G. “Jerry” Boykin, Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence, appeared at the Good Shepard Community Church in Boring, Oregon in June 2003, not the first or last of such an event. During his multimedia presentation he said: “Now ask yourself: Why is this man in the White House? The majority of Americans did not vote for him. Why is he there? … He’s in the White House because God put him there for a time such as this. God put him there to lead not only this nation but to lead the world in such a time as this.” [1]

He  further stated, “We in the army of God, in the house of God, kingdom of God, have been raised for such a time as this.” This is reminiscent of the Old Testamentphrase: “and who knoweth whether thou art come to the kingdom for such a time as this?” [2] Some commentators, like Patrick Buchanan, saw nothing wrong with what Boykin said. Others viewed any hint of criticism as an attack on Christian values by the equally devious Democratic Party. [3]

The concept that “God installed Bush” was disseminated by naïve pastors to numerous congregations. Consequently, prior to the Iraqi invasion, James Merritt, a former Southern Baptist Convention president, confirmed Bush’s self-proclaimed status as “God’s man for this hour” particularly because of the events of 9/11. [4] So God installed Bush as a defender, someone to lead Americans into an immoral war? Yet this concept was circulated throughout Christendom and Bush became the new leader of the religious right in America.

Another subtle selling of the Iraqi invasion is defined in the best-selling book series Left Behind by Reverend Timothy LaHaye, one of the original founders, along with Jerry Falwell, of the Moral Majority. LaHaye is a past president of the Council for National Policy, a secretive forum, created in 1981, for leading U.S. conservative political leaders, financiers and religious right activist leaders. Hatching secretive plots behind closed doors has always been productive to the elitists. How many earth-shaking, secret societies does the average person belong to? As mentioned in previous articles, Prescott, George H. W. and George W. Bush were or are life-long members of Skull & Bones, also known as the Brotherhood of Death. Prescott, grandfather of George W, provided financial aid to Hitler through the Union Banking Company of which he was president. [5]

LaHaye’s novels, written with collaborator Jerry Jenkins, are allegedly based on biblical prophecies about the return of Jesus after a battle between God and Satan. It may have been what inspired the Southern Baptist Conference, the largest Protestant denomination, to support the war in Iraq, despite their official 2000 policy. [6] Evangelicals consistently supported the Bush administration’s campaign to democratize Iraq more than most other domestic religious groups according to polls conducted in 2006 by both Pew and Zogby International. [7]

Many religious leaders have denounced America’s current warfare. Of course, because of tax-exempt issues, they cannot preach an anti-war sermon without IRS agents descending on them. [8] Religious leaders who sanction the war, with its death and mutilation, never receive visits from the IRS for discussing political issues. War-loving leaders, with their minions, are not unique as evidenced by former crusades, large and small. Bill Press suggests the following criteria that should be met before America engages in warfare:

  • ·        There must be a just cause for a war.
  • ·        A just war can be waged only as a last resort.
  • ·        The ultimate objective of war must be to bring peace.
  • ·        There must be serious prospect of success; bloodshed without hope of victory cannot be justified.
  • ·        The war must be declared by a legitimate authority; no private individuals or groups can launch a war.
  • ·        The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered.
  • ·        Noncombatants must not be intentionally harmed.
  • ·        Prisoners and conquered peoples must be treated justly. [9]

Iraq did not perpetuate 9/11 and had no plans or the military capacity to attack the United States. [10] Anti-war, demonized Democrats are not seen as compassionate, caring, or even Christian but are simply vilified as unpatriotic or un-American. Yet, despite their alleged “godlessness,” they regularly appear more Christian and compassionate than the religiously correct Republicans. I am not a Democrat or a Republican; I am a Constitutionalist.

Some theocons, assembled as the Apostolic Congress, worked “hand in hand” with Bush to develop domestic and Middle East policies. Apparently, congressional officials abdicated their responsibility to others who dictated policy compatible with their “end-time rapture” objectives.

The problem was not that George W. Bush discussed policy with people who demanded right-wing solutions to achieve peace in the Middle East, or with devout Christians. It is that he is discussed policy with Christians who didn’t care about peaceful objectives at all but were focused on a rapture and the resulting peace. [11] On the other hand, Bush rejected Jim Wallis’ invitation to meet with his organization, Call to Renewal, to discuss peaceful, weaponless alternatives to the Iraqi invasion. [12]

Nonetheless, Bush did accept a suggestion from Wallis before the inauguration: In December 2000, Bush met with Wallis and thirty or more clergy members in the classroom of a Baptist church in Austin, Texas. Bush enquired: “How do I speak to the soul of the nation?” Additionally, Bush and Wallis talked about their personal life journeys. Bush said: “I’ve never lived around poor people,” Wallis remembers Bush saying. “I don’t know what they think. I really don’t know what they think. I’m a white Republican guy who doesn’t get it. How do I get it?” This is certainly not a shocking statement from a member of the elite country club set – born in the lap of luxury with the proverbial silver spoon in his mouth! His privileged status, rather than any personal qualifications, installed him at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Wallis replied: “You need to listen to the poor and those who live and work with poor people.”

Bush immediately called his speechwriter, Michael Gerson, who was in attendance, and said, “I want you to hear this.” A month later, Bush, in a speech said an almost identical line – “many in our country do not know the pain of poverty, but we can listen to those who do.” His speechwriter added Wallis’ empathetic words to Bush’s inaugural address. [13]

Self-righteousness, frequently a by-product of fundamentalism, is dangerous whether it is Christian, Islam, or any other religion. Dr. Calvin Morris, executive director of the Chicago-based Community Renewal Society, told World Magazine (Marvin Olasky is the magazine’s editor-in-chief), “It is ironic, and dangerously so, that the present Bush administration rails against the religious fundamentalism of the Taliban and Al Qaeda, while asserting a similar fundamentalism of its own. This administration needs to realize that God is not an adherent of American foreign policy, but a God above all nations and ideologies.” [14]

The “crusade” against terror, now under another title, is stripping citizens of their constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms. War on anything – drugs, poverty, crime, cancer, Aids, pornography or terrorism – is bogus. Most frequently it constitutes money going from the voter’s pockets into the pockets of big business without any recognizable benefit to the citizens. The government’s current “war on terrorism” constitutes a war against individual freedoms. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, in speaking about military warfare, reminded us: “A state of war only serves as an excuse for domestic tyranny.” [15]

Daniel Webster said: “I apprehend no danger to our country from a foreign foe… Our destruction, should it come at all, will be from another quarter. From the inattention of the people to the concerns of their government, from their carelessness and negligence, I must confess that I do apprehend some danger.”  [16]

Any leader who wishes to accrue power, distract the citizens from social or economic problems or improve ratings frequently uses war, now without the troublesome ordeal of constitutional congressional approval. Bush, the self-described messenger of God who prayed for strength to do the Lord’s will, was not troubled about shredding the U.S. Constitution. [17]

Some fundamentalists attempted to establish a “God-centered government” with total control over every aspect of our lives. This intolerant control eliminated all religious freedom, except that proscribed by the ruling party. Our government is only obliged to punish illegal behavior, not satanically exercise control over individual beliefs and conscience. Many Christian fundamentalists endorse punitive punishment, harsh sentencing for all criminals, nuclear war, and starving sanctions for tens of thousands. They have adamantly endorsed death, yet vehemently opposed, often with violence, abortion. Was it or is it genuine opposition or simply “stone-throwing” judgments against assumed “evil” behavior or is it about unrighteous dominion (control)? What is it with some Christians who justify selective violence? Where is Christian mercy in this so-called godly-genocidal war?

Across the globe, our military is enforcing democracy on oil-rich Iraq while obliterating evil-doers – that is, anyone who resists occupation. Hitler focused on the Jews, Bush, not as definitive, focused on obscure terrorists and open-ended warfare. Not surprisingly, Hitler joined a secret society, the Thule Society in 1919 whose membership later became the foundation of the Nazi Party. [18] He apparently did whatever was required to gain support and power including the manipulation of religion. Hitler said: “Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.”[19] Hitler, despite claims to the contrary was an alleged Christian; he manipulated the religious populace and successfully, subtly merged religion and politics, with appropriate photo ops and speeches, all for political power with its inherent financial perks and big bucks for the military-industrial-complex. It is all about control, money and the resources of the earth!

German Soldiers wore belt buckles inscribed with the following: “Gott mit uns” (God is with us). Hitler’s troops were frequently sprinkled with holy water by the priests. Before fascism, before Hitler and his political power grab, facilitated by the Reichstag fire, Germany was a Christian country whose obedient citizens were programmed and propagandized to blindly follow all authority figures, political and ecclesiastical. No questions asked! “The Nazis demonized and then destroyed their enemies, after first intimidating and then liquidating their domestic opponents.  The German propaganda machine cranked out misinformation and outright lies in the state-supported media, suppressing the truth and threatening anyone who dared to speak or print opposition to the war regime.” [20] Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. said: “Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal.”

Historian Alan Bullock said: “Hitler never abandoned the cloak of legality; he recognized the enormous psychological value of having the law (as well as the church) on his side. Instead, he turned the law inside out and made illegality legal.”

Repetitive war indoctrination and American imperialism have replaced the Sermon on the Mount. Twisting the scriptures for theocon political objectives is trusting in the “arm of flesh.” [21] We need to distinguish truth amongst the “many kinds of voices” abroad in the land. None of them are without significance. [22] Christians need to wake up, speak up and stand up for genuine Christian ideals!

One of the fourteen defining characteristics of fascism is: “Religion and Government are Intertwined – Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government’s policies or actions.” [23] Obviously, the common religion in America is Christianity.

Sinclair Lewis said: “A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side.” [24] “When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the Flag – and Carrying a Cross.” [25]

Allegedly, scripturally-based churches granted allegiance to the government and their mass mutilation and killing of strangers. Do we actually believe that the lives of foreigners have less value than our own? Silent Christian spectators acquiesce to and even participate in those atrocities, fueled by ardent nationalism and indoctrinated against an alleged enemy. We are not answerable to our government employees (the elected). We cannot justifiably say “I was just following orders.” The government is accountable to the electorate. We are all, however, accountable to God.

According to the globalists, the Constitution must be crushed in order to establish global governance. Every freedom must be revoked; the Bill of Rights must be misrepresented with persuasive propaganda from the most trusted sources. The entire deceptive operation must appear to benefit the masses. It must be shrewdly executed with focused determination or the populace may awaken and revolt.

The religious persecution that drove settlers from Europe to the British North American colonies sprang from the conviction, held by Protestants and Catholics alike, that uniformity of religion must exist in any given society. This conviction rested on the belief that there was one true religion and that it was the duty of the civil authorities to impose it, forcibly if necessary, in the interest of saving the souls of all citizens. [1]

Religious intolerance and persecution is rampant in many countries. Because of the religious intolerance directed at my own ancestors I am adamant about separation of church and state. Religious reformer John Rogers, a distant but direct ancestor (11th great grandfather), was burned at the stake on February 4, 1555 at Smithfield, near Warwick, Nottinghamshire, England during the reign of Mary Tudor. He was a close associate of William Tyndale and an editor of the “Matthew Bible.” Rogers was the first British Protestant martyr under Queen Mary. “On the Monday morning of his death, the Sheriff had shown Rogers a document promising pardon if he would recant. ‘That which I have preached with my lips will I seal with my blood,’ was the answer.” [2]

The Constitution established our federal government. That document is a two way agreement; it is every citizen’s social contract with their government. Accordingly, all of our rights are protected – except the ones we willingly give up. Driven by government-provoked fear, we frequently give up sovereignty for alleged security. We are relinquishing, little by little, our God-given freedoms and will eventually wake up enslaved in a tyrannical, controlling state.

Mass persuasion by public officials, news commentators, teachers and some church leaders falsely claim that we live in a democracy rather than a republic. Some of those same individuals claim that “separation of church and state” is not a constitutional concept. Repetitive lies, accepted as fact, soon gain acceptance by those who fail to read the available documents. “The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly… it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over.”— Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Propaganda Minister.

Individual rights were completely absent from the first draft of the Constitution. “Unless assured that a bill of rights would be passed, many states threatened to withhold ratification of the Constitution. Consequently, in 1789, the First Congress of the United States adopted the first ten amendments to the Constitution, known collectively as the Bill of Rights. Ratification of these amendments by the required number of states occurred in 1791.” [3]

First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Madison’s first draft of the First Amendment read: “The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretence, infringed.” [4] It is highly significant that religion, of all the liberties embodied in the Bill of Rights, is the very first freedom mentioned. The First Amendment, possibly the most important in the Bill of Rights, enumerates five freedoms: religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition. Those God-given freedoms facilitate individual participation in the process of self-government.

The Bill of Rights pertains to and was designed to protect the individual rights of each and every person. The specific tenets of the Bill of Rights were not rights granted to the government, an artificial body created by the citizens. The right of “free exercise” pertains to individuals, not to government. Therefore, a government entity or any person representing that entity cannot claim or seize “free exercise.” The “free exercise” of an individual’s religion, not the government’s religion, is constitutional. Consequently, a government employee may not constitutionally direct any type of religious observance while functioning in that government-sponsored occupation.

The Religious Right and their minions endorse their versions of school prayer. My children attended school to study math, grammar, penmanship, history, biology, science, and to enhance their already developed reading skills. I did not send them to school to learn to pray. We pray regularly in our home and at church. Citizens should not be obligated to pay taxes for students to learn how to pray. Given America’s diversity, what kind of a prayer would it be: Catholic, Baptist, Seventh-day Adventist, Episcopalian, Jewish, Methodist, Mormon? Which students are going to feel discomfort or suffer mild to aggressive persecution for not being the “right” religion? Will the students who belong to the “right” religion feel compelled to openly pray for the “sinful” student – to save his or her soul from hell? Governments should not sponsor any activity that contributes or provokes persecution or aggression towards others based on religion or ethnicity.

“The Establishment Clause thus stands as an expression of principle on the part of the founders of our Constitution that religion is too personal, too sacred, too holy, to permit its ‘unhallowed perversion’ by a civil magistrate. Another purpose of the Establishment Clause rested upon an awareness of the historical fact that governmentally established religions and religious persecutions go hand in hand.” [5]

Thomas Jefferson stated: “No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises of the civil authority.”

Despite the intentionally secular foundation of the constitution, there have been and will continue to be controversial court cases, many perpetuated by stables of high-priced attorneys retained by different factions of the Religious Right to publicize the questionable premise that America’s Christians are consistently persecuted. The actual objective of such lawsuits is to outrage the voters who will then demand specific religious freedoms even if it means incremental loss of religious freedoms or discrimination for others. The very people who should make every effort to protect religious freedom are, in fact, jeopardizing it.

In colonial times, many European monarchs referred to their nations as Christian countries. However, sinners and hypocrites comprised the bulk of their local populace. Nations, like people, are defined by their national character and moral fortitude. To the colonial, Roger Williams, residency in a particular place did not equate to Christianity. [6] Likewise, given our duplicitous propensity for class discrimination, abortion, offensive war, the economic destabilization of other countries and deathly sanctions, referring to America as a Christian nation casts super serious doubt upon our interpretation of a Christian.

Many, particularly in the Religious Right, claim that the United States was established as a Christian nation rather than a free nation. They perpetuate this erroneous theory in order to attract other morally upright people who might naïvely embrace the Religious Right’s spurious agenda. However, to appeal to others, they downplay the word “Christian” and include others they may have previously attempted to discredit as non Christian. “By referring more ecumenically to the United States as a religious nation, they invite other religious traditions to join a family-values crusade launched originally by a particular form of Christian faith.” … “A shift in rhetorical strategy to widen political appeal does not affect the substantive issues at stake.” [7]

Every decent person is for “family values” but not through government enforcement. People who endorse separation of church and state do not hate religion! Justifiable objections arise when some “Christian leaders” demand that their particular version of religion be incorporated into the nation’s laws.

In every age, religious advocates have attempted to influence others through government enforcement. Individuals seeking political office frequently use religion to draw support from the religious community. Campaign customs have significantly changed in the last four to five decades. Candidates discuss ideology instead of specific political issues that detrimentally affect every single citizen. View one of John F. Kennedy’s campaign speeches and then evaluate contemporary candidate rhetoric – it is a night and day difference.

The founding fathers had respect for religion and it is because of that respect that they resisted some of the religious leaders of the day and refrained from merging the operations of government with religion. To serve Dominionist goals, it is relatively easy to harvest ambiguous quotes from the founders that appear to endorse the merging of church and state. There are sufficient public examples that history revisionists use to “prove” that religion and politics are compatible.

The phrase “In God we trust” is on our money as a result of the pressure and ranting of Horace Bushnell, a Connecticut preacher, who said that the Civil War was “divine retribution” for America’s acceptance of “speculative and infidel” ideas that government was not ordained by God. It is a blasphemous insult to put God’s very name on worthless paper printed by the international bankers who hijacked our economy and are currently draining America’s resources. The majority of people may actually trust money and the power it gives more than they trust God. In today’s corrupt climate, anyone can literally “buy anything in the world for money” and it is outrageous to attach God’s name to filthy lucre, made filthier by the mass destruction that it causes in the hands of those who seek total control.

“Render, therefore, to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s.” –Mark 13:17 and Luke 20:25

Blaming Lincoln’s war of northern aggression on infidels is akin to some current religious leaders who claim that 9/11 is the result of our country’s homosexual tolerance. Falwell remarked: “I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say ‘you helped this happen.’” [8]How discomforting that some religious leaders, who have similar, though secret lifestyles, reject individuals and dispel them from their midst rather than inviting everyone into their realm in order to love and teach them. Isn’t it time that we separate church and hate. What happened to true worship – emulation?

Perhaps Falwell’s apology was insincere considering that he continues to define others in negative terms such as being anti-Christ. This “Christian” preacher’s unabashed comments are regularly heard in the “conservative,” administration-friendly media. [9] This is so radically different from his methodology before he combined his abilities with those who spearheaded the most current assault on the religious clauses within the First Amendment.

The suddenly star-struck Falwell was a typical preacher who understood the gospel process up until his merger with the ultra conservative New Right. Falwell said the following during the civil rights movement of the 1960s: “We have a message of redeeming grace through a crucified and risen Lord. Nowhere are we told to reform the externals. We are not told to wage a war against bootleggers, liquor stores, gamblers, murderers, prostitutes, racketeers, prejudiced persons or institutions, or any other existing evil as such. The gospel does not clean up the outside but rather regenerates the inside.” [10]

Changing society begins with changing oneself. Religious practitioners need to address the individuals in their congregations – that is their job. The churches must get back to doing what they are supposed to do – not lobby government officials to instill additional mountains of repressive, bigoted regulations designed to disenfranchise certain groups and strip others of their individual freedoms. That is hardly moral or just. Morality, especially from an apparently immoral human entity like the government, cannot come from the top down. It will deliver quite the opposite.

Many prefer fast food religion rather than repentance and “feasting upon the word of God.” Repentance changes hearts which then results in better behavior including a desire to bury the weapons of war, support peace and view one’s alleged enemies in a completely different light. Good behavior as a result of government enforcement, a function that many want the government to assume, does not impact the heart and soul.

Personally, I would not entrust a government that kills the citizens of weaker countries with the task of saving my soul. Nor would I trust the very vocal religious practitioners who support such senseless slaughter. It appears that many individuals, including religious leaders, have created the “Uncle Sam” golden calf. Rather than self-reliance, a by-product of accepting responsibility and repenting for one’s own behavior, many rely upon “Uncle Sam” to solve every dilemma or enforce better behavior. It is all a diabolical deception to strip us all of our free agency and the very ideals and principles we cherish.

Opposition in all things, necessary for personal growth, allows for the existence of evil, personified by Lucifer, provocateur of all contention. Lucifer, the usurper, stealthily strives to strip everyone of their freedom, establish his allegedly classless, democratic dominion by working through compliant, ego-driven leaders seeking “the glory of the world.” Armed with the enticing temptations of earth’s abundant treasures and pleasures, just imagine Lucifer’s success rate when he offers even more prosperity and power to unprincipled people. Lucifer and his insatiable minions seek totality through force and thus must rule with “blood and horror on the face of the earth.” Lucifer has always induced certain character-weak, often morally-compromised individuals to unite into secret societies or associations to carry out his ultimate, opposing-God objective of a New World Order.

Though the “powers of darkness prevail upon the earth,” we “know not the hearts of the men in our own nation” particularly because many Americans suffer from a media-induced state of ignorance. We are over-run with secret societies, where power-seeking participants swear allegiance to each other through secret oaths. They are all working towards the same satanical objective and attempt to function and influence every aspect of society and culture. Nations that uphold the disease-like spread of secret societies, large or small, are ripe for destruction.

“Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms; that made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners?” [1]

From the Civil War forward, war has been poured out upon all nations. Many erroneously believe that the Civil War was about abolishing slavery, a despicable institution. The war was about tariffs, protecting certain industries and ultimately strengthening the federal government. The fallacious justification of liberating the slaves followed the deaths of at least 618,000 people. [2] War was unnecessary – there were alternatives. The same neoconservative do-gooder, “ending tyranny in our world” [3] mental manipulation is used in the current “democracy-building” efforts of the U.S. Bringing liberty to the world, America’s quest, apparently requires demolition of infrastructure, bombs, bloodshed, carnage, depleted uranium, white phosphorus or napalm, occupation and permanent military bases. War and reconstruction produce big money and thin out the population on both sides.

Bloodshed and famine attend the carnage of combat and rumors of wars. [4] Rumors of war (hearsay) are frequently propagated by corrupt, compromised officials to justify preemptive “shock and awe” bombing campaigns against defenseless civilians. We resist taking the first shot but rather rely on sanctions or embargoes to provoke response. If those fail, responding to a Northwoods style attack would be justified.

The U.S. battleship Maine sank as a result of an explosion in Havana Harbor on February 15, 1898. This was during William McKinley’s presidency. He was known as a defender of the gold standard. He was against a full-blown war, preferring diplomacy instead. Though it was later determined to be an internal explosion, it was blamed on the Spanish. After hearing reports of Spanish atrocities in Cuba, the U.S. “liberated” the Cubans. Americans continue to fall for the atrocity claims. Combat ensued betweenAmerica and Spain which culminated on August 12, 1898. Two days later, the U.S. sent 11,000 occupational troops to the Philippines. The Filipinos resisted the U.S. liberation for three years. [5] An estimated 200,000 to 1,000,000 Filipino civilians were killed. Approximately 16,000 Filipinos were killed in combat. By contrast, only 4,200 American soldiers were killed. [6]

For $20 million dollars Spain ceded the Philippine Islands, Puerto Rico and Guam to the United States in the Paris Peace Treaty signed on December 10, 1898 and ratified by the United States Senate on February 6, 1899. It became effective on April 11, 1899. “Many people did not approve of America seizing territory far from its shores, but McKinley, who agonized over the decision, finally approved the takeover.” [7]

McKinley was re-elected in 1900 and was shot on September 6, 1901 at 4:07 p.m. at the Pan-American Exposition in Buffalo, New York by an alleged emotionally demented anarchist, Leon Czolgosz. Patsies are always young, demented and alone. McKinley died of his wounds on September 14, 1901 and was succeeded by pro-war Theodore Roosevelt. [8] It is significant that of forty-three presidents, eight have been the target of “assassins.” Four of those presidents died. [9]

In some instances, politicians have very personal reasons to comply with their New World Order handlers. Woodrow Wilson, son of a Presbyterian minister, had the financial and political support of the Rockefellers, Jacob Schiff, Bernard Baruch, and others in his successful 1910 bid for governor of New Jersey. Coincidentally, they also had the love letters he wrote to Mary Peck, his mistress while he was president of Princeton (1902-1910), for which they paid $65,000. [10] Therefore he made the perfect morally compromised presidential candidate. He was certainly not the first or the last who was installed because of the contents of his private closet.

Paul Warburg, a Republican, contributed a substantial amount of money to Wilson’s presidential campaign. His brother made similar contributions to the incumbent William Howard Taft. Theodore Roosevelt, the third candidate and opposed to a central bank, ran under his new Bull Moose Party. George Perkins and Frank Munsey of the J. P. Morgan Company poured money into both the Roosevelt and Taft campaigns which split the vote and gave the election to Wilson. [11] A financial coup took place in 1913. We are financially insolvent. Our national treasures have been seized by international loan sharks.

In 1916 President Woodrow Wilson said: “I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world. No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.” [12]

Wall Street financed the Chinese revolution of 1912, the Mexico Revolution in 1915-16, the Panama Canal controversy of 1913. “The purpose of the revolution was to deprive Colombia, of which Panama was then a part, of $40 million and to acquire control of the Panama Canal.” [13]

Wall Street financed the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917 prior to World War I. “Documents in the State Department files demonstrate that the National City Bank, controlled by Stillman and Rockefeller interests, and the Guaranty Trust, controlled by Morgan interests, jointly raised substantial loans for the belligerent Russia before U.S. entry into the war, and that these loans were raised after the State Department pointed out to these firms that they were contrary to international law. Further, negotiations for the loans were undertaken through official U.S. government communications facilities under cover of the top-level ‘Green Cipher’ of the State Department.” … “Clearly the Morgan-Rockefeller interests were not interested in abiding by international law. … There was no hesitation on the part of these firms to use State Department facilities for the negotiations. Further, in spite of protests, the State Department allowed the messages to go through.” [14]

“During World War I Germany raised considerable funds in New York for espionage and covert operations in North America and South America. It is important to record the flow of these funds because it runs from the same firms — Guaranty Trust and American International Corporation — that were involved in the Bolshevik Revolution and its aftermath.” [15] An estimated six to twelve million Russians were killed by Stalin prior to World War II. Several million were killed after the war when Roosevelt delivered one-third of Europe to Stalin as part of the settlement conferences. [16]

The planning of the Second World War started in 1919 after Adolf Hitler had joined a secret society called the Thule Society. The Society was not a working-man’s group as it included amongst its members: “judges, police-chiefs, barristers, lawyers, university professors and lecturers, aristocratic families, leading industrialists, surgeons, physicians, scientists, as well as a host of rich and influential bourgeois.” The membership of the Thule Society also became the foundation of the Nazi Party. [17]

Wall Street financed Hitler and his proposed 1,000 year Reich. It was supposedly a failure but it produced profits and supplied the United States with practical experience through CIA-transplanted German war criminals who were expert in segregation and concentration camp logistics, propaganda tactics, group-think mentality, crisis psychology via the orchestrated Reichstag fire and continued medical and eugenics experimentation. “The Rockefeller Foundation helped found the German eugenics program and even funded the program that Josef Mengele worked in before he went to Auschwitz.” [18] Former “enemies,” now associates contributed their scientific “expertise” to the ongoing globalist momentum in America. The devastating chaos of World War II, with death, destruction and the political realignment of the nations – divvied up with previous allies now redefined as cold war “enemies,” failed to implement the New World Order.

What was referred to as the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), America’s first intelligence agency, established June 13, 1942, developed world-wide clandestine capability and employed almost 13,000 men and women. [19]

One of the functions of OSS was to organize and conduct psychological warfare. Psychological warfare, a propaganda tactic with any government that wants to marshal the troops, includes “a constant repetition of fabricated atrocity stories which are designed to prove that the enemy were all ‘bad guys’ who had to be eliminated so we ‘good guys’ could live in peace.” [20]

“OSS, ended on October 1, 1945, trained many of the leaders and personnel who formed the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Their ranks included four future Directors of Central Intelligence: Allen Dulles, Richard Helms, William Colby, and William Casey.” [21] Personnel and the assets ultimately went into a new organization called the Central Intelligence Group (CIG) until the National Security Act of 1947 turned CIG into the Central Intelligence Agency. CIA ranks have swollen dramatically since then probably to include a patsy department where people are properly schooled as perpetrators yet who make dramatic appearances in public prior to their “crime” and leave sufficient evidence for miraculous discovery.

“Allen Dulles was the OSS chief of European operations during World War II and was quite active in post-war covert schemes, such as Operation Paperclip and Operation National Interest, to move Nazi personnel and assets out of Germany and into the American sphere.”

George Herbert Walker, along with partner Averell Harriman, established W. A. Harriman & Co. Bank in November 1919. In 1926 Prescott S. Bush was installed as Vice-President of W. A. Harriman & Co. In 1928, W. A. Harriman bought Dresser Industries, paying $4,000,000 for Dresser’s corporate stock and made it a public company by issuing 300,000 shares of stock. Neil Mallon, with no experience in the oil business, was installed as company president. Prescott Bush was the banking representative who helped finance the deal that established Dresser and served on the company’s board. [22] Dresser produced the incendiary bombs that were used on Tokyo. [23] Dresser also made gaseous diffusion pumps for the Manhattan atomic bomb project. [24] Prescott financed Hitler through the Union Banking Corporation[25]

In 1931 Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. merged with W. A. Harriman & Co., the railroad empire. The Harriman railroads shipped oil for John D. Rockefeller of Standard Oil. Samuel P. Bush, father of Prescott, owned Buckeye Steel Castings Co. which manufactured parts for the Harriman railroad company. [26] During World War II Prescott was a director of two companies – Dresser Industries, oil field equipment manufacturer, and until recently a part of Halliburton, and the second was Vanadium Corporation of America. “They were both involved in atomic energy projects.” [27]

“George H. W. Bush worked for Dresser Industries in several positions after the war, from 1948-1951.” [28] Dresser Industries acquired M.W. Kellogg, an oil services company, in 1988. On September 29, 1998, Dresser formally merged with rival company Halliburton. Dick Cheney, a long-time member of the CFR, negotiated the $7.7 billion deal. [29] Halliburton then issued 176 million new shares of its common stock to Dresser shareholders. [30] On 10 April 2001 the Dresser division (excluding the former Kellogg division) entered an agreement to separate itself from Halliburton because of “more than 300,000 asbestos claims filed against a Dresser subsidiary located in Pennsylvania that made construction products containing the substance.” [31] Halliburton “split its operations into two distinct entities in order to protect its assets from the asbestos litigation. Halliburton positioned Kellogg, Brown & Root under Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. [32]

It would have cost Halliburton billions, in both cash and stock, to settle the asbestos claims. [33] This is despite the Bush administration’s attempts to get Congress to limit asbestos liability. But, Arlen Specter has come to the rescue with his Asbestos Trust Fund Bill, purportedly to help victims. I wonder – would this fund assist the numerous victims of 9/11 in as much as the asbestos dissemination was the result of alleged “terrorists,” or would it reduce government financial culpability? Now, Halliburton’s liability will be limited to $450 million. Halliburton, with government contracts, recovered and their purchase of Dresser possibly saved the Dresser stockholders, perhaps even Bush family stock? [34] It wouldn’t be the first time!

Halliburton’s support of Lyndon Johnson resulted in several contracts including the construction of military bases during the Vietnam War. After the Persian Gulf War in 1991, then-Defense Secretary Cheney, who directed our first invasion of Iraq, paid Brown & Root to conduct “a study on the benefits of military outsourcing.” Months later, Cheney paid them an additional $5 million to update the report. “In 1992, Brown & Root was awarded the U.S. Army’s first Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP) contract, an omnibus contract that allows the Army to call on KBR for support in all of its field operations, including combat, peacekeeping and humanitarian assistance.” [35]

“On March 24, 2003, the Army announced publicly that KBR had been awarded five task orders in Iraq potentially worth $7 billion to implement the plan.” “KBR was awarded a $100 million contract in 2002 to build a new U.S. embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan, from the State Department.” “KBR has also been awarded 15 LOGCAP task orders worth more than $216 million for work under ‘Operation Enduring Freedom,’ the military name for operations in Afghanistan. These include establishing base camps at Kandahar and Bagram Air Force Base and training foreign troops from the Republic of Georgia.” “On Feb. 27, 2004, the Coalition Provisional Authority’s Program Management Office in Baghdad awarded KBR a contract worth nearly $51.5 million for “electrical power transmission” in Iraq.” [36]

Many have acknowledged secretive entities, like the CIA, but have been persuaded that this corrupt organization has a legitimate function – like deterring communism or spreading democracy (socialism). It was actually created for several purposes – one of which is assisting multinational business. This often includes assassination, military coups, overthrowing democratic leaders, drug trafficking, staging riots, and destabilizing countries. [1] Natural resources are regularly seized through violent contrived circumstances as a consequence of private allegiances in corporate chambers, secret societies or government offices.

One of the individuals who came up with the blueprint for the CIA was Robert A. Lovett, a former board member of Brown Brothers Harriman. Lovett “was the fourth United States Secretary of Defense, serving in the cabinet of President Harry S. Truman from 1951 to 1953 and in this capacity, directed the Korean War. He was promoted to the position from deputy secretary of defense.” Coincidently, he was a member of the Skull and Bones society at Yale University. [2] Lovett, “father of the CIA,” was nominated for the Brotherhood of Death by Prescott Bush, Neil Mallon, and Roland Harriman. One of George H. W. Bush’s sons was named after Mallon: Neil Mallon Bush, born January 22, 1955. Mallon was a one-time president of Dresser Industries. [3]

Though not CIA, it is interesting that Neil Mallon Bush, of Hinckley and Silverado fame, owner of Austin-based Ignite Learning, founded in 1999, has benefited substantially from the woes of others. Many of the transplanted Katrina victims will use the software program COW, cost of $10,000 per school, as a result of Barbara Bush’s undisclosed, generous, but earmarked, contribution to the Bush-Clinton Katrina Fund. Barbara and son, Neil, presented the program at a special reception to “showcase everyone’s efforts in helping the hurricane evacuee students who ended up in Houston.” Is this an example of the phrase – charity begins at home? “Neil Bush reportedly toured former Soviet Union countries promoting Ignite with Russian tycoon Boris Berezovsky.” [4]

With money from Brown Brothers Harriman, George H. W. Bush, with partners Hugh and Bill Liedtk formed Zapata Petroleum Corporation, an oil exploration company. Bush bought out his partners in 1954 and by 1958 was drilling on the Cay Sal Bank in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico, later used as a base for CIA raids on Cuba. These islands had been leased to Howard Hughes, a huge Nixon supporter, the previous year. “The CIA was using companies like Zapata to stage and supply secret missions attacking Fidel Castro’s Cuban government in advance of the Bay of Pigs invasion. The CIA’s codename for that invasion was ‘Operation Zapata.’” [5] “In 1969, Zapata bought the United Fruit Company of Boston, another company with strong CIA connections.” [6] All Bush and Zapata associated records covering the years 1960 and 1966 were destroyed when Bush became vice president in 1981. Bush was CIA director from 1976-1977.

The CIA supported “Papa Doc” and “Baby Doc” Duvalier, Saddam Hussein, Mobutu Sese Seko, The Shah of Iran, General Noriega, General Pinochet, General Prosper Avril, Ferdinand Marcos, and others. See a defined list of covert activities. When our government, through the monopoly media, demonizes some foreign leader – he has either rejected a big business proposal or is duly elected and serves the best interests of his country rather than the best interests of the U.S.

The CIA created al Qaeda, the database and instigated Islamic fundamentalism by training 100,000 fundamentalist Muslim mujahadeen. “Zbigniew Brzezinski not long ago revealed that on July 3, 1979, unknown to the American public and Congress, President Jimmy Carter secretly authorized $500 million to create an international terrorist movement that would spread Islamic fundamentalism in Central Asia and ‘destabilize’ the Soviet Union… The CIA called this Operation Cyclone and in the following years poured $4 billion into setting up Islamic training schools in Pakistan (Taliban means student). Young zealots were sent to the CIA’s spy training camp in Virginia, where future members of al Qaeda were taught ‘sabotage skills’ – terrorism.” [7] It was Camp Peary, where young Afghans, Arabs from Egypt and Jordan, and even some African-American black Muslims were taught “sabotage skills”. [8]

“Between 1978 and 1992, the US government poured at least $6 billion (some estimates range as high as $20 billion) worth of arms, training and funds to prop up the mujahadeen factions. Other Western governments, as well as oil-rich Saudi Arabia, kicked in as much again. Wealthy Arab fanatics, like Osama bin Laden, provided millions more.”

The Constitution is gone. Despite the orchestrated media distraction, it is a moot point whether someone swears to uphold the Constitution on a Koran, once owned by Thomas Jefferson, or a Bible. Swearing on a bible or anything else hardly demonstrates sincerity but rather provides proof that a majority of our “elected” officials have perjured themselves. One’s word is his/her bond and should suffice – which means no swearing at all. Ron Paul, a Washington anomaly, is possibly the only exception. There have been other elected, ethical officials who recognized and spoke out about the globalist agenda like Congressman Larry P. McDonald who said: “The drive of the Rockefellers and their allies is to create a one-world government combining super-capitalism and Communism under the same tent, all under their control…. Do I mean conspiracy? Yes I do. I am convinced there is such a plot, international in scope, generations old in planning, and incredibly evil in intent.” McDonald, who had announced presidential intentions for 1988, allegedly died on September 1, 1983 aboard flight 007, Korean Airlines (KAL) which purportedly was shot down by the Soviets.  [9]George P. Schultz, then-U.S. Secretary of State, terminated the speedy investigation of the incident in December 1983 by saying that the plane had flown off its scheduled course and had strayed into Soviet airspace. [10]

The presidency and balance of power are gone, usurped by imperialistic puppet kings. The old conservatism that favored less government has been replaced by neo-conservatism. Congress no longer writes laws in the best interests of the citizens – they are busy with campaigning, pork-barrel popularity and entertaining fat cat corporate lobbyists. Many laws originate with presidential executive orders. Wars are undeclared! Citizens don’t declare wars. They just die in them. Wars, with Americans as cannon fodder, are designed to break the U.S. economy and impoverish Americans while enriching the elite. Iran is obviously next on the war agenda.

“The twentieth century was the bloodiest in all history. More than 170 million people were killed by governments with ten million being killed in World War I and fifty million being killed in World War II. In regard to the fifty million killed in World War II, it is significant that nearly 70 percent were innocent civilians, mainly as a result of the bombing of cities by Great Britain and America.” [11] Then there was Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf War and the many unpublicized CIA wars. Meanwhile, some Americans, rather than focusing on America’s brutality, naïvely concentrate on made-in-the-U.S. terrorists – the perfect manufactured enemies!

Population reduction, a globalist goal, allows monopoly ownership of the earth’s resources – less population means more for them! War, famine, suppressed cures for catastrophic diseases, abortion acceptance, and health-destroying, cancer-producing Monsanto monopolized genetically modified foods all reduce world population and produce big profits.

The current orchestrated war on terror, arbitrarily designated after 9/11, has now been expanded to encompass “radicals and extremists,” which may include anyone who dissents, hates asparagus, dislikes certain colors, or attracts any arbitrary official attention. In a tyranny, dissenters may be branded and suppressed. We really have a government carrying out a war against its own citizens. Tantalizing propaganda continues to propel patriotically-energized, well-intentioned individuals, citizens or not, tosacrifice life, limbs and health to “fight for our freedoms,” a euphemism for mass murder to enrich Halliburton, Carlyle, Monsanto, Bechtel and other corporations who win no-bid contracts from their administration pals. Top management executives, closely allied with compliant, powerful government officials, focus on their exorbitant, extravagant, unwarranted corporate compensation packages while veterans struggle for assistance with their war-related depleted uranium illnesses or personality disorders.

“There is no nation on earth powerful enough to accomplish our overthrow. … Our destruction, should it come at all, will be from another quarter. From the inattention of the people to the concerns of their government, from their carelessness and negligence, I must confess that I do apprehend some danger. I fear that they may place too implicit a confidence in their public servants, and fail properly to scrutinize their conduct; that in this way they may be made the dupes of designing men, and become the instruments of their own undoing.” — Daniel Webster, June 1, 1837

All governments, who harbor corruption and usurpation through secret societies, will fail. Throughout history, the power elite, with their alternative agendas, treasonous alliances, have orchestrated government coups, assassinations, national destabilizations and counterfeit “elections” in order to implement the satanical One World Order, also known as Babylon, the great. Naïve Americans have been deceptively duped, through our own “carelessness and negligence,” aided and abetted by the corporate-owned, history-modifying, government-friendly media after the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine during the Reagan administration.

Germar Rudolf said: “Whoever controls the histories of nations controls those nations and their peoples.” Americans often fail to appreciate history’s invaluable lessons. Current events, like 9/11, do not transpire in a vacuum but in well-established patterns. History is prologue. Broadcast “news” is sponsored by companies who are a part of the military/industrial/media complex, allied with a constitution-ignoring government which is compromised financially, morally and ethically.

Wall Street kingmakers decide who gets to be king, in the United States and elsewhere. Then they control the king. The bankers hire and fire:

“Indicative of this was a strange event which occurred in October of 1964. David Rockefeller, president of the Chase Manhattan Bank and Chairman of the Board of the Council on Foreign Relations, took a vacation in the Soviet Union. This is a peculiar place for the world’s greatest ‘imperialist’ to take his vacation, since much of the Communist propaganda deals with taking all of David’s wealth away from him and distributing it to ‘the people.’”

“A few days after Rockefeller ended his ‘vacation’ in the Kremlin, Nikita Khrushchev was recalled from a vacation at a Black Sea resort to learn that he had been fired. How strange! As far as the world knew, Khrushchev was the absolute dictator of the Soviet government and, more important, head of the Communist Party which runs the USSR.”

“Who has the power to fire the man who was supposedly the absolute dictator? Did David Rockefeller journey to the Soviet Union to fire an employee? Obviously the position of Premier in the Soviet Union is a figurehead with the true power residing elsewhere – perhaps in New York.” [12]

Decades ago our government “by the people” was surreptitiously replaced, through the “election” charade, a two party system of orchestrated opposites designed to divide. The republic, based on principled law, was transformed into a decadent cesspool of corruption – socialized democracy, conforming to the Communist Manifesto and controlled by the satanical, seductive power of secret societies. Bureaucratic covert agencies, established by the powerbrokers, supposedly serve the interests of “national security” or “national interests” – ruthless, pitiless pretenses for unmitigated greed demonstrated by the corporate elite minions who seize resources without responsibility or recognition of the rights of other people or countries. Looters, posing as public servants, have also plundered trillions from America’s coffers.

Any legitimate candidates, unapproved for election by the elite establishment, are vilified or exposed for various created infractions. Competency is insignificant – the handlers call all the shots. If per chance, by some fluke, a non compliant person gets elected, as in 1960, then that person may easily be eliminated by a lone gunman Manchurian candidate patsy who is immediately and conveniently made permanently unavailable. As noted previously, airplane mishaps are also effective – notwithstanding the collateral damage of fellow passengers, inconsequential to insiders!

Other influential unelected leaders who successfully lift and inspire others above the Order’s socially engineered class status are also eliminated and replaced with obedient minions who consequently reap wealth, enjoy regular media attention, and habitually play the race card while keeping their brothers in subjection and poverty. Martin Luther King Jr., the non violent civil rights activist, was castigated by the media as a Communist, a former tactic to censure anyone who opposed the elite agenda.

“Despite extensive surveillance, the FBI was never able to find any direct funding or other links between King and the Communist party.” [13] “The FBI began wiretapping King in 1961, fearing that communists were trying to infiltrate the civil rights movement, but when no such evidence emerged, the bureau used the incidental details caught on tape over six years in attempts to force King out of the pre-eminent leadership position.” [14] He openly expressed opposition to the Vietnam War and opposed U.S. involvement in South Africa and Latin America. He was allegedly killed by James Earl Ray, a petty criminal the day after his famous Mountaintop Speech in Memphis, Tennessee.

Changes made under every administration strip our freedoms. The 16th and 17th Amendments were passed during the Taft administration. The Income Tax and Federal Reserve Act, the 16th Amendment, was quietly pushed through congress immediately before Christmas by Senator Nelson Aldrich, maternal grandfather of Trilateral Commission founder David Rockefeller. Most of the lawmakers were unavailable for the vote. The 17th Amendment altered the manner in which senators are elected making it possible to financially manipulate elections.

“This is a startling revelation: $300 trillion of wealth is secretly controlled by an unspecified cabal of the world’s richest families. The power of the Rothschild family was evidenced on 24th September 2002 when a helicopter touched down on the lawn of Waddedson Manor, their ancestral home in Buckinghamshire, England. Out of the helicopter strode Warren Buffet, – touted as the second richest man in the world – and Arnold Schwarzenegger, candidate for the Governorship of California. They’d come to rub shoulders with James Wolfensohn, President of the World Bank and Nicky Oppenheimer, Chairman of De Beers at a two day conference hosted by Jacob Rothschild. Arnold went on to secure the governorship of one of the biggest economies on the planet a year later.” [15]

On Aug 9, 2004, Congressman Ron Paul said: “Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.” [16]

Opposite sides of contemporary wars, particularly from the U.S. Civil War, are typically orchestrated and financed by the international banking cartel for population depletion, resources management, money manipulation and destruction of national economies, redistribution of inhabitants and realignment of borders. Complicit, compromised insiders simulate enemy assaults, demonize “their” chosen military targets in order to provoke anger, recruit cannon fodder and fuel mass insecurity while denouncing all opposition. Dictatorial governments manage perceptions through expensive public relations firms, disseminate disinformation through the monopoly media and propagate flag-waving, self-righteous nationalism to justify offensive invasions. War is the enforcement mechanism of the satanical New World Order.

In January 1943, Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill met in Casablanca to discuss the unconditional surrender of Germany. At the end of 1943, at the Russian Embassy in Tehran, Stalin and Roosevelt drank a toast to the deaths of 50,000 German officers to be shot at the conclusion of the war. Unconditional surrender is an ominous term – it signaled the complete abolition of the German government and loss of all treaty rights, including protection of prisoners under the Geneva Conventions. [1]

In September 1939, prior allies, Stalin and Hitler joined forces in the invasion, dismantling and decimation of Poland. However, Stalin, a genocidal murderer, escaped culpability at Nuremberg for the Katyn Forest slaughter. [2] This 1940 Soviet massacre of Polish prisoners was confirmed by James Bacque during his investigation in the KGB archives after they were opened in 1990.[3] It was also confirmed by Mikhail Gorbachev who, in 1989, produced the actual documents proving that the Soviet Secret Police, by orders from Stalin, murdered 21,587 Polish enemies of the Soviet state and buried them in the Katyn Forest. However, the contrived allegations against the Nazis were useful in fueling America’s hatred against all Germans, rather than the government thugs. [4]

Conquerors, those who have killed the most people, and frequently the conflict instigators often sponsor criminal tribunals for the vanquished – those who run out of money, men, and ammunition or no longer accommodate those who actually control. Many installed tyrants, feeling absolutely justified, actually demand exemption from their premeditated war crimes.

Notwithstanding the proposed “unconditional surrender” terms, Eisenhower gave a speech in Paris in March 1945 asserting that the United States would honor the Geneva Conventions with regard to humane treatment of prisoners, many captured as early as May 1943. Within days of the Paris speech, Eisenhower, without honor, surreptitiously signed an order establishing a deathly DEF (Disarmed Enemy Forces) status for all prisoners, even those who voluntarily surrendered. This action was against the civilized provisions of the Geneva Conventions which the United States signed, along with forty-six other countries, on July 27, 1929. [5] Germany ultimately admitted defeat on May 8, 1945. By June there were between 4,000,000 to 5,000,000 prisoners under Eisenhower’s jurisdiction – all with DEF status.

The Normandy Invasion took place on June 6, 1944. That fall, Churchill, Stalin and Roosevelt agreed to implement the Morgenthau Plan, actually created by Harry Dexter White, which would completely destroy German industry (against Geneva Conventions). Germany’s industry supported their importation of food which they did not produce themselves. Deliberate industrial destruction (by war or massive illegal immigration) results in job loss, homelessness, starvation and death. The official assumptions were that about 40% of the population would die – about 20 million German civilians. Moreover, at the Yalta Conference in February 1945, the victorious three, Roosevelt, Stalin and Churchill, discussed the realignment and dismemberment of Germany.

Henry C. Morgenthau was Secretary of the Treasury. His cohort, globalist Harry Dexter White, part of the department since 1935, was then chief international economist at the U.S. Treasury and “liaison between the Treasury and the State Department on all matters bearing on foreign relations.” [6] White, a treasonous insider agent, influenced the design and development of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank[7] He acted in that capacity at the United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference held at Bretton Woods, New Hampshire where the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), was also established. GATT is a United Nations agency created by a multinational treaty to promote trade by the reduction of tariffs and import quotas.

At the close of World War II, Americans were outraged and horrified by film footage of emaciated, dead bodies being mechanically discarded into mass graves and views of newly liberated individuals, little more than skeletons, filmed in their bleak, barren wooden bunks – abundant evidence of the atrocious criminal behavior by the incompetent, charismatic Hitler and the other amoral thugs who, with Wall Street money,[8] [9] had seized control of the government, orchestrated the Reichstag fire, targeted convenient enemies, quickly suspended personal liberties and instituted national ID under the guise of increased security. I wonder if there was a Reichstag Fire Truth Movement.

One has to wonder why the German populace weren’t outraged enough to speak out against such tyrannical activities. Is it possible that their government worked behind claims of “national security” and “national interests?” The average brainwashed citizen knew nothing about the foreign and domestic activities of their secretive government. All information, propaganda, was controlled by the government. One also has to wonder why ordinary German citizens, guards and military, would obey questionable orders.

Despite pandemic atrocities throughout Europe during that war, the major media focus has always been directed at the Nazi crimes against the Jews, perpetrated in such infamous places as Birkenau, Bergen-Belsen, Buchenwald, and Dachau – names that should remind us of man’s inhumanity to man. However, the Jewish people were not the only victims of the catastrophic satanically-staged New World Order event known as World War II.

The first Nazi camp, Dachau, was established in March 1933 for political prisoners – opponents of the Nazi regime, resistance groups, vocal dissidents and groups deemed racially inferior, such as Jews and Roma (Gypsies). [10] “It was located on the grounds of an abandoned munitions factory near the northeastern part of the town of Dachau, about 10 miles northwest of Munich in southern Germany. During the first year, the camp held about 4,800 prisoners.” From 1933 to 1945 Dachau inmates numbered 188,000. [11]

On May 20, 1940, the Nazis founded, in the Polish town of Oświęcim, the notorious camp, Auschwitz, infamous for sadistic medical experimentations, at the site of an old Polish brick army barracks adjacent to a railroad track, very convenient for merciless mass human transport.

Numerous camps were in Germany, Poland, Norway, Italy, Lithuania, Croatia, Austria, France and elsewhere. They were used for collection, detention, resettlement and extermination. Exact numbers are unknown, but millions, Christians, Jews, Communists were exterminated. The government, for economic exploitation, established camps in the vicinity of factories or industry – essentially labor camps. Perhaps the inmates did the work that Germans wouldn’t do? They built roads, worked in gravel pits, and later in the armaments production for the Nazi war machine. [12]

One of the definitions of fascism is corporate control coupled with a strong, centralized government. Many of the Nazi camps were designed as labor camps for government-friendly German corporations. Cheap labor produces more affordable “toys” for an approving, but thoughtless, populace. Corporations in cahoots with governments often lure cheap labor from poorer countries. Unpaid inmates provide even greater profits.

“Thousands of ‘security suspects’ released from German prisons in the autumn of 1942 were sent to concentration camps and literally worked to death under a program called ‘Annihilation through Work’ (Vernichtung durch Arbeit). Finally, captured members of national resistance movements were sent to concentration camps to be murdered upon arrival.” [13]

Moreover, there were about two hundred additional barbed-wire enclosed camps in Germany that incarcerated between four and five million individuals by June 1945. However, these camps lacked even the barest facilities found in other camps: barracks, laboratories, camp kitchens, infirmaries and latrines. In the absence of latrines, crowded inmates, standing almost shoulder to shoulder, by necessity, often relieved themselves where they stood – a growing quagmire of contaminating putrid mud. Latrines (ditches), where available, were death traps for those who slipped. Food, water and shelter, basic human necessities, were unavailable in these camps although there were sufficient resources available. These were not the German camps, but American camps, supervised by Eisenhower, where thousands of ordinary soldiers, ignorant of their government’s atrocities, ultimately starved and died.

Eisenhower, among numerous other “high” officials, past and current, proves that mediocre individuals frequently ascend any available ladder through complicit connections and stealthy agreements rather than native competence. Even costly ghost-written books, before or after their endeavors, suggest questionable qualifications or fictional legacies.

Americans were not outraged by the atrocities committed in these camps because they were completely ignored by the U.S. media, then and now. Subsidized and sanitized history books produced by The West German Foreign Office under the direction of Willy Brandt provide a long-term cover-up of the atrocities. [14] After the war and unknown to many outside of Germany, more than fifteen million Germans were driven from their homes in central and Eastern Europe. These were trusting civilians who accommodated their tyrannical government. This huge migration was according to the international agreement signed at Potsdam in 1945.

The Geneva Conventions are very clear on treatment of military prisoners. The agreement signed by most major countries on July 27, 1929 purportedly established humane treatment of enemies during World War II. Apparently, the Geneva Conventions meant little to the military leaders in charge. The American Propaganda Ministry consistently generated hatred of the German inmates who they claimed deserved incarceration, lack of basic human necessities and even torture, if necessary. Inhumane treatment at the hands of Germans or Americans is deplorable.

According to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, it is a soldier’s duty to disobey illegal orders. Military personnel may disobey illegal orders from a superior officer, even if that officer is the president. “In each case, military personnel have an obligation and a duty to only obey Lawful orders and indeed have an obligation to disobey Unlawful orders, including orders by the president that do not comply with the UCMJ. The moral and legal obligation is to the U.S. Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders, especially if those orders are in direct violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ.” [15]

Concentration camps did not originate with the Nazis. History books often fail to mention the British use of concentration camps, first used to confine and control large numbers of civilians in South Africa during the second Boer War 1899-1902.  The Americans had Andersonville, Georgia and others during the Civil War.

Most Americans say little about Guantánamo Bay. Politicians who mention the camp, where hundreds are held without charges, are demonized as un-American or soft on terrorists. When the Japanese, even American born, were incarcerated, Americans maintained silence. After all, a Japanese life apparently had less value than an American life, given that America bombed two non military cities allegedly to “save American lives.”

Civilian Japanese internment began March 2, 1942 with Executive Order No. 9066 which was signed by Roosevelt on February 19, 1942. “Relocation centers” were located in California, Idaho, Utah, Arizona, Wyoming, Colorado, and Arkansas.

“Roosevelt’s executive order was fueled by anti-Japanese sentiment among farmers who competed against Japanese labor, politicians who sided with anti-Japanese constituencies, and the general public, whose frenzy was heightened by the Japanese attack of Pearl Harbor. More than 2/3rds of the Japanese who were interned in the spring of 1942 were citizens of the United States.” [16] It takes mass support against a specific group of people to make Concentration camps acceptable. Once they are tolerable for one group – say illegal aliens, they can be appropriated for others – anti-war dissidents, alleged terrorists, enemy combatants or anyone opposing government actions. Of course, this is intended to make the homeland safe. In 1922 when he was establishing the Gestapo, Hitler said the following: “An evil exists that threatens every man, woman and child of this great nation. We must take steps to insure our domestic security and protect our homeland.” Sound familiar?

In March 1942, the U.S. government began seizing the property and assets of Japanese-descended citizens, and the War Relocation Authority was formed to “assist” the Japanese-Americans who were being driven out of several states. By summer, well over 100,000 Japanese-Americans had been “evacuated” from the West Coast to other states and military prison camps. [17] Small similarities to the New Orleans evacuation are merely coincidental. Mass population movements function as social engineering.

The American government has written plans (PDF file) dated January 14, 2005 defining their Civilian Inmate Labor Program. Camps have already been established by nefarious presidential executive orders and through FEMA all over the country. See a complete list here or here. This is not recent but started in the Reagan administration. The Federal Emergency Management Agency plan called REX- 84 was drafted by Oliver North by order of Ronald Reagan.

We didn’t speak out when they arrested and incarcerated the Japanese for their own good. We didn’t speak out when they incarcerated some terrorists in Guantánamo. We were silent when we discovered information about rendition flights. Abu Ghraib was insignificant – it was thousands of miles away and purportedly it was a few isolated incidents. We are incredulous when we hear about FEMA camps in America – not in America, the land of the free. Who will speak out, if not Americans, when citizens are incarcerated for being old, non-productive, non-compliant, homosexual, the wrong religion or race, anti-war, and against high-level treason or critical of the growing state tyranny?

Details of the detainee operations are here as a PDF file. There is also a U.S. Army FM 3-19.40 Military Police (MP) Internment-Resettlement Operations: Military Prisons, Prisoners Of War (POW), Civilian Internees: Field Manual Guide Book available on CD-ROM at Amazon.

See also:

Martial Law Concerns, House of Representatives – March 11, 2003

American Prison Camps Are on the Way: The Military Commissions Act of 2006:

Rex 84: FEMA’s Blueprint for Martial Law in America

Homeland Security Contracts for Vast New Detention Camps

10-Year U.S. Strategic Plan For Detention Camps Revives Proposals From Oliver North by Peter Dale Scott


The Morgenthau Plan and the Problem of Policy Perversion, Paper presented to the Ninth International Revisionist Conference by Prof. Anthony Kubek (A Must Read!)

Long before George W. Bush met with Paul Martin, then Canada’s Prime Minister and Vicente Fox, then Mexico’s president at Baylor University in the miserably memorialized city of Waco, Texas on March 23, 2005, he had a similar meeting in Göteborg, Sweden on June 14, 2001 with Romano Prodi, then European Commission President and Swedish Prime Minister Göran Persson, then President of the European Council. There were several reasons for this media-blacked-out meeting but the essential purpose was the discussion and implementation of the Transatlantic Agenda, supported by both E.U. and U.S. authorities. [1]

The Transatlantic Agenda was adopted on December 3, 1995 at the EU-US Summit in Madrid and signed by William Clinton, then U.S. president and Felipe Gonzalez, then Spanish Prime Minister and Jacques Santer, then European Commission President (1995 – 15 March 1999). The European Commission is the executive body of the European Union. [2] On 1 May 2004 the European Union (EU) undertook an historic enlargement, bringing the total number of Member States from fifteen to twenty five.

Then again from 25 to 26 June 2004, George W. Bush met with Romano Prodi and Taoiseach Bertie Ahern, then President of the European Council in the Dromoland Castle, County Clare, Ireland. [3] They discussed Iraq, the Middle East and counter-terrorism. The summit ended with an agreement between the satellite navigation systems, GPS from the US and the EU’s Galileo system, which secures full interoperability of the two satellite navigation systems. This agreement, initiated in December 1995, was signed by U.S. Secretary of State, Colin Powell, Commission Vice President Loyola de Palacio and Irish Foreign Minister, Brian Cowen. The system will be operational by 2008, possibly to coincide with Real ID[4]

The crux of this media-blacked-out summit: “The EU and the US are committed to a result-driven economic partnership focused on well-identified and mutually beneficial bilateral projects in all areas where better cooperation between governments and regulators can achieve common solutions to concrete problems affecting transatlantic business.” [5] They expanded on the Transatlantic Economic Partnership Action Plan of 1998 and the Positive Economic Agenda roadmap of 2002. Right, we never heard of those meetings or schemes either!

Another issue was non compliance with the WTO, “a legal system set up to regulate and bring order to world trade. As such, upon accession to the organization, WTO members agree to stand by and uphold any decisions that the WTO takes. Full compliance with WTO rulings is therefore one of the fundamental cornerstones on which the continued functioning of the international trade system rests.” [6]

Then there was the summit in June 2005 where they “launched the ‘Initiative to Enhance Transatlantic Economic Integration and Growth.’” And how about the meeting on November 30, 2005 in Brussels, Belgium which was a follow-up to the commitments made at the U.S.-EU summit in June 2005? The U.S. delegation was led by Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez. “The delegations agreed to concrete action plans and timelines to tackle the most significant issues in the trans-Atlantic economy, according to a press release from the Council of the European Union.” [7] There was another meeting on November 9, 2006 where they talked about the Transatlantic Capital Market Integration. [8]

What next – the Amero? That is the least of our worries. While the astute are focused on the NAU there are other issues. Foreign Affairs, published by the CFR had the following to say: “the world economy and the international financial system have evolved in such a way that there is no longer a viable model for economic development outside of them.” [9]

“The right course is not to return to a mythical past of monetary sovereignty, with governments controlling local interest and exchange rates in blissful ignorance of the rest of the world. Governments must let go of the fatal notion that nationhood requires them to make and control the money used in their territory. National currencies and global markets simply do not mix; together they make a deadly brew of currency crises and geopolitical tension and create ready pretexts for damaging protectionism. In order to globalize safely, countries should abandon monetary nationalism and abolish unwanted currencies, the source of much of today’s instability.” [10] Given the CFR’s influence in foreign, national and personal policies, this is significant.

Then on April 30, 2007 there was yet another meeting, mentioned in the alternative media but blacked-out in the mass media. This meeting was entitled: Framework for Advancing Transatlantic Economic Integration Between the United States of America and the European Union with the opening paragraph: “Believing that deeper transatlantic economic integration and growth will benefit our citizens and the competitiveness of our economies, will have global benefits, will facilitate market access for third countries and will encourage other countries to adopt the transatlantic economic model of respect for property rights, openness to investment, transparency and predictability in regulation, and the value of free markets; … [11] There is an Open Skies agreement that will take effect on March 30, 2008 and will allow EU carriers to fly to anywhere in the US and vice versa.” The conspirators reaffirmed America’s commitment to the 2005 U.S.-EU Summit Declaration on Enhancing Transatlantic Economic Integration and Growth in which they “resolved to pursue a forward-looking agenda to enhance transatlantic economic integration and growth, and our commitments from the June 2006 Summit to redouble our efforts to reduce barriers to transatlantic trade and investment and our pledge to keep our investment regimes open and to build on existing investment flows to boost growth and create jobs in the transatlantic economy.” [12]

Further it was stated: “We have identified … projects, selected from the existing work program and other programs within the existing transatlantic dialogue, that will significantly enhance transatlantic economic integration, and we resolve to achieve progress on these projects within six to eight months of the effective date of this Framework, and at latest by the time of the 2008 EU-U.S. Summit.” [13]

There are co-chairs on both sides: “The Transatlantic Economic Council is hereby established, to be co-chaired, on the U.S. side, by a U.S. Cabinet-level official in the Executive Office of the President (embedded January 2005), Allan Hubbard and on the EU side by a Member of the European Commission, Vice President Guenter Verheugen, collaborating closely with the EU Presidency.” [14] Where is our comatose Congress on this “treaty,” this plan to integrate the EU and the United States? Some Americans have been heavily distracted by the North American Union and the open-on-purpose southern border.

So what kind of individual is Allan Hubbard, a huge contributor to the Republican Party? He attended the Bilderberg meetings in 2004 and 2005. The Logan Act specifically states that it is against the law for federal officials to attend secret meetings with private citizens to develop public policies. However, the American government was represented in 2005 at Rottach-Egern by Allan Hubbard, assistant to the president for economic policy and director of the National Economic Council. Others attended as well: “William Luti, deputy under secretary of defense; James Wolfensohn, outgoing president of the World Bank and Paul Wolfowitz, deputy secretary of state, an ideologue of the Iraq war and incoming president of the World Bank. By attending Bilderberg 2005 meeting, these people all broke federal laws of the United States.” [15]So, what else is new? Laws are for the rest of us.

During the George H.W. Bush Administration, big business personalities were placed in key regulatory positions. An effort to weaken certain regulations was led by Vice President Quayle who employed a group called the White House Council on Competitiveness to spearhead the campaign. “In 1991 the Council’s executive director, Allan Hubbard, was accused of a conflict of interest because of his financial holdings in corporations that stood to benefit from a deregulatory agenda. One of those companies was an Indiana chemical producer of which Hubbard was a half-owner.” [16] This company has done business with third world dictators. [17]

“By quashing an EPA recycling regulation that affected his family’s newspaper business, Quayle violated the most minimal ethical standards. One expert bluntly described the vice president’s actions as ‘the common alley-cat breed of conflict of interest.”’  Quayle gave Hubbard a waiver from our conflict-of-interest laws. This waiver allowed Hubbard to participate in clean-air regulatory decisions that directly affected his financial interests. [18] Hubbard owned stock in an electric utility company, another industry subject to new Clean Air Act requirements. In response to these conflict of interest charges the White House displayed a waiver from conflict of interest laws that Quayle granted Hubbard in June 1991. [19]

Hubbard attended Harvard Business School with George W. Bush and appears to travel in like-minded company. Hubbard raised more than $300,000 for Bush’s presidential campaigns and was intimately involved in Bush’s 2000 presidential campaign, holding policy tutorials for the candidate and recruiting other policy advisers for the campaign. “An original Bush ‘Pioneer,’ Hubbard raised more than $100,000 for the president’s 2000 campaign, then made the list of 221 Bush supporters last year who raised more than $200,000 each. He also contributed more than $94,000 to Republican candidates and campaign committees since the 2000 election cycle, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. His wife, Kathryn Hubbard, gave nearly $20,000 more.” [20] Allan B. Hubbard has always been a big Republican contributorfor which he was undoubtedly amply rewarded.

War, financed on both sides by international bankers, desolates lives, destroys economies, depletes resources, moves massive amounts of money and promotes despair, discouragement and dependence within the population and creates more wealth and power for the corporate elite. To the elite, common humanity functions merely as cannon fodder and labor, the cheaper, the better! The purpose of war is profit. War-torn people easily fall prey to the suggestions of the elitists who have ulterior and highly profitable motives in offering security and solace.

People willingly give up their freedoms when threatened. World War II gave rise to the two new super powers: the United States and the Soviet Union, a new enemy, heavily financed by Wall Street and industrialized with our tax money and technology – in Hegelian Dialectical terms – thesis and antithesis. Owning both sides ensures success – like owning both political parties.

Economic warfare directed by the British in an effort to reclaim her American colony began with deflation through the New York Panic of 1920-21. Next was the Crash of 1929. The British banking cabal was instrumental in shaping the Federal Reserve whose policies led to the wild speculation and ultimate crash, during the Great Depression of 1929. [21] The deliberate catastrophic crash was world-wide creating joblessness, hunger, disintegration of production and national bankruptcies.

The U.S. government alleged that the Second World War was caused by serious obstacles to free trade, exacerbated by the financial events of 1929 manifested in Nazi fascism and responsible for the tensions that led to the Second World War. As a consequence of their questionable theory, the conditions of receiving American economic aid included the implementation of a free trade policy.

Winston Churchill, an agent of the British banking cabal, gave a promotional speech at Zurich University on September 19, 1946 which was the first step towards European integration. Europe found integration acceptable for three reasons: awareness of their own vulnerability, to prevent further wars, “to create a freer, fairer and more prosperous continent.” [22]

America gallantly began to fight the “war on communism,” a precursor to the “war on terrorism.” In March 1947, Harry Truman appealed to Congress for funds (tax money) to support anti-communist forces in Greece. He then proclaimed a broad new policy – The Truman Doctrine, to keep communism in check throughout the world.[23] The premeditated provocateur provided U.S. citizens with visions of Armageddon-style annihilation giving our corporate-directed government ample justification for numerous bloody wars, carnage-creating conflicts, clandestine operations and starving economic sanctions against nonconformist countries who wish to retain their natural resources.

On April 16, 1948, sixteen European countries responded to the generous offer of U.S. economic aid through the Marshall Plan, purportedly to impede the expansion of communism. [24] The Organization for European Economic Cooperation (became the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development – OECD in 1960) was established in order to restore Europe’s economy under the Marshall Plan, the economic carrot, but not without conditions. Each recipient had to sign a strict agreement promising to balance its budget, free prices, halt inflation, stabilize its exchange rate and abolish trade restrictions and allocate scarce commodities.  The recipients had to devise a scheme to allocate aid in collaboration with each other. From the beginning America encouraged West European political and economic integration. [25]

America’s economy grew during the war; especially the military/industrial complex – the shipbuilders, aircraft and weapons manufacturers – and they wanted new customers. Conversely, European and Japanese industry and infrastructure were ravished. The Marshall Plan money, by agreement, had to be used to purchase American exports. They would begin their marketing in Europe – what a radical concept for American business. [26] Bomb them and then allow campaign-contributing-businesses to reap the rewards of marketing and rebuilding.

The Treaty of Paris created the benign amalgamation of the countries of Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and West Germany. The treaty was signed on April 18, 1951 and expired on April 18, 2001. These countries were then referred to as the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) purportedly to pool their coal and steel resources, a plan wholly supported by the elitists residing in the United States. [27]

The European Community (originally called European Economic Community) was founded on March 25, 1957 by the signing of the Treaty of Rome. With such common interests as economic, social and trade matters, the manipulated countries easily morphed into the European Union which was created on February 7, 1992 in Maastricht, Netherlands, known as the Maastricht Treaty (formally, the Treaty of European Union, TEU), for the place where it was signed. The treaty was entered into force on November 1, 1993. Down with independence and personal freedoms!

It appears we are on the fast track to the One World Order. With George H. W. Bush giving or selling our infrastructure through an Executive Order and his son, things looks pretty dismal. [28]

Thomas Jefferson said: “I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies . . . If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] . . . will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered . . . The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.” — Thomas Jefferson — The Debate Over The Re-charter Of The Bank Bill, (1809)

Next on the agenda: the full implementation of The North American Union which began as a seemingly innocuous document called the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, just a collaboration to ensure prosperity for adjoining countries and safety from the terrorists, communists, Islamofascists or whichever enemy is currently targeted on the daily Two Minutes Hate segment distributed through the “fair and balanced”, everything-sounds-like-Fox-News, mass media by the Propaganda Ministry.[29]


The Transatlantic Community: Helping Build Peace, Prosperity, and Security in the Greater Middle East

EU/US Merger: New Global Order By Stealth

The New Transatlantic Agenda

There are arguments from both sides of the oil issue: either we are quickly running out of oil or we have adequate oil to meet our requirements for generations. Both sides offer evidence, witnesses, experts and documentation to validate their assertions. Some peak-oil projects, funded by oil companies, are highly suspect. The very credible Lindsey Williams maintains that the North Slope in Alaska has as much crude oil as Saudi Arabia. Governor Frank H. Murkowski said in 2005 that there is enough oil on the North Slope to supply the entire United States for 200 years. [1] Antony Sutton, author of Energy, the Created Crisis, is adamant that we have sufficient oil. Conversely, I have read reports which support the peak oil theory. I personally believe, after research, that “there is enough and to spare.” Doom and gloom, Chicken Little oil scarcity claims have been propagated from the beginning. A scarcity, authentic or manufactured, of any crucial commodity accomplishes the following:

1.     Increases profits to those who manipulate that commodity.

2.     Allows the controllers to determine availability to the “right” people.

3.     In the case of energy – severely impacts lifestyle, progress and prosperity.

4.     Extracts more money from an often overburdened consumer.

Henry A. Kissinger, Rockefeller’s well-compensated, multi-purpose minion and long-time member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) said: “Control the oil and you can control entire Continents. Control food and you control people.” [2] Michael Collon, Belgian author said: “If you want to rule the world, you need to control oil. All the oil. Anywhere.” [3]

The first very memorable “oil crisis” occurred in 1973. Nixon, obedient to his handlers, announced the demonetization of the dollar on August 15, 1971. This allowed time for the “real deciders” to plan their strategy. Eighty-four individuals, financial, corporate and political elitists, gathered at Saltsjöbaden, Sweden for the annual Bilderberg meeting. American attendee, Walter J. Levy, outlined the plan for a pending 400% increase in OPEC revenues, the exact percentage that Kissinger would demand of Saudi Arabian Shah. Their intentions were not prevention but rather a scheme on how to manage the projected abundance of oil dollars – what was later referred to by Herr Kissinger as “recycling the petrodollar flows.” The Bilderberg policy was to initiate a global oil embargo. [4]

An internal memo, dated January 8, 1973, from U.S. Bilderberg official Robert D. Murphy suggested a list of participants for the May 1973 meeting. He stated: “There will be room for only 20 Americans at Saltsjöbaden.” [5]

Those attending included Robert O. Anderson of Atlantic Richfield Oil Co., Lord Greenhill, chairman of British Petroleum, Sir Eric Roll of Siegmund G. Warburg (creator of Eurobonds), George Ball of Lehman Brothers Investment Bank, Henry Kissinger, William P. Bundy, Zbigniew Brzezinski (soon to be Carter’s national security advisor), David Rockefeller, Emilio G. Collado, Executive Vice President, Exxon Corp.; Gianni AgnelliOtto Wolff von Amerongen and Arthur H. Dean, CFR Director (1955-72) and a partner in Rockefeller-oriented Sullivan & Cromwell. Kissinger had requested Warburg to develop the Eurobonds ten years before. [6] A very small scheming elite group, centered in New York and London, influence the economy of the entire world.

The reasons for the “oil shock” were:

1. Launch a colossal assault against world industrial growth.

2. Tilt the balance of power back to the advantage of Anglo-American financial interests.

3. Control the world’s oil flows, their most powerful weapon.

4. Increase the world demand for U.S. dollars. [7]

Egypt and Syria invaded Israel on October 6, 1973 which came to be known as the Yom Kippur War. This war was “secretly orchestrated” by Herr Henry Kissinger, Nixon’s national security adviser as well as Secretary of State. Kissinger effectively managed the Israeli response through his close association with Simcha Dinitz. Kissinger, “Nixon’s intelligence czar,” through privileged channels, misrepresented motives, suppressed communications, and intercepted intelligence reports ensured that the war would progress and end with his “shuttle diplomacy” as planned in May 1973 at Saltsjöbaden. The Arabs, scapegoats for the Elite, were the recipients of the world’s rage and Kissinger was the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize for 1973. [8]

A “fortuitous coincidence” was that, with oil’s huge price increase, British Petroleum, Royal Dutch Shell and other Anglo-American oil companies were able to substantially recoup the millions they had spent in the exploration of the North Sea oilfields. Meanwhile, in Vienna, OPEC countries met and decided to raise their prices by 70% and initiated an oil embargo on all oil sales to the U.S. and the Netherlands (major oil port for Western Europe) because of the U.S. support for Israel in the Middle East War. On October 17, 1973, OPEC demanded withdrawal of Israel from Arab territories occupied since June 1967 and the restoration of the legal rights of the Palestinians. Nixon was in the midst of Watergate, orchestrated by de facto president Kissinger and assisted by Alexander Haig. [9] There are detectable reasons for Kissinger, a Rockefeller asset, to “Watergate” Nixon, a man he detested and swore he would never work for – he didn’t. [10] In addition, the Watergate fiasco distracted the masses from the grave economic situation.

Uninformed Nixon attempted to get U.S. Treasury officials to force OPEC to lower oil prices but was bluntly instructed, via a memo, that the bankers had mandated the dollar “recycling” program to accommodate the higher oil prices. Jack F. Bennett, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for International Monetary Affairs (until July 1974), had counseled Nixon towards his 1971 dollar demonetization decision. Bennett, at Kissinger’s direction and according to an established agreement with the Saudis to finance the U.S. government deficits, had arranged for David C. Mulford to go to Saudi Arabia to act as an “investment adviser” to SAMA. His job was to “guide the Saudi petrodollars investments to the correct banks, naturally in London and New York. The Bilderberg scheme was operating just as planned.” [11]

Led by Exxon, some oil companies had created a short supply of domestic crude oil, supported by Nixon on advice from his aids. By January 1974, oil prices had increased by 400%. In December 1974, nine powerful bankers, including David Rockefeller, approached New York mayor Abraham Beame. They made him an offer he could not refuse – unless he assigned management of the city’s vast pension funds to them – the Municipal Assistance Corporation – then their complicit media cronies would financially destroy the city. This decreased the amount of money available for roadways, bridges, hospitals, schools and the laying-off of tens of thousands of city workers in order for New York City, the biggest city in the country, to service their bank debt. Similar circumstances occurred in other parts of the world: bank collapses, grave trade deficits, unemployment, inflation, and industrial and transportation depression in the more industrial nations. In third-world countries, the consequences were even more severe. [12]

While devastating to the populace, the oil companies flourished: Exxon, Mobil, Texaco, Chevron, and Gulf. OPEC’s petrodollars were deposited into the right banks in New York and London: Chase Manhattan, Citibank, Manufacturers Hanover, Bank of America, Barclays, Lloyds and Midland Bank. [13] These events set the stage for the debt crisis of the 1980s.

The globalist decision of August 1971 to remove the dollar from a fixed, gold-backed exchange rate system generated a shift to double-digit inflation, urban decay, mounting unemployment and excessive interest rates. The Kissinger-orchestrated Middle East oil crisis of 1973-74 was designed to de-industrialize and eventually transform the United States from the world’s largest creditor nation to the world’s biggest debtor nation.

A review of history further helps to reveal ruthless business patterns that have shaped current circumstances – including yet another war resulting in death and bloodshed for the benefit of the greedy, insatiable elite.

Beginning with the Civil War, the opportunistic, monopolistic John D. Rockefeller sold inflated-priced Harkness whiskey to the Federal troops. Recognizing the huge profitability in war with the right commodity, he built his first oil refinery in 1863 along the Cuyahoga River (Ohio) to accommodate the growing needs of the raging Civil War which he and others, like J. P. Morgan, had purchased their way out of for $300.

The Rothschild controlled National City Bank of Cleveland gave Rockefeller his first loan. In 1865 Rockefeller, for $72,500, bought out his partners (Henry Flagler, Samuel Andrews, Stephen V. Harkness) and price-chopped or otherwise destroyed his competitors by purchasing supporting industries such as pipelines, railroad tank cars, terminal facilities and barrel manufacturing factories. He soon incorporated the growing imperialistic Standard Oil Company in 1870 to fully exploit the growing Russian kerosene market as well as the curative “snake-oil” market in the U.S.

In what Ohio historian Christopher Eiben called “a brilliant stroke of corporate back scratching,” “Rockefeller sold shares to bankers who lent him millions and railroaders who gave him great freight deals, including rebates on rivals’ shipments.” [14] “Working through the Wall Street firms of Kuhn, Loeb & Co., and J. P. Morgan Co., the Rothschilds financed John D. Rockefeller so that he could create the Standard Oil Empire. They also financed the activities of Edward Harriman (railroads) and Andrew Carnegie (steel).” [15]

By 1873 Standard Oil, by hook or crook, had acquired about 80 percent of the refining capacity in Cleveland which was about one third of the U.S. total. Interestingly enough, the stock market crashed on September 18, 1873 and created a six year recession allowing Standard Oil to seize refineries in Pennsylvania’s oil region, Pittsburgh,Philadelphia and New York. Rockefeller controlled approximately 90% of the oil refined as well as most of the oil marketing facilities in the U.S. by 1878. [16] Ruthless Rockefeller, who detested competition, founded the first global monopoly and was supplying 90% of the world’s oil, 70% overseas. Great Britain also experienced economic depression in 1873 replete with pandemic unemployment and bankruptcies. Two years later, the Rothschilds provided a sizeable loan (£4,080,000) to enable the British government to acquire a controlling share of the Suez Canal. [17]

Rockefeller had built the world’s biggest business in Cleveland, Ohio. Standard Oil sold over “300 refining byproducts” from Vaseline to chewing gum. In 1882, he created the Standard Oil Trust, suggested by Samuel Dodd, Standard Oil’s attorney, to eviscerate and devour all of the independent oil producers and refiners both nationally (250 competitors in the U.S.) and internationally. A trust is when stockholders in a group of companies transfer their shares to a single set of trustees who control all of the companies which constitutes a monopoly. “In exchange, the stockholders received certificates entitling them to a specified share of the consolidated earnings of the jointly managed companies.” [18] Rockefeller’s “trust” became an example to other “businessmen” who embraced the “trust” concept – always at the expense of the working man. Rockefeller took his growing Goliath to Manhattan in 1883 where he “influenced urban sprawl.” [19]

Russia’s oil industry accelerated in the latter part of the 19th century due to an oil boom at the Caspian Sea town of Baku, which had opened in 1873 and at Galicia (now in Poland). The Rothschild banking family had major interests in the oil-wells of Baku, Russia. Beginning in 1875, Ludvig and Robert Nobel built an oil empire known as the Brothers Nobel, or Branobel, based on oil deposits in Baku on the Caspian Sea. [20] By 1883, Standard Oil’s imports were not as essential to the Russian market for reasons that follow. [21]

Britain’s Marcus Samuel, future founder of Shell Oil, developed tankers capable of carrying oil in cost-cutting bulk transport through the Suez Canal. The maiden voyage of the “Murex,” the first tanker, was in 1892. Remember, Great Britain had a controlling interest in the Suez Canal, thanks to the Rothschilds. Marcus and his brother also established bulk oil storage at ports in the Far East. In addition, they contracted with a Russian group, controlled by the Rothschilds, “for the long-term supply of kerosene” which put them in high-risk direct competition, abhorrent to Rockefeller, with Standard Oil. The Samuel brothers named their company The Tank Syndicate but renamed it in 1897 to the Shell Transport and Trading Company. [22]

Rockefeller and his accomplices felt that they were above the law until the passage of the Sherman Antitrust Act on July 2, 1890, enacted by Congress based on their Constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce. It was signed into law by President Benjamin Harrison. In 1892, the Ohio Supreme Court ordered the disbanding of the Standard Oil Trust, an illegal monopoly. “Standard Oil was subsequently reorganized in 1899 as a holding company under the name of Standard Oil Company of New Jersey. That state had conveniently adopted a law that permitted a parent company to own the stock of other companies.” [23]

In 1896 Standard Oil contributed $250,000 to Republican William McKinley’s presidential campaign against Democrat William Jennings Bryan, a supporter of antitrust legislation. [24] McKinley was opposed to the imperialistic, expansionist Spanish-American War. Yet, to retain office in the next election, he asked Congress to declare war against Spain in 1898. He signed the Gold Standard Act in 1900.

In September 1901, William McKinley, allegedly a Rockefeller tool, was shot by Leon Czolgosz (son of Polish immigrants), labeled as an “anarchist” although he didn’t belong to any rebel groups. Czolgosz was immediately “tried and executed by the Establishment.” The assassination was manipulated by the Establishment to subtly discredit rebellion and anyone who might justifiably dissent. The Elite, in any age, would actually prefer to prohibit dissent. It is similar to our current administration saying: “Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th…” [25] and by implication – let us never tolerate conspiracy theorists.

Following the assassination, various anti-sedition and anti-conspiracy laws were passed by the Establishment. Who benefited by McKinley’s death – Teddy Roosevelt who was supported by the contending Morgan (as opposed to Rockefeller) wing of the Republican Party. Roosevelt immediately started using the anti-trust weapon to try to destroy Rockefeller’s Standard Oil and Harriman’s Northern Securities, both bitter enemies of the Morgan world empire. [26]

Woodrow Wilson, son of a Presbyterian minister, had the financial and political support of the Rockefellers, Jacob Schiff, Bernard Baruch, and others in his successful 1910 bid for governor of New Jersey. They also had the love letters he wrote to Mary Peck, his mistress while he was president of Princeton (1902-1910), for which they paid $65,000. [27] Therefore he later made the perfect, morally compromised presidential candidate. The following unconstitutional acts were engineered during the administration of the obedient Rockefeller minion, Woodrow Wilson:

1913: The Sixteenth Amendment – authorized income taxes (never ratified)

The Seventeenth Amendment – direct popular election of Senators

Underwood Tariff – lowered duties

Federal Reserve Act – created the un-federal Federal Reserve System

Through the years, Standard Oil received bad press as a result of their cutthroat business practices and the muckraking reports of people like Ida Tarbell and writer/activist Upton Sinclair. Rockefeller hired Ivy Lee in 1914 as their public relations manager to clean up their image and appear philanthropic. [28] A public relations professional, with media complicity, also discredits or disgraces any national or foreign opponent.

For decades, voters merely decide to cast a vote – the actual decisions regarding candidates and the orchestrated consequences of those calculated choices are made in covert CFR committee meetings, Bilderberg assemblies, pentagon offices and corporate boardrooms. Voters ultimately suffer the extreme penalties and the elite benefactors, the “deciders” remain unscathed.


The New World Order, by Conquest or Consent?
Part 1
By Deanna Spingola
5 May 2006

Join Email List to receive notification of new Spingola articles

Listen to Deanna read this article – MP3 File

Related articles

The entire banking and financial system is a legalized crime




03 27 12 The entire banking and financial system is a legalized crime, a model for expropriating the wealth of the World’s Peoples.

Open-Ended Bailouts Are Continuing for Big Banks

Federal Reserve Paying Banks Interest Rate That Is Eight Times Market Rate on their owning banksters’ reserve deposits while lending banks at 0%

Federal Reserve Paying Banks Interest Rate That Is Eight Times Market Rate

Robert Scheer on the Fed’s Secret Loans to Big Banks
Geithner and Goldman, Thick as Thieves” — What was Timothy Geithner thinking back in 2008 when, as president of the New York Fed, he decided to give Goldman Sachs a $30 billion interest-free loan as part of an $80 billion secret float to favored banks? The sordid details of that program were finally made public this week in response to a court order for a Freedom of Information Act release, thanks to a Bloomberg News lawsuit.

Bloomberg revealed Scope of Fed’s Financial Swindle Is Appalling (16 trillions by now); Globalists Want to Extract More from U.S. Middle-Class http://americanfreepress.net/?p=1739#more-1739   http://americanfreepress.net/?p=1840

It is difficult to keep track of all the different means the financial industry continues to use to fleece the public. The biggest one is of course that the private central bankers and private commercial bankers (some of whom have part ownership in the central bank) create money from nothing which is a model for expropriation through legalized counterfeiting. http://www.powerofthepursemovie.com/ YEAR: 2010,  RUNTIME: 4+ Hours, WATCH HERE   PART 1     PART 2

Illuminati Bankers Organized the English Revolution. The private central bank of England was set up as the money/usury making machine thereafter in 1694, counterfeiting money legally. At that time, the punishment for counterfeiting without a banking license was death by being thrown in boiling water.


Wall Street Confidence Trick: The Interest Rate Swaps That Are Bankrupting Local Governments


As long as the private banksters create money from nothing, i.e. legalized counterfeiting, andhide behind the shield of corporation personhood, LLC liability exemption and government guaranteed loans, expropriating from THE PEOPLE and again passing their liabilities on the taxpayers, the ordinary family will continue to be reduced to perpetual and permanent poverty.

http://www.batr.org/totalitariancollectivism/100911.html  The Federal Reserve is a Cache of Stolen Assets

Money as Debt http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YS88F7Bw2AQ&feature=related

EU Monetary System in a nutshell from France: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8fDLyXXUxM&feature=player_embedded

Subject: Banks claim they’ve repaid the Tarp bailout funds … but nearly half of the banks “repaid” such bailout funds by borrowing from other government bailout funds

23 trillion and counting… all the ways private central banks and their bond dealer owners screw us

Banks claim they’ve repaid the Tarp bailout funds … but nearly half of the banks “repaid” such bailout funds by borrowing from other government bailout funds

Posted on March 25, 2012 by maxkeiser| 7 Comments

Open-Ended Bailouts Are Continuing for Big Banks

By Washingtons Blog – March 25th, 2012, 1:30AM

Big Banks Continue to Suck at the Government Teat With Never-Ending Stealth Bailouts

We’ve previously documented the fact that bailouts of the big banks are continued in stealth mode up to the present day.

True, the banks claim they’ve repaid the Tarp bailout funds … but nearly half of the banks “repaid” such bailout funds by borrowing from other government bailout funds (and the rest could only repay money by fudging their accounting and using stealth bailouts which are are a little harder to detect).

Indeed, the government has decided on perpetual bailouts for the too big to fail banks.

Some of the ongoing stealth bailouts include:

  • And the fed is going easy on the big banks in many other ways as wells

But the biggest ongoing bailouts include interest rate spreads, interest on excess reserves and other constant streams of bailout revenue:

There are so many rivers and streams of bailout money going to the big banks, I will start with the specifics and end with broader monetary policies.


The TARP bailout is peanuts compared to the numerous other bailouts the government has given to the giant banks [and even the numerous rounds of quantitative easing are a drop in the bucket compared to stealth bailout programs].

And I’m not referring to the $23 trillion in bailouts, loans, guarantees and other publicy-disclosed programs that the special inspector general for the TARP program mentions. I’m talking about more covert types of bailouts.

Like what?

Mortgages and Housing

*** PhD economists John Hussman and Dean Baker, fund manager and financial writer Barry Ritholtz and New York Times’ writer Gretchen Morgenson say that the only reason the government keeps giving billions to Fannie and Freddie is that it is really a huge, ongoing, back-door bailout of the big banks.

Many also accuse Obama’s foreclosure relief programs as being backdoor bailouts for the banks. (See this, this, this and this).

Commercial Real Estate, Mortgage Backed Securities, Cars and Student Loans

Some pretty sharp writers allege that the government is also secretly bailing out the banks by supporting everything from commercial real estate, to mortgage-backed securities, car loans and student loans (and don’t forget McDonald’s and Harley).


The government’s failure to rein in derivatives or break up the giant banks also constitute enormous subsidies, as it allows the giants to make huge sums by keeping the true price points of their derivatives secret. See this and this.

Foreign Bailouts

The big banks – such as JP Morgan – also benefit from foreign bailouts, such as the European bailout, as they are some of the largest creditors of the bailed out countries, and the bailouts allow them to get paid in full, instead of having to write down their foreign losses. So when the Fed bails out foreign banks, it is a bailout for American banks as well.

Toxic Assets and Accounting Shenanigans

The PPIP program – which was supposed to reduce the toxic assets held by banks – actually increased them (at least in the short-run), and just let the banks make a quick buck.

In addition, the government suspended mark-to-market valuation of the toxic assets held by the giant banks, and is allowing the banks to value the assets at whatever price they desire. This constitutes a huge giveaway to the big banks.

As Forbes’ Robert Lenzner wrote recently:

The giant US banks have been bailed out again from huge potential writeoffs by loosey-goosey accounting accepted by the accounting profession and the regulators.

They are allowed to accrue interest on non-performing mortgages ” until the actual foreclosure takes place, which on average takes about 16 months.

All the phantom interest that is not actually collected is booked as income until the actual act of foreclosure. As a resullt, many bank financial statements actually look much better than they actually are. At foreclosure all the phantom income comes off the books of the banks.

This means that Bank of America, Citigroup, JP Morgan and Wells Fargo, among hundreds of other smaller institutions, can report interest due them, but not paid, on an estimated $1.4 trillion of face value mortgages on the 7 million homes that are in the process of being foreclosed.

Ultimately, these banks face a potential loss of $1 trillion on nonperforming loans, suggests Madeleine Schnapp, director of macro-economic research at Trim-Tabs, an economic consulting firm 24.5% owned by Goldman Sachs.

The potential writeoffs could be even larger should home prices continue to weaken…

And as one writer notes:

By allowing banks to legally disregard mark-to-market accounting rules, government allows banks to maintain investment grade ratings.

By maintaining investment grade ratings, banks attract institutional funds. That would be the insurance and pension funds money that is contributed by the citizen.

As institutional money pours in, the stock price is propped up ….

Fraud As a Business Model

If you stop and think for a moment, it is obvious that failing to prosecute fraud is a bailout.

Nobel prize-winning economist George Akerlof demonstrated that if big companies aren’t held responsible for their actions, the government ends up bailing them out. So failure to prosecute directly leads to a bailout.

Moreover, as I noted last month:

Fraud benefits the wealthy more than the poor, because the big banks and big companies have the inside knowledge and the resources to leverage fraud into profits. Joseph Stiglitz noted in September that giants like Goldman are using their size to manipulate the market. The giants (especially Goldman Sachs) have also used high-frequency program trading (representing up to 70% of all stock trades) and high proportions of other trades as well). This not only distorts the markets, but which also lets the program trading giants take a sneak peak at what the real traders are buying and selling, and then trade on the insider information. See this, this, this, this and this.

Similarly, JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, and Morgan Stanley together hold 80% of the country’s derivatives risk, and 96% of the exposure to credit derivatives. They use their dominance to manipulate the market.

Fraud disproportionally benefits the big players (and helps them to become big in the first place), increasing inequality and warping the market.

[And] Professor Black says that fraud is a large part of the mechanism through which bubbles are blown.


Finally, failure to prosecute mortgage fraud is arguably worsening the housing crisis. See this and this.

The government has not only turned the other cheek, but aided and abetted the fraud. In the words of financial crime expert William K. Black, the government “created an intensely criminogenic environment“.

And this environment is ongoing today. See this, for example.

Settling Prosecutions For Pennies on the Dollar

Even when the government has prosecuted financial crime (because public outrage became too big to ignore), the government has settled for pennies on the dollar.

Nobel prize winning economist Joe Stiglitz says about the way that the government is currently prosecuting financial crime:

The system is designed to actually encourage that kind of thing, even with the fines [referring to former Countrywide CEO Angelo Mozillo, who recently paid tens of millions of dollars in fines, a small fraction of what he actually earned, because he earned hundreds of millions.].


So the system is set so that even if you’re caught, the penalty is just a small number relative to what you walk home with.

The fine is just a cost of doing business. It’s like a parking fine. Sometimes you make a decision to park knowing that you might get a fine because going around the corner to the parking lot takes you too much time.

Bloomberg noted on Monday:

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s internal watchdog is reviewing an allegation that Robert Khuzami, the agency’s top enforcement official, gave preferential treatment to Citigroup Inc. executives in the agency’s $75 million settlement with the firm in July.

Inspector General H. David Kotz opened the probe after a request from U.S. Senator Charles Grassley, an Iowa Republican, who forwarded an unsigned letter making the allegation. Khuzami told his staff to soften claims against two executives after conferring with a lawyer representing the bank, according to the letter….

According to the letter, the SEC’s staff was prepared to file fraud claims against both individuals. Khuzami ordered his staff to drop the claims after holding a “secret conversation, without telling the staff, with a prominent defense lawyer who is a good friend” of his and “who was counsel for the company, not the individuals affected,” according to a copy of the letter reviewed by Bloomberg News.

And Freddie and Fannie’s recent settlement with Bank of America – a couple of billions – has been criticized by many as being a bailout.

In “BofA Freddie Mac Putbacks Resolved for 1¢ on $”, Barry Ritholtz notes:

Bank of America settled numerous claims with Fannie Mae for an astonishingly cheap rate, according to a Bloomberg report.

A premium of $1.28 billion was paid to Freddie Mac to resolve $1 billion in claims currently outstanding. But the kicker is that the deal also covers potential future claims on $127 billion in loans sold by Countrywide through 2008. That amounts to 1 cent on the dollar to Freddie Mac.

In “Is Fannie bailing out the banks?”, Forbes’ Colin Barr writes:

Someone must be getting bailed out, right?

Why yes, say critics of the giant banks. They charge that Monday’s rally-stoking mortgage-putback deal between Bank of America (BAC) and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is nothing more than a backdoor bailout of the nation’s largest lender. It comes courtesy, they say, of an administration struggling to find a fix for the housing market while quaking at the prospect of another housing-fueled banking meltdown.

Monday’s arrangement, according to this view, will keep the banks standing — but leave taxpayers on the hook for an even bigger tab should a weak economic recovery falter. Sound familiar?


[Edward] Pinto says truly holding BofA responsible for all the mortgage mayhem tied to its 2008 purchase of subprime lender Countrywide would likely drive it into the arms of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., which has enough problems to deal with. Though BofA would surely dispute that analysis, it’s easy enough to see where the feds don’t want that outcome.


But how sharp is Freddie if all it can do is squeeze a $1.28 billion payment out of a giant customer in exchange for relinquishing fraud claims on $117 billion worth of outstanding loans? The very best its million-dollar executives can do is claw back a penny on each bubbly subprime dollar?

That seems pretty weak even given that this is Congress’ favorite subsidy dispenser we’re talking about.

“How Freddie can justify this decision to settle ‘all outstanding and potential’ claims before any of the private-label putback lawsuits have been resolved is beyond comprehension,” says Rebel Cole, a real estate and finance professor at DePaul University in Chicago. “This smells to high heaven and they should be called out.”

In “Bank Of America Just Admitted That Its Fannie And Freddie Settlement Was A Bailout”, Business Insider’s Joe Weisenthal writes:

Bank of America has basically confirmed that the critics are correct: It was the beneficiary of a bailout.

According to Bloomberg, BofA’s Jerry Dubrowski said: “Our agreements with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are a necessary step toward the ultimate recovery of the housing market.”

Get it? This was not about settling mortgage putback exposure at the legal level. It was about helping the greater good. It’s the same too-big-to-fail logic all over again: What’s good for Bank of America is good for America.

As the Washington post notes:

“This is a gift” from the government to the bank, said Christopher Whalen of Institutional Risk Analytics. “We’re all paying for this because it will show up in the losses from Fannie and Freddie,” he said.

Congresswoman Waters said:

I’m concerned that the settlement between Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Bank of America over misrepresentations in the mortgages BofA originated may amount to a backdoor bailout that props up the bank at the expense of taxpayers. Given the strong repurchase rights built into Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s contracts with banks, and the recent court setback for Bank of America in similar litigation with a private insurer, I’m fearful that this settlement may have been both premature and a giveaway. The fact that Bank of America’s stock surged after this deal was announced only serves to fuel my suspicion that this settlement was merely a slap on the wrist that sets a bad example for other negotiations in the future.

And see this, this and this.

Guaranteeing a Fat Spread on Interest Rates

Bloomberg notes:

“The trading profits of the Street is just another way of measuring the subsidy the Fed is giving to the banks,” said Christopher Whalen, managing director of Torrance, California-based Institutional Risk Analytics. “It’s a transfer from savers to banks.”

The trading results, which helped the banks report higher quarterly profit than analysts estimated even as unemployment stagnated at a 27-year high, came with a big assist from the Federal Reserve. The U.S. central bank helped lenders by holding short-term borrowing costs near zero, giving them a chance to profit by carrying even 10-year government notes that yielded an average of 3.70 percent last quarter.

The gap between short-term interest rates, such as what banks may pay to borrow in interbank markets or on savings accounts, and longer-term rates, known as the yield curve, has been at record levels. The difference between yields on 2- and 10-year Treasuries yesterday touched 2.71 percentage points, near the all-time high of 2.94 percentage points set Feb. 18.

Harry Blodget explains:

The latest quarterly reports from the big Wall Street banks revealed a startling fact: None of the big four banks had a single day in the quarter in which they lost money trading.

For the 63 straight trading days in Q1, in other words, Goldman Sachs (GS), JP Morgan (JPM), Bank of America (BAC), and Citigroup (C) made money trading for their own accounts.

Trading, of course, is supposed to be a risky business: You win some, you lose some. That’s how traders justify their gargantuan bonuses–their jobs are so risky that they deserve to be paid millions for protecting their firms’ precious capital. (Of course, the only thing that happens if traders fail to protect that capital is that taxpayers bail out the bank and the traders are paid huge “retention” bonuses to prevent them from leaving to trade somewhere else, but that’s a different story).

But these days, trading isn’t risky at all. In fact, it’s safer than walking down the street.


Because the US government is lending money to the big banks at near-zero interest rates. And the banks are then turning around and lending that money back to the US government at 3%-4% interest rates, making 3%+ on the spread. What’s more, the banks are leveraging this trade, borrowing at least $10 for every $1 of equity capital they have, to increase the size of their bets. Which means the banks can turn relatively small amounts of equity into huge profits–by borrowing from the taxpayer and then lending back to the taxpayer.


The government’s zero-interest-rate policy, in other words, is the biggest Wall Street subsidy yet. So far, it has done little to increase the supply of credit in the real economy. But it has hosed responsible people who lived within their means and are now earning next-to-nothing on their savings. It has also allowed the big Wall Street banks to print money to offset all the dumb bets that brought the financial system to the brink of collapse two years ago. And it has fattened Wall Street bonus pools to record levels again.

Paul Abrams chimes in:

To get a clear picture of what is going on here, ignore the intermediate steps (borrowing money from the fed, investing in Treasuries), as they are riskless, and it immediately becomes clear that this is merely a direct payment from the Fed to the banking executives…for nothing. No nifty new tech product has been created. No illness has been treated. No teacher has figured out how to get a third-grader to understand fractions. No singer’s voice has entertained a packed stadium. No batter has hit a walk-off double. No “risk”has even been “managed”, the current mantra for what big banks do that is so goddamned important that it is doing “god’s work”.

Nor has any credit been extended to allow the real value-producers to meet payroll, to reserve a stadium, to purchase capital equipment, to hire employees. Nothing.

Congress should put an immediate halt to this practice. Banks should have to show that the money they are borrowing from the Fed is to provide credit to businesses, or consumers, or homeowners. Not a penny should be allowed to be used to purchase Treasuries. Otherwise, the Fed window should be slammed shut on their manicured fingers.

And, stiff criminal penalties should be enacted for those banks that mislead the Fed about the destination of the money they are borrowing. Bernie Madoff needs company.

Interest Paid on Excess Reserves

The Fed has been paying the big banks interest on the “excess reserves” which those banks deposit at the Fed.

Specifically, the Fed is intentionally paying the banks a higher interest rate to park their money at the Fed than they would make if they loaned it out to Main Street. This is money going to the big banks.

(Moreover, top Fed officials have publicly stated that this policy of paying interest on excess reserves deposited at the Fed is intentionally aimed at reducing loans to Main Street, as a way to fight inflation.)

See documentation here and here.


Too Big As Subsidy

The fact that the giant banks are “too big to fail” encourages them to take huge, risky gambles that they would not otherwise take. If they win, they make big bucks. If they lose, they know the government will just bail them out. This is a gambling subsidy.

For example, as the Special Inspector General of the Troubled Asset Relief Program said today:

When the government assured the world in 2008 that it would not let Citigroup fail, it did more than reassure the troubled markets — it encouraged high-risk behavior by insulating risk-takers from the consequences of failure.

And as former International Monetary Fund chief economist Simon Johnson wrote last week:

Any financial institution with such access to such government support is likely to take on excessive risk – this is the heart of what is commonly referred to as the problem of “moral hazard.” If you are fully insured against adverse events, you will be less careful.

The very size of the too big to fails also decreases the ability of the smaller banks to compete. And – since the government itself helped make the giants even bigger – that is also a subsidy to the big boys (see this).

The monopoly power given to the big banks (technically an “oligopoly“) is a subsidy in other ways as well. For example, Nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz said in September that giants like Goldman are using their size to manipulate the market:

“The main problem that Goldman raises is a question of size: ‘too big to fail.’ In some markets, they have a significant fraction of trades. Why is that important? They trade both on their proprietary desk and on behalf of customers. When you do that and you have a significant fraction of all trades, you have a lot of information.”

Further, he says, “That raises the potential of conflicts of interest, problems of front-running, using that inside information for your proprietary desk. And that’s why the Volcker report came out and said that we need to restrict the kinds of activity that these large institutions have. If you’re going to trade on behalf of others, if you’re going to be a commercial bank, you can’t engage in certain kinds of risk-taking behavior.”

The giants (especially Goldman Sachs) have also used high-frequency program trading which not only distorted the markets – making up more than 70% of stock trades – but which also let the program trading giants take a sneak peak at what the real (aka “human”) traders are buying and selling, and then trade on the insider information. See this, this, this, this and this. (This is frontrunning, which is illegal; but it is a lot bigger than garden variety frontrunning, because the program traders are not only trading based on inside knowledge of what their own clients are doing, they are also trading based on knowledge of what all other traders are doing).

Goldman also admitted that its proprietary trading program can “manipulate the markets in unfair ways”. The giant banks have also allegedly used their Counterparty Risk Management Policy Group (CRMPG) to exchange secret information and formulate coordinated mutually beneficial actions, all with the government’s blessings.

In addition, the giants receive many billions in subsidies by receiving government guarantees that they are “too big to fail”, ensuring that they have to pay lower interest rates to attract depositors.

These are just a few of the secret bailouts programs the government is giving to the giant banks. There are many other bailout programs as well. If these bailouts and subsidies are added up, they amount to many tens – or perhaps even hundreds – of trillions of dollars.

And then there is the cost of debasing the currency in order to print money to fund these bailouts. The cost to the American citizen in less valuable dollars could be truly staggering. From another perspective, running up our national debt to pay for the bailouts is costing us dearly by reducing our economy’s growth (and see this).




*** exposing the hidden truth for further educational research only

JP Morgan MF Global Euro Gate Escalates


Awakening Americans: Behind the scenes intelligence briefings ALL patriot Americans MUST know…the REAL facts and truth the corporate-controlled fascist, extortion-friendly U. S. media covers up

EXPLOSIVE Back Breaking News

JP Morgan-MF Global-Euro Gate Escalates

by Tom Heneghan
International Intelligence Expert
Sunday March 25, 2012
UNITED STATES of America – It can now be reported that the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking has new evidence showing that JP Morgan had a $200 million overdraft aka a second margin call on the London LIFFE Exchange three days before the MF Global bankruptcy fiasco was triggered.

The second margin call (the first margin call was four days earlier for $175 million) dealt with cross-collateralized, compounded naked euro currency put options that were written by JP Morgan with the transactions being placed through the CME Group and the aforementioned London LIFFE Exchange.

We can now divulge that, thanks to PROMIS software, MF Global took the opposite side of the trade.

Note: The fact that MF Global took the opposite side of the trade is a significant development and it completely torpedoes the ISDA’s (International Swaps and Derivatives Association) legal standing that declared the latest Greek bailout a non-credit event rather than what it really is, a Greek default.

The ISDA’s decision has temporarily rewarded crooked banks, as well as Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan, and screwed the hedge funds as well as the looted customer segregated accounts that were tied to MF Global.

The fact that two margin calls were issued in a span of one week against JP Morgan is clearly a game changer.

The first margin call aka the overdraft was triggered when the JP Morgan SWIFT wire transfer (to pay for their derivative trades) was rejected by the London LIFFE Exchange after the Dallas Federal Reserve Bank refused to honor the JP Morgan float aka line of credit.

Dallas Fed President and CEO Robert W. Fisher actually notified the New York Fed on that day that JP Morgan was using TARP money (Troubled Relief Asset Program) to write their euro currency option derivatives.

This illegal trading done by JP Morgan violated the terms of the 2008 Bush-Pelosi bank bailout that forbid banks like Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan from using U.S. Taxpayers’ money to engage in any type of derivative trading.

What followed was the largest 24-hour crime spree aka money laundry in financial history.

Forty-eight hours after JP Morgan’s line of credit was rejected (their electronic check bounced creating an overdraft), a second larger margin call was issued to JP Morgan, which set off the following change of events:

Immediately financial terrorist Jamie Dimon, CEO of JP Morgan phoned Federal Reserve Chairman Bernard Bernanke, U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and CFTC Chairman Gary Gensler and discussed his predicament.

Within an hour the CME Group re-issued the second margin call singling out only MF Global and removing JP Morgan from its liability.

Fifteen minutes later Jamie Dimon called MF Global CEO Jon Corzine threatening his life and demanding that MF Global meet the $200 million margin call that was originally issued for JP Morgan.

One hour later the crooked ISDA ruled the MF Global trades to be null and void, which then allowed JP Morgan and Jamie Dimon to short the MF Global stock and then, with the approval of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York laundered the proceeds into the London LIFFE Exchange, and issued new naked derivatives which would be used in the latest Greek-Euro bailout ponzi scheme.

Note: Dallas Federal Reserve President and CEO Richard W. Fisher immediately phoned Fed Chairman Bernanke to protest this latest JP Morgan money laundry involving customer segregated accounts.

Bernanke told Fisher, and I quote “Timothy Geithner calls the shots”.

Reference: The Federal Reserve Bank of New York tried to disguise this ponzi scheme by first moving the MF Global customer segregated funds through the Dominion Bank of Toronto, Canada and then on to the London LIFFE Exchange.

At this hour we can divulge that Dallas Fed President and CEO Richard W. Fisher is cooperating with U.S. Marshals who are investigating this financial treason and will shortly offer his resignation.

P.S. We can now also report that JP Morgan and MF Global had a joint custodial account with a side clearing agreement with the noted derivative clearing house Maiden Lane LLC.

We can now also reveal that the joint JP Morgan-MF Global custodial account had a common email address with the financial officers of both JP Morgan and MF Global having access and ability to receive and send emails to each other.

This joint account specialized in using crooked high-frequency trading aka 3-second electronic front running in creating artificial wide spreads in the forex foreign currency futures markets that guaranteed that both MF Global and JP Morgan could not lose on any of their foreign currency transactions.

In other words, folks, both Jamie Dimon and Jon Corzine were running a ponzi scheme.

P.P.S. We can now report that the crooked CFTC, NFA and SEC issued a clean audit report for both MF Global and JP Morgan three months before the aforementioned MF Global-JP Morgan financial debacle.

It is clear the alleged financial regulators were bribed because new evidence now in possession of Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, indicates that JP Morgan was in violation of both CFTC and SEC rules concerning proper capitalization of their assets versus their margined derivative liability exposure.

We can now divulge that at the time the JP Morgan audit was issued its margined derivative exposure exceeded their capital assets by 2500 to 1.

Note: Word is out on the street that JP Morgan made a deal with the crooked aforementioned financial regulators to throw their broker dealers under the bus in return for the regulators to look the other way when it came to JP Morgan’s massive financial criminal misconduct.

In closing, we can divulge that thanks to the efforts of patriotic elements of the U.S. military, the U.S. Marshal Service, International Monetary Fund President Christine Lagarde and Russian President Vladimir Putin, the repatriation of U.S. dollars back to the U.S. Treasury continues, which will lead to the final implementation of the Wanta-Reagan-Mitterrand Protocols.
Tom Heneghan’s EXPLOSIVE Intelligence Briefings



Good Morning to all my loyal readers,

The following letter was sent out to my mailing list this morning.


Once again, the government has made a bad situation worse with stupid regulations. It seems like the wonderful amount of growth I have experienced, in numbers of new readers has been noticed, and now I must convert to a double opt in mailing list or you will not receive the daily posts notification or any other bulk mailing from A Nation Beguiled.

The government has made the Hosting companies liable for spamming if their customers are bulk mailing to people who were first contacted and agreed to continue receiving bulk mailings, but if you just happened to stumble on to my web site or blog and liked it enough to subscribe, then that’s alright. It’s a matter of who made first contact.

So, I am going to have to hire a developer to write a script to install on my site, and you will have to go there and click the subscribe button to once again receive my daily post notification or any information I deem worthy of bulk mailing, and this is going to take some time to install.

I am keeping my present mailing list for one on one communication, but mailing every one INDIVIDUALLY even once a day, would leave me no time to research for new articles or anything else.

You are probably already experienced at this method from doing your own research on other sites, so it’s not something new to be afraid of.

Those of you who have been awakened to the governments method of solving problems is to give it’s self more authority, will now see it in action.

No one ever invented anything the government could not screw up, and make more expensive.

Now we will see how many of you are loyal readers of the articles I post on http://anationbeguiled.com as you will have to sign up onhttp://anationbeguiled.com  even if you are only reading https://anationbeguiled.wordpress.com because this site’s script is controlled by wordpress, and they send out a daily post notification of their own, and I never know who the readers are. Your continued loyalty will be appreciated.

Don’t forget, new post will continue to be up on a daily basis.

 Warm Regards,





By Coach Dave Daubenmire
March 22, 2012

The most common use of the term “bastard” refers to a child who is born from illegitimate means. Marriage is what makes a child “legitimate.” Any child produced outside of a legal-marriage was once considered “illegitimate” because he/she was not under the authority of a father.

Illegitimacy is destroying America. A father-less generation of children is roaming the streets of America in search of authority. Recent statistics show that over40% of all babies born in America are bastards.

To many of those children, government becomes the father. We have seen the effects that “government-parenthood” has had on this nation. A government-paycheck does not a father make.

But the larger issue is that our Federal Government has become bastardized. At its origin, the Federal Government was the birth-child of the thirteen colonies. “We the People of the United States” gave birth to the Federal Government, and, as Thomas Jefferson said, tied it “down with the chains of the Constitution.”

Follow me now. The Federal Government was the birth child of the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution was the spawn of the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration received its authority from the elected representatives of the thirteen States who gathered at Independence Hall in Philadelphia and signed it. Those elected representatives received their authority from the individual citizens in the independent states. The individual-citizens were endowed with the authority as a birthright from their Creator. The Creator was, and still is, the ultimate authority over the individual. He IS the Father of all.

Today, our “government” is a bastard-child. It has usurped authority that it has no claim to. In our system of self-government, the Federal Government is chained down by the Constitution. The first sentence of the Preamble to the Constitution identifies the authority structure. “We the People of the United States…”

All government authority in the United States emanates from God, the granter of all rights, through the people, the recipients of all rights, to the government, the protector of all rights. But a coup has taken place in America. The “government” has been “emancipated” from the constraints of the Father. A government that no longer answers to the legitimate authority has become a “bastard” child.

That is what identifies a bastard…a child with no legitimate authority figure. The Federal Government is a “bastard” because it no longer comes under the authority of its Father.

Look at what is going on in Washington. Because we no longer recognize from were governmental authority comes, our three branches of government have lost sight of their legitimate purpose. Our Founders gave us three branches of government based on Isaiah 33:22 For the Lord is our JUDGE, the Lord is our LAWGIVER, the Lord is our KING; He will save us.

Our government is out of control. It has become an unruly step-child. Just like a family, the authority must be established under the headship of the Father. Only the “Father” can give government, and its voice, legitimacy.

Because of my efforts in working with the Personhood movement I constantly hear Roe V Wade referenced as a reason not to put it on the ballot. The Pro-Life movement lives in fear of the Supreme Court and their bastardized-authority. It is time the courts came under authority of the Father.

A Supreme Court decision is not law. It is merely an “opinion” issued by a “court.” Roe V Wade is not the “Law of the Land,” as we are so often told.

Legislatures make laws and courts offer opinions on those laws. Currently in America, Abortion is illegal in 44 States. Right now, according to the laws in Ohio, abortion is illegal. A Supreme Court “opinion” cannot overturn a legitimate law. We just think it does. It is time for the State of Ohio to reclaim its legal authority and declare abortion illegal within our borders. It is time for the states to defy the bastards.

In 2005 in the case of Gonzales v Raich the Supreme Court opined that medical use of marijuana was illegal in all fifty states. You heard me right. The “law of the land” regarding marijuana is that it is illegal. Yet currently, there are sixteen states that permit the medical use of marijuana.

On September 21, 1996 President Bill Clinton signed into law, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Federal courts all across this nation have upheld the legality of the law. Yet today, six states permit homosexual marriage. Just last year the Obama administration said that it would no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act, in clear violation of established law.

I could go on. The Federal Government and the Federal Courts are operating with illegitimate authority. It is a perfect example of the children telling the parents what to do.

And it will only get worse. It is time for the states to defy the bastards!! It is our only hope of surviving as a free nation.

In Worchester v Georgia 1832 President Andrew Jackson received an unfavorable ruling from the John Marshall-led Supreme Court. His legendary response was “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!” Still today, the Supreme Court has no enforcement powers for its illegitimate rulings. In a later writing President Jackson went on to say, “…the decision of the Supreme Court has fell still born, and they find that they cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate.”

The Constitution is under assault because our government is a bastardized-entity that has divorced itself from the “laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” Without the foundations of the Scriptures to stand upon, our entire Federal Government has its feet firmly planted in thin air…

In 1803 in Marbury v Madison the SCOTUS declared “a law repugnant to the Constitution is null and void.” That still holds true today.

The courts have told us in the past that:

• Black men were 3/5 of a human being
• Separate but equal was constitutional.
• Women had no right to vote.

Today they want to tell us that:

• The right to bear arms is not absolute.
• The right to privacy no longer applies to individuals.
• Freedom of speech, religion, and assembly are conditional.
• The Right to Life applies only to “wanted” children.

Can you trust the courts to protect your rights? What if they don’t? I say it is time to defy the bastards. Our children’s future depends on it. Let’s recriminalize abortion in Ohio.

Thomas Jefferson, who authored the Declaration, said this, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” And this“Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God.”

This nation was birthed in rebellion. Jesus’ death was a result of rebellion against illegitimate authority. The Apostle Paul wrote nearly two-thirds of the New Testament, much of it from jail, in rebellion against illegitimate religious authority. Peter said “We ought to obey God rather than man.” We are not the first people to have been in this predicament.

Ultimately, that is a decision that we are all going to have to make. At what point does a man stand up and say “enough is enough?”

Aye. Fight and you may die. Run, and you’ll live. At least awhile… And dying in your beds, many years from now, would you be willing to trade all the days from this day to that for one chance — just one chance — to come back here and tell our enemies that they make take our lives,but they’ll never take our freedom!! –Braveheart

Last week the Federal Government seized ALL powerover the lives of individual Americans. Now they can lock you up without charges, kill you if the President thinks you are a danger to America, arrest you for picketing out side an event where an elected official is present, and force you to pay for things that are in direct conflict with your conscience.

“Educate and inform the whole mass of the people… They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.” -Thomas Jefferson.

Are you willing to trust the governance of your liberties to those who cannot govern themselves?

The battle for liberty will be fought in the individual states, not in the White House. Instead of putting all of our eggs in the 2012 presidential basket, it is imperative that we focus instead on what is going on in our own back yard.

The States created the Federal Government. The only power they have over us is the power we give unto them. Those in Washington DC no longer represent “the people.”

If we go down, let’s go down, standing up. It is time for the states to defy the bastards!

Executive Order 11051




WHEREAS national preparedness must be achieved and maintained to support such varying degrees of mobilization as may be required to deal with increases in international tension, with limited war, or with general war including attack upon the United States; and WHEREAS the national security and our continuing economic growth and prosperity are interdependent, appropriate attention must be directed to effective coordination of emergency preparedness measures with national economic policies and objectives; and WHEREAS mobilization readiness and civil defense activities can be accomplished most effectively and efficiently through the performance by departments and agencies of the Government of those emergency preparedness functions related to their established roles and capabilities; and WHEREAS responsibility for emergency preparedness involves virtually every agency of the Federal Government, and there is need to provide a central point of leadership and coordination in the Executive Office of the President: NOW, THEREFORE, by virtue of the authority vested in me as President of the United States, including the authorities contained in the National Security Act of 1947, the Defense Production Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. App. 2061 et seq.), the Federal Civil Defense Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. App. 2251 et seq.), and other authorities of law vested in me pursuant to Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1958 (72 Stat. 1799), and also including the authority vested in me by the provisions of Section 301 of title 3 of the United States Code, it is hereby ordered as follows:


SECTION 101. Resume of responsibilities. The Director of the Office of Emergency Planning (hereinafter referred to as the Director) shall:

(a) Advise and assist the President in the coordination of and in the determination of policy for the emergency plans and preparedness assignments of the Federal departments and agencies (hereinafter referred to as Federal agencies) designed to make possible at Federal, State and local levels the mobilization of the human, natural and industrial resources of the nation to meet all conditions of national emergency, including attack on the United States.

(b) Under the direction of the President, be responsible for the preparation of nonmilitary plans and preparedness programs with respect to organization and functioning of the Federal Government under emergency conditions and with respect to specific areas of Federal activity necessary in time of war which are neither performed in the normal operations of the regular departments and agencies nor assigned thereto by or under the authority of the President.

(c) Perform such other functions as are vested in him by law or are by this order, or by orders referred to in this order, delegated or otherwise assigned to him.

(d) Perform such additional functions as the President may from time to time direct.


SEC. 201. General.

(a) The Director shall advise and assist the President in

(1) the development of planning assumptions and broad emergency preparedness objectives with respect to various conditions of national emergency,

(2) the development of policies and procedures to determine the relationship between available supplies of the nation’s resources and the requirements of military, foreign, and essential civilian programs, including those of civil defense,

(3) the development of policies, programs, and control systems designed to deal with supply deficiencies and to meet effectively the most urgent requirements for those resources in the interests of national defense, and

(4) coordinating the governmental programs designed to achieve these ends.

(b) The Director shall advise and assist the President with respect to resolving any issues, related to emergency preparedness responsibilities of Federal agencies, which arise between two or more such agencies.

SEC. 202. Resources and Requirements. The Director shall provide policy guidance to the heads of Federal agencies having resource mobilization or claimancy responsibilities to assist them in

(1) the development and submission of estimated military and foreign as well as industrial and consumer requirements,

(2) the development of resource supply estimates; and

(3) the periodic evaluation of requirements estimates in relation to estimates of availability of resources from all sources.

SEC. 203. Central program determination. The Director shall develop an overall emergency system for reaching central program decisions for the utilization of resources on the basis that he will have the responsibility for making such central decisions in the initial period of an emergency. This system shall include uniform criteria and procedures for:

(a) The development by each Federal agency of the amounts and types of resources which it must claim in order to meet the requirements of its planned programs;

(b) The central consideration of the supply-requirements evaluations of planned programs;

(c) The central determination of major resource utilization programs under varied conditions of national emergency on a relative urgency basis and central direction for the adjustment of agency programs consistent with such determinations; and

(d) The decentralization of controls if required by emergency conditions.

SEC. 204. Control systems. The Director shall develop policies and procedures for the coordinated application by Federal agencies, in time of emergency, of priorities, allocations, and other resource control and distribution systems (including a system for the rationing of consumer goods) for the conduct of approved major programs.

SEC. 205. Research. The Director shall develop, maintain, and conduct a central research planning program for emergency preparedness purposes. The Director shall maintain, with the participation and support of Federal agencies concerned, a national resources evaluation capability for predicting and monitoring the status of resources under all degrees of emergency, for identifying resource deficiencies and feasible production programs and for supplying resource evaluations at national and subordinate levels to support mobilization base planning, continuity of government, resource management and economic recovery.

SEC. 206. Dispersal and protection of facilities.

(a) The Director, after consultation with the appropriate Federal agencies, shall advise the President concerning the strategic relocation of industries, services, government and economic activities, the operations of which are essential to the nation’s security. He shall coordinate the efforts of Federal agencies with respect to the application of the principle of geographic dispersal of certain industrial facilities, both government-and privately-owned, in the interest of national defense.

(b) The Director, under authority of, and in accordance with the provisions of, Executive Order No. 10421 of December 31, 1952, shall perform functions in respect of the physical security of facilities important to the national defense.

(c) In addition, the Director shall review all measures being taken by the Federal agencies with respect to the physical security and protection of facilities important to defense mobilization, defense production, civil defense or the essential civilian economy, including those under the provisions of emergency preparedness assignments to such agencies and shall recommend to the President such actions as are necessary to strengthen such measures.

SEC. 207. Civil defense.

(a) Under authority of the provisions of Section 2 of Executive Order No. 10952 of July 20, 1961, and as there prescribed, the Director shall advise and assist the President, and shall perform other functions, in respect of civil defense.

(b) Under authority of, and in accordance with the provisions of, Executive Order No. 10958 of August 14, 1961, the Director shall advise and assist the President with respect to the stockpiling of food and medical supplies.

(c) The Director shall advise and assist the President with respect to the need for stockpiling various items essential to the survival of the population, additional to food and medical supplies, and with respect to programs for the acquisition, storage, and maintenance of such stockpiles.

SEC. 208. Federal-State relations.

(a) The Director shall represent the President in working with State Governors to stimulate vigorous State and local participation in emergency preparedness measures.

(b) He shall provide advice and guidance to the States with regard to preparations for the continuity of State and local civilian political authority in the event of nuclear attack on the United States which shall include, but not be limited to, programs for maintaining lines of succession to office, safekeeping of essential records, provision for alternate sites of government, the protection and effective use of government resources, personnel, and facilities, and interstate compacts and reciprocal legislation relating to emergency preparedness.

(c) He shall assist the President in achieving a coordinated working relationship between the various elements of State governments and the Federal agencies to which specific emergency preparedness functions have been assigned pursuant to statute or Executive order.

(d) The civil defense activities involved in the functions prescribed by the foregoing provisions of this section shall be carried out in accordance with the provisions of Section 2 of Executive Order No. 10952 of July 20, 1961.

SEC. 209. Review and evaluation. The Director shall from time to time furnish the President overall reports and recommendations concerning the emergency preparedness programs, including the state of preparedness of Federal, State, and local governments to carry out their emergency functions.


SEC. 301. General. Under the direction of the President, the Director shall have primary responsibility

(1) for planning assumptions and broad nonmilitary emergency preparedness objectives,

(2) for planning the nonmilitary organization and functioning of the Federal Government in time of national emergency,

(3) for developing, in association with interested agencies, the emergency planning, including making recommendations to the President as to the appropriate roles of Federal agencies, in currently unassigned matters, such as, but not necessarily limited to, economic stabilization, economic warfare, emergency information, and wartime censorship,

(4) for planning for the emergency mobilization of telecommunications resources, and

(5) for the development of nonmilitary policies and programs for use in the event of enemy attack on the United States designed to restore the national defense potential of the nation.

SEC. 302. Emergency organization. The Director, in consultation with the Director of the Bureau of the Budget, shall plan for the organization and functioning of the Federal Government in an emergency, including provisions for the central direction of all emergency mobilization activities and the creation of such emergency agencies as may be required for the conduct of emergency activities including those within the normal jurisdiction of existing agencies. Plans shall provide for maximum practicable reliance to be placed on existing Federal agencies with competence in emergency operations and, as best may be, shall be harmonious with related operations of the Government as a whole.

SEC. 303. Emergency authorities. The Director shall provide for the prompt exercise of Federal emergency authority through the advance preparation of such proposed legislation, Executive orders, rules, regulations, and directives as would be necessary to put into effect operating programs appropriate to the emergency situation.

SEC. 304. Continuity of Federal Government. The Director shall develop policies and plans to assure the continuity of essential Federal Government activities through programs to provide for lines of succession to office, safekeeping of essential records, alternate sites for Government operations, and the protection and effective use of Government resources, personnel, and facilities.

SEC. 305. Executive Reserve. The Director, under authority of, and in accordance with the provisions of, Executive Order No. 10660 of February 15, 1956, shall develop policies and plans for the provision of an Executive Reserve of personnel capable of filling executive positions in the Government in time of emergency.

SEC. 306. Emergency telecommunications. The Director shall be responsible for

(1) planning for the mobilization of the nation’s telecommunications resources in time of national emergency, and

(2) carrying out, under the authority of, and in accordance with the provisions of, Executive Order No. 10705 of April 17, 1957, the functions thereby delegated or otherwise assigned to him. SEC. 307. Post-attack recovery. Under the direction of the President, the Director, with the cooperation and assistance of the Federal agencies, shall develop policies, plans, and programs designed to provide for the rapid restoration after an attack on the United States of a national capability to support a strong national defense effort.


SEC. 401. Defense production. Under the authority of, and in accordance with the provisions of, Executive Order No. 10480 of August 14, 1953, the Director shall perform the functions thereby delegated or otherwise assigned to him.

SEC. 402. Strategic and critical materials stockpiling.

(a) There are hereby delegated to the Director all those functions under the Strategic and Critical Materials Stockpiling Act (50 U.S.C. 98 et seq.), under Section 4(h) of the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act (15 U.S.C. 714b(h)), and under Section 204(f) of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 485 (f)), which were transferred to the President by the provisions of Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1958 (72 Stat. 1799).

(b) The Director, under the provisions of the said Strategic and Critical Materials Stockpiling Act, shall determine which materials are strategic and critical and the quality and quantity of such materials which shall be stockpiled, and shall direct the General Services Administration in the purchase, storage, refinement, rotation, and disposal of materials.

(c) The Director is hereby designated as an agency under and for the purposes of the provisions of clause (b) of Section 5 of the Strategic and Critical Materials Stockpiling Act (50 U.S.C. 98d (clause (b))); and, accordingly, in the event of enemy attack upon the United States the Director is authorized and directed to order the release by the Administrator of General Services of such materials from stockpiles established under the said Act, in such quantities, for such uses, and on such terms and conditions, as the Director determines to be necessary in the interests of the national defense.

SEC. 403. Supplemental stockpile. The Director, under authority of the provisions of Section 4(d) (2) of Executive Order No. 10900 of January 6, 1961, shall determine from time to time the materials to be contracted for or purchased for a supplemental stockpile with foreign currencies pursuant to the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954 (7 U.S.C. 1704(b)). SEC. 404. Imports threatening the national security.

(a) The Director, under the authority of, and in accordance with the provisions of, Section 2 of the Act of July 1, 1954 (68 Stat. 360; 19 U.S.C. 1352a), shall make appropriate investigations of the effects of imports on the national security and shall advise the President of any case in which the Director is of the opinion that an article is being imported into the United States in such quantities or under such circumstances as to threaten to impair the national security.

(b) The Director, under authority of, and in accordance with the provisions of, Section 3 (d) of Executive Order No. 10582 of December 17, 1954, shall furnish advice to procuring agencies with respect to the rejection of bids or offers to furnish materials of foreign origin on the ground that such rejection is necessary to protect essential national security interests.

SEC. 405. Disaster relief. The Director, under authority of, and in accordance with the provisions of, Executive Order No. 10427 of January 16, 1953, and Executive Order No. 10737 of October 29, 1957, shall exercise authority under the Act of September 30, 1950, entitled “An Act to authorize Federal assistance to States and local governments in major disasters, and for other purposes” (42 U.S.C. 1855 et seq.).

SEC. 406. Telecommunications. Under authority of, and in accordance with the provisions of, Executive Order No. 10995 of February 16, 1962, the Director shall perform functions in respect of telecommunications.


SEC. 501. Rules and regulations. In carrying out his responsibilities under this order, the Director is authorized to issue such rules and regulations, and directives, consonant with law and Executive order, as he deems necessary and appropriate to the functions involved.

SEC. 502. Boards and committees. The Director is hereby authorized to establish in headquarters and in the field such boards and committees as he deems necessary to advise him in the conduct of activities outlined herein.

SEC. 503. Certain additional authorities.

(a) There are hereby delegated to the Director all those now-existing functions under the National Security Act of 1947 which were transferred to the President by the provisions of Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1958 (72 Stat. 1799).

(b) In performing the functions under the Federal Civil Defense Act of 1950 assigned to him, and subject to applicable provisions of Executive orders, the Director is authorized to exercise the authority conferred by Title IV of that Act. The foregoing provision of this subsection shall not be deemed to derogate from any authority under Title IV heretofore available to the Secretary of Defense.

SEC. 504. Reports. The Director is authorized to require from Federal agencies such statistical data and progress reports at such intervals as he deems necessary to discharge his responsibilities under this order.

SEC. 505. Prior actions. All orders, regulations, rulings, certificates, directives, and other actions relating to any function affected by this order shall remain in effect except as they are inconsistent herewith or are hereafter amended or revoked under proper authority, and nothing in this order shall affect the validity or force of anything done under previous delegations or other assignments of the functions affected by this order.

SEC. 506. Executive Order 11030. Nothing in this order or in any order amended by this order shall derogate from the provisions of Executive Order No. 11030 of June 19, 1962.

SEC. 507. References to orders and Acts. Except as may for any reason be inappropriate, references in this order to any other Executive order or to any Act, and references in this order or in any other Executive order to this order, shall be deemed to include references thereto, respectively, as amended from time to time.


SEC. 601. General amendments. Each reference to the Office of Civil and Defense Mobilization or to the Director of the Office of Civil and Defense Mobilization in the following is hereby amended to refer to the Office of Emergency Planning and the Director of the Office of Emergency Planning, respectively:

(1) Executive Order No. 10296 of October 2, 1951

(2) Executive Order No. 10312 of December 10, 1951

(3) Executive Order No. 10346 of April 17, 1952 (penultimate sentence of Section 2, only)

(4) Executive Order No. 10421 of December 31, 1952

(5) Executive Order No. 10427 of January 16, 1953

(6) Executive Order No. 10480 of August 14, 1953

(7) Executive Order No. 10494 of October 14, 1953

(8) Executive Order No. 10601 of March 21, 1955

(9) Executive Order No. 10634 of August 25, 1955

(10) Executive Order No. 10660 of February 15, 1956

(11) Executive Order No. 10705 of April 17, 1957

(12) Executive Order No. 10737 of October 29, 1957

(13) Executive Order No. 10900 of January 5, 1961

(14) Executive Order No. 10952 of July 20, 1961

(15) Executive Order No. 10958 of August 14, 1961

(16) Proclamation No. 3279 of March 10, 1959 SEC. 602. Executive Order 10242. Executive Order No. 10242 of May 8, 1951, is hereby amended:

(1) By deleting from subsection 101(a) thereof the following: “upon the Director of the Office of Civil and Defense Mobilization, hereinafter referred to as the Director,”.

(2) By deleting from Sections 101(c), 101(d), 102, 103, 104, 106 (preamble), 201, and 301 the following: “upon the Director of the Office of Civil and Defense Mobilization”.

(3) By substituting for the words “the Director of the Office of Civil and Defense Mobilization”, at each place where they occur in the order and are not deleted or otherwise amended by this order, the following: ‘the delegate of the President”.

(4) By substituting for the words shall not be delegated” in sub-section 101 (d) the following: “shall not be redelegated by the delegate of the President”.

(5) By adding after Section 106 new Sections 107, 108, and 109, reading as follows: “SEC. 107. The words “the delegate of the President’ as used in this order: “(1) In respect of functions under the Act delegated or otherwise assigned to the Secretary of Defense, mean the Secretary of Defense. “(2) In respect of functions delegated or otherwise assigned to the Director of the Office of Emergency Planning, mean the Director of the Office of Emergency Planning. “SEC. 108. The authority conferred by Section 401(a) of the Act to employ part-time or temporary advisory personnel deemed necessary in carrying out the provisions of the Act, and delegated by the provisions of Section 101 (a) of this order, shall be available as follows: (1) To the Secretary of Defense in respect of not to exceed eighty personnel (including not to exceed twenty subjects of the United Kingdom and Canada), and (2) to the Director of the Office of Emergency Planning in respect of not to exceed twenty personnel (including not to exceed five subjects of the United Kingdom and Canada). “SEC. 109. The relevant provisions of this Part shall be subject to the provisions of the Memorandum of the President, pertaining to conflicts of interest, dated February 9, 1962 (27 F.R. 1341ff.).”

(6) By amending Section 401 to read as follows: “SEC. 401. The approval of the President is hereby given for the employment of retired personnel of the armed services, pursuant to the provisions of subsection 401(a) of the Act as follows: (1) By the Secretary of Defense, not to exceed twenty persons, and (2) by the Director of the Office of Emergency Planning, not to exceed five persons.”

SEC. 603. Other orders.

(a) Executive Order No. 10260 of June 27, 1951, is hereby amended by striking from Section 1 thereof the following: “Office of Civil and Defense Mobilization, the”.

(b) Executive Order No. 10346 of April 17, 1952, is hereby amended by substituting for the reference therein to the Director of the Office of Civil and Defense Mobilization, and for each reference therein to the Office and Defense Mobilization except that in the penultimate sentence of Section 2, the following: “the Office of Emergency Planning or the Department of Defense or both, as may be determined under the provisions of appropriate Executive orders”.

(c) Executive Order No. 10421 of December 31, 1952, is hereby amended by inserting before the period at the end of Section 3 (b) (9) thereof a comma and the following: “including recommendations as to actions necessary to strengthen the program provided for in this order”.

(d) Executive Order No. 10529 of April 22, 1954, is hereby amended by substituting for each reference therein to the Director of the Office of Civil and Defense Mobilization the following: “the Director of the Office of Emergency Planning or the Secretary of Defense or both as may be determined under appropriate Executive orders”.

(e) Executive Order No. 10582 of December 17, 1954, is hereby amended by striking from Section 3

(d) thereof the words “from any officer of the Government designated by the President to furnish such advice” and by inserting in lieu of the stricken words the following: “from the Director of the Office of Emergency Planning. In providing this advice the Director shall be governed by the principle that exceptions under this section shall be made only upon a clear showing that the payment of a greater differential than the procedures of this section generally prescribe is justified by consideration of national security”.

(f) Executive Order No. 10789 of November 14, 1958, is hereby amended by striking from Section 21 thereof the words “Office of Civil and Defense Mobilization”.

SEC. 604. Superseded orders. To the extent that the following have not heretofore been made or become inapplicable, they are hereby superseded and revoked:

(1) Executive Order No. 9981 of July 26, 1948

(2) Executive Order No. 10219 of February 28, 1951

(3) Executive Order No. 10269 of July 6, 1951

(4) Executive Order No. 10438 of March 13, 1953

(5) Executive Order No. 10461 of June 17, 1953

(6) Executive Order No. 10524 of March, 31, 1954

(7) Executive Order No. 10539 of June 22, 1954 (without prejudice to final liquidation of any affairs thereunder)

(8) Executive Order No. 10638 of October 10, 1955

(9) Executive Order No. 10773 of July 1, 1958

(10) Executive Order No. 10782 of September 6, 1958

(11) Executive Order No. 10902 of January 9, 1961


THE WHITE HOUSE, September 27, 1962.




By Professor Steven Yates

March 17, 2012

Lately (example here) I’ve found myself using the phrase directed history. I didn’t invent the phrase; others have used it as well (examples here and here although the latter is a tad hysterical for my tastes). What it expresses is the idea that key events in modern history—wars, revolutions, transformations, concentrations of wealth and power, for at least the past 250 years but possibly longer—have not been random or the mere product of economic forces but were guided: directed. History has been taken in a specific direction by a powerful superelite, as I call them. I use the term superelite to distinguish from national elites.

The superelite are global. There is an excellent case to be made that their home base is the City of London (the “City Within the City”), which headquarters the British Crown, the Bank of England, N.M. Rothschild and Sons, the London Stock Exchange, and the London School of Economics (LSE) founded by the Fabian Society and contained within the University of London. Satellite bases are to be found in Basel, Switzerland (the Bank for International Settlements), Brussels in Belgium, New York City, Washington D.C. of course, and elsewhere. Superelite goals: global economy (achieved, for the most part), global currency (a slow work in progress), global government (in the planning stages). While there is room for debate on the specifics on what the superelite want to accomplish—as a researcher drawing inferences from a variety of sources and not an insider, I don’t have a crystal ball—I sense they would prefer transitions through all these stages that are seamless as possible. Perhaps they believe the world will be a nicer place if the populations of the nations of the world simply capitulate, or just allow events to take place unnoticed. Directed history, as I conceive it, need take no stance on whether the superelite is benign or malevolent. Carroll Quigley, the macrohistorian whose ideas figure centrally into the story, believed them benign. I believe he was wrong. If they encounter sufficient resistance the superelite will have no qualms about plunging the world into whatever crises are necessary to accomplish their goals, be they economic depressions or destructive wars.

Such notions will, of course, get you branded as a “conspiracy theorist” (or worse) in mainstream media and academic circles. We all know what a terrible thing that is to be.

There is just one problem with the label: what the superelite are doing isn’t a conspiracy. The term might have applied at one time to certain of their schemes like the creation of the Federal Reserve System, but not anymore. The reason: conspiracies by definition are hidden from you. A perfect conspiracy, could there be such a thing, would be undetectable. The first job of would-be conspirators is to hide the conspiracy, and arrange things so that no one outside the circle can rationally believe there is a conspiracy. The architects of the Federal Reserve System did this for over two decades.

Directed history isn’t a conspiracy theory, because for the past couple of generations, the superelite have had members or supporting fellow travelers who were not hiding. They haven’t been shouting their plans from the roof of Congress, of course. Nor will you see them on Fox News, much less MSNBC (although it isn’t impossible). Those either believing that something was going on behind the scenes, and sometimes those actually working towards a global regime, have written down their thoughts: sometimes in books, sometimes in articles, and sometimes in speeches. Some of their writings aren’t about specific plans, but provide dead giveaways where their priorities lies. Trust me: it isn’t with We the People.

It is true that hardly anyone reads their words. This is a side effect: for well over a hundred years now their footsoldiers have been laying waste to education in this country. This started when Horace Mann went to Prussia in the 1840s and persuaded the State of Massachusetts to assist him in founding a school system based on Prussian instead of American principles. According to the latter, the individual belongs to himself and to his God. According to the former, he belongs to the state. Very slowly, public education was transformed to produce, instead of an independent and critically thinking people prepared for life in a free society, graduates who would obey government edicts, service monopolistic corporations (whether as employees or consumers), and not question authority. And attendance was made compulsory.

At the college and university level, the Morrill Act of 1862 created the public land grant system. Higher education, conceived as a system of “agricultural and mechanical” colleges, was to have as its main end the training of technicians and bureaucrats. Traditional liberal arts learning—of the sort that doesn’t necessarily increase one’s “marketability” but prepares the student to understand the founding principles of his country—has been in a kind of limbo ever since. The central role subjects like history, theology, philosophy, etc., staples of the kind of education that produced James Madison and John Adams, dropped precipitously over ensuing decades. The subjects themselves became micro-specialized shadows of their former selves.

The program in secondary education advanced with John D. Rockefeller’s Southern and General Education Boards and advanced further through John Dewey’s Rockefeller-bankrolled Progressive Education movement, designed to socialize rather than educate. The details are readily available (for example, here and here). As a result of decades of misschooling, most Americans today are far more interested in sports, American Idol, or Lady Gaga’s latest wardrobe catastrophe. The masses’ subjective preferences make athletes and celebrities rich, while automatically working against their own best interests. Markets, of course, can be allowed to deliver what the masses want. It sounds blunt, but if the masses are made stupid by their government schools, the market will reflect that by delivering a steady parade of high-tech gadgets and cheap, tawdry garbage most if not all of it made overseas instead of in their home country. Those self-educated or intelligent enough to sense something amiss and stand for independence will be at a consistent disadvantage (witness the fate of the Ron Paul campaign).

This isn’t a new phenomenon, just one made considerably worse in recent years. To some extent, the masses have always been the masses, regardless of what nation we are in. This shouldn’t matter. Most adults, if left alone, are able to manage their lives and sphere of influence—and raise their children. More complex societies, especially when they become as materialistic as ours, require more vigilance. Most common people either cannot or do not rise to the occasion. Thus the greedy and conniving overwhelm the innocent simply because they can. Civil society should reduce this risk. Hence the encouragement of Christian principles and the creation of Constitutional controls intended to ensure a state to fulfill its legitimate responsibilities without becoming a tyranny. In our era, both have almost been obliterated, at least from the pinnacles of power. For the past 160 or so years in particular—the era of metaphysical materialism as a view of the nature of the universe and of human beings—those who are fascinated with power have had little trouble obtaining it if they were smart, patient, and able to plan carefully. Most people, I believe, tend to expect good from others; when confronted with evil intentions, they refuse to believe them. As I’ve observed elsewhere, Adolf Hitler wrote down his aspirations in Mein Kampf, published in the mid-1920s. He was ignored. Germany paid a terrible price. We will also pay a terrible price for failing to see the many “smoking guns” lying around.

Some of these “smoking guns” are well known to those who have paid attention. Unfortunately they often appear unreferenced on websites, recycled from other websites whose creators didn’t verify their validity. This can be trouble, because we all know there are bogus quotes circulating, especially attributed to the Founding Fathers but sometimes putting words in the mouths of more recent political figures. I’ve long found this annoying; so one day, while researching my book Four Cardinal Errors, I trekked to the nearest first rate university library (at the University of Georgia in Athens, Ga.), located the primary sources and tracked down exact references, with page numbers.

There are more I suspect are valid, but they are second-hand. I have avoided second hand sources. What we have here are guaranteed genuine (with one exception, carefully noted as such)! To be sure, there are people—I hear from them from time to time—who want nothing to do with any of this. They have convinced themselves that talk about shadowy elites and their organizations—or a superelite—is all paranoid delusion. They ridicule “quote mining.” They are comfortable with the idea that recent history leading up to our present crisis comes down to bad decisions and unlucky accidents, or perhaps just blind cultural and economic forces. They demand more evidence, when the truth is,nothing would convince them of what they contemptuously call conspiracy theory. If you are reading this and don’t want to believe it, then don’t! It’s no skin off my nose. The sourced material says what it says. I present it as evidence that those of us who wax on about a superelite and its influence know what we are talking about; and that those who dismiss us as “conspiracy nuts” haven’t done their homework, are being deliberately obtuse, or are simply lying!

Confining ourselves to just the past century or so, the first highly visible political figure to record his thoughts on shadowy figures operating behind the scenes was Woodrow Wilson. Dr. Wilson had been surrounded by the elites of his time while President of Princeton University. They recognized in him a kindred spirit who would prove useful. They assisted him into the presidency in 1912. His book The New Freedom(published that year) contains the following:

Since I have entered politics, I have chiefly had men’s views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above a whisper when they speak in condemnation of it. They know that America is not a place of which it can be said, as it used to be, that a man may choose his own calling and pursue it just as far as his abilities enable him to pursue it; because to-day, if he enters certain fields, there are organizations which will use means against him that will prevent his building up a business which they do not want to have built up; organizations that will see to it that the ground is cut from under him and the markets shut against him. For if he begins to sell to certain retail dealers, to any retail dealers, the monopoly will refuse to sell to those dealers, and those dealers, afraid, will not buy the new man’s wares (pp. 13-14).

The superelite of the day had held their now-infamous meeting at Jekyll Island, Ga. back in 1910. The most proximate cause of their ploy to create a central bank was the Panic of 1907, which they had engineered. They’d gone to Jekyll Island in secret, using first names only to travel, and there they planned the Federal Reserve System. This probably does count as a conspiracy (the best account is still G. Edward Griffin’s The Creature from Jekyll Island, 1994). Wilson, as everybody knows, went on to sign the Federal Reserve Act on December 23, 1913. This was a major turning point for the country. With a stroke of his pen, Wilson handed this nation’s monetary system and by extension, its economy, over to a small group of very wealthy and powerful men who have done their best to centralize and control it ever since. Arguably, the U.S. became a plutocracy on December 23, 1913. It was the end of essential controls on the power-seeking minority.

To further their goals, the plutocrats would need to control more than just the monetary system. They would need to control information. They would need control over what ideas and opinions reach the masses. This was not hard to achieve. In 1917, Representative Oscar Callaway of Texas told Congress:

In March, 1915, the J.P. Morgan interests, the steel, shipbuilding, and powder interests, and their subsidiary organizations, got together 12 men high up in the newspaper world and employed them to select the most influential newspapers in the United States and sufficient number of them to control generally the policy of the daily press in the United States.

These 12 men worked the problem out by selecting 179 newspapers, and then began, by an elimination process, to retain only those necessary for the purpose of controlling the general policy of the daily press throughout the country. They found it was only necessary to purchase the control of 25 of the greatest papers. The 25 papers were agreed upon; emissaries were sent to purchase the policy, national and international, of these papers; an agreement was reached; the policy of the papers was bought, to be paid for by the month; an editor was furnished for each paper to properly supervise and edit information regarding the questions of preparedness, militarism, financial policies, and other things of national and international nature considered vital to the interests of the purchasers.

This contract is in existence at the present time, and it accounts for the news columns of the daily press being filled with all sorts of preparedness arguments and misrepresentations as to the present condition of the United States Army and Navy, and the possibility and probability of the United States being attacked by foreign foes.

This policy also included the suppression of everything in opposition to the wishes of the interests served. The effectiveness of this scheme has been conclusively demonstrated by the character of the stuff carried in the daily press throughout the country since March, 1915.

They have resorted to anything necessary to commercialize public sentiment and sandbag the national Congress into making extravagant and wasteful appropriations for the army and navy, under the false pretense that it was necessary. Their stock argument is “patriotism.” They are playing on every passion and prejudice of the American people” (Proceedings and Debates of the Second Session of the 64th Congress, Vol. LIV, Congressional Record of the House of Representatives, Feb. 9, 1917, pp. 2947 – 48).

In other words, the press was used to manipulate public opinion into support for U.S. entry into what became World War I. Was Calloway right, or was he delusional? His remarks prompted a call for a Congressional investigation by one J. Hampton Moore of Pennsylvania, but the call (to the best my research has been able to turn up) went nowhere. The elites were not, of course, in the habit of allowing those not in their orbit, even members of Congress, to pry into their private affairs. Consider this unproved if you will. But it fits the general pattern we are talking about. It is consistent with the idea that thousands of political and bureaucratic decisions regardless of party or ideology, supported by thousands more editorial decisions within a burgeoning mainstream media, all taking this country in a single direction by accident, is stretching the law of averages a bit.

Control over monetary policy to ensure a continued accumulation of wealth in the hands of the few is characteristic of any plutocracy—and it was especially desirable to conceal this within the supposedly free, capitalistic marketplace that America was held to exemplify. John Maynard Keynes, far and away the most influential economist of the past century, wrote in his early work Economic Consequences of the Peace(1920):

Lenin is said to have declared that the best way to destroy the Capitalist System was to debauch the currency. By a continuing process of inflation, government can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some. The sight of this arbitrary rearrangement of riches strikes not only at security, but at confidence in the equity of the existing distribution of wealth.

Those to whom the system brings windfalls, beyond their deserts and even beyond their expectations or desires, become ‘profiteers,’ who are the object of the hatred of the bourgeoisie, whom the inflationism has impoverished, not less than of the proletariat. As the inflation proceeds and the real value of the currency fluctuates wildly from month to month, all permanent relations between debtors and creditors, which form the ultimate foundation of capitalism, become so utterly disordered as to be almost meaningless, and the process of wealth-getting degenerates into a gamble and a lottery.

Lenin was certainly right. There is no subtler, no surer method of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.



The early Keynes was much more forthright than the later and better-known Keynes of the General Theory (1935). Do we assume he was being paranoid, or that he knew exactly what he was saying: an entire population could be impoverished by slowly devaluing their currency with no corresponding increases in wages. Since 1913 our dollars have lost over 96 percent of their purchasing power. You will pay close to $20 for a good steak dinner in a restaurant these days, and over $3.50 a gallon in gas to get there. Your great grandfather paid perhaps 50 cents for his steak dinner. Gas cost him pennies per gallon.

Few people know that Keynes was involved with the British Fabian Society, founded in 1884. The Fabians began the LSE with a $5 million (equivalent in U.S. dollars) grant from the estate of deceased member Henry Hunt Hutchison in 1895. Regrettably, few scholars even of directed history have paid the Fabians sufficient attention. Carroll Quigley never mentioned them by name. I have an associate who believes he wrote Tragedy & Hope intending to hide the Fabians. I don’t know if this is true or not, but the absence of any mention of the Fabians in a book of that scope is mysterious otherwise. The LSE, of course, became one of the most influential social science academies in the world. It placed the Fabians at the helm in shaping the intellectual side of world affairs. Bankers like David Rockefeller Sr. and members of our political class such as John F. Kennedy Jr. would study economics there.

Consider now Edward Louis Bernays, the genius nephew of Sigmund Freud who founded public relations and became wealthy conducting mass advertising campaigns for corporations. In a slim tome entitled Propaganda (1928) he wrote:

The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society…

Whatever attitude one chooses toward this condition, it remains a fact that in almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons … who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind, who harness old social forces and contrive new ways to bind and guide the world” (pp. 1 – 2; emphases mine).

Such notions motivated those who funneled millions into “social science” research during the early decades of the twentieth century via their tax-exempt foundations (Rockefeller, Ford, et al). The research was carried on by Tavistock and others, and designed to answer questions both the superelite and those at the helm of large corporations were asking. Questions like: what moves the masses? What will make them open their wallets in large numbers? How can new technologies such as radio, or the automobile—or in due course, television—be harnessed to further our goals?

What will motivate the masses to change their values, e.g., about sexuality and its acceptability outside of marriage, about the family, or about religion—especially Christianity—or about jobs and the economy, or about the permanence of the nation itself when the time is right? What will keep them entertained as we inculcate the new values we want them to hold? Assuming them not ready for the massive changes our agenda requires, what will keep them distracted and pacified while we quietly do our work?

What was this work? Orchestrating the slow dissolution of nation states, especially the United States of America with its Constitutionally limited form of government and its annoying Bill of Rights and divisions of powers, integrating them into regional regimes and finally into a world state. Quietly the superelite created both institutions capable of evolving toward world government and the instruments for a migration of power into those institutions. The first major effort was the League of Nations formed in 1919. Then there was the Bank for International Settlements created in 1930 through the Hague Agreements. The Bank for International Settlements was a central bank for all central banks, an apex of the world monetary system being assembled bit by bit. One of its founders was Montagu Norman, governor of the Bank of England and a Fabian. There would, of course, be others; the most obvious creature of superelite design is the United Nations founded in 1945, giving rise further to the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank as satellite institutions.

Arnold J. Toynbee, leading British historian and Fabian (nephew of equally famous economic historian of the same name who held similar views and died in 1883, the same year as Karl Marx; let’s not confuse the two), stated very openly at length in 1931:

If we are frank with ourselves, we shall admit that we are engaged on a deliberate, sustained and concentrated effort to impose limitations upon the sovereignty and independence of the fifty or sixty local sovereign independent States which at present partition the habitable surface of the earth and divide the political allegiance of mankind.

It is just because we are really attacking the principle of local sovereignty that we keep on protesting our loyalty to it so loudly. The harder we press our attack upon the idol, the more pains we take to keep its priests and devotees in a fool’s paradise—lapped in a false sense of security which will inhibit them from taking up arms in their idol’s defense. The local national state, invested with the attributes of sovereignty—is an abomination of desolation standing in the place where it ought not. It has stood in that place now—demanding and receiving human sacrifices from its poor deluded votaries—for four or five centuries. Our political task in our generation is to cast the abomination out, to cleanse the temple and to restore the worship of the divinity to whom the temple rightfully belongs. In plain terms,we have to re-transfer the prestige and the prerogatives of sovereignty from the fifty or sixty fragments of contemporary society to the whole of contemporary society—from the local national states by which sovereignty has been usurped, with disastrous consequences, for half a millennium, to some institution embodying our society as a whole.

Toynbee wrote these words in the wake of the frustrating diminishing influence of the League of Nations. He spoke of the kind of institution the superelite wanted and concluded:

In the world as it is today, this institution can hardly be a universal Church. It is more likely to be something like a League of Nations. I will not prophesy. I will merely repeat that we are at present working, discreetly but with all our might, to wrest this mysterious political force called sovereignty out of the clutches of the local national states of our world. And all the time we are denying with our lips what we are doing with our hands… (“The Trend of International Affairs Since the War,” International Affairs, November 1931, p. 809; emphases mine).

This era, in fact, offers a gold mine of examples of those who wrote about what H.G. Wells called The Open Conspiracy (1928). Yes, Virginia, this was a somewhat different H.G. Wells than that guy who wrote those entertaining science fiction novels (War of the Worlds, The Time Machine, et al.). Once a Fabian, he broke with them as unimaginative and not radical enough. In The Shape of Things to Come (1938), which falls somewhere in between novel and prophesy, Wells envisioned a technocratic future without Christianity or the nation state. Behavioral science would be employed to place subtle controls on the masses. The technocratic intelligentsia Wells envisioned couldn’t allow millions of common people to go about their business on their own unsupervised. Wells’s lead spokesperson opines:

“It is no good asking people what they want,” wrote De Windt. “That is the error of democracy. You have first to think out what they ought to want if society is to be saved. Then you have to tell them what they want and see that they get it.” (p. 269).

Such words speak volumes about how the superelite—and those who identify with their values—really view democracy. They view it as did Plato: an unsustainable enticement to mob rule and chaos. (I sincerely hope no one who has read this far believes they want “democracy in the Middle East”!) In The New World Order (1940)—yes, he really entitled it that—Wells observed how:

Countless people … will hate the new world order, be rendered unhappy by frustration of their passions and ambitions through its advent and will die protesting against it. When we attempt to estimate its promise we have to bear in mind the distress of a generation or so of malcontents, many of them quite gallant and graceful-looking people (p. 129; emphases mine).

Another figure worth consulting is major British philosopher Bertrand Russell. Russell, as a “scientific” philosopher as well as a Fabian, believed in the desirability of the same kind of future Wells had articulated. In The Scientific Outlook (1931) his technocratic superelitism focused on education:

[T]he scientific rulers will provide one kind of education for ordinary men and women, and another for those who are to become holders of scientific power. Ordinary men and women will be expected to be docile, industrious, punctual, thoughtless and contented. Of these qualities contentment will be considered the most important. In order to produce it, all the researches into psycho-analysis, behaviorism, and biochemistry will be brought into play (p. 243).

He went considerably further in The Impact of Science on Society (1952):

I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is mass psychology…. What is essential in mass psychology is the art of persuasion. If you compare a speech of Hitler’s with a speech of (say) Edmund Burke, you will see what strides have been made in the art since the eighteenth century. What went wrong formerly was that people had read in books that main is a rational animal, and framed their arguments on this hypothesis. We now know that limelight and a brass band do more to persuade than can be done by the most elegant train of syllogisms. It may be hoped that in time anybody will be able to persuade anybody of anything if he can catch the patient young and is provided by the State with money and equipment.

This subject will make great strides when it is taken up by scientists under a scientific dictatorship…. The social psychologists of the future will have a number of classes of school children on whom they will try different methods of producing an unshakable conviction that snow is black. Various results will soon be arrived at. First, that the influence of the home is obstructive. Second, that not much can be done unless indoctrination begins before the age of ten. Third, that verses set to music and repeatedly intoned are very effective. Fourth, that the opinion that snow is white must be held to show a morbid taste for eccentricity…. It is for future scientists to make these maxims precise and discover exactly how much it costs per head to make children believe that snow is black, and how much less it would cost to make them believe it is dark gray.

Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated. When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen (The Impact of Science on Society, pp. 29-30; emphases mine).

This is, of course, the superelite Utopia: a world into which the unthinking masses are seamlessly eased and entirely controlled, possibly without even realizing it—like cattle.

We would be remiss to leave out the most influential set of “smoking guns,” those coming from Carroll Quigley and his massive Tragedy & Hope: A History of the World In Our Time(1966). Quigley, like the writers above, was not an isolated eccentric banging on his typewriter about imagined conspiracies. He was a respected and very well connected professor in Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service. He had his doctorate from Harvard. His specialty was macrohistory—the study of larger trends and tendencies shaping civilizations over long periods. He taught the School’s immensely popular Comparative National Cultures course. Quigley’s knowledge of his subject was encyclopedic. Again, those inclined to do so are free to conclude that so obviously well educated a person was being paranoid or delusional when he wrote, naming names:

[O]n February 5, 1891, [Cecil] Rhodes and [William T.] Stead [a Fabian] organized a secret society of which Rhodes had been dreaming for sixteen years. In this secret society Rhodes was to be leader; Stead, Brett (Lord Esher), and [Alfred] Milner were to form an executive committee; Arthur (Lord) Balfour, (Sir) Henry Johnston, Lord [Nathaniel] Rothschild, Albert (Lord) Grey, and others were listed as potential members of a “Circle of Initiates”; while there was to be an outer circle known as the “Association of Helpers” (later organized by Milner as the Round Table organization)…. In 1909-1913, they organized semi-secret groups, known as Round Table Groups, in the chief British dependencies and the United States. These still function in eight countries.… In 1919, they founded the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House) for which the chief financial supporters were Sir Abe Bailey and the Astor Family (owners of The Times). Similar Institutes of International Affairs were established in the chief British dominions and the United States (where it is known as the Council on Foreign Relations) in the period 1919 – 1927. After 1925, a somewhat similar structure of organizations, known as the Institute of Pacific Relations, was set up in twelve countries holding territory in the Pacific area, the units in each British dominion existing on an interlocking basis with the Round Table Group and the Royal Institute of International Affairs in the same country….

From 1884 [significantly, the year the Fabian Society was founded] to about 1915 the members of this group worked valiantly to extend the British Empire and to organize it into a federal system. They were constantly harping on the lessons to be learned from the failure of the American Revolution and the success of the Canadian federation of 1867 and hoped to federate the various parts of the empire as seemed feasible, and then confederate the whole of it, with the United Kingdom, into a single organization. They also hoped to bring the United States into this organization to whatever degree was possible … (pp. 131-33).

This is the background for Quigley’s much better known remark—failing to name the Fabians who are dismissed on the preceding page as a “radical Right fairy tale [which] pictured the recent history of the United States … as a well-organized plot by extreme Left-wing elements … [which] had at its core the wild-eyed and bush-haired theoreticians of Socialist Harvard and the London School of Economics” (p. 949). But then he dropped the bomb, the most widely cited of all “smoking guns”:

This myth, like all fables, does in fact have a modicum of truth. There does exist and has existed for a generation, an international Anglophile network which operates to some extent in the way the radical Right believes the Communists act. In fact, this network, which we may identify as the Round Table Groups, has no aversion to cooperating with the Communists, or any other groups, and frequently does so. I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960s, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments. I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies … but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known (p. 950).

In other words, despite some minor differences of opinion Quigley identified with this network and its goals. Behind its activities was the cartel of globalist bankers, the core of the superelite (the Fabians would form the core of the intellectual wing of the superelite in the twentieth century, having infiltrated university faculties and national academic organizations):

[T]he powers of financial capitalism had another far reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements, arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was the Bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world’s central banks which were themselves private corporations….

The growth of financial capitalism made possible a centralization of world economic control and use of this power for the direct benefit of financiers and the indirect injury of all other economic groups (p. 324, 337).

It is important not to misunderstand Quigley. He was a macrohistorian, not a directed-historian. He discusses those I call the superelite and sees them as “significant enough to be known” but not the central force shaping the modern world. This will surprise those who have read Tragedy & Hope without reading his earlier The Evolution of Civilizations (1961) which presents a theory of civilizations going through life-cycles akin to those of individuals, but unlike Spengler proposes that they are capable of rejuvenating themselves if they can embrace the right policies. He saw an emerging superelite as benign, and beneficial to this process:

The chief aims of this elaborate, semisecret organization were largely commendable: to coordinate the international activities and outlooks of all the English-speaking world into one (which would, it is true, be that of the London group); to work to maintain the peace; to help backward, colonial, and underdeveloped areas to advance toward stability, law and order, and prosperity along lines somewhat similar to those taught at Oxford and the University of London (especially the School of Economics and the Schools of African and Oriental Studies.



He sees them as idealistic, perhaps a bit naïve, and surely not responsible for the wars and economic miseries that afflicted the first half of the twentieth century. He targets instead nineteenth century tendencies: “Two terrible wars sandwiching a world economic depression revealed man’s real inability to control his life by the nineteenth century’s techniques of laissez-faire, materialism, competition, selfishness, nationalism, violence, and imperialism” (p. 1310). Those constituted “tragedy.” His “hope” involves turning from these values at last. Some of the items on this list we clearly should turn from (the second and the last two in particular), but it is dubious that centralizing the world will ultimately get the job done. Moreover, in light of the remarks of Wells and Russell, there are plenty of grounds for thinking that what the superelite want to accomplish is anything but benign—and could not be accomplished by benign souls.

It is one thing to theorize, or record history, and quite another to move the world forward towards the desired world regime. I mentioned that David Rockefeller Sr., who proved to be the most ambitious of the third generation of Rockefellers, studied at the LSE in the 1930s; he penned a thesis entitled Destitution Through Fabian Eyes(see his Memoirs, p. 75). He joined the Council of Foreign Relations and rose to its helm in the late 1940s, a position which served as a platform for his forging other Western hemispheric organizations leading eventually to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA, achieved in 1992), and looking beyond to a projected Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA, stalled for the time being). Rockefeller would also be instrumental in organizing the Bilderberg Group in 1954 with European heads of state such as Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands and Józef Retinger of Poland. Named for the hotel where the first meeting was held, the Bilderberg Group would hold exclusive, invitation-only annual meetings in plush hotels / resorts. Invitees would include other heads of state; CEOs or representatives from major corporations; a few military leaders; a few academics, scholars from think tanks, and foundations; and some from within mass media. The Bilderberg Group would gain a reputation for completely closing its meeting venues to the public for several days without prior notice or any reportage of what went on inside. Even those working in these venues were sworn to secrecy about what they saw or heard.

In 1970 Rockefeller came across Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era(1970), by Zbigniew Brzezinski, then of Columbia University (once of Harvard). An émigré from Poland, Brzezinski had served as an advisor to the Kennedy campaign for the presidency in 1960 and would advise both the Johnson and Humphrey campaigns. He’d been invited to join the CFR and attend Bilderberg meetings. He would help induct President-to-be Jimmy Carter into the CFR and serve as his National Security Advisor. His book provided a vivid window into what the superelite envisioned, as well as hurdles it saw remaining in terms of the directed process moving history forward from the “nationalism” of more or less autonomous nation states through socialism to globalism. Brzezinski wrote:

The nation-state as a fundamental unit of man’s organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force: “international banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation-state” …

… A global human conscience is for the first time beginning to manifest itself. This conscience is a natural extension of the long process of widening man’s personal horizons…. Today we are … witnessing the emergence of transnational elites, but now they are composed of international businessmen, scholars, professional men, and public officials. The ties of these new elites cut across national boundaries, their perspectives are not confined by national traditions, and their interests are more functional than national. These global communities are gaining in strength and … it is likely that before long the social elites of most of the more advance countries will be highly internationalist or globalist in spirit and outlook (pp. 56 – 58).

Brzezinski worried that the populations of the world were not ready to live in a global society:

The new global consciousness, however, is only beginning to become an influential force. It still lacks identity, cohesion, and focus. Much of humanity—indeed, the majority of humanity—still neither shares nor is prepared to support it. Science and technology are still used to buttress ideological claims, to fortify national aspirations, and to reward narrowly national interests. Most states are spending more on arms than on social services, and the foreign-aid allotment of the two most powerful states is highly disproportionate to their asserted global missions. Indeed, it can be argued that in some respects the divided, isolated, and compartmentalized world of old had more inner cohesion and enjoyed greater harmony than the volatile global reality of today. Established cultures, deeply entrenched traditional religions, and distinctive national identities provided a stable framework and firm moorings; distance and time were the insulators against excessive friction between the compartments. Today the framework is disintegrating and the insulants are dissolving. The new global unity has yet to find its own structure, consensus, and harmony (pp. 61-62).

In the service of clearing these hurdles, he, Rockefeller, and Henry Kissinger organized the Trilateral Commission in 1973. The Trilateral Commission, unlike the CFR, recruited members from both Japan and Europe with the intent of working more closely to bring about a global economy and society. The final chapters of Between Two Ages offer the prescriptions that were gradually refined into the “free trade” agreements first between the U.S. and Canada and then between the U.S. and Mexico which paved the way for NAFTA. The signing of NAFTA and its going into effect on January 1, 1994 was a turning point at least as profound as the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913 or Richard Nixon’s severing of all remaining ties between the dollar and gold on August 15, 1971. It began a mass exodus of middle class and working class jobs from this country that continues to this day. Perhaps I should note that while NAFTA’s ramifications were being debated by our political class, mainstream media outlets were universally hammering the public, day after day, with the O.J. Simpson debacle.

David Rockefeller Sr. has proven to be the superelitist’s superelitist. One oft-repeated statement attributed to him cannot be verified, since if real it was made at the 1991 Bilderberg meeting in Baden-Baden, Germany; such statements were not written down as official (it might have been secretly recorded, of course). Nevertheless it is interesting:

“We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. … It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.”

The source of the quotation is a handful of minor French publications, later noted inProgramming, Pitfalls and Puppy-Dog Tales by Gyeorgos C. Hatonn (1993, p. 65). Rockefeller may or may not have said it, or something like it. He surely did say the following; it appears directly in his autobiography, published in 2002:

“For more than a century, ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents … to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as “internationalists” and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it”  Memoirs, 2002, pp. 404-05; emphasis mine).

He couldn’t have been more open and straightforward if he tried!

What is even more interesting, in light of mainland China’s economic surge during the NAFTA / GATT / WTO era, is Rockefeller’s praise, long ago, of the “social experiment” begun by Chairman Mao. He wrote:

One is immediately impressed by the sense of national harmony…. Whatever the price of the Chinese Revolution it has obviously succeeded not only in more efficient and dedicated administration, but also in fostering high morale and community purpose. General social and economic progress is no less impressive…. The enormous social advances of China have benefited greatly from the singleness of ideology and purpose…. The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao’s leadership is one of the most important and successful in history (New York Times, August 10, 1973).

The “price” of the Chinese Revolution to which Rockefeller refers was, of course, the mass slaughter of over 40 million Chinese people—we may never obtain an exact body count. Now scroll up and read what H.G. Wells wrote in The New World Order. The superelite are devoted to an only partially imagined vision of a future world no less than was the most ardent Marxist. They may miscalculate or stumble from time to time, as we will see. But what counts is that the project moves forward.

Let us pause and sum up what we’ve covered so far. Modern and recent history has been directed by men operating primarily behind the scenes, but contrary to those who shout conspiracy theory at this sort of allegation, they are not hiding. They have a specific telos: a world regime, or new world order (call it what you want). It is already plutocratic in nature, with masses returned to serfdom and subject to constant monitoring. Its political economy is to be centralized and is best described by the termtechno-feudalism (a term I began using, then discovered historian Dennis Cuddy using it as well; neither of us borrowed it from the other). Once we know where to look, the evidence for this is overwhelming. The single direction taken by modern and recent history has no better or more elegant explanation. While some would attribute this unified direction to advancing technology, the push for unification and centralization predates the technology. Thus we have a new paradigm for the study of modern history, which recognizes as a first premise the fascination of a few with power and their relative ease in assuming it over the many. The many, of course—the common people—have little interest in power beyond their own pursuits (family, occupation, church, etc.). This places them at a disadvantage, absent specific constraints on power.

The great unsolved problem of political philosophy and social order is how a society which upholds such notions as the rule of law is to control power: how, that is, can sufficient vigilance be encouraged in a population that it can place lawful checks on those in power, or who aspire to power, while ensuring justice. The basic premise here is that political power answers to law higher than its own. The superelite have never liked this. This is why they have encouraged an embrace of materialism and philosophical positivism within the scholarly world. Much modern philosophical “scholarship” in what is known as the philosophy of law consists of attacks, explicit or implicit, of various sorts on such notions as natural law. The superelite regard ordinary people as little more than cattle to be herded, of course. That they answer to anyone except each other is a bar to that.

The primary evidence for a new paradigm is empirical and testimonial, as we have seen. In addition to those we have cited, some at the center of activity, major politicians both past and more recent have spoken either of the hidden hands directing history or what the superelite envision as the “shape of things to come.” In 1933, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who was also surely in a position to know, penned a letter to “Colonel” Edward Mandell House, Woodrow Wilson’s right hand man, stating, “The real truth of the matter is, as you and I both know, that a financial element has owned the government since the days of Andrew Jackson …” (F.D.R., His Personal Letters 1928 – 1945, ed. Elliot Roosevelt, p. 373). One of the most oft-repeated recent examples is that of George H.W. Bush (Bush I). On March 6, 1991, on the eve of the end of the Gulf War, the first unnecessary destructive incursion into Iraq, he told Congress, “We can see a new world order coming into view…. a very real prospect of a new world order.” I don’t need a reference for this quote. I was watching (I think it was) C-SPAN that night and both saw and heard him say it. Bush had said—on September 11 of the preceding year (I found out later):

A new partnership of nations has begun, and we stand today at a unique and extraordinary moment. The crisis in the Persian Gulf, as grave as it is, also offers a rare opportunity to move toward an historic period of cooperation. Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective—a new world order—can emerge: A new era—freer from the threat of terror, stronger in the pursuit of justice and more secure in the quest for peace. An era in which the nations of the world, east and west, north and south, can prosper and live in harmony (speech to a joint session of Congress, Sept. 11, 1990).

Interestingly, he was echoing a remark made by none other than Mikhail Gorbachev following the end of the Soviet Union: “For a new type of progress throughout the world to become a reality, everyone must change. Tolerance is the alpha and omega of a new world order” (quoted in George H.W. Bush and Brent Snowcroft, A World Transformed, 1998, pp. 42-43).

More recently, in the wake of the Meltdown of 2008 and just before Barack Obama assumed office in the midst of the worst economy since the Great Depression, Henry Kissinger wrote:

The alternative to a new international order is chaos…. The financial and political crises are … closely related partly because, during the period of economic exuberance, a gap had opened up between the economic and the political organization of the world. The economic world has been globalized. Its institutions have global reach and have operated by maxims that assumed a self-regulating global market. The financial collapse exposed the mirage…. Inevitably, when the affected publics turned to their national political institutions, these were driving principally by domestic politics, not considerations of world order…. International order will not come about either in the political or the economic field until there emerge general rules toward which countries can orient themselves…. A new Bretton Woods kind of global agreement is by far the preferable outcome…. The extraordinary impact of the president-elect on the imagination of humanity is an important element in shaping a new world order…. The role of China in a new world order is equally crucial. A relationship that started on both sides as essentially a strategic design to constrain a common adversary has evolved over the decades into a pillar of the international system. China made possible the American consumption splurge by buying American debt; America helped the modernization and reform of the Chinese economy by opening its markets to Chinese goods…. (New York Times, January 12, 2009).

It all sounds very good, of course, on paper at least—a world free from terrorism? a world where nations are living in harmony?—unless we read between the lines in light of the whole picture and see that the interests of common people are not a priority here. Think of David Rockefeller’s praise for Communist China and Henry Kissinger’s furthering of the network of financial controls via political controls. This last, of course, speaks volumes of superelite unconcern with the processes that have decimated our manufacturing base and are demolishing our middle class.

As minor as these are compared to what the Chinese endured, we are ensuring that the generation now moving through college will be the first to endure a lower standard of living than their parents. Those fortunate enough to find jobs will work longer hours for poverty wages, and will be unable to save. In fairness, there is more to the story. Public education has grown so wretched that its graduates are unqualified for the manufacturing jobs that are still available. This is why you will find manufacturers who arecomplaining that they cannot fill available positions simultaneously with near-depression levels of unemployment.



But never mind all that; it’s beside the point. When you urge the creation of a global governing structure in the New York Times, you are not hiding. You are not “conspiring.” You are simply stating, for anyone paying attention, what “must be done.” These are just a few visible examples of open proposals for a new world order as the solution to many of the world’s problems, the most recent of course being the global financial crisis. A recounting of all such cases, including many remarks by Great Britain’s Tony Blair and Gordon Brown (both past presidents of the Fabian Society), would run to a dozen more pages. Also recently, David Rothkopf (once of Kissinger & Associates) authored Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World They Are Making (2008). Anxious to put distance between his conclusions and “conspiracy theory,” he nevertheless concedes that approximately 6,000 people essentially direct the world—operating primarily through economics and high finance, often moving with ease into cabinet positions in government and then back to the private sector! These are our superelite!

Some will complain that I equivocate with the phrase new world order—that these usages are not intended to reflect the kind of global totalitarianism feared by “conspiracy theorists,” but rather an idealistic sentiment with no fully developed policies behind it—and that those I cite have differences of opinion among themselves on what to do and so could not establish effective global rule. I don’t necessarily disagree with this last, but I do have two general replies. First is a suggestion to go back to the statements by Toynbee, Wells, Russell, Rockefeller, etc., andread them this time. Second, it should be clear to any thinking person: the kind of central planning necessary for any global governance strategy will be very bad for everyone it affects. Because of the immense diversity of the peoples of the world—religious, cultural, linguistic, technological—attempts even at regional governance require increasingly iron-fisted totalitarian measures or they face endless bureaucratic wrangling and eventual disintegration amidst squabbling and uncooperative locals. Europeans are learning this the hard way. Of course, it is very possible the European Union, the most advanced regional government, has been designed to fail, to force the national and regional players to take the next step of greater consolidation. This cannot be accomplished without ending whatever liberties are enjoyed by the common people (if any, by that point). It definitely means an end to the entitlement mentality which has served its purpose in the West, by creating a population dependent on the state. A new world order is by definition a world consolidated and centrally planned, its peoples surveyed, monitored, reduced to dependency, and controlled—even if the would-be new world orderlies do not yet have all their ducks in a row. It will also—as is evident from the suffering being presently endured by the Greek people—require impoverishment on a scale not seen for generations.

One might surmise that the superelite and those who expect to profit from their achievements have ceased hiding because whatever difficulties they still face they have much of the world pretty much where they want it. There is doubtless some truth to this, but I believe matters are a bit more complicated. To be sure, much of the West is a now jittery due to skyrocketing debt, trade imbalances, massive unemployment, and fears of more economic woes ahead. Fomented political instability has spread through the Middle East. Threats of war abound. Food and energy costs here and abroad are rising. Cynicism about our increasingly dysfunctional “democracy” (never intended to be such, of course) is evident. The next generation faces possible lifelong serfdom through the brand of debt-slavery created through massive student loan debt (the totality of student loan debt is nearing $1 trillion). Sadly, most Americans are kept content with a steady diet of sports or other entertainment: fruits of the “social science” research we noted above. Many of the politically aware are divided and fighting amongst themselves over such matters as whether women ought to receive free contraceptives. While I do not think such matters unimportant, they are of negligible importance to the superelite. They therefore distract from the larger picture the concept of directed history draws for us. It has become clear that for more than a generation now no one is to be nominated for the presidency of one of the major parties—two wings of a single bird of prey, one might say—who hasn’t been carefully vetted by members of the class above. Thus Carroll Quigley could write, in the most revealing of all our quotations, that:

The chief problem of American political life for a long time has been how to make the two Congressional parties more national and international. The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can “throw the rascals out” at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy…. [E]ither party in office becomes in time corrupt, tired, unenterprising, and vigorless. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which will be none of those things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies (Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope, pp. 1247-48).

In one paragraph, we have the answer to why key Barack Obama policies (especially foreign and monetary) actually further what was in place under George W. Bush, who was in turn furthering key policies in place under Bill Clinton, who furthered trade policies begun during the Reagan-Bush years, and so on, for as many presidents as you want to count. Moreover despite their visible battles in Washington, Clinton and Newt Gingrich did not disagree over the perceived need for a World Trade Organization (WTO). Not a single president or major-party nominee or Speaker of the House since the 1960s has questioned the supremacy of the Federal Reserve in directing monetary policy in the U.S.; not a single president or nominee or Speaker has questioned the war machine or our “responsibility” to interfere in the internal affairs of other nations (very often, making enemies in the process). No one of the mainstream, not even libertarians, questions “free trade.” Today, of course, no one in the vetted mainstream questions the “war on terror” or the official account of the 9/11 attacks.

Every so often, a maverick breaks through and commands attention for a time. In the early 1960s, it was Barry Goldwater who actually received the GOP nomination—only to be destroyed by mainstream media. Following an orchestrated campaign of terror branding him as too extreme and suggesting that if elected he’d get the country into a nuclear war, he lost the 1964 election to Lyndon Johnson in a landslide. Ronald Reagan began more independent-spirited than he ended up, but probably received the GOP nomination only after agreeing to position the superelite-approved Bush I as his VP. I believe he meant well, but the national debt escalated under his watch, crossing the $1 trillion threshold. He did not shut down the U.S. Department of Education after saying he would, possibly did not understand the trade policies being furthered at the time, appointed the disastrous Alan Greenspan as Federal Reserve Chair, and in the end, probably did more long term harm than good even if his presidency presaged the end of the Soviet Union—which, in light of many Gorbachev remarks such as the one noted above, may also have been orchestrated.

H. Ross Perot came out of the private sector in the early 1990s to warn of the “giant sucking sound” NAFTA would bring about. I recall him actually leading both Bush and Clinton in major polls. He ran on the Reform Party ticket, received 19 million popular votes and no electoral votes. He ran again in 1996, but failed to make the same impact. After all, the economy was soaring on changing technology and Greenspan credit expansion; a message of doom and gloom no longer resonated. The Reform Party later self-destructed, as I once reported. Some believe it was sabotaged, though of course I can’t prove this. I merely witnessed its division into two groups back in 2000 that began furiously battling one another, turning their national convention into a three-ring circus that doomed their party to oblivion. What happened to the Reform Party exemplifies a sad truth: often there is no need to suppress “third parties” and independent movements. They shoot themselves in the foot.

Today, of course, the only visible candidate for high office in this country not owned by the superelite or its fellow travelers is Ron Paul. Ron Paul is obviously the best educated of the GOP candidates; he alone has some grasp of what the country is facing if it stays on its present road. He alone questions Federal Reserve money creation and our interventionist foreign policy of initiating wars against nations that pose no threat to us. He alone has spoken against the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which opens the door to U.S. citizens being incarcerated in military facilities without charges, legal counsel, or trial, on an order from the President. It has become clear over the past several weeks, however: Dr. Paul will not receive the GOP nomination, although through sheer determination he and his supporters have has broken through mainstream media silence and forged a national movement. This movement has grown to sufficient size and influence, especially among the young, withoutshooting itself in the foot, that mainstream media have been forced to cover his activities or explain publicly why not. Ten years ago few Americans had heard of the Federal Reserve. The activities of the Fed are now scrutinized more closely than ever before. We can thank Ron Paul and organizations behind him such as Restore the Republic for this.

My prediction, however, is that Mitt Romney will be the GOP nominee. He is clearly the superelite favorite at present. If he is nominated, we will be treated to a dull-as-dishwater contest between superelite-vetted candidate A and superelite-vetted candidate B. Those so inclined can enjoy their illusion of choice. Obama’s health care reform bill was, after all, mostly modeled on Governor Romney’s Massachusetts version; the idea that a President Romney will repeal “Obama-care” if elected is simply laughable. The point is, what Quigley observed almost a half a century ago is true today: the need is to maintain essentially the same basic policies, while furthering the overall project intended to end in a global regime. Part of this project, in the wake of NAFTA, etc., has clearly been that the U.S. standard of living must fall while that of nations such as China rises. So far, all America’s masses have done is grumble, but that could conceivably change. If civil unrest erupts here it could conceivably be worse than elsewhere in the world; hence the police-state measures we have seen.

The assaults on Occupy protesters engaging in peaceful civil disobedience make it clear: we have entered a period in which law-abiding citizens exercising their Constitutional rights can be taken down with Tasers, pepper-sprayed, sent into intensive care wards by police batons, etc. Now, with the NDAA, protesters risk being arrested and incarcerated indefinitely. Recent statementsby Attorney General Eric Holder defend the idea that the President can order U.S. citizens assassinated if they can be branded as aiding the enemies of the U.S., whatever this actually means (will criticizing U.S. foreign policy be interpreted as aiding the enemies of the U.S. by a future president?). This, too, is no idle “conspiracy theory”; it has already happened, with the drone killing of U.S.-born Anwar al-Awlaki along with a second American in Yemen. Does anyone really believe this couldn’t happen on U.S. soil if the person targeted had been named by the President (Obama or his successor) and sufficiently demonized in the controlled media.

As I complete this essay, the situation just got worse. A new bill entitled the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011, just passed in the House, passed by the Senate unamended, and possibly signed by Obama by the time this appears, criminalizes protests in the presence of federal officials and foreign dignitaries conducting “government business or official functions” (whatever these vague phrases mean), threatening those who exercise their free speech rights with fines and imprisonment for up to ten years. Only three members of the House voted No to this bill. This fact alone speaks volumes about where our political class stands. Ron Paul was, of course, one of the three naysayers.

I will begin the difficult task of bringing this discussion to its close. Is there no hope? That isn’t an easy question. There are definite plusses, but also some major negatives. We have tools those who lived before us didn’t have, tools the superelite either did not anticipate or believed they could control: the Internet and social media. By 2000 the Internet had become a gold mine of free expression on which an ordinary person could learn about, for example, unconstitutionalland-mine legislation—stealth measures hidden in omnibus bills dealing with different subjects—the CFR and the Trilateralists, NAFTA, and other manifestations of superelite activity.

One could study about money and its effects, locate sometimes colorful allegories explaining fractional reserve banking and its weaving a web of debt slavery and deception around us all, or learn about the real unemployment rate (around 22 percent; see Shadowstats.com). On the Internet, you can learn about virtually any topic you want. You can create a blog and express your ideas uncensored. Events, moreover, can be known all over the world in a matter of minutes if not seconds via social media. With phones now having built-in cameras, shenanigans by those with authority (police abuses, politicians’ frankness—a Nancy Pelosi responding to a question about the Constitutionality of government-mandated health insurance with, “Are you serious?” etc.) can be filmed and uploaded to YouTube.

Even if, as some claim, privacy is dead, it is far harder to hide power-motivated activities today even at or near the top of the political or economic food chain.

One might argue that the superelite is having a harder time moving forward than it looks from out here in the boonies. Some of this is due to exposure on the Internet; some of it is due to those being manipulated in less-powerful nations growing savvier. Consider: during the past decade specific agendas such as the FTAA have stalled. They have been exposed here at home. National political elites elsewhere in our hemisphere cannot agree on specifics and do not trust one another; they especially do not trust U.S.-based corporate elites (and with good reason if by some chance they’ve encountered John Perkins’sConfessions of an Economic Hit Man, 2004). The same problem exists on a larger scale with global trade negotiations such as the Doha Development Round, also dead in the water for now.

The Security and Prosperity Partnership for North America (SPP), allegedly directing the integration of the U.S., Canada and Mexico into a North American Union modeled on the European Union, has also been all but thwarted. The proposed “NAFTA Superhighway” has been radically diminished in scope, fought by residents of Texas whose communities it would have effectively destroyed. The SPP, meetings of which came to draw protests, was “officially” cancelled in 2009. Its website has been taken down.

To be sure, none of these ideas are dead and buried—new “security and prosperity” meetings were held last year, for example (a link to a February 4, 2011 initiative launched by Obama and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Halper did not work). But every effort to carry them forward now meets with exposure and opposition. Agenda 21, the bible of the Sustainable Development movement, is being attacked in public meetings all across the country. Even in the case of the NDAA and other recent unconstitutional laws, one thing is for sure: thanks to the Internet and social media, large numbers of people know about them! Just as the REAL ID Act was effectively stonewalled at the state level, legislation to nullify the NDAA has passed in Virginia and is being considered in other states. I will even entertain the idea that when Barack Obama recently said he wouldn’t enforce the provision allowing the incarceration of U.S. citizens without charges, he was telling the truth:not out of altruistic motives, of course, but out of the realization that if visible people are scooped off the streets, the fact will be impossible to conceal even with a mainstream media blackout. Many of us, moreover, are sufficiently visible on social media that if we disappeared for as short a time as 24 hours, our “friends” would know immediately something was wrong.

In other words, opponents of superelitism haven’t done that badly considering their limited resources. The Internet has become the main outlet for free expression in the world. I believe a battle for control over the Internet is coming. The recent controversy over the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) is probably its opening skirmish. If today’s world is ever to be freed from the superelite, however improbable that sounds, education—much of it self-education—must be the starting point, and this includes maintaining a free Internet.

Now for the negatives. We aren’t making the best use of those resources we have. For starters, there are too many independent groups, and members of some who refuse to talk to members of others. We have organizations that will not support their own, and publications that throw former contributors to the wolves frivolously (dare I say, this has happened to me). Then there are people producing material online that is sloppily researched, inflammatory, or both. Some may well be agent provocateurs. There are people going down what frankly seem to me to be blind alleys. Some will differ, but I cannot get excited about Obama’s birth certificate, or whether he’s a closet Muslim. It is worth realizing that those with real power enjoy seeing us expend our time and energy on side issues. They enjoy a public divided into groups that fight over matters they couldn’t care less about, such as whether gays should be allowed to marry. Worse yet, there is the occasional scam artist who preys on people’s economic insecurities, makes valid observations about, e.g., the factors undermining the American middle class, then entices his audience into his multilevel marketing venture, or worse yet, into an out-and-out Ponzi scheme (this appears to have happened here in South Carolina). Such people do severe damage to the cause by convincing observers that anyone interested in such things is dishonest even if he isn’t a kook!

Contrary to Libertarians, this is not about unbridled self-interest or defending a free market absolutism that is no more rational than Communism. Private is not by definition good;nor is government by definition evil. Arguably, the repeal of an entirely appropriate and beneficial federal regulation on banks (Glass-Steagall, by Gramm-Beach-Bliley in 1999) triggered the chain of events and creation of financial instruments leading directly to the Meltdown of 2008. The superelite watched with approval, then took the bailout money.

This is not a game. It is not a “business opportunity.” We have to have each others’ backs, and know that we can trust one another or it’s game over!

We must, above all, conduct ourselves responsibly. I sometimes urge people not to verbally assault elected officials, whether in public meetings or online; under no circumstances should anyone say anything that an office-holder will take as a threat. Stick to issues, don’t dwell on personalities, and just speak the truth. Whatever is ahead might not be pretty; we are dealing with forces capable of sending the U.S. economy into a tailspin with a few phone calls, and even turning out our lights for weeks or months if they feel sufficiently threatened. I don’t doubt the capacity of at least some of their members, and probably members of our political class as well, to recruit conscienceless thugs who would break heads and murder their fellow citizens if their superiors commanded it. We are thus walking a tightrope here. We should do what we can to prevent such a calamity from ever happening if we can, short of compromising our principles. And we should remember that people have gone to jail and even been killed for their beliefs in the past. It could easily happen again.

In that light, it is useful to remember: “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places” (Eph. 6:12).

Reminding oneself of our Christian presupposition that God is ultimately in charge in this universe and that He will be victorious in the end might be a good idea! Sadly, this really does come down to “us versus them”: us being those who stand for the God-given right of persons to direct their own lives, communities and destinies within God-given spheres of responsibility, andthem being the directors of history whose partial vision of global power would deny us that right. While they are far from omnipotent and have committed some blunders over the years, we should have no illusions about who has the upper hand right now, in this world, and will probably continue to have it for the immediate future.

Rough times are probably ahead in any event. There are no guarantees that the Godly forces are destined to win out in our lifetimes. We thus conclude by recalling the words of the Letter to the Hebrews: “These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them from afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth”

Steven Yates’s new book is entitled; Four Cardinal Errors: Reasons for the Decline of the American Republic, and was published in December by Brush Fire Press International. He is the author of two earlier books, Worldviews: Christian Theism versus Modern Materialism (2005) and Civil Wrongs: What Went Wrong With Affirmative Action (1994), as well as several hundred articles in various periodicals and online. He earns his living teaching philosophy and lives in Greenville County, South Carolina.


Is Goldman Resignation Part of an Elite Plot?



by Staff Report

Goldman Roiled by Op-Ed Loses $2.2 Billion … Smith Resignation Costs Goldman Shareholders $2.2B … Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS) saw $2.15 billion of its market value wiped out after an employee assailed Chief Executive Officer Lloyd C. Blankfein‘s management and the firm’s treatment of clients, sparking debate across Wall Street. The shares dropped 3.4 percent in New York trading yesterday, the third-biggest decline in the 81-company Standard & Poor’s 500 Financials Index, after London-based Greg Smith made the accusations in a New York Times op-ed piece. Smith, who also wrote that he was quitting after 12 years at the company, blamed Blankfein, 57, and President Gary D. Cohn, 51, for a “decline in the firm’s moral fiber.” They responded in a memo to current and former employees, saying that Smith’s assertions don’t reflect the firm’s values, culture or “how the vast majority of people at Goldman Sachs think about the firm and the work it does on behalf of our clients.” – New York Times

Dominant Social Theme: Dig up Pecora and let him run a commission.

Free-Market Analysis: Hoo boy. Here’s what we really need: New “Pecora Hearings.” is this why Goldman is being pilloried once again?

Is it a deliberate hit job of sorts? Certainly it is compelling. People hate the system so much that even the alternative news media goes along when it comes to Goldman Sachs.

It never seems to occur to anyone, even the brightest of the alternative media minds, that this is the way the power elite works. Do they ever set up a dialectic they don’t control? “They” OWN Goldman Sachs it seems to us. Goldman works for “them” … and “they” are offering up this firm like a sacrificial lamb.

But the stakes could not be higher. The end of the US system of capital-raising is being oiled and greased in Washington thanks to the constant drumbeat of anti-Wall Street news.

The guillotine is being sharpened. The screws are being tightened. It is almost time for the show to begin.

And what a show it will be: Political theatre designed to reduce what is left of Wall Street entirely to an adjunct ofWashington, DC.

In the process it will accomplish what Alexander Hamilton long dreamed of doing 250 years ago: Reconfigure the Republic and turn it into a version of European nation-states.

After these new hearings take place, George Orwell‘s famous phrase will be fully operative: “If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stomping on a human face – forever.”

This unpleasant sentiment has been the goal of certain individuals; but the proximate reality has drawn considerably closer in the past years now, ever since the disastrous economic collapse of 2008.

You ask why this is so. Why is it bad to have a Congressional Hearing to punish Wall Street and “throw the crooks in jail”? That’s not the REAL reason for these upcoming hearings.

The real reason is to kill the last vestiges of the capital-raising mechanism in the US. Kill it. Kill it dead. After these new hearings take place, the ability for average people to raise capital – already doubtful – will be improbable indeed.

The other thing these hearings will attempt to do is to provide legitimacy for the current US political system and the penal-industrial complex. Over and over certain people complain that the “crooks” have not yet gone to jail.

But to put the “crooks in jail” will utilize the entire illegitimate structure of US power including the entirely corrupt US Congress, increasingly authoritarian law enforcement and murderous penal facilities themselves. The powers-that-be intend to capitalize on the righteous anger of US citizens to prop up the horrid system of US jurisprudence and Congress itself that only has about a 10 percent approval rating currently with the larger public.

This is only a secondary point, however. The primary goal is even more malicious. The power elite intends to make damn sure that if people make money in the future, it won’t be via formal capital raising mechanisms.

The US has always been a nightmare for the elites that intend to run the world (and apparently control the world’scentral banks). One of the worst parts of the US system from a its standpoint is that average people have the capacity to make money. This isn’t really the case in Europe where capital is doled out like royal titles: One needs, mostly, to be “connected” to get it.

But in the US even impoverished social misfits with a bright idea could raise money and build a business, even a big businesses. The power elite that now controls both money and media around the world has always found this to be unacceptable. First “they” helped create a formal “constitutional republic” and then with the advent of the Civil War, they helped destroy it.

They launched their apparent agent JP Morgan to control the wealth of the US and to create a series of phony crashes when he was fully empowered. The crash of 1907, which Morgan supposedly cured, seems to have been his creation as well.

It led directly to the Federal Reserve act and launched a century long inflation that has now devalued the dollar by about 99 percent. It is this monopoly central banking that has led to the current recessionary depression as well. The US is a hollowed-out economy. This was apparently the plan. The US and its republican culture stood in the way of world government.

On the way to the current disasters, regulatory democracy has taken root throughout the Western world. Regulatory democracy is supposedly the result of “market failures.”

The biggest market failure that gave rise to regulations the way Helen of Troy’s face supposedly launched a thousand ships, was the Crash of 1929 and the subsequent Depression. The putative result of these events was the so-called Pecora Hearings. And now the US is gearing up for another one.

We’ve been writing about this since last year. In fact, we were reporting on it as a dominant social theme long before there came “news” that a Pecora Hearing committee was forming in the bowels of Congress. Boy, were we surprised … not. You can see one of our articles here: The Real Reason Bloomberg Sued to Open Up Fed Records?

Here at the Daily Bell, we observe the dominant social themes of the elite. We noticed that The Occupy Wall Streetmovement, funded ultimately by George Soros, seemed to spend an inordinate amount of time blaming Wall Street for the woes of the world. We even believe we know who is going to HEAD the committee. (Perhaps we’re only “blowing bubbles,” pretty bubbles, etc. …) Just the other day, March 9, in the American Reporter, we see the following:

We are overdue for an accountability moment for the American financial industry. Fraud on a scale unimaginable has been committed, and the hard-earned savings of countless Americans has been looted, yet so far, only Madoff has taken the fall.

A bipartisan congressional panel armed with subpoena power is being formed to investigate causes of the Wall Street meltdown. The 10-member Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC) will study how fraud, regulatory lapses, monetary policy, accounting, lending practices and executive pay contributed to the worst global financial crisis since the Great Depression.

The FCIC is modeled after the Pecora Commission, a U.S. Senate panel formed in the early 1930s that investigated the causes of the 1929 Wall Street crash. Those hearings, led by Ferdinand Pecora, produced the facts and momentum for the major New Deal financial reforms.

We need a Pecora-style investigation that will name names, ask tough questions and seek remedies. What we don’t need is for the FCIC to be another version of the 9/11 Commission, a panel that was never allowed to fully and completely investigate all the lapses that led to the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.

This is what we call an elite dominant social theme, folks. You got “yours” good and hard. And now it’s time for Wall Street to pay.

The initial Pecora Hearings, run by Ferdinand Pecora, took place in the 1930s under Franklin Delano Roosevelt and resulted in the Wall Street we have today. In fact, the Pecora Hearings were based on farce and developed via fallacy.

The farcical part was that the Roaring Twenties and subsequent depression were the fault of Wall Street. Today, of course, historical fact points to illegal Federal Reserve inflation.

The Fed printed much more money than it had the right to print in the 20s and then after the crash, FDR deliberately covered up the crime by declaring bank holidays so that people would never cash in their paper receipts for gold.

When this didn’t prove effective, FDR confiscated gold to make sure the banks, under the thumb of the newly founded Fed, would never have to redeem a penny. Thus we can see from the 1930s on, the Fed and the US government acted as a kind of criminal syndicate. This is forbidden history. It has only emerged popularly in the past decade, thanks to the Internet.

Today, thanks to free-market Austrian thinkers such as Ludwig von Mises, we know that the business cycle itself was responsible for the 1929 Crash and Great Depression. First, the Fed printed too much money and made everyone feel rich. Then, when the hot money circulated like sugar fueling a diabetic stroke, came the dreaded bust.

As a result, the Pecora Hearings were developed. The blame for the Crash and Great Depression were pinned on Wall Street and a bouquet of faux regulatory blossoms were cultivated: The SEC was formed, the NASD was created and outfits like the New York Stock Exchange were dubbed “self regulatory organizations.”

The “public” stock market was invented, too. People tend to think there is a distinction between a private and public stock market but like so many other things in life, it is merely a regulatory distinction.

Let’s not forget Glass-Steagall, as well. The idea of all of these nonsensical regulatory endeavors was to blame the crime of Federal Reserve monetary inflation on Wall Street chicanery. And now it is happening again. Goldman Sachs is being targeted for just this reason, in our view.

Of course, Wall Street DESERVES to be targeted. It is a shadow of a free-market facility, merely an adjunct of the power elite at this point. But it is not the MAIN MECHANISM of the coming authoritarianism. The main tools are monopoly-fiat central banking and government regulation.

The power elite flourishes via mercantilism. It created the Fed to be perceived as a PUBLIC facility and the Fed derives its authority from its PUBLIC brief. Government is not merely a helper in this regard, it is the prime enabler. Without enabling government regulation, the Fed would not exist; its credibility would not be buttressed.

The game is always … blame Wall Street. We have no affection for modern Wall Street of its crookedness, but we can see an elitist meme as well as anyone. At this point Wall Street is hardly a private entity in aggregate. It, too, is a quasi-public facility with all the attendant market failure.

Were Wall Street actually PRIVATE – and run by the Invisible Hand – we’d be bigger boosters. But Wall Street’s ruin and rapine is a direct result of the regulatory regime under which it is now “run.” And the game, of course, is to pile up regulation on regulation until the banking mechanisms of the country are entirely dysfunctional and run out of Washington (at the behest of the elites running the shadow government).

We are therefore a bit … suspicious of this executive director Greg Smith who quit Goldman in an open letter in theNew York Times. He blasted Goldman Sachs and its unethical behavior. And the New York Times, a prime mouthpiece of the elite, was happy to report and report … and report … on it.

Our elves made a tiny bet among themselves that a Rhodes Scholarship (a sign of elite influence) lurked in Smith’s background. We went looking and this is what we found, courtesy of an article in the UK Daily Mail:

… [Stanford University] confirmed he was given a scholarship but was not able to disclose how much it was for. After graduating, he applied for the prestigious Rhodes Scholarship which counts Chelsea Clinton among its alumni and would have allowed him to study at Oxford University in England for a year.

Smith was one of 10 finalists but only four got a place – and he missed out. A person familiar with the Rhodes application process said: ‘If he got that far academically he was brilliant. ‘It is not usual for people in such a position to take a job with a company like Goldman Sachs for a year or so between university and going on the Rhodes scholarship. Firms like Goldman seek them out as they are the best.’

Despite his successful career, in his letter Mr Smith said the ‘proudest moments in his life’ were getting the Stanford scholarship, being selected as a Rhodes Scholar national finalist and winning a bronze medal for table tennis at the Maccabiah Games in Israel, known as the Jewish Olympics. He said that was because those achievements ‘came through hard work, with no short cuts.’

We’re not as enamored of Rhodes Scholarships as is Mr. Smith. The Rhodes Scholarships come out of Oxford that, like Harvard, train and create the academic stormtroopers of the elite. Here’s William Jasper on the characteristics that Cecil Rhodes valued for Rhodes Scholars:

“What are the characteristics that the Rhodes scholarship selection committees were to look for in candidates and nurture in their scholars? According to Rhodes’ own criteria … the traits most desired were(and are) “smugness, brutality, unctuous rectitude, and tact.” … According to Rhodes’ co-conspirator Stead, it was expected that by 1920 there would be”between two and three thousand men in the prime of life scattered all over the world, each of whom, moreover, would have been specially – mathematically – selected toward the Founder’s purposes.”

Conclusion: We shall close with an observation that appeared in our previous article on what is manifestly planned for the US: “So … remember this, please, as you listen to whatever Congress may muster after the next presidential elections (or even before). In the world of power and money, there is NOTHING that is as it seems. Countries NEVER go to war for stated reasons. Laws are NEVER passed for the reasons that are given. Regulations are NEVER propounded to “protect” the individual, but only to advantage the most powerful – the ones who can make the rules.”


Bank of America Too Crooked to Fail


ALSO READ  JP Morgan Chases Ugly Family Secrets Revealed AT http://anationbeguiled.com

The bank has defrauded everyone from investors and insurers to homeowners and the unemployed. So why does the government keep bailing it out?


 By Matt Taibbi

March 14, 2012 10:55 AM ET

At least Bank of America got its name right. The ultimate Too Big to Fail bank really is America, a hypergluttonous ward of the state whose limitless fraud and criminal conspiracies we’ll all be paying for until the end of time. Did you hear about the plot to rig global interest rates? The $137 million fine for bilking needy schools and cities? The ingenious plan to suck multiple fees out of the unemployment checks of jobless workers? Take your eyes off them for 10 seconds and guaranteed, they’ll be into some shit again: This bank is like the world’s worst-behaved teenager, taking your car and running over kittens and fire hydrants on the way to Vegas for the weekend, maxing out your credit cards in the three days you spend at your aunt’s funeral. They’re out of control, yet they’ll never do time or go out of business, because the government remains creepily committed to their survival, like overindulgent parents who refuse to believe their 40-year-old live-at-home son could possibly be responsible for those dead hookers in the backyard.

It’s been four years since the government, in the name of preventing a depression, saved this megabank from ruin by pumping $45 billion of taxpayer money into its arm. Since then, the Obama administration has looked the other way as the bank committed an astonishing variety of crimes – some elaborate and brilliant in their conception, some so crude that they’d be beneath your average street thug. Bank of America has systematically ripped off almost everyone with whom it has a significant business relationship, cheating investors, insurers, depositors, homeowners, shareholders, pensioners and taxpayers. It brought tens of thousands of Americans to foreclosure court using bogus, “robo-signed” evidence – a type of mass perjury that it helped pioneer. It hawked worthless mortgages to dozens of unions and state pension funds, draining them of hundreds of millions in value. And when it wasn’t ripping off workers and pensioners, it was helping to push insurance giants like AMBAC into bankruptcy by fraudulently inducing them to spend hundreds of millions insuring those same worthless mortgages.

But despite being the very definition of an unaccountable corporate villain, Bank of America is now bigger and more dangerous than ever. It controls more than 12 percent of America’s bank deposits (skirting a federal law designed to prohibit any firm from controlling more than 10 percent), as well as 17 percent of all American home mortgages. By looking the other way and rewarding the bank’s bad behavior with a massive government bailout, we actually allowed a huge financial company to not just grow so big that its collapse would imperil the whole economy, but to get away with any and all crimes it might commit. Too Big to Fail is one thing; it’s also far too corrupt to survive.

All the government bailouts succeeded in doing was to make the bank even more prone to catastrophic failure – and now that catastrophe might finally be at hand. Bank of America’s share price has plunged into the single digits, and the bank faces battles in courtrooms all over America to avoid paying back the hundreds of billions it stole from everyone in sight. Its credit rating, already downgraded to a few rungs above junk status, could plummet with the next bad analyst report, causing a frenzied rush to the exits by creditors, investors and stockholders – an institutional run on the bank.

They’re in deep trouble, but they won’t die, because our current president, like the last one, apparently believes it’s better to project a false image of financial soundness than to allow one of our oligarchic banks to collapse under the weight of its own corruption. Last year, the Federal Reserve allowed Bank of America to move a huge portfolio of dangerous bets into a side of the company that happens to be FDIC-insured, putting all of us on the hook for as much as $55 trillion in irresponsible gambles. Then, in February, the Justice Department‘s so-called foreclosure settlement, which will supposedly provide $26 billion in relief for ripped-off homeowners, actually rewarded the bank with a legal waiver that will allow it to escape untold billions in lawsuits. And this month the Fed will release the results of its annual stress test, in which the bank will once again be permitted to perpetuate its fiction of solvency by grossly overrating the mountains of toxic loans on its books. At this point, the rescue effort is so sweeping and elaborate that it goes far beyond simply gouging the tax dollars of millions of struggling families, many of whom have already been ripped off by the bank – it’s making the government, and by extension all of us, full-blown accomplices to the fraud.

Anyone who wants to know what the Occupy Wall Street protests are all about need only look at the way Bank of America does business. It comes down to this: These guys are some of the very biggest assholes on Earth. They lie, cheat and steal as reflexively as addicts, they laugh at people who are suffering and don’t have money, they pay themselves huge salaries with money stolen from old people and taxpayers – and on top of it all, they completely suck at banking. And yet the state won’t let them go out of business, no matter how much they deserve it, and it won’t slap them in jail, no matter what crimes they commit. That makes them not bankers or capitalists, but a class of person that was never supposed to exist in America: royalty.

Self-appointed royalty, it’s true – but just as dumb and inbred as the real thing, and every bit as expensive to support. Like all royals, they reached their position in society by being relentlessly dedicated to the cause of Bigness, Unaccountability and the Worthlessness of Others. And just like royals, they spend most of their lives getting deeper in debt, and laughing every year when our taxes go to covering their whist markers. Two and a half centuries after we kicked out the British, it’s really come to this?

Bank of America started out in San Francisco in 1904 as an emblem of American capitalism. Founded by a first-generation Italian-American named Amadeo Giannini – it was even originally called the Bank of Italy – the bank set out to serve immigrants denied credit by other banks, and it was instrumental in helping to rebuild the city after the devastating earthquake of 1906.

But like many of the truly bad ideas in history, the present-day version of Bank of America was the product of a testosterone overdose. The concept of an overmassive, acquiring-everything-in-sight, bicoastal megabank was hatched in the terminal inferiority complex of a greed-sick asshole – actually two greed-sick assholes, both of them CEOs of Southern regional banks, who launched a cartoonish arms race of bank acquisitions that would ultimately turn the American business world upside down.

The antagonists were Hugh McColl Jr. and Ed Crutchfield, the respective leaders of North Carolina National Bank (which would take over Bank of America) and First Union (which turned into Wachovia), both based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Obsessed with each other, these two men transformed their personal competition into one of the most ridiculous and elaborate penis-measuring contests in the history of American business – even engaging in the garish Freudian spectacle of vying to see who would have the tallest skyscraper in Charlotte. First Union kicked things off in 1971 by erecting the 32-story Jefferson First Union Tower, then the biggest building in town – until McColl’s bank built the 40-story NCNB Plaza in 1974. Then, in the late Eighties, Crutchfield topped McColl with the city’s first post­modern high-rise, One First Union Center, at 42 stories. That held the prize until 1992, when McColl went haywire and put up the hideous 60-story Bank of America Corporate Center, a giant slab of gray metal affectionately known around Charlotte as the “Taj McColl.” When asked by reporters if he was pleased that his 60-story monster overwhelmed his rival’s 42-story weenie, McColl didn’t hesitate. “Do I prefer having the tall one?” he said. “Yes.”

For a time, this ridiculous rivalry between two strutting Southern peacocks was restrained by the law – specifically, the McFadden-Pepper Act of 1927 and the Douglas Amendment to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956. These two federal statutes, which made it illegal for a bank holding company to own and operate banks in more than one state, were effectively designed to prevent exactly the Too Big to Fail problem we now find ourselves faced with. The goal, as Sen. Paul Douglas explained at the time, was “to prevent an undue concentration of banking and financial power, and instead keep the private control of credit diffused as much as possible.”

But these laws didn’t sit well with Hugh McColl. To him, size was everything. “We realized that if we didn’t leave North Carolina,” he explained later in his career, “we would never amount to anything – that we would not be important.” Note that he didn’t say the ban on expansion prevented him from turning a profit or earning good returns for his shareholders – only that it put a limit on his sense of self-importance. So McColl and his banking minions set out to break down the interstate banking laws. First, in 1981, they used a legal loophole in Florida law to buy a bank branch there – evading the federal ban on out-of-state owners. Then, following a Supreme Court decision in 1985 that allowed banks to cross state lines within a designated region, he and Crutchfield went on a conquering spree worthy of a Mongol horde, buying up a host of banks in other Southern states. McColl, a silver-haired ex-Marine who would eventually be celebrated for bringing a “military approach” to his business, went to ridiculous lengths to play up the manly conquest aspect of his bank’s merger frenzy, rewarding key employees with crystal hand grenades. By 1995, McColl had acquired more than 200 banks and thrifts across the South, while Crutchfield had snapped up 50.

A few years later, after Congress repealed most of the barriers to interstate banking, McColl took over Bank of America, realizing his dream of creating what one trade publication called “the first ocean-to-ocean bank in the nation’s history.” Later, after McColl retired, his successors kept up his acquisitive legacy, buying notorious mortgage lender Countrywide Financial in 2008, and using some of the $25 billion in federal bailout funds they received to acquire dying investment bank Merrill Lynch. Both firms were infamous for their exotic gambles and their systematic cutting of regulatory corners – meaning that the shopping spree had burdened Bank of America with a huge portfolio of doomed trades and criminal conspiracies.

But to McColl, it was all worth it – because he would never have been important if he hadn’t also been big. “I have no regrets about building it large,” he said in 2010, when asked if he considered all the monster consolidations a mistake in light of the crash of 2008. “I may have some regrets about not building it larger.”

This deeply American terror of not always having the absolutely hugest dick in the room is what put us in the inescapable box called Too Big to Fail. When the bailouts were dreamed up to save Bank of America, the government was essentially committing public resources to preserve this lunatic spending spree – which means two successive presidential administrations have now spent nearly half a decade and hundreds of billions of tax dollars defending the premise that Hugh McColl should always be allowed to have the “taller one.”

And why? The rationale for allowing that merger spree in the first place was based on a phony assumption: that big banks would somehow be more efficient and more profitable than small ones. “The whole premise of a Citibank or a Chase or a Bank of America is wrongheaded,” says Susan Webber, an analyst who writes one of the most popular and respected financial blogs under the pseudo­nym Yves Smith. “Studies consistently show that after a certain size threshold, bank efficiency taps out. In fact, it turns out that all those cost savings the banks were supposed to enjoy from being bigger were actually based on cutting corners and fraud.”

And man, what a lot of fraud!

In the end, it all comes back to mortgages. Though Bank of America would ultimately be charged with committing a dizzyingly diverse variety of corporate misdeeds, the bulk of the trouble the bank is in today arises from the Great Mortgage Scam of the mid-2000s, which caused the biggest financial bubble in history.

The shorthand version of the scam is by now familiar: Banks and mortgage lenders conspired to create a gigantic volume of very risky home loans, delivering outsize mortgages to dubious borrowers like immigrants without identification, the unemployed and people with poor credit histories. Then the banks took those dicey home loans and sprinkled them with bogus math, using inscrutable financial gizmos like collateralized mortgage obligations to rechristen the risky home loans as high-grade, AAA-rated securities that could be sold off to unions, pensioners, foreign banks, retirement funds and any other suckers the banks could find. In essence, America’s financial institutions grew vast fields of cheap oregano, and then went around the world marketing their product as high-grade weed.

The holy trinity of Bank of America, Countrywide and Merrill Lynch represented the worst conceivable team of financial powers to get hold of this scam. It was a little like the Wall Street version of Michael Bay’s nonclassic Con Air, in which the world’s creepiest serial killer, most demented terrorist and most depraved redneck are all thrown together on the same plane. In this case, it was the most careless mortgage lender (the spray-tanned huckster Angelo Mozilo from Countrywide, who was named the second-worst CEO of all time by Portfolio magazine), the most dangerous mortgage gambler (Merrill, whose CEO was the self-worshipping jerkwad John Thain, the ex-Goldman banker who bought himself an $87,000 area rug as his company was cratering in 2008) and the most relentless packager of mortgage pools (Bank of America), all put together under one roof and let loose on the world. These guys were so corrupt, they even shocked one another: According to a federal lawsuit, top executives at Countrywide complained privately that Bank of America’s “appetite for risky products was greater than that of Countrywide.”

The three lenders also pioneered ways to sell their toxic pools of mortgages to suckers. Bank of America’s typical marketing pitch to a union or a state pension fund involved a double or even triple guarantee. First, it promised, in writing, that all its loans had passed due diligence tests and met its high internal standards. Next, it promised that if any of the loans in the mortgage pool turned out to be defective or in default, it would buy them back. And finally, it assured customers that if all else failed, the pools of mortgages were all insured, or “wrapped,” by bond insurers like AMBAC and MBIA.

It sounded like a can’t-lose deal. Not only did the bank offer a written guarantee of the high quality of the loans it was selling, it also promised to buy back any bad loans, which were often insured to boot. What could go wrong?

As it turned out, everything. From tits to toes, the mortgage pools created, packaged and sold by Countrywide, Merrill Lynch and Bank of America were a complete sham: worthless and often falling apart virtually from the day they were delivered.

First of all, despite the fact that the banks had promised that all the loans in their pools met their internal lending standards, that turned out to be completely untrue. An SEC­ investigation later found out, for instance, that Countrywide essentially had no standards for whom to lend to. As a federal judge put it, “Countrywide routinely ignored its official underwriting guidelines to such an extent that Countrywide would underwrite any loan it could sell.” Translation: Countrywide gave home loans to anything with a pulse, provided they had a sucker lined up to buy the loan.

How did they make these loans in the first place? By committing every kind of lending fraud imaginable – particularly by entering fake data on home loan applications, magically turning minimum-wage janitors into creditworthy wage earners. In 2006, according to a report by Credit Suisse, a whopping 49 percent of the nation’s subprime loans were “liar’s loans,” meaning that lenders could state the incomes of borrowers without requiring any proof of employment. And no one lied more than Countrywide and Bank of America. In an internal e-mail distributed in June 2006, Countrywide’s executives worried that 40 percent of the firm’s “reduced documentation loans” potentially had “income overstated by more than 10 percent… and a significant percent of those loans would have income overstated by 50 percent or more.”

“What large numbers of Countrywide employees did every day was commit fraud by knowingly making and approving loans they knew borrowers couldn’t repay,” says William Black, a former federal banking regulator. “To do so, it was essential that the loans be made to appear to be relatively less risky. This required pervasive documentation fraud.”

So what happened when institutional investors realized that the loans they had bought from Countrywide were nothing but shams? Instead of buying back the bad loans as promised, and as required by its own contracts, the bank simply refused to answer its phone. A typical transaction involved U.S. Bancorp, which in 2005 served as a trustee for a group of investors that bought 4,484 Countrywide mortgages for $1.75 billion – only to discover their shiny new investment vehicle started throwing rods before they could even drive it off the lot. “Soon after being sold to the Trust,” U.S. Bancorp later observed in a lawsuit, “Countrywide’s loans began to become delinquent and default at a startling rate.” The trustees hired a consultant to examine 786 loans in the pool, and found that an astonishing two-thirds of them were defective in some way. Yet, confronted with the fraud, Countrywide failed to repurchase a single loan, offering “no basis for its refusal.”

And what about that ostensible insurance that Bank of America sold with its bundles of mortgages? Well, those policies turned out not to be worth very much, since so many of the loans defaulted that they blew the insurers out of business. If you went bust buying bad mortgages from Bank of America, chances are, so did your insurer. At best, you two could now share a blanket in the poorhouse.

Many of the nation’s largest insurers, in fact, are now suing the pants off Bank of America, claiming they were fraudulently induced to insure the bank’s “high lending standards.” AMBAC, the second-largest bond insurer in America, went bankrupt in 2010 after paying out some $466 million in claims over 35,000 Countrywide home loans. After analyzing a dozen of the mortgage pools, AMBAC found that a staggering 97 percent of the loans didn’t meet the stated underwriting standards. That same year, the Association of Financial Guaranty Insurers, a trade group representing firms like AMBAC, told Bank of America that it should be repurchasing as much as $20 billion in defective mortgages.

Some of these institutional investors were at least partial accomplices to their own downfall. In the boom era of easy money, financial professionals everywhere were chasing the lusciously high yields offered by these bundles of subprime mortgages, and everyone knew the deals weren’t exactly risk-free. But ultimately, Bank of America was knowingly selling a defective product – and down the road, that product was bound to blow up on somebody innocent. “A teacher or a fireman goes to work and saves money for their retirement via their pensions,” says Manal Mehta, a partner at the hedge fund Branch Hill Capital who spent two years researching Bank of America. “That pension fund buys toxic securities put together by Wall Street that were designed to fail. So when that security blows up, wealth flows directly from that pension fund into the hands of a select few.”

This is the crossroads where Bank of America now lives – trying to convince the government to allow it to remain in business, perhaps even asking for another bailout or two, while it avoids paying back untold billions to all of the institutional customers it screwed, the list of which has grown so long as to almost be comical. Last year, the bank settled with a group of pension and retirement funds, including public employees from Mississippi to Los Angeles, that charged Bank of America and Merrill with misrepresenting the value of more than $16 billion in mortgage-backed securities. In the end, the bank paid only $315 million.

In the first half of last year, Bank of America paid $12.7 billion to settle claims brought by defrauded customers. But countless other investors are still howling for Bank of America to take back its counterfeit product. Allstate, the maker of those reassuring Dennis Haysbert-narrated commercials, claims it got stuck with $700 million in defective mortgages from Countrywide. The states of Iowa, Oregon and Maine, as well as the United Methodist Church, are suing Bank of America over fraudulent deals, claiming hundreds of billions in collective losses. And there are similar lawsuits for nonmortgage-related securities, like a revolting sale of doomed municipal securities to the state of Hawaii and Maui County. In that case, Merrill Lynch brokers allegedly dumped $944 million in auction-rate securities on the Hawaiians, even though the brokers knew that the auction-rate market was already going bust. “Market is collapsing,” a Merrill executive named John Price admitted in an internal e-mail, before joking about having to give up pricey dinners at a fancy Manhattan restaurant. “No more $2K dinners at CRU!!”

In the end, says Mehta, Bank of America’s fraud resulted in “one of the biggest reverse transfers of wealth in history – from pensioners to financiers. What the 99 percent should understand is that Wall Street knowingly inflated the bubble by engaging in rampant mortgage fraud – and then profited from the collapse of their own exuberance by devising a way to shift the losses to countless pension funds, endowments and other innocent investors.” The assembled worldwide collection of swindled pensioners and unions and investors is a little like the crowd that storms the basketball court in the Will Ferrell movie Semi-Pro when the home team’s owner welshes on his promise to hand out free corn dogs if the score tops 125 points. Corn dogs, Bank of America! Where are the freaking corn dogs!

Incredible as it sounds, owing practically everyone in the world billions of dollars apiece is only half of Bank of America’s problem. The bank didn’t just flee the scene of its various securities rip-offs. It also made a habit out of breaking the law and engaging in ethical lapses on a grand scale, all over the globe. Once your money ends up in their pockets, they just slither off into the night, no matter their legal or professional obligations.

Case in point: With all those hundreds of thousands of mortgages the bank bought, it simply stopped filing basic paperwork – even the stuff required by law, like keeping chains of title. A blizzard of subsequent lawsuits from pissed-off localities reveals that the bank used this systematic scam to avoid paying local fees. Last year, a single county – Dallas County in Texas – sued Bank of America for ducking fees since 1997. “Our research shows it could be more than $100 million,” Craig Watkins, the county’s district attorney, told reporters. Think of that next time your county leaves a road unpaved, or is forced to raise property taxes to keep the schools open.

But the lack of paperwork also presented a problem for the bank: When it needed to foreclose on someone, it had no evidence to take to court. So Bank of America unleashed a practice called robo-signing, which essentially involved drawing up fake documents for court procedures. Two years ago, a Bank of America robo-signer named Renee Hertzler gave a deposition in which she admitted not only to creating as many as 8,000 legal affidavits a month, but also to signing documents with a fake title.

Yet here’s how seriously fucked the financial markets are: Even the most vocal critics of Bank of America consider the mass, factory-style production of tens of thousands of fake legal documents per month not that big a deal. “Robo-signing is like focusing on Bernie Madoff’s accountant,” quips April Charney, a well-known foreclosure lawyer who has spent large chunks of the past two decades in battle with Bank of America.

Robo-signing is not the disease – it’s a symptom of Bank of America’s entire attitude toward the law. A bank that’s willing to commit whole departments to inventing legal affidavits might also, for instance, intentionally ding depositors with bogus overdraft fees. (A class action suit accused Bank of America of heisting some $4.5 billion from its customers this way; the bank settled the suit for a mere 10 cents on the dollar.)

Or it might give up trying to win government contracts honestly and get involved with rigging municipal bids – a mobster’s crime, for which the accused used to do serious time, back when the bids were for construction and garbage instead of municipal bonds, and the defendants were Eye-talians in gold chains instead of Ivy Leaguers in ties and Chanel glasses. We now know that Bank of America routinely conspired with other banks to make sure it paid low prices for the privilege of managing the moneys of various cities and towns. If the city of Baltimore or the University of Mississippi or the Guam Power Authority issued bonds to raise money, the bank would huddle up with the likes of Bear Stearns and Morgan Stanley and decide whose “turn” it was to win the bid. Bank of America paid a $137 million fine for its sabotage of the government-contracting process – and in an attempt to avoid prosecution, it applied to the Justice Department’s corporate leniency program, essentially confessing its criminal status: As plaintiff attorneys noted, the application “means that Bank of America is an admitted felon.” Think about that when you hear about all the bailouts the bank has gotten in the past four years. A street felon who gets out of jail can’t even vote in some states – and yet Bank of America is allowed to receive billions in federal aid and dominate the electoral process with campaign contributions?

Some of the bank’s other collusive schemes are even more ambitious. Last year, the bank was sued, alongside some of its competitors, for conspiring to rig the London Interbank Offered Rate. Many adjustable-rate financial products are based on LIBOR – so if the big banks could get together and artificially lower the rate, they would pay out less to customers who bought those products. “About $350 trillion worth of financial products globally reference LIBOR,” says one antitrust lawyer familiar with the case. “Which means,” she adds in a striking understatement, “that the scale of this conspiracy is extremely large.”

What’s most striking in all of these scams is the corporate culture of Bank of America: These guys are just dicks. Time and again, they go out of their way to fleece their own customers, without a trace of remorse. In classic con-artist behavior, Bank of America even tried to rip off homeowners a second time by gaming President Obama’s HAMP program, which was designed to aid families who had already been victimized by the banks. In a lawsuit filed last year, homeowners claim they were asked to submit a mountain of paperwork before receiving a modified loan – only to have the bank misplace the documents when it was time to pay up. “The vast majority tell us the same thing,” says Steve Berman, an attorney for the plaintiffs. “Bank of America claims to have lost their paperwork, failed to return phone calls, made false claims about the status of their loans and even took actions toward foreclosure without informing homeowners of their options.” The scheme allowed the bank to bleed struggling homeowners for a few last desperate months by holding out the carrot of federal aid they would never receive.

Even when caught red-handed and nailed by courts for behavior like this, Bank of America has remained smugly unrepentant. As part of an $8.4 billion settlement it entered into with multiple states over predatory lending practices, the bank agreed to provide homeowners with modified loans and promised not to raise rates on borrowers. But no sooner was the deal signed than the bank “materially and almost immediately violated” the terms, according to Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto. It not only jacked up rates on homeowners, it even instituted a policy punishing any bank employee who spent more than 10 minutes helping a victim get a loan modification.

The bank’s list of victims goes on and on. The disabled? Just a few weeks ago, the government charged Bank of America with violating the Fair Housing Act by illegally requiring proof of disability from people who rely on disability income to make their mortgage payments. Minorities? Last December, the bank settled with the Justice Department for $335 million over Countrywide’s practice of dumping risky subprime loans on qualified black and Hispanic borrowers. The poor? In South Carolina, Bank of America won a contract to distribute unemployment benefits through prepaid debit cards – and then charged multiple fees to jobless folk who had the gall to withdraw their money from anywhere other than a Bank of America ATM. Seriously, who hasn’t this bank conspired to defraud? Puppies? One-eyed Sri Lankans?

Bank of America likes to boast that it has changed its ways, replacing many of the top executives who helped create the mortgage bubble. But the man promoted from within to lead the new team, CEO Brian Moynihan, is just as loathsome and tone-deaf as his previous bosses. As befits a new royal, Moynihan defended a plan to gouge all debit-card users with $5 fees by citing his divine privilege: “We have a right to make a profit.” And despite the bank’s litany of crimes, Moynihan seems to think we’re just overreacting. After all, he gives to charities! “I get a little incensed when you think about how much good all of you do, whether it’s volunteer hours, charitable giving we do, serving clients and customers well,” he told employees last October. Then, addressing would-be protesters: “You ought to think a little about that before you start yelling at us.”

In sum, Bank of America torched dozens of institutional investors with billions in worthless loans, repeatedly refused to abide by contractual obligations to buy them back, evaded hundreds of millions in local fees and taxes, pushed tens of thousands of people into foreclosure using phony documents, ignored multiple court orders to stop its illegal robo-signing, and exploited President Obama’s signature mortgage-relief program. The bank fixed the bids on bonds for schools and cities and utilities all over America, and even conspired to try to game the game itself – by fixing global interest rates!

So what does the government do about a rogue firm like this, one that inflates market-wrecking bubbles, commits mass fraud and generally treats the law like its own personal urinal cake? Well, it goes without saying that you rescue that “admitted felon” at all costs – even if you have to spend billions in taxpayer money to do it.

Bank of America should have gone out of business back in 2008. Just as the mortgage market was crashing, it made an inconceivably stupid investment in subprime mortgages, acquiring Countrywide and the billions in potential lawsuits that came with it. “They tried to catch a falling knife and lost their hand and foot in the process,” says Joshua Rosner, a noted financial analyst. It then spent $50 billion buying a firm, Merrill Lynch, that was rife with billions in debts. With those two anchors on its balance sheet, Hugh McColl’s bicoastal dream bank should have gone the way of the dinosaur.

But it didn’t. Instead, in the midst of the crash, the government forked over $45 billion in aid to Bank of America – $20 billion as an incentive to bring its cross-eyed bride Merrill Lynch to the altar, and another $25 billion as part of the overall TARP bailout. In addition, the government agreed to guarantee $118 billion in Bank of America debt.

So what did the bank do with that money? First, it sat by while lame-duck executives at Merrill paid themselves $3.6 billion in bonuses – even though Merrill lost more than $27 billion that year. In all, 696 executives received more than $1 million each for helping to crash the storied firm. (The bank wound up hit with a $150 million fine for its failure to inform shareholders about the Merrill losses and bonuses.) Bank of America, meanwhile, paid out more than $3.3 billion in bonuses to itself, including more than $1 million each to 172 executives.

In fact, the real bailouts of Bank of America didn’t even begin until well after TARP. In the years since the crash, the bank has issued more than $44 billion in FDIC-insured debt through a little-known Federal Reserve plan called the Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program. The plan essentially allows companies whose credit ratings are fucked to borrow against the government’s good name – and if the loans aren’t paid back, the government is on the hook for all of it. Bank of America has also stayed afloat by constantly borrowing billions in low-­interest emergency loans from the Fed – part of $7.7 trillion in “secret” loans that were not disclosed by the central bank until last year. When the data was finally released, we found out that, on just one day in 2008, Bank of America owed the Fed a staggering $86 billion.

That means that when you take out a credit card or a mortgage or a refinancing from Bank of America, you’re essentially borrowing from the state; the “private” bank is simply taking a cut as a middleman. “For banks, the cost of capital is the key to success,” says former New York governor Eliot Spitzer. “So by lowering their cost of capital to almost zero, the Fed has almost guaranteed that the banks will make big profits.”

Another public lifeline is Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the giant, nationalized mortgage lenders. Need to make some cash? Toss a bunch of home loan applications onto a city street, then sell the resulting mortgages to Fannie and Freddie, which are basically a gigantic pile of public money guarded by second-rate managers. Just like the state pensions in Iowa and Maine and Missis­sippi, Fannie and Freddie were targeted for sales of toxic mortgages, and just like those entities, they have sued Bank of America, claiming they were suckered into buying more than $30 billion in shitty securities. But unlike those other suckers, Fannie and Freddie continued to buy crap loans from Bank of America even after it was clear they’d been hoodwinked. Last year, the bank created more than $156 billion in mortgages – nearly $38 billion of which were bought by Fannie. Having the government as an ever-ready customer, standing by to buy mortgages at full retail prices, has always been an ongoing hidden bailout to the banks.

But even the government has its limits. In February, Fannie announced it would no longer keep blindly buying mortgages from Bank of America. Why? Because the bank, already slow to buy back its defective mortgages, had gotten even slower. By the end of last year, the government reported, more than half of all the crappy loans that Fannie wanted to return came from a single bad bank – Bank of America.

But if you think that Fannie cutting off the bank is good news, think again. If it can’t get the money it’s owed from Bank of America, it’ll just go begging to the Treasury. Fannie has already asked for $4.5 billion to cover losses this year – and if Bank of America doesn’t pony up, it’ll have to reach even deeper into our pockets, making for yet another shadow bailout to the firm.

It gets worse. Last fall, some of the bank’s biggest creditors and counterparties started to get nervous about the mountain of toxic bets still sitting on Merrill Lynch’s books – a generation of ill-considered, complex, exotic derivative trades, bets on bets on bets on shaky subprime mortgages, sitting there on the company balance sheet, waiting to explode. Nobody felt good lending Bank of America money with that dangerous shitpile lying there. So they asked the bank to move a chunk of that mess from Merrill Lynch onto Bank of America’s own balance sheet. Why? Because Bank of America is a federally insured depository institution. Which means that the FDIC, and by extension you and me, is now on the hook for as much as $55 trillion in potential losses. Black, the former regulator, calls the transfer an “obscenity. As a regulator, I would have never allowed it. Transferring risk to the insured institution crosses the reddest of red lines.”

But by far the biggest bailout to Bank of America has come via the sweetheart deals it cut to settle the massive lawsuits filed against it. Some of the deals, which were brokered by the Justice Department and state attorneys general, allowed the bank to get away with paying pennies on the dollar on its mountains of debt. Worst of all was the recent $26 billion foreclosure settlement involving Bank of America and four other major firms. The deal, in which the banks agreed to pay cash to screwed-over homeowners in exchange for immunity from federal prosecution on robo-signing issues, was hailed as a big multibillion-dollar bite out of the banks. President Obama was all but strutting over his beatdown of Wall Street. “We are Americans, and we look out for one another; we get each other’s backs,” he declared. “We’re going to make sure that banks live up to their end of the bargain.”

In fact, the government has a lousy track record when it comes to enforcing settlements. The foreclosure deal arrives on the heels of an $8.4 billion investor settlement, whose provisions Bank of America had already been accused of violating, raising rates and abusing homeowners as soon as the deal was struck. The bank also violated a previous settlement with the Federal Trade Commission, illegally slapping $36 million in fees on struggling homeowners after specifically agreeing not to do so. So Bank of America’s reward for blowing off its previous settlements for mistreating homeowners was to get another soft-touch deal from the government, which they will presumably be just as free to ignore. Why? Because while state officials have ultimate enforcement authority over the foreclosure settlement, the early enforcement reviews will be handled by “internal quality control groups.” In other words, Bank of America itself will be grading its own compliance!

Even if Bank of America coughs up its share of the $26 billion settlement, the deal is woefully inadequate to address the wider fraud that went on in creating and pooling mortgages. “It’s like handing a box of tissues to someone whose immune system has been destroyed by AIDS,” says Rosner. “It doesn’t come close to addressing the scale of the problem.” Many Wall Street observers think that without the waiver from federal prosecution provided by the settlement, Bank of America would have faced billions in lawsuits for robo-signing offenses alone.

Oh, and one more thing, since we’re talking about avoiding bills: Bank of America didn’t pay a dime in federal taxes last year. Or the year before. In fact, they got a $1 billion refund last year. They claimed it was because they had pretax losses of $5.4 billion in 2010. They paid out $35 billion in bonuses and compensation that year. You do the math.

And here’s the biggest scam of all: After all that help – all the billions in bailouts, the tens of billions in Fed loans, the hundreds of billions in legal damages made to disappear, the untold billions more of unpaid bills and buybacks – Bank of America is still failing. In December, the bank’s share price dipped below $5, and after being cut off by Fannie in February, the bank announced a truly shameless plan to jack up fees for depositors by as much as $25 a month – what one market analyst called a “measure of last resort.”

The company reported positive earnings last year, with net income of $84 million, but analysts aren’t convinced. David Trainer, a MarketWatch commentator, switched his rating of Bank of America to “very dangerous” in part because its accounting is wildly optimistic. Among other things, the bank’s projections assume a growth rate of 20 percent every year for the next 18 years. What’s more, the bank has set aside only $8.5 billion for buybacks of those crap corn-dog loans from enraged customers – even though some analysts think the number should be much higher, perhaps as high as $27 billion. Because more lawsuits are so likely, says Mehta, it’s “virtually impossible to decipher if Bank of America requires more equity, or even another tax­payer bailout.”

But the only number that really matters is this one: $37 billion. That’s the total bonus and compensation pool this broke-ass, state-dependent, owing-everybody-in-sight bank paid out to its employees last year. This, in essence, is the business model underlying Too Big to Fail: massive growth based on huge volumes of high-risk loans, coupled with lots of fraud and cutting corners, followed by huge payouts to executives. Then, with the company on the verge of collapse, the inevitable state rescue. In this whole picture, the only money that’s ever “real” is the fat bonuses the executives cash out of the bank at the end of each year. “Fraud is a sure thing,” says Black. “The firm fails, unless it is bailed out, but the controlling officers walk away wealthy.”

The Dodd-Frank financial reform approved by Congress last year was supposed to fix the problem of Too Big to Fail, giving the government the power to take over and disband troubled megafirms instead of bailing them out. “The way to cut our Gordian financial knot is simple,” MIT economist Simon Johnson wrote in The New York Times. “Force the big banks to become smaller.” But few in the financial community believe that will ever happen. “If Bank of America crashes, the first thing that would happen is Dodd-Frank would be revealed as a fraud,” says Rosner. “The Fed and the Treasury would ask Congress for a bailout to ‘save the economy.’ It’s the worst-kept secret on Wall Street.”

In a pure capitalist system, an institution as moronic and corrupt as Bank of America would be swiftly punished by the market – the executives would get to loot their own firms once, then they’d be looking for jobs again. But with the limitless government support of Too Big to Fail, these failing financial giants get to stay undead forever, continually looting the taxpayer, their depositors, their shareholders and anyone else they can get their hands on. The threat posed by Bank of America isn’t just financial – it’s a full-blown assault on the American dream. Where’s the incentive to play fair and do well, when what we see rewarded at the highest levels of society is failure, stupidity, incompetence and meanness? If this is what winning in our system looks like, who doesn’t want to be a loser? Throughout history, it’s precisely this kind of corrupt perversion that has given birth to countercultural revolutions. If failure can’t fail, the rest of us can never succeed. WC 7,333



CIA Opens Books with Surprises for Lee Wanta Libya and More


Reagan Era To Be Declassified

by  Gordon Duff,   Senior Editor

Something unusual has happened.  An era is going to be uncovered, a time of BCCI, Iran Contra, the fall of the Soviet Union, one of corruption and triumph.  What we know is this, the files are being opened and interviews never before authorized are scheduled.

More curious, perhaps the most curious of all, the FBI is notifying former intelligence agents and officials that the project has the official ‘green light.’

The fist interviews and, perhaps the first book, will outline relations between President Reagan and Emil Lee Wanta, letting a few into the dream world of White House insiders.

I have had my perceptions of Reagan shattered more than once.  The official cover story, the myth sold by the Bush clan, that Reagan came into office, was almost immediately gunned down and for the next 8 years, George H. W. Bush was “defacto” president while Reagan remained a “doddering fool.”

I spent an evening going over notes with Lee.  His memory of the period is volumes, much of which isn’t going to be of interest to many.  While White House intelligence coordinator, Wanta worked in a grey environment of jockeying for influence, internal strife and one thing he makes clear:

President Reagan despised and distrusted his vice president and refused to allow him to be briefed on anything.   Reagan felt he was saddled with a potential “rogue operator” who would use his experience as former CIA director to use the White House as a platform for personal business interests inconsistent with national policy.

One of Reagan’s Best Lines

Of the issues which have current standing, Libya will be high on the list, for awhile at least.

Tony Blair is doing the rounds in Tripoli today for JP Morgan, the Rothschild partner that worked so closely with Gaddafi on his plans to put together a series of Banks based on the African Union.

The deals offered, if things go as expected, will be intended to impact the new Libya as they did the old, bleeding the majority of oil cash into private accounts and leaving a pittance for the people.

This was Gaddafi’s policy and it may well be the policy of the new government as well, if writers like Franklin Lamb are right.

During talks with Wanta I was able to verify some issues involving Gaddafi.  Gaddafi was placed in office in 1969 by the CIA as personal protege of Director Richard Helms.

Helms admired Gaddafi greatly and valued the relationship between the US and Libya as one of the most critical and strategic for America during that vital period.

The cover stories, that rogue CIA agents were training IRA terrorists in Libya got a laugh out of Wanta. 

This was Gladio, of course, the bastardized anti-Communist program that set up terror organizations across Europe as a “fall back” defense in case of a successful Soviet invasion.  Libya was the staging ground for Gladio, a program operated, not out of Italy as reported, but out of Switzerland, by the ‘P2,’ a Freemason organization that eventually operated in 26 countries, across not only Europe but Latin America as well.”

“Later on, it was the P2 that had me arrested in Switzerland, put in solitary confinement and emptied the US Treasury accounts I managed, hundreds of millions of dollars.  By that time, they had become little more than organized crime, particularly after they had murdered so many people during the Italian elections.”

Filling out the history of the Reagan era, in particular, the project to “crash the ruble,” the financial trading scheme run by Wanta through the Department of Treasury that netted trillions in assets that Reagan intended to be spent paying off the national debt, as Wanta relates.

In actuality, it was much more than that, with Treasury getting control of $23 trillion dollars leaving $4.3 trillion to Wanta’s companies.

This would all sound imaginary if it weren’t for the court filings backing it all up and the arrests, Wanta in particular, and murders surrounding the disposition of these funds, which represent the combined assets of the American people.

The money exists, has existed, enough to erase our national debt.  The concept of Wanta’s own funds, seized by the Federal Reserve, $4.3 trillion dollars less $1.7 trillion in taxes owed, immediately put into the “General Fund” is frightening to some.  This kind of money is unimaginable power, particularly in the hands of someone jailed for failing to be adequately dishonest.

Wanta, a devout Catholic, lay clergy, is a simple working class kid from Milwaukee, one who has shunned the trappings of wealth though he, at one time, controlled the greatest fortune in the history of our beleaguered planet.

Sometimes we review accounts and where they have gone, some in billions, the names of powerful political families known to all are tied to the looting of these accounts, some names predictable, some surprising.

Most embarrassing are bank security photographs of high ranking government officials, cabinet officers, looting bank accounts held in trust for the American people.

All of the money involved, taxpayer funds, all belonging to the American people, more than enough to fund a high speed rail system for America or housing for a century of homeless veterans.

Ah, but back to Libya and the “teaser” Wanta left me:

“I had some familiarity with Gaddafi during the late 70s and early 80s.

I had, by  1982, been able to confirm that our “hostility” toward Gaddafi was a CIA deception plan tied to his usefulness in assisting operations around the world, much as with Osama bin Laden.”

There is a rationale for Gaddafi to consider the UN action against him, based on his history of cooperation with NATO, a betrayal in fact.  How could a man, so heavily invested in the Rothschild banks, a silent partner in the Carlyle Group with Bush, Baker, John Major, Frank Carlucci, be attacked by NATO?

Then again, I watched Ambassador Mark Siljander, a Reagan favorite, friend of Baker and Edwin Meese indicted by the Bush administration under circumstances, were I allowed to mention them (I serve on his legal team) as incredulous.  I am showing restraint here.

 Steve Rosen – Weissman – AIPAC

I look at the indictment of Steve Rosen, former head of the Rand Corporation, member of the Bush/Rice National Security Council arrested for spying for Israel.

News reports fail to mention Rosen’s position as top Bush advisor on the Middle East but, instead, mention his later employment with AIPAC, the Israeli lobby.

Rosen sued AIPAC for firing him, they claimed they couldn’t have an “accused spy’ working for them.

His claim?  As AIPAC is a spy organization, firing me is the height of absurdity.

Rosen’s case was dropped and investigations against other Bush advisors, in fact ALL Bush advisors were dropped after a 3 year FBI “sting” operation that included wiretapping the White House.

“Play by play” of the tapes included, among other things, passing on nuclear secrets, done by people currently, not only ‘free as birds’ but chirping to the news every day.  Moreover, dozens of hours of FBI transcripts cover sexual liaisons of what is typically termed an “unnatural” nature, described in punishing detail and tedious repetition.

The prosectutions were halted, the FBI agents reassigned and the targets, Rosen the least of them, still, to a large extent, run America, certainly run the Republican Party.

But we still aren’t getting to that “teaser” on Libya.  How do I say this?  

MK Ultra – Survivors Conference

According to Trowbridge Ford, Reagan was told by his vice president, George H.W. Bush that John Hinckley, the man who tried to murder him 69 days into office, the most obvious CIA “MKUlta” case we know of, was working for Gaddafi.

Ford has put some top level intelligence on Veterans Today but this just didn’t jell.  Hinckley’s family was directly tied to Bush.  They were family friends.

I saw nothing that could have tied Gaddafi to this.  Ford went on further stating that Gaddafi planned and executed the Berlin club bombings at the behest of the Soviet Union and, in return, suffered a devastating air attack at the hands of the United States, the 1986 bombing of Tripoli.

I am now told that all the groups Gaddafi was said to control, the IRA or a group pretending to be “IRA,”  the Red Brigades and others had been working for NATO all along as part of the Gladio program, the whole thing was a NATO “cover and deception” program, an integral part of the Cold War.

Thus, the “retaliation” against Gaddafi was nothing more than theatre as were other incidents of pretended confrontation with the long term CIA asset, as previously stated, a strong parallel to Osama bin Laden.

The CIA’s version of events is different, more than a bit.

Operation Gladio – Taxpayer Funded Terror

The “disco bombings” were not Gaddafi but rather “P2/Gladio” operations, part of a series of bombings that began in 1969 and went on into the 1990s.

The reason for the attack on Libya is classified, not “up for grabs,” not yet anyway.  I will keep working on that but, rather than simply invent something, best tell you that I just don’t know.  What I do know is this:

The 1986 bombing of Tripoli that supposedly killed “Gaddafi’s daughter,” a subject of much conjecture, was planned between the Reagan administration and Gaddafi.

Gaddafi agreed to the bombing to provide him with “needed cover and credibility.”

The operation began with the landing of Special Forces personnel in Tripoli.  They secured the Gaddafi family and arranged for “selected targets.”  Those included the communications antenna arrays near the Gaddafi compound, army barracks and an air field.

All targets were “painted” by American Special Forces personnel on the ground working with Libyan permission.  One American plane was lost due to mechanical failure.

The results?

Gaddafi in Italy – Gladio Operations Framed Communists

Gaddafi claimed a great victory over the United States.

He fired two SCUD missiles at Italy and America continued to blame Gaddafi for terrorism that had nothing to do with him, he continued to be the “front man” for false flag terrorism much as Osama bin Laden was blamed for attacks in Africa and on 9/11 though we were able to confirm that he was on the CIA payroll at the time.

Was Gaddafi ever under total NATO control?  Was he ever a full ally of Israel, a nation he worked closely with on WMD programs?  Why was Libya given so much latitude in keeping its WMD programs alive if all this weren’t true?

Some of the key elements, proof if you choose to accept it, came out recently when former Bush special envoy, David Welch, met with Gaddafi representatives in Cairo, at the Four Seasons Hotel, on August 11, 2011.

Welch, now head of Bechtel Corporation, the “top of the food chain” when it comes to American multi-national corporations involved in military construction and “big oil” reiterated continued support for Gaddafi, albeit 11th hour.

They May Want Him but Will They Get Him ?

The real discussions, taking into account that Gaddafi was “dead meat” politically, involved the disposition of his billions spread across the banks of Europe, the United States and his defense holdings, partnered with the Bush family.

We still know little about Gaddafi.  Was he really working for an independent Africa, free of western financial machinations or acting as a ‘front man’ for Rothschild interests in Africa?

That is never going to be known.  We do know the banks he proposed would never have worked, the currency he wanted to put in place, a ‘pan-African’ replacement for the dollar and euro were not supportable with Libya’s tiny gold reserves.

We also know his partners in the African Union to be among the most corrupt politicians in Africa.

Was his attempt still, taking on what could never be done, still an honest effort?  Will we ever understand Gaddafi, who to this day may well be alive and, under some circumstances, still have a role to play?

Will Gaddafi ever admit his position during the Cold War, was he a CIA asset of simply “playing the grand game” of East v. West?

What Has Happened America?


This is the last chapter of Weapons of Mass Destruction Found (An address to the dead)


Why are you eating out of the hand of England – your enemy of old? Why are you now proving that you are an Imperialist Aristocracy after all? Why are American boys dying for England and the British Crown? Why have you created foreign enemies that did not exist before?

The Tzar of Russia once looked in admiration to the American Experiment and sent ships, money and troops to assist in the war of independence. Philosophers and poets wrote hymns to America, and now we find the Greenspans sucking you dry.

By 1934 under Roosie, what was left of your problematic sovereignty and solvent economy was lost forever…from then on you were America Inc, a subsidiary of the British Crown, run by lieutenant Rothschild and Co…You incarcerated the great Ezra, and you blew Rockwell’s brains out. You even had Malcolm X taken out after he began to get a glimpse of the “big picture.” Yeah, you know what I mean. Over their graves walk the Clintons and Bushes and other Skull and Bonesmen of their ken.

Once upon a time your enemies thought of nothing else but your downfall. Now they rule over you, and are so confident that you are fallen that they now preoccupy themselves with those little potato countries that they had on the back burner…America you are under their power, “in the bag” and “cooked” so they don’t even mind making it ever so obvious that they are the filth that they are…making obvious designer slip-ups and bloopers to taunt you.

“Are these our leaders?” you subconsciously say when they Bush-Lip all over the media. The answer is “yes, we are.”

Once the Emperor of Russia looked on and sought to model his rule on what he saw rising. Now, his enemies and those of the world pick over the bones. It is not America that wars in the Middle East, but the enemies of America, who have already brought you to your knees.

They don’t serve you America, they serve London, Rome, and Venice…They are the false Humanists and Fabians, the servants of evil…whose agents slipped in unawares.

So now their power pyramid is built, and you are in its vile shadow. It has been built brick by Masonic brick for years. Its capstone is this very minute being hauled into position, and the altars of sacrifice are being prepared for the docile sheeple. They don’t really need the ants who once were so valuable pushing their slave wheels. So, now up come the ladders on the “Middle Class.” They will dangle you a carrot though, just to offset mass rebellion. Yeah, sure you can keep your job here at home.

But it will require you to work for the same rate as some exploited foreigner somewhere out there to whom we will give it if there’s a complaint.

So you come bowl in hand, on your knees and say “Thank you, thank you, thank you, dear, kind sir, for allowing me to work for three-quarters less than usual and keep my life intact.” Then you can keep the flag at your work station and feel good to be free.

Once upon a time King George, the greatest tyrant in the world, and his horde of paid mercenaries from all over Europe ran like hell from you America, their asses burning from the kicking, back into the Atlantic Ocean where they belong. What happened? Have you forgotten the price of FREEDOM?

Are you the United States of America – or of AMNESIA?

What, then, do they (Humans) want a government for? Not to regulate commerce; not to educate the people; not to teach religion; not to administer charity; not to make roads and railways; but simply to defend the natural rights of man – to protect person and property – to prevent the aggressions of the powerful upon the weak – in a word, to administer justice. This is the natural, the original, office of a government. It was not intended to do less: it ought not to be allowed to do more – Herbert Spencer (Victorian Philosopher & Sociologist

…a fullness of state power such as only despotism had enjoyed indeed it surpassed all the past because it strove for the formal annihilation of the individual…Once the earth is brought under all-embracing economic control, then mankind will find it has been reduced to machinery in its service, as a monstrous clockwork system of ever smaller, more finely adjusted wheels – Fredrick Nietzsche

To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be placed under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality – Pierre Joseph Proudhon (General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century)

The liberty of man consists solely in this, that he obeys the laws of nature, because he has himself recognized them as such, and not because they have been imposed upon him externally by any foreign will whatsoever, human or divine, collective or individual – Mikhail Bakunin (Founder of Anarchism, in his God and the State, 1882)

Recommended Reading (Selected List):

Dope Inc – Lyndon Larouche, Webster Tarpley (& Co)
In the Beginning: Story of the International Trade Cartel – Hoskins
The Secret Terrorists – Bill Hughes
The Enemy Unmasked – Bill Hughes
Fifty Years in the Church of Rome – Father Chiniquy
The Secret History of the Jesuits – Edmund Paris
Vatican Billions – Avro Manhattan
The Vatican Moscow Washington Alliance – Avro Manhattan
Vatican Assassins – Eric Jon Phelps
The Black Pope – Cusack
The Other Side of Rome – J. B. Wilder
Romanism as a World Power – Luther Kaufmann
The Jesuits: A Complete History – Griesinger
History of Romanism – Rev. John Dowling
The Crisis: Enemies of America Unmasked – J. Wayne Laurens
The Jesuit Conspiracy – The Abbate Leone
The Thrilling Mysteries of a Convent Revealed – Anon
The Awful Disclosures of Maria Monk – Anon
Footprints of the Jesuits – R. W. Thompson
Engineer Corps of Hell – Edwin Sherman (translator)
Popery, Puseyism, Jesuitism – Luigi Desanctis
History of the Jesuits – G. B. Nicolini
Secret Instructions of the Jesuits – W. C. Brownlee
Secret Powers Behind World Revolution – Vicomte Leon de Poncins
Judaism and the Vatican – Vicomte Leon de Poncins
State Secrets – Vicomte Leon de Poncins
Freemasonry and the Vatican – Vicomte Leon de Poncins
Previews of the New Papacy – Atila Sinke Guimaraes
Bad Popes – E. R. Chamberlin
Secret Societies & Subversive Movements – Nesta Webster
The French Revolution – Nesta Webster
World Revolution – Nesta Webster
Illuminsim – Nesta Webster
Occult Theocracy – Edith Star Mille (Lady Queensborough)
Architects of Deception – Yuri Lina
America’s Secret Establishment – Anthony Sutton
Trilaterals Over America – Anthony Sutton
The Creature from Jekyll Island – G. Edward Griffin
The Capitalist Conspiracy – G. Edward Griffin
The World Order – Eustace Mullins
Secrets of the Federal Reserve – Eustace Mullins
Controversy of Zion – Douglas Reed
Bloodlines of the Illuminati – Fritz Springmeier
Called to Serve – Lt. Col. James “Bo” Gritz
Hitler Was a British Agent – Gregg Hallet
Conspirator’s Hierarchy: The Committe of 300 – J. Coleman
The Tavistock Institute of Human Relations – John Coleman
Diplomacy By Deception – John Coleman
None Dare Call It Conspiracy – Sen. Gary Allen
The Rockefeller File – Sen. Gary Allen
Kissinger: The Secret Side of the Secretary of State – Sen. Gary Allen
The Unseen Hand – Ralph Epperson
My Awakening – David Duke
Imperial Hubris – Michael Scheuer
Al Qaeda – Jason Burke
Imperial America – Gore Vidal
Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace – Gore Vidal
Full Spectrum Dominance – Rahul Mahajan
The War on Truth – Nafeez Ahmed
The War on Freedom – Nafeez Ahmed
The London Bombings – Nafeez Ahmed
Behind the War on Terror – Nafeez Ahmed
Drugs, Oil and War – Prof. Dale Scott
Frontier Justice – Scott Ritter
War on Iraq – Scott Ritter
Manufacturing Consent – Noam Chompsky
Dark Ages of America – Morris Berman
Thy Will be Done: Nelson Rockefeller & Evangelism – G. Colby
The Marketing of Evil – David Kupelian
Sex, Lies and Politics – Larry Flint
The Puzzle of Fascism – Eric D. Williams

Do We Need the Department of Education?


Source: IMPRIMIS-A publication of Hillsdale College


January 2012, Volume 41, Number 1

by Charles Murray, American Enterprise Institute

(The following is adapted from a speech delivered in Atlanta, Georgia, on October 28, 2011, at a conference on “Markets, Government, and the Common Good,’ sponsored by Hillsdale College’s Center for the Study of Monetary Systems and Free Enterprise.)

The case for the Department of Education could rest on one or more of three legs: its constitutional appropriateness, the existence of serious problems in education that could be solved only at the federal level, and/or its track record since it came into being.

Let us consider these in order.

(1) Is the Department of Education constitutional?

At the time the Constitution was written, education was not even considered a function of local government, let alone the federal government.  But the shakiness of the Department of Education’s constitutionality goes beyond that.  Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution enumerates the things over which Congress has the power to legislate.  Not only does the list not include education, there is no plausible rationale for squeezing education in under the commerce clause.  I’m sure the Supreme Court found a rationale, but it cannot have been plausible.

On a more philosophical level, the framers of America’s limited government had a broad allegiance to what Catholics call the principle of subsidiarity.  In the secular world, the principle of subsidiarity means that local government should do only those things that individuals cannot do for themselves, state government should do only those things that local governments cannot do, and the federal government should do only those things that the individual states cannot do.  Education is something that individuals acting alone and cooperatively can do, let alone something local or state governments can do.

I should be explicit about my own animus in this regard.  I don’t think the Department of Education is constitutionally legitimate, let alone appropriate.  I would favor abolishing it even if, on a pragmatic level, it had improved American education.  But I am in a small minority on that point, so let’s move on to the pragmatic questions.

(2) Are there serious problems in education that can be solved only at the federal level?

The first major federal spending on education was triggered by the launch of the first space satellite, Sputnik, in the fall of 1957, which created a perception that the United States had fallen behind the Soviet Union in science and technology.  The legislation was specifically designed to encourage more students to go into math and science, and its motivation is indicated by its title:  The National Defense Education Act of 1958.  But what really ensnared the federal government in education in the 1960s had its origins elsewhere–in civil rights.  The Supreme court declared segregation of the schools unconstitutional in 1954, but–notwithstanding in a few highly publicized episodes such as integration of Central High School in Little Rock and James Meredith’s admission to the University of Mississippi–the pace of change in the next decade was glacial.

Was it necessary for the federal government to act?  There is a strong argument for “yes,” especially in the case of K-12 education.  Southern resistance to desegregation proved to be both stubborn and effective in the years following Brown v. Board of Education.  Segregation of the schools had been declared unconstitutional, and constitutional rights were being violated on a massive scale.  But the question at hand is whether we need a Department of Education now, and we have seen a typical evolution of policy.  What could have been justified as a one-time, forceful effort to end violations of constitutional rights, lasting until the constitutional wrongs had been righted, was transmuted into a permanent government establishment.  Subsequently, this establishment became more and more deeply involved in American education for purposes that have nothing to do with constitutional rights, but instead with a broader goal of improving education.

The reason this came about is also intimately related to the civil rights movement.  Over the same years that school segregation became a national issue, the disparities between Black and white educational attainment and test scores came to public attention.  When the push for President Johnson’s Great Society programs began in the mid-1960s, it was inevitable that the federal government would attempt to reduce black-white disparities, and it did so in 1965 with the passage of two landmark bills–the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and the Higher Education Act.  The Department of education didn’t come into being until 1980, but large-scale involvement of the federal government in education dates from 1965.

(3) So what is the federal government’s track record in education?

The most obvious way to look a the track record is the long-term trend data of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).  Consider, for instance, the results for the math test for students in Fourth, eighth and twelfth grades from 1978 through 2004.  The good news is that the scores for fourth graders showed significant improvement in both reading and math–although those gains diminished slightly as the children got older.  The bad news is that the baseline year of 1978 represents the nadir of the test score decline from the mid-1960s through the 1970s.  Probably we are today about where we were in math achievement in the 1960s.  For reading, the story is even bleaker.  The small gains among fourth graders diminsihed by eighth grade and vanish by the twelfth grade.  And once again, the baseline tests in the 1970s represent a nadir.

From 1942 through the 1990s, the state of Iowa administered a consistent and comprehensive test to all of its public school students in grade school, middle school, and high school–making it, to my knowledge, the only state in the union to have good longitudinal data that go back that far.  The Iowa Test of Basic Skills offers not a sample, but an entire state population of students.  What can we learn from a single state?  Not much, if we are mainly interested in the education of minorities–Iowa from 1942 through 1970 was 97 percent white, and even in the 2012 census was 91 percent white.  But, paradoxically, that racial homogeneity is also an advantage, because it sidesteps all the complications associated with changing ethnic populations.

Since retention through high school has changed greatly over the last 70 years, I will consider here only the data for ninth graders.  What the data show is that when the federal government decided to get involved on a large scale in K-12 education in 1965, Iowa’s education had been improving substantially since the first test was administered in 1942.  There is reason to think that the same thing had been happening throughout the country.  As I documented in my book, Real Education, collateral data from other sources are not as detailed, nor do they go back to the 1940s, but they tell a consistent story.  American education had been improving since World War II.  Then, when the federal government began to get involved, it got worse.

I will not try to make the case that federal involvement caused the downturn.  The effort that went into programs associated with the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 in the early years was not enough to have changed American education, and the more likely causes for the downturn are the spirit of the 1960s–do your own thing–and the rise of progressive education to dominance over American public education.  But this much can certainly be said: The overall data on the performance of American K-12 students give no reason to think that federal involvement, which took the form of the Department of Education after 1979, has been an engine of improvement.

What about the education of the disadvantaged, especially minorities? After all, this was arguably the main reason that the federal government began to get involved in education–to reduce the achievement gap separating poor children and rich children, and especially the gap separating poor black children and the rest of the country.

The most famous part of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was title I, initially authorizing more than a billion dollars annually (equivalent to more than $7 billion today) to upgrade the schools attended by children from low income families.  The program has continued to grow ever since, disposing of about $19 billion in 2010 (No child Left Behind has also been part of Title I).

Supporters of Title I confidently expected to see progress, and so formal evaluation of Title I was built into the legislation from the beginning.  Over the years, the evaluations became progressively more ambitious and more methodologically sophisticated.  But while the evaluations have improved, the story they tell has not changed.  Despite being conducted by people who wished the program well, no evaluation of Title I from the 1970s onward has found credible evidence of a significant positive impact on student achievement.  If one steps back from the formal evaluations and looks at the NAEP test score gap between high-poverty schools (the ones that qualify for Title I support) and low poverty schools, the implications are worse.  A study by the department of Education published in 2001 revealed that the gap grew rather than diminished from 1986–the earliest year such comparisons have been made–through 1999.

That brings us to No child Left Behind.  Have you noticed that no one talks about No Child Left Behind anymore?  The explanation is that its onetime advocates are no longer willing to defend it.  The nearly-flat NAEP trendlines since 2002 make that much-ballyhooed legislative mandate–a mandate to bring all children to proficiency in math and reading by 2014–too embarrassing to mention.

In summary: the long, intrusive, expensive role of the federal government in K-12 education does not have any credible evidence for a positive effect on American education.


I have chosen to focus on K-12 because everyone agrees that k-12 education leaves much to be desired in this country and that it is reasonable to hold the government’s feet to the fire when there is no evidence that K-12 education has improved.  When we turn to post-secondary education, there is much less agreement on first principles.

The bachelor of arts degree as it has evolved over the last half-century has become the work of the devil.  It is now a substantively meaningless piece of paper–genuinely meaningless, if you don’t know where the degree was obtained and what courses were taken.  It is expensive, too, as documented by the College Board: Public four-year colleges average about $7,000 per year in tuition not including transportation, housing and food.  Tuition at the average private four-year college is more than $27,000 per year.  And yet the B.A. has become the minimum requirement for getting a job interview for millions of jobs, a cost-free way for employers to screen for a certain amount of IQ and perseverance.  Employers seldom even bother to check grades or courses, being able to tell enough about a graduate just by knowing the institution that he or she got into as an 18-year-old.

So what happens when a paper credential is essential for securing a job interview, but that credential can be obtained by taking the easiest courses and doing the minimum amount of work?  The result is hundreds of thousands of college students who go to college not to get an education, but to get a piece of paper.  When the dean of one East Coast college is asked how many students are in his institution he likes to answer, “Oh, maybe six or seven.”  The situation at his college is not unusual.  The degradation of American college education is not a matter of a few parents horrified at stories of silly courses, trivial study requirements, and campus binge drinking.  It has been documented in detail, affects a large proportion of the students in colleges, and is a disgrace.

The Department of Education, with decades of student loans and scholarships for university education, has not just been complicit in this evolution of the B.A.  It has been its enabler.  The size of these programs is immense.  In 2010, the federal government issued new loans totaling $125 billion.  It handed out more than eight million Pell Grants totaling more than $32 billion dollars.  Absent this level of intervention, the last three decades would have seen a much healthier evolution of post-secondary education that focused on concrete job credentials and courses of studies not constricted by the traditional model of the four-year residential college.  The absence of this artificial subsidy would also have let market forces hold down costs.  Defenders of the Department of Education can unquestionably make the case that it policies have increased the number of people going to four-year residential colleges.  But I view that as part of the Department of education’s indictment, not its defense.

What other case might be made for federal involvement in education?  Its contributions to good educational practice?  Think of the good things that have happened to education in the last 30 years–the growth of homeschooling and the invention and spread of charter schools.  The Department of education had nothing to do with either development.  Both happened because of the initiatives taken by parents who were disgusted with standard public education and took matters into their own hands. To watch the process by which charter schools are created, against the resistance of school boards and administrators, is to watch the best of American traditions in operation.  Government has had nothing to do with it, except as a drag on what citizens are trying to do for their children.

Think of the best books on educational practice, such as Howard Gardner’s many innovative writings and E.D. Hirsch’s Core Knowledge curriculum, developed after his landmark book, Cultural Literacy, was published in 1987.  None of this came out of the Department of Education.  The department of Education spends about $200 million a year on research intended to improve educational practice.  No evidence exists that these expenditures have done any significant good.

As far as I can determine, the Department of education has no track record of positive accomplishment–nothing in the national numbers on educational achievement, nothing in the improvement of educational outcomes for the disadvantaged, nothing in the advancement of educational practice.  It just spends a lot of money.  This brings us to the practical question: If the Department of education disappeared from next year’s budget, would anyone notice?  The only reason that anyone would notice is the money.

The nation’s public schools have developed a dependence on the federal infusion of funds.  As a practical matter, actually doing away with the Department of Education would involve creating block grants so that school district budgets throughout the nation wouldn’t crater.

Sadly, even that isn’t practical.  The education lobby will prevent any serious inroads on the Department of Education for the foreseeable future.  But the answer to the question posed in the title of this talk–“DO WE NEED THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION?”–is to me unambiguous: No.

The United States War on Terror Threatens America



BMichael S. Rozeff

The first thing to understand about terrorism against America is that it is negligible.Horrible as it was, the destruction of the Trade Towers was an outlier, that is, an event that lies way, way outside the main body of terrorist activity. It is no comfort to the dead, the injured and to their loved ones to point this out, but it is something that must be understood because failure to understand the realities of terrorism has led Americans to support aggressive war policies that are highly destructive of innocent lives and societies overseas and do not diminish the threat of terrorism. These immoral and unjust policies have increased the numbers of terrorists dedicated to destroying American life. As a negative bonus, they have undermined the economy and freedoms of America, thereby causing an untold increase in hardship among Americans now and in the future.

The war on terror has been a terrible mistake. Terrorism against America was never so big that it required a war against it, much less a world wide war that made hash out of the Bill of Rights, militarized police and turned the country sharply in the direction of a police state.

The concept of a “war on terror” drastically alters America’s role in the world by inserting the U.S. into numerous complex and long-running international conflicts in other countries. There are many terrorist groups that operate in foreign countries that have agendas associated with political and religious issues. The war on terror thrusts the U.S. into these conflicts with several notable results. America gets involved in endless political strife and warfare overseas. Government fails to address America’s own problems with consequent undermining of America’s advancement. The costs of government rise exponentially with consequent undermining of America’s economy. The U.S. government enhances its domestic policies of repression and abridgement of rights and freedoms.

Terrorism in America is not the kind of problem that is ameliorated by war. Police work, while open to sharp criticism, has been the mainstay of foiling terrorist plots.Erik J. Dahl has constructed the largest known sample of thwarted terrorist plots in his article “The Plots That Failed”. He has found 176 failed and thwarted terrorist plots against American targets between 1987 and 2010 or 24 years. He broke thisdown as follows.

73 overseas and 103 domestic,

42 right-wing and extremist plots and 126 jihadist plots,

29 plots that targeted diplomatic facilities abroad and 35 that targeted American military bases, personnel and facilities both here and abroad.

There were 57 plots in 24 years that were domestic and jihadist.

What stops terror attacks from succeeding? Of 176 cases, 9 were called off by the terrorists themselves and another 15 were attempted and failed. This includes instances in which the FBI prolonged the attempt and brought it to near fruition with fake bombs and such, but most of these failures were overseas. There are 24 cases in which the causes of the failure can’t be determined from available information; most were overseas.

This leaves 128 cases, of which 89 were domestic and 39 overseas. Of the 89 domestic plots, 66 were foiled as a result of undercover agents, informants and tips received from members of the public. Dahl says that this “appears to be the most effective counterterrorism tool for breaking up domestic plots.” In many cases, tips lead to the use of informants being placed among the plotters. In the Fort Dix case, for example, the plotters took a training tape to a Circuit City store to have a dvdburned and an employee became suspicious when he viewed the content. Smaller numbers of plots are uncovered by routine police stops for traffic violations, chance encounters with officials who notice suspicious behavior, other behavior such as robbery that draws attention, public threats made by terrorists, information from overseas, interrogation and, finally, “signals intelligence”. Dahl finds that signals intelligence (wiretapping, internet monitoring) is not of major importance in the failed plots that have been detected.

The takeaway from Dahl’s work is that standard spying and analytical intelligence operations to connect the dots and piece together information are not the keys to effective counterterrorism. Past successes have relied heavily on ordinary people noticing activities or behavior that might be oriented toward terrorism. In this sense, it is like any crime detection. Dahl calls it “prosaic” and he quotes a former head of MI5 who says that spies do not develop much counterterrorism intelligence and “My own experience is that effective counter-terrorism frequently begins closer to home and may appear a lot more mundane”.

It is now common for political candidates to be asked about their views on terrorism and the war on terror. Reporters ask nonsensical questions about “winning” the war on terror and how a candidate plans to do this. In 2007, at the National Press Club,Newt Gingrich was asked “what we would have to do to win it [the war on terror] eventually.” Gingrich put on the most serious of faces that he could muster and replied:

“I am really deeply worried. We have two grandchildren who are six and eight, and I believe they are in greater danger of dying from enemy activities than we were in the Cold War.”

Gingrich and many others express deep concerns about something that is a risk, but terrorism is not a serious risk, not something to be deeply worried about, and not something that even comes close to nuclear war.

How does terrorism compare with other risks? In the years 2006 and 2010, there were 70,954 homicides in America. Between 1998 and 2008, 449 people were killed by lightning in America.

Terrorism isn’t a minor risk because the government is so good at policing it. It’s minor because not that many people have the motive, means and opportunity to do mass killings.

But although terrorism is not a risk that requires an undue amount of care to control and live with, the idea of terrorism has seriously infected political discourse and U.S. policies, domestic and foreign. Whenever warmongers want to incite sentiment for a new war in a new foreign land, they wave the red flag of terrorism. The words “terrorist” and “terrorism” have become instant propaganda tools for manipulating mass sentiment.

And to counteract this and adopt constructive anti-terror policies, it is necessary to place 9/11 in perspective and to say “Stop the war on terror!” Get off it. Move on. De-emotionalize the issue. Terrorism is nothing to worry deeply about. Terrorism is overblown. Terrorism is negligible. Terrorism doesn’t warrant aggressive wars. It does not warrant assassinations. It doesn’t warrant the use of drones or their proliferation in America. There are worse evils than terrorism. Control terrorist acts with good police work in which a mature public alertness (not mass suspicion) plays a role, but not with a domestic spy apparatus and not with policies that subject everyone to suspicion, frisking, warrantless searches, sexual assaults, radiation, and excessive police force.

If another catastrophic event like 9/11 occurs or if another large-scale mass murder occurs like the Oklahoma City bombing, will such an occurrence result in ramping upthe police state techniques in the U.S.? Will it result in giving government further powers to spy, search, arrest without warrant, indefinitely detain, imprison in hidden prisons and assassinate Americans? Will it result in intensified intrusions overseas and even more widespread use of drones that kill? Will it result in a para-military force that operates outside of public control within America? Will it result in spying on every American? Will it result in drones that pepper American skies?

All of these activities are in place now. All are unnecessary. All are dangerous to liberty. All are wrong. By increasing injustice and repression, they stimulate resistance. A certain amount of that resistance takes the form of violent terrorist acts. The cures that are being employed make the patient more ill and more sick.

Terrorism can be handled by reasonable police work and alertness on the part of the public, since most terror plots are discovered by tips volunteered by ordinary people.

A particular worry at this time, far more than terrorism itself, is that politicians are now invoking terrorism at every turn as justification for their extreme warmongering policies.

Take for example the recent accusation of a very strange, farfetched and convoluted plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington. There was an Iranian national involved. This does not prove anything about Iran’s participation, especially since false flag events blamed on Iran are to be expected. The whole scenario was most definitely not in the Iranian style, but it was laid at the doorstep of Iran anyway.

This episode led House Speaker John Boehner to demand that Obama “hold Iran’s feet to the fire” for this “significant terrorist act”. The Republican chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Peter King, went even further. He called the plot “an act of war”.

What an amazing lack of balance and good sense in their thinking! What an amazingdisconnect between the gravity of the absurd terror plot and the gravity of the war they want. Here we have major members of Congress using a “terrorism” incident, which was really some out of the way happening or tale, in order to justify a new war.

And if it were not this event, their kind will dig up some other events in the past in which Iran had a hand. Warmongers who want war will do whatever it takes to bring war on. They will lie, misrepresent history, distort, omit material facts, twist facts, misinterpret, appeal to emotion, appeal to hatreds and fears, and demonize. The very words “terror”, “terrorist”, “terrorism” and “war on terror” have become Pavlov’s bell. Ring it and Americans salivate for war.

As a rule of thumb, do not believe any politician who proposes a war or urges Americans into war. Do not believe any politician who claims that a war is necessary, or points to an event like a ship sinking or a ship being blown up or an airplane being brought down or a terrorist act as a cause for war. Do not believe any politician who claims that Americans are threatened and must therefore attack the enemy before they attack us. Do not believe any politician who wants to make war when there has been no invasion of America itself by the armed force of another nation. Do not believe any politician who wants to make war because of some vague national security appeal, or because the U.S. must protect the shipment of oil or oil facilities located overseas. Don’t follow the government into war because it says it needs to protect American citizens overseas.

Don’t overreact to foiled terror plots that were extended and deepened by the FBI playing the role of a co-conspirator who promises to provide the bombs and devices that the unsuspecting would-be terrorist wants or has been talked into wanting.

Hidden in their hearts, some of America’s warmongers welcome terrorism overseas because this gives them an opportunity to justify expansion of the U.S. into new lands. The war on terror provides a cover for U.S. intervention in places that the U.S. deems to be of interest to the empire as it seeks to expand and counter the expansion of China. Hidden in their hearts, America’s control freaks welcomedomestic terror events, real and concocted. This gives them the opportunity to expand and extend their control over Americans and build up a police state in the name of order and security. The warmongers are not about to admit this openly, even to themselves, but that is the thrust of their positions. Actions speak louder than words: 9/11 was met with war abroad and repression at home.

Even if I am completely wrong about the deepest motives of warmongers, the policies that have been enacted are still wrong. Every expansion of the U.S. empire into another Muslim land or a land that has a substantial Muslim population causes an increase in terrorism. When this shows up in America itself or overseas, the U.S. government people cry crocodile tears. But the government bears no cost for having generated increased terrorism or the fear thereof domestically. It gains. The government people are able to justify tightening the screws of domestic policing.

The war on terror has created a damaging spiral. Fighting terrorism overseas with occupations and war and drones produces more terrorism there and here at home. More terrorism at home then produces more justification for foreign intrusions and domestic control. These lead in turn to more terrorism here and further control over civilian life. From the government’s point of view, the war on terror is a never-ending banquet or orgy. War is indeed the health of the state.

The only political figure of presidential caliber who has consistently taken a stand against foreign interventions and connected them to the production of terrorists is Ron Paul:

“There is an amount of serious talk about what we should be doing over there, in dealing with the al-Qaeda, never addressing the real important subject of why is there al-Qaeda and why do these radicals get motivated in order to commit suicide and do these various things, and they get motivated because we’re there in their country and then they organize and the longer we’re there the more they radicalize against us…” (Ron Paul, 2009.)

Ron Paul has taken a lot of heat for this theory, but this theory has merit. It is a theory that’s consistent with the evidence of what kind of people anti-American jihadists are, what they say about their goals, where they go to fight, what targets they attack, and why their numbers have increased in recent years.

The notion that anti-U.S. jihadists are reacting to U.S. occupations in Muslim lands has legs, but it does not explain all jihadism everywhere or the lack of jihadists from certain countries that the U.S. has interfered with. It is not a theory of all jihadist terrorism everywhere. No theory of a phenomenon like terrorism is going to be able to explain everything. But we do not need a full explanation. We do not have to explain jihadism in Nigeria and Thailand and India. What we need is guidance for the policies of American government.

Early on, the West’s leaders attributed what they called terrorism to such causes as poverty, lack of education, lack of economic opportunity, illiteracy, hopelessness, and failed governments. Many commentators blamed the rise of terrorism on the Muslim religion itself and its teachings. None of these explanations holds up under scrutiny or provides good policy guidance. For example, Faisal Shahzad (Times Square car bombing attempt) has a degree in computing and an MBA. Umar FarouqAbdulmuttalab (underwear bomber) graduated from University College London with a degree in mechanical engineering. His father is one of the richest men in Africa. If the U.S. goes into foreign countries with the idea of reducing poverty, improving education and improving the operations of foreign states, it will fail. It cannot accomplish these goals even within America. It will necessarily become enmeshed in foreign politics. It will inevitably be seen as an occupying force. It will induce the terrorist activity it seeks to diminish.

The Muslim religion itself cannot be blamed for terrorism because the vast majority of Muslims are not jihadists and Muslims have been relatively quiescent for a long time. I say relatively because tensions between Muslims and Christians or between Muslims and other groups or between ethnic groups that have different religions persist in many lands and break out into severe violence in some. The U.S. can’t solve these kinds of frictions and it shouldn’t introduce American force or resources in efforts to try.

Ethnicity is no explanation of terrorism either. One study of 57 American jihadists (done by Peter Bergen et al and titled “Assessing the Jihadist Terrorist Threat to America and American Interests”) finds people of many ethnicities: 12 Caucasians, 10 Arab-Americans, 8 South Asian-Americans, 5 African-Americans, 2 Hispanic-Americans, 1 Caribbean-American, 1 unknown. The other 18 were Somali-Americans. Their number is over-represented due to the time period and a federal crackdown at the time.

If we heed what anti-American terrorists say about their motives, we find a mixture. Important among them when it comes to America is to end the occupation of Muslim lands. To anti-American jihadists, ending occupation has a combined ideological and religious appeal and one that motivates action. It can reach persons from all walks of life who may be inclined to combat invaders and occupiers with force of arms or to contribute resources or instruction to aid those who want to fight.

American occupation and interference is very real and significant. It was in the 1940s that the U.S. began to inject itself into the Middle East:

“In 1943, President Franklin Roosevelt made Saudi Arabia eligible for Lend-Lease assistance by declaring the defense of Saudi Arabia of vital interest to the U.S. In 1945, King Abdel Aziz and President Roosevelt cemented the tacit oil-for-security relationship when they met aboard the USS Quincy in the Suez Canal.”

Subsequently, “When President Harry S. Truman took office, he made clear that his sympathies were with the Jews and accepted the Balfour Declaration.”

In 1953, the CIA engineered a coup d’etat in Iran. Professor Mark Gasiorowskiwrites

“Perhaps the most general conclusion that can be drawn from these documents is that the CIA extensively stage-managed the entire coup, not only carrying it out but also preparing the groundwork for it by subordinating various important Iranian political actors and using propaganda and other instruments to influence public opinion against Mossadeq. This is a point that was made in my article and other published accounts, but it is strongly confirmed in these documents. In my view, this thoroughly refutes the argument that is commonly made in Iranian monarchist exile circles that the coup was a legitimate ‘popular uprising’ on behalf of the shah.”

U.S. coup activities in Syria began in 1947 and continued at least to 1956. The U.S. intervened militarily in Lebanon in 1958 and 1982.

This is only a brief sample of early U.S. interventions. The heavy involvement in Iraq has now lasted for over 30 years. It is easy to understand that a few Muslims with violent proclivities might meld their religion with action aimed against Americans.

Al-Qaeda’s mujahideen (holy warriors) were significantly trained, armed and financed by the CIA with the cooperation of Pakistan’s secret service, the goal being to fight the Russians and get them out of occupied Afghanistan. Little wonder that Osama bin Laden would later turn against American occupiers.

The U.S. should not stop intervening in foreign lands because there happen to be terrorists in these lands who resist such interventions. Even if there is no blowback in the form of terrorism against U.S. installations and Americans, the U.S. should retrench internationally. The U.S. should stop its foreign interventions because they do more harm than good in those countries, because they do not succeed at what they attempt to accomplish and because they harm America and Americans.

U.S. interventionism goes back to Woodrow Wilson and the idea of making the world safe for democracy, also known as liberal internationalism or idealism in international relations. In practice, this has meant American involvement in the near-continuous warfare of the 20th and now the 21st century. In practice, this kind of idealism leads to attempts of one power or one state or one philosophy or one religion to dominate all others. The most far-reaching statements of those Muslims who would establish Islam as the dominant way of life in the world are matched by the similar statements of international idealists who would everywhere establish a system of democracies or western democracies or a new world order or some such secular ideals.

Rejecting liberal internationalism does not imply accepting realism in international affairs as a norm because the latter takes the system of states as the status quo. Realism may be more descriptive of how states behave and it may be a better guide to policies than idealism, but only if it leads to keeping the peace and recognizing the limitations of power. But this view of international affairs also can result in attempts to institute a superpower or a world government or a world religion if a powerful state thinks that it can accomplish this.

Both of these international views are state-oriented because nations of people have associated themselves with states, but eventually the human race may learn that the system of territorially monopolistic states does not serve its best interests. The system of states will then lose its hold over people. States will fade away, to be replaced by a more panarchic world.

Michael S. Rozeff

There is an Alternative to Neoliberal Monetary Austerity



2,181 Italians pack a Sports Arena to learn Modern Monetary Theory:

The Economy doesn’t Need to suffer Neoliberal Austerity

By Prof. Michael Hudson

I have just returned from Rimini, Italy, where I experienced one of the most amazing spectacles of my academic life. Four of us associated with the University of Missouri at Kansas City (UMKC) were invited to lecture for three days on Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) and explain why Europe is in such monetary trouble today – and to show that there is an alternative, that the enforced austerity for the 99% and vast wealth grab by the 1% is not a force of nature.

Stephanie Kelton (incoming UMKC Economics Dept. chair and editor of its economic blog, New Economic Perspectives), criminologist and law professor Bill Black, investment banker Marshall Auerback and me (along with a French economist, Alain Parguez) stepped into the basketball auditorium on Friday night. We walked down, and down, and further down the central aisle, past a packed audience reported at over 2,100. It was like entering the Oscars as People called out our first names. Some told us they had read all of our economics blogs. Stephanie joked that now she understood how the Beatles felt. There was prolonged applause – all for an intellectual rather than a physical sporting event.

With one difference, of course: Our adversaries were not there. There was much press, but the prevailing Euro-technocrats (the bank lobbyists who determine European economic policy) hoped that the less discussion of possible alternatives to austerity, the easier it would be to force their brutal financial grab through.

All the audience members had contributed to raise the funds to fly us over from the United States (and from France for Professor Alain Parguez), and treat us to Federico Fellini’s Grand Hotel on the Rimini beach. The conference was organized by reporter Paolo Barnard, who had studied MMT with Randall Wray and realized that there was plenty of demand in Italian mass culture for a discussion of what actually was determining the living conditions of Europe. His aim was to show that the emerging financial elite hopes to use this crisis as their opportunity to carve out personal fiefdoms by privatizing the public domain of the governments they have seduced, bribed or coerced into unnecessary debt. Instead of using a central bank to finance their deficits, governments are told to dump these assets under distress conditions at fire sale prices. So governments end up beholden to bondholders and Eurocrats drawn from neoliberal ranks.

Paolo and his enormous support staff of translators and interns provided us an opportunity to give an approach to monetary and tax theory and policy that until recently was almost unheard of in the United States. Just one week earlier the Washington Post published a review of MMT (followed by a long discussion in the Financial Times . But the theory remains grounded primarily at the UMKC’s economics department and the Levy Institute at Bard College, with which most of us are associated.

The basic thrust of our argument is that just as commercial banks now create credit electronically on their computer keyboards (creating a bank account credit for borrowers in exchange for their signing an IOU at interest), so governments can create their own money. They can reclaim this proper function without incurring needless interest-bearing debt to private bondholders or from banks that create credit by electronic fiat. Government computer keyboards can provide nearly free credit creation to finance spending.

Once the money is created by government, the crucial difference is that governments spend it (at least in principle) to promote long-term growth and employment, invest in public infrastructure, research and development, provide health care and other basic economic functions. Banks have a more short-term time frame and narrowly self-interested motivation. Some 80% of their loans are mortgages against real estate. Banks lend against collateral in place, and the economy’s largest assets are land and buildings. Although banks loans also are used to finance leveraged buyouts and corporate takeovers, most new fixed capital investment by corporations is financed out of retained earnings, not bank credit.

And contrary to popular belief, the stock market has ceased to be a source of such financing. Textbook diagrams still depict it as raising money for new capital investment. Unfortunately, it has been turned into a vehicle to buy out companies on credit (e.g., with high interest junk bonds), replacing equity with debt (“taking a company private” from its stockholders). Inasmuch as interest payments are tax-deductible – on the pretense that they are a necessary cost of doing business – corporate income-tax payments are lowered. And what the tax collector relinquishes is available to be paid out to the bankers and bondholders who get rich by loading the economy down with debt.

The upshot is that the flow of corporate earnings is not used for productive investment, but is diverted to the financial sector – not only to pay interest and penalties to banks, but for stock buybacks intended to support stock prices and hence the value of stock options that managers of today’s financialized companies give themselves.

Welcome to the post-industrial economy, financial style. Industrial capitalism has passed through a series of stages of finance capitalism, from Pension-Fund capitalism via Globalized Dollarization and the Bubble Economy to the Negative Equity stage, foreclosure time, debt deflation, and austerity – and now what looks like debt peonage in Europe, above all for the PIIGS: Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Spain. (The Baltic countries of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania have been plunged so deeply into debt that their populations are emigrating to find work and flee debt-burdened real estate. The same has plagued Iceland since its bank rip-offs collapsed in 2008.)

Why aren’t economists describing these phenomena? The answer is a combination of political ideology and analytic blinders. As soon as the Rimini conference ended on Sunday evening, for instance, Paul Krugman’s Monday, February 27 New York Times column, “What Ails Europe?” blamed the euro’s problems simply on the inability of countries to devalue their currencies. He rightly criticized the Republican Party line that blames social welfare spending for the Eurozone’s problems, and also criticized putting the blame on budget deficits.

But he left out of account the straitjacket of the European Central Bank (ECB) inability to monetize the deficits by issuing currency or more typically, simply writing checks on the central bank’s own account. This prohibition is a result of the junk economic theology written into the EU constitution. Krugman’s rejection of MMT leads him to ignore this option:

“If the peripheral nations still had their own currencies, they could and would use devaluation to quickly restore competitiveness. But they don’t, which means that they are in for a long period of mass unemployment and slow, grinding deflation. Their debt crises are mainly a byproduct of this sad prospect, because depressed economies lead to budget deficits and deflation magnifies the burden of debt.”

There are two problems with this neoclassical trade analysis. First, currency depreciation lowers the price of labor, while raising the price of imports. The burden of debts denominated in foreign currencies increases in keeping with the devaluation. This creates problems unless governments pass a law re-denominating all debts in their own domestic currency. This will satisfy the Prime Directive of international financing: always denominate debts in your own currency, as the United States does.

Fortunately, sovereign nations can do this ex post facto. In 1933, for instance, Franklin Roosevelt nullified the Gold Clause in U.S. loan contracts, enabling banks and other creditors to be paid in the equivalent gold value. But any sovereign government can rule how debts are to be paid (or not paid, for that matter). In his usual neoclassical fashion, Mr. Krugman ignores this debt issue:

“The afflicted nations [the PIIGs], in particular, have nothing but bad choices: either they suffer the pains of deflation or they take the drastic step of leaving the euro, which won’t be politically feasible until or unless all else fails (a point Greece seems to be approaching). Germany could help by reversing its own austerity policies and accepting higher inflation, but it won’t.”

So the existing system could work, he contends, if only Germany would inflate its economy and more German tourists spend more in Greece – assuming that the Greek government would tax enough of this spending to balance its budget. If Germany does not bail out the failed and dysfunctional economic structure, Greece will have to withdraw – but devaluation will restore equilibrium.

This is typical neoclassical over-simplification. Leaving the euro is not sufficient to avert austerity, foreclosure and debt deflation if Greece and other countries that withdraw retain the neoliberal anti-government, post-industrial policy that plagues the Eurozone. If the post-euro economy has a central bank that still refuses to finance public budget deficits, forcing the government to borrow from commercial banks and bondholders. What if the government still believes that it should balance the budget rather than provide the economy with spending power to increase its growth? In this case the post-euro government will tie itself in the same policy straitjacket that the Eurozone now imposes.

Suppose further that the Greek government slashes public welfare spending, and bails out banks for their losses, or takes losing bank gambles onto the public balance sheet, as Ireland has done. For that matter, what if the governments do what the neoliberal Obama Administration in the United States has done, and refrain from writing down real estate mortgages and other debts to the debtors’ ability to pay, as Iceland and Latvia have failed to do? The result will be debt deflation, forfeiture of property, rising unemployment – and a rising tide of emigration as the domestic economy and employment opportunities shrink. The budget deficit and balance-of-payments deficit both will worsen, not improve.

Mr. Krugman’s second error of omission is his assumption that government budgets need to be balanced. He misses the MMT point that governments can finance deficits rather than relying on bondholders. The monetary effect is identical: credit-financed spending. The difference – and it is essential – is that the government is not constrained by having to tax the economy to finance its operations, and it does not go further in debt to banks and bondholders. But despite his counter-cyclical Keynesianism, Mr. Krugman shares in principle the neoliberal mythology that demonizes the public option for credit creation, while approving private sector debt financing (even in foreign currencies!). The upshot is to make economies behave as if they still were on the gold standard, needing to borrow savings (in “hard” assets), when in fact the banks have simply sold the illusion that their electronic balance-sheet entries are “as good as gold.” That world ended in 1971 when the United States went off gold. Since then, all currencies are state currencies – often backed by U.S. Treasury IOUs rather than their own money, to be sure.

So what then is the key? It is to have a central bank that does what central banks were founded to do: monetize government budget deficits so as to spend money into the economy, in a way best intended to promote economic growth and full employment.

This is the MMT message that the five of us were invited to explain to the audience in Rimini. Some attendees came up and explained that they had come all the way from Spain, others from France and cities across Italy. And although we gave many press, radio and TV interviews, we were told that the major media were directed to ignore us as not politically correct.

Such is the censorial spirit of neoliberal monetary austerity. Its motto is TINA: There Is No Alternative, and it wants to keep matters this way. As long as it can suppress discussion of how many better alternatives there are, the hope is that the public will remain quiescent as their living standards shrink and wealth is sucked up to the top of the economic pyramid to the 1%.

The audience was vocally against remaining in the eurozone – to the extent that continued adherence to it meant submission to neoliberal pro-financial policies. (The proceedings were videotaped and will be transcribed and placed on the web. Pacifica KPFA broadcaster Bonnie Faulkner attended and is compiling a series of programs and will re-interview the speakers for her “Guns and Butter” program.) They had no naivety that withdrawal by itself would cure the problems that they originally hoped EU membership would solve: Italian political corruption, tax evasion by the rich, insider dealings, and most of all, the power of banks to siphon off the surplus and control the government, the mass media and even the universities in an attempt to brainwash the population to believe that financial control of resource allocation, tax policy and wealth distribution was all for the best to make the economy more efficient.

The audience requested above all more monetary and fiscal theory from Stephanie Kelton, who gave the clearest lecture on economics I have ever heard – a Euclidean presentation of MMT logic.

The size of the audience filling the sports stadium to hear our economic explanation of how a real central bank should operate to avoid austerity and promote rather than discourage employment showed that the government’s attempt to brainwash the population was not working. (For a visual of the magnitude, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XP60tpwu5cs .)

The attempt to force TINA logic on the population is not working any better than it did in Harvard’s Economics 101 class, from which students recently walked out in protest against the unrealistic parallel universe thinking. Its appeal is mainly to intelligent but ungrounded individuals (not yet post-autistic). They are selected as useful idiots and trained to draw pictures of the economy that exclude analysis of the debt overhead, rentier free lunches and financial parasitism. One needs to be very clever, after all, to imagine a system that “saves the appearances” of an unrealistic Ptolemaic system. Any positive role for government and a real central bank not oppressed under the thumb of private-sector bankers and financial engineers seeking to suck the economic surplus out of nations much as military conquerors did in past centuries.

There is a growing sense that Western civilization itself is at a critical juncture. It must choose between needless austerity and progress – but progress is blocked by the reluctance to write down the debt overhead. So as Prof. Kelton noted, economies face two different types of growth policy. Neoliberal policy promises to help the body politick grow by draining the blood from the body, ostensibly to help it grow more healthy and restore its balance (with all power to the wealthy 1%). The MMT policy is feed the body to help it grow healthy. This requires liberating the brain – the government and policy makers that implement an economic philosophy – from the financial sector’s control.


Now that summary videos have begun to be placed on the web, a Norwegian economist wrote to me

I do not understand what is new about this:

governments can create money … to promote long-term growth …

What IS new is that somebody finally listens.

There seems to a hunger out there for somebody (with the “right background”) to tell people plain simple common sense.

What MMT teaches today is indeed long-established knowledge and practice. The degree to which its logic and message have been excluded from the academic curriculum is testament to the neoliberal version of free markets: their policy only appears to work if they can excluded discussion of any alternatives – and indeed, exclude economic history itself.

Blind Fed Owns More US Treasuries Than China, Ruining Fixed Income Policy Gauge



 by Staff Report


As long as there is confidence in the Fed, the Fed’s strategy may pan out, right? Maybe. We don’t even question the motives of the Fed 154127845 However, we question the Fed’s ability to conduct policy when its policy makers are blindfolded. We fear that some of the Fed’s most important gauges used to set policy have been taken away, by the Fed itself. – Merk Funds

Dominant Social Theme: If the Fed would only do a better job, thing could get better.

Free-Market Analysis: Merk Funds’ Axel Merk just issued a commentary in which he points out, astonishingly, that the Fed “now owns more U.S. government debt than China.” The ramifications are immense.

Merk has founded several currency funds during the decade and has been, from time to time, a fairly caustic critic of Western, mainstream monetary policy. This article, “Fed Flying Blind,” certainly makes some interesting points. Here’s one:

The Fed has engaged in Operation Twist, applying the Fed’s firepower to lowering rates further out the yield curve (longer term interest rates). Indeed, the Fed now owns over 30% of all outstanding marketable U.S. Treasuries with maturities of 6-10 years; across the yield curve, from Treasury Bills to 30-year Treasury Bonds, the Fed has accumulated almost 20% of all outstanding securities.

This is well written, and shows not just the massiveness of the Fed’s current monetary distortion but the larger distortion in the marketplace that the Fed (and other central banking interferences) must inevitably be causing. More on that in a minute.

For Axel Merk, the size of the Fed’s intervention is not just startling; it also has practical ramifications involving investors everywhere. We believe the gargantuan nature of the purchases illustrates our contention that the dollar reserve system has basically fallen apart.

Merk worries that the Fed’s ability to determine HOW to set monetary policy has been compromised. He writes, “Some of the Fed’s most important gauges used to set policy have been taken away – by the Fed itself. We fear the Fed may be flying blind.” (See article excerpt above.)

Merk then makes another critical point: “Fed Chair Bernanke told Congress last week that he is puzzled about incoming economic data, unable to explain why the unemployment rate has come down quite so rapidly. Consider the yield curve: typically, yields provide a wealth of information about the health of the economy, about inflationary pressures, to name a few.”

And Merk added, “As such, an important feature of the yield curve is that it can sell off, amongst others, should inflationary pressures pick up or should investors be concerned about long-term fiscal sustainability. With the Fed becoming evermore engaged in yield curve management further along the curve, this gauge has been taken away.”

Our immediate response to this is that the reason Bernanke cannot figure out income economic data is because the US government‘s INPUTS are junk. The elites who stand behind Obama are determined to elect him to another term and will skew the economic numbers in whatever direction they have to in order to make the case that he deserves one.

But this latter observation by Merk is one we have not read ANYWHERE else. The Fed is purchasing bonds and thus influencing their price. And yet Fed policymakers rely on bond prices (among other data) to determine the monetary policy they wish to implement. Here’s some more from the article:

In assessing whether to make tough decisions, policy makers tend to weigh the cost of action versus inaction. As critical as we are of our dear policy makers, when push comes to shove, they may rise to the occasion. But what if they are not told when it’s time to act, when it’s time to stop printing and spending trillions? In our assessment, the voice of reason has been silenced, posing potential risks to economic stability, as well as theU.S. dollar. That voice of reason is no other than the market itself. Let us explain.

As the Federal Reserve (Fed) has become ever more engaged in micro-managing the economy, we have moved from rate cuts to emergency rate cuts, to printing billions, then trillions, first to buy mortgage backed securities and more recently, Treasuries. Coming to the realization that talk is cheaper than action, the Fed has since switched gears and “committed” to keeping rates low, initially through mid-2013 and now through the end of 2014 …

The alternative, of course, would be to conduct what we would deem sound monetary policy, so that a reasonable person wouldn’t be concerned about the risks of money printing in the first place. But that’s so yesterday.

This path that Merk charts when it comes to the Fed is enlightening because it illustrates what we would call “desperation” as regards stabilizing the economy. It began with rate cuts and migrated to printing what is now trillions and then to SPENDING those trillions. Trillions!

Former Fed Governor Kevin Warsh, a critic of active yield curve management, has said the Fed is looking into the mirror in conducting policy … they are human and should periodically be reminded that the greatest failures in monetary history have also been conducted by some of the smartest economists of the time.

How high are the stakes? According to Merk, “The U.S. deficit will grow by $3.86 trillion (the 2013-2017 adjusted baseline scenario in the 2013 budget). Should the Administration be able to implement all its policy initiatives, the five-year addition to the deficit would ‘only’ be $3.44 trillion. ”

Cold comfort, indeed. As Merk points out in a further paragraph, the real fallback for the Fed seems to be “prayer and hope.” These untraditional methodologies (prayer and hope) have “moved to the forefront of Fed policy making, as the Fed has taken away what we deem are some of the most important gauges used to conduct monetary policy.”

Merk ends his article by cautioning that prudent investors and their planners and money managers need to take the Fed’s purposeful distortion of the bond market into account when deciding on asset allocation. The Fed is not only in the process of ruining its OWN indicators, it’s ruining them for everyone else too.

According to Merk, the Fed is flying blind, but we cannot conclude this article without pointing out that central bankers have likely NEVER had the tools necessary to implement accurate monetary planning.

As Ludwig von Mises showed in his ground-breaking opus Human Action, it is impossible for government planning to work. Whenever the government passes a law or implements a regulation people’s behavior will change but not in the manner that bureaucrats expect.

Beyond this, the very threats that government officials perceive are ALSO perceived by individuals who will take “human action” long before government decides on the appropriate solution. And when that solution is implemented, the chances are it will be too little too late.

People will ALREADY have changed their behaviors, rendering the government solutions moot. Another way of explaining this is by simply pointing out that all laws and regulations are essentially price fixes, distorting the market. The Fed can never properly PLAN policy because those doing the planning have no idea of how their previously introduced distortions will react with the marketplace.

Finally, we’d have to take issue with the perception that monopoly-fiat central banking is actually meant to create prosperous economies. The track record of monopoly-fiat central banking is miserable. The dollar’s value alone has been inflated away to nearly zero. And the dollar is the world’s reserve currency!

In our view, the idea that monopoly-fiat central banking is either viable or “helpful” is itself an elite dominant social theme, a promotion that seeks to convince citizens that there are certain “leaders” who can be trusted with properly dispensing hundreds of trillions.

In truth, the reason for central banking is to fund the creation of one-world government, in our humble view. And to create a worldwide depression in order to help the process along.

There is, of course, a vast smokescreen of rhetoric that has been developed to hide this fact. But no matter the justifications, no matter the learned articles, the reality of what monopoly fiat central banking IS remains.

It is price fixing. It is the adjustment of the volume and value of money by a handful of good, gray bankers. Or to put it another way: It is ineffective because it seeks to influence the optimal operations of the Invisible Hand of private-market competition.

As Axel Merk points out, the Fed these days is ineffective on numerous levels. It is “flying blind.” He did this logically, by pointing out the Fed has interfered so drastically in the market that it has compromised the very fixed income indices it has ordinarily relied upon.

Even if one believes that the Fed is doing a good job, or that it COULD do a good job, the idea that it has manipulated the very indices it has counted on for planning purposes should give one pause.

Conclusion: Yes, the Fed is indeed “flying blind.” Or to put it another way, only someone who has lost his or her faculties would be inclined to trust either the policies or strategies of modern central banking.

10 Things That Every American Should Know About The Federal Reserve



What would happen if the Federal Reserve was shut down permanently?  That is a question that CNBC asked recently, but unfortunately most Americans don’t really think about the Fed much. Most Americans are content with believing that the Federal Reserve is just another stuffy government agency that sets our interest rates and that is watching out for the best interests of the American people.  But that is not the case at all.  The truth is that the Federal Reserve is a private banking cartel that has been designed to systematically destroy the value of our currency, drain the wealth of the American public and enslave the federal government to perpetually expanding debt.  During this election year, the economy is the number one issue that voters are concerned about.  But instead of endlessly blaming both political parties, the truth is that most of the blame should be placed at the feet of the Federal Reserve.  The Federal Reserve has more power over the performance of the U.S. economy than anyone else does.  The Federal Reserve controls the money supply, the Federal Reserve sets the interest rates and the Federal Reserve hands out bailouts to the big banks that absolutely dwarf anything that Congress ever did.  If the American people are ever going to learn what is really going on with our economy, then it is absolutely imperative that they get educated about the Federal Reserve.

The following are 10 things that every American should know about the Federal Reserve….

#1 The Federal Reserve System Is A Privately Owned Banking Cartel

The Federal Reserve is not a government agency.

The truth is that it is a privately owned central bank.  It is owned by the banks that are members of the Federal Reserve system.  We do not know how much of the system each bank owns, because that has never been disclosed to the American people.

The Federal Reserve openly admits that it is privately owned.  When it was defending itself against a Bloomberg request for information under the Freedom of Information Act, the Federal Reserve stated unequivocally in court that it was “not an agency” of the federal government and therefore not subject to the Freedom of Information Act.

In fact, if you want to find out that the Federal Reserve system is owned by the member banks, all you have to do is go to the Federal Reserve website….

The twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks, which were established by Congress as the operating arms of the nation’s central banking system, are organized much like private corporations–possibly leading to some confusion about “ownership.” For example, the Reserve Banks issue shares of stock to member banks. However, owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company. The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. The stock may not be sold, traded, or pledged as security for a loan; dividends are, by law, 6 percent per year.

Foreign governments and foreign banks do own significant ownership interests in the member banks that own the Federal Reserve system.  So it would be accurate to say that the Federal Reserve is partially foreign-owned.

But until the exact ownership shares of the Federal Reserve are revealed, we will never know to what extent the Fed is foreign-owned.

#2 The Federal Reserve System Is A Perpetual Debt Machine

As long as the Federal Reserve System exists, U.S. government debt will continue to go up and up and up.

This runs contrary to the conventional wisdom that Democrats and Republicans would have us believe, but unfortunately it is true.

The way our system works, whenever more money is created more debt is created as well.

For example, whenever the U.S. government wants to spend more money than it takes in (which happens constantly), it has to go ask the Federal Reserve for it.  The federal government gives U.S. Treasury bonds to the Federal Reserve, and the Federal Reserve gives the U.S. government “Federal Reserve Notes” in return.  Usually this is just done electronically.

So where does the Federal Reserve get the Federal Reserve Notes?

It just creates them out of thin air.

Wouldn’t you like to be able to create money out of thin air?

Instead of issuing money directly, the U.S. government lets the Federal Reserve create it out of thin air and then the U.S. government borrows it.

Talk about stupid.

When this new debt is created, the amount of interest that the U.S. government will eventually pay on that debt is not also created.

So where will that money come from?

Well, eventually the U.S. government will have to go back to the Federal Reserve to get even more money to finance the ever expanding debt that it has gotten itself trapped into.

It is a debt spiral that is designed to go on perpetually.

You see, the reality is that the money supply is designed to constantly expand under the Federal Reserve system.  That is why we have all become accustomed to thinking of inflation as “normal”.

So what does the Federal Reserve do with the U.S. Treasury bonds that it gets from the U.S. government?

Well, it sells them off to others.  There are lots of people out there that have made a ton of money by holding U.S. government debt.

In fiscal 2011, the U.S. government paid out 454 billion dollars just in interest on the national debt.

That is 454 billion dollars that was taken out of our pockets and put into the pockets of wealthy individuals and foreign governments around the globe.

The truth is that our current debt-based monetary system was designed by greedy bankers that wanted to make enormous profits by using the Federal Reserve as a tool to create money out of thin air and lend it to the U.S. government at interest.

And that plan is working quite well.

Most Americans today don’t understand how any of this works, but many prominent Americans in the past did understand it.

For example, Thomas Edison was once quoted in the New York Times as saying the following….

That is to say, under the old way any time we wish to add to the national wealth we are compelled to add to the national debt.

Now, that is what Henry Ford wants to prevent. He thinks it is stupid, and so do I, that for the loan of $30,000,000 of their own money the people of the United States should be compelled to pay $66,000,000 — that is what it amounts to, with interest. People who will not turn a shovelful of dirt nor contribute a pound of material will collect more money from the United States than will the people who supply the material and do the work. That is the terrible thing about interest. In all our great bond issues the interest is always greater than the principal. All of the great public works cost more than twice the actual cost, on that account. Under the present system of doing business we simply add 120 to 150 per cent, to the stated cost.

But here is the point: If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill. The element that makes the bond good makes the bill good.

We should have listened to men like Edison and Ford.

But we didn’t.

And so we pay the price.

On July 1, 1914 (a few months after the Fed was created) the U.S. national debt was 2.9 billion dollars.

Today, it is more than 5000 times larger.

Yes, the perpetual debt machine is working quite well, and most Americans do not even realize what is happening.

#3 The Federal Reserve Has Destroyed More Than 96% Of The Value Of The U.S. Dollar

Did you know that the U.S. dollar has lost 96.2 percentof its value since 1900?  Of course almost all of that decline has happened since the Federal Reserve was created in 1913.

Because the money supply is designed to expand constantly, it is guaranteed that all of our dollars will constantly lose value.

Inflation is a “hidden tax” that continually robs us all of our wealth.  The Federal Reserve always says that it is “committed” to controlling inflation, but that never seems to work out so well.

And current Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke says that it is actually a good thing to have a little bit of inflation.  He plans to try to keep the inflation rate at about 2 percent in the coming years.

So what is so bad about 2 percent?  That doesn’t sound so bad, does it?

Well, just consider the following excerpt from a recent Forbes article….

The Federal Reserve Open Market Committee (FOMC) has made it official:  After its latest two day meeting, it announced its goal to devalue the dollar by 33% over the next 20 years.  The debauch of the dollar will be even greater if the Fed exceeds its goal of a 2 percent per year increase in the price level.

#4 The Federal Reserve Can Bail Out Whoever It Wants To With No Accountability

The American people got so upset about the bailouts that Congress gave to the Wall Street banks and to the big automakers, but did you know that the biggest bailouts of all were given out by the Federal Reserve?

Thanks to a very limited audit of the Federal Reserve that Congress approved a while back, we learned that the Fed made trillions of dollars in secret bailout loans to the big Wall Street banks during the last financial crisis.  They even secretly loaned out hundreds of billions of dollars to foreign banks.

According to the results of the limited Fed audit mentioned above, a total of $16.1 trillion in secret loans were made by the Federal Reserve between December 1, 2007 and July 21, 2010.

The following is a list of loan recipients that was taken directly from page 131 of the audit report….

Citigroup – $2.513 trillion
Morgan Stanley – $2.041 trillion
Merrill Lynch – $1.949 trillion
Bank of America – $1.344 trillion
Barclays PLC – $868 billion
Bear Sterns – $853 billion
Goldman Sachs – $814 billion
Royal Bank of Scotland – $541 billion
JP Morgan Chase – $391 billion
Deutsche Bank – $354 billion
UBS – $287 billion
Credit Suisse – $262 billion
Lehman Brothers – $183 billion
Bank of Scotland – $181 billion
BNP Paribas – $175 billion
Wells Fargo – $159 billion
Dexia – $159 billion
Wachovia – $142 billion
Dresdner Bank – $135 billion
Societe Generale – $124 billion
“All Other Borrowers” – $2.639 trillion

So why haven’t we heard more about this?

This is scandalous.

In addition, it turns out that the Fed paid enormous sums of money to the big Wall Street banks to help “administer” these nearly interest-free loans….

Not only did the Federal Reserve give 16.1 trillion dollars in nearly interest-free loans to the “too big to fail” banks, the Fed also paid them over 600 million dollars to help run the emergency lending program. According to the GAO, the Federal Reserve shelled out an astounding $659.4 million in “fees” to the very financial institutions which caused the financial crisis in the first place.

Does reading that make you angry?

It should.

#5 The Federal Reserve Is Paying Banks Not To Lend Money

Did you know that the Federal Reserve is actually paying banks not to make loans?

It is true.

Section 128 of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 allows the Federal Reserve to pay interest on “excess reserves” that U.S. banks park at the Fed.

So the banks can just send their cash to the Fed and watch the money come rolling in risk-free.

So are many banks taking advantage of this?

You tell me.  Just check out the chart below.  The amount of “excess reserves” parked at the Fed has gone from nearly nothing to about 1.5 trillion dollars since 2008….

But shouldn’t the banks be lending the money to us so that we can start businesses and buy homes?

You would think that is how it is supposed to work.

Unfortunately, the Federal Reserve is not working for us.

The Federal Reserve is working for the big banks.

Sadly, most Americans have no idea what is going on.

Another example of this is the government debt carry trade.

Here is how it works.  The Federal Reserve lends gigantic piles of nearly interest-free cash to the big Wall Street banks, and in turn those banks use the money to buy up huge amounts of government debt.  Since the return on government debt is higher, the banks are able to make large profits very easily and with very little risk.

This scam was also explained in a recent article in the Guardian….

Consider this: we pretend that banks are private businesses that should be allowed to run their own affairs. But they are the biggest scroungers of public money of our time. Banks are lent vast sums of money by central banks at near-zero interest. They lend that money to us or back to the government at higher rates and rake in the difference by the billion. They don’t even have to make clever investments to make huge profits.

That is a pretty good little scam they have got going, wouldn’t you say?

#6 The Federal Reserve Creates Artificial Economic Bubbles That Are Extremely Damaging

By allowing a centralized authority such as the Federal Reserve to dictate interest rates, it creates an environment where financial bubbles can be created very easily.

Over the past several decades, we have seen bubble after bubble.  Most of these have been the result of the Federal Reserve keeping interest rates artificially low.  If the free market had been setting interest rates all this time, things would have never gotten so far out of hand.

For example, the housing crash would have never been so horrific if the Federal Reserve had not created such ideal conditions for a housing bubble in the first place.  But we allow the Fed to continue to make the same mistakes.

Right now, the Federal Reserve continues to set interest rates much, much lower than they should be.  This is causing a tremendous misallocation of economic resources, and there will be massive consequences for that down the line.

#7 The Federal Reserve System Is Dominated By The Big Wall Street Banks

Even since it was created, the Federal Reserve system has been dominated by the big Wall Street banks.

The following is from a previous article that I did about the Fed….

The New York representative is the only permanent member of the Federal Open Market Committee, while other regional banks rotate in 2 and 3 year intervals.  The former head of the New York Fed, Timothy Geithner, is now U.S. Treasury Secretary.  The truth is that the Federal Reserve Bank of New York has always been the most important of the regional Fed banks by far, and in turn the Federal Reserve Bank of New York has always been dominated by Wall Street and the major New York banks.

#8 It Is Not An Accident That We Saw The Personal Income Tax And The Federal Reserve System Both Come Into Existence In 1913

On February 3rd, 1913 the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified.  Later that year, the United States Revenue Act of 1913 imposed a personal income tax on the American people and we have had one ever since.

Without a personal income tax, it is hard to have a central bank.  It takes a lot of money to finance all of the government debt that a central banking system creates.

It is no accident that the 16th Amendment was ratified in 1913 and the Federal Reserve system was also created in 1913.

They have a symbiotic relationship and they are designed to work together.

We could fill Congress with people that are committed to ending this oppressive system, but so far we have chosen not to do that.

So our children and our grandchildren will face a lifetime of debt slavery because of us.

I am sure they will be thankful for that.

#9 The Current Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben Bernanke, Has A Nightmarish Track Record Of Incompetence

The mainstream media portrays Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke as a brilliant economist, but is that really the case?

Let’s go to the videotape.

The following is an extended excerpt from an article that I published previously….

In 2005, Bernanke said that we shouldn’t worry because housing prices had never declined on a nationwide basis before and he said that he believed that the U.S. would continue to experience close to “full employment”….

“We’ve never had a decline in house prices on a nationwide basis. So, what I think what is more likely is that house prices will slow, maybe stabilize, might slow consumption spending a bit. I don’t think it’s gonna drive the economy too far from its full employment path, though.”

In 2005, Bernanke also said that he believed that derivatives were perfectly safe and posed no danger to financial markets….

“With respect to their safety, derivatives, for the most part, are traded among very sophisticated financial institutions and individuals who have considerable incentive to understand them and to use them properly.”

In 2006, Bernanke said that housing prices would probably keep rising….

“Housing markets are cooling a bit. Our expectation is that the decline in activity or the slowing in activity will be moderate, that house prices will probably continue to rise.”

In 2007, Bernanke insisted that there was not a problem with subprime mortgages….

“At this juncture, however, the impact on the broader economy and financial markets of the problems in the subprime market seems likely to be contained. In particular, mortgages to prime borrowers and fixed-rate mortgages to all classes of borrowers continue to perform well, with low rates of delinquency.”

In 2008, Bernanke said that a recession was not coming….

“The Federal Reserve is not currently forecasting a recession.”

few months before Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac collapsed, Bernanke insisted that they were totally secure….

“The GSEs are adequately capitalized. They are in no danger of failing.”

For many more examples that demonstrate the absolutely nightmarish track record of Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, please see the following articles….

*”Say What? 30 Ben Bernanke Quotes That Are So Stupid That You Won’t Know Whether To Laugh Or Cry

*”Is Ben Bernanke A Liar, A Lunatic Or Is He Just Completely And Totally Incompetent?

But after being wrong over and over and over, Barack Obama still nominated Ben Bernanke for another term as Chairman of the Fed.


#10 The Federal Reserve Has Become Way Too Powerful

The Federal Reserve is the most undemocratic institution in America.

The Federal Reserve has become so powerful that it is now known as “the fourth branch of government”, but there are less checks and balances on the Fed than there are on the other three branches.

The Federal Reserve runs the U.S. economy but it is not accountable to the American people.  We can’t vote those that run the Fed out of office if we do not like what they do.

Yes, the president appoints those that run the Fed, but he also knows that if he does not tread lightly he won’t get the money from the big Wall Street banks that he needs for his next election.

Thankfully, there are a few members of Congress that are complaining about how much power the Fed has.  For example, Ron Paul once told MSNBC that he believes that the Federal Reserve is now actually 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.”

As members of Congress such as Ron Paul have started to shed some light on the activities of the Federal Reserve, that has caused many in the mainstream media to come to the defense of the Fed.

For example, a recent CNBC article entitled “If The Federal Reserve Is Abolished, What Then?” makes it sound like there is absolutely no other rational alternative to having the Federal Reserve run our economy.

But this is not what our founders intended.

The founders did not intend for a private banking cartel to issue our money and set our interest rates for us.

According to Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. Congress has been given the responsibility to “coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures”.

So why is the Federal Reserve doing it?

But the CNBC article mentioned above makes it sound like the sky would fall if control of the currency was handed back over to the American people.

At one point, the article asks the following question….

“How would the U.S. economy then function? Something has to take its place, right?”

No, the truth is that we don’t need anyone to “manage” our economy.

The U.S. Treasury could be in charge of issuing our currency and the free market could set our interest rates.

We don’t need to have a centrally-planned economy.

We aren’t China.

And it goes against everything that our founders believed to be running up so much government debt.

For example, Thomas Jefferson once declared that if he could add just one more amendment to the U.S. Constitution it would be a ban on all government borrowing….

I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for the reduction of the administration of our government to the genuine principles of its Constitution; I mean an additional article, taking from the federal government the power of borrowing.

Oh, how things would have been different if we had only listened to Thomas Jefferson.

Please share this article with as many people as you can.  These are things that every American should know about the Federal Reserve, and we need to educate the American people about the Fed while there is still time.


What better time than this to refer the reader to Marilyn Barnewall’s on going effort’s to help State’s construct their own State Bank like North Dakota who has been making money from their State Bank for 93 years.



By Marilyn M. Barnewall
August 28, 2011

In a speech I give about state banks, I begin by showing 20 slides. Each displays an overhead view of a city. Each city is covered with little red dots. Each dot represents a home in foreclosure… a broken dream for an American brother and/or sister.

Some of those slides were used in a recent articleI did about home foreclosures and why so many people who have never missed a house payment are being told to either cough up more collateral for their mortgage loan or the bank will “call the loan” (require payment in full).

In my speech, I use the slides to emphasize the incompetence of the Federal Reserve System and as evidence of why the monetary policies of this private corporation (owned by and for bankers) has failed and why responsibility for monetary policy needs to be returned to the Congress of the United States of America where the Constitution firmly placed it.

Do I trust the Congress more than I trust Ben Bernanke? No. But I do trust the Constitution and respect the structure it put in place for our monetary policies and currency… for our Republic.

My slide presentation begins with Boise, Idaho. One in every 21 homes is in foreclosure in Boise. Several slides of cities in Florida are shown – Tampa, Port St. Lucie, Deltona, Naples – and some California cities like Sacramento, Bakersfield, Riverside and others. All of these cities have more homes in foreclosure than Boise does. There are two slides from Senator Harry Reid’s home state of Nevada – Reno (1 out of every 16 homes is in foreclosure) and Las Vegas (one out of every 9 homes is in foreclosure). Nevadans just re-elected Reid to his Senate seat. As the old saying goes, we get the government we deserve.

The Constitution (Article I, Section 8) quite clearly gives the right to borrow money on the credit of the United States to the Congress, not to a private corporation called the Federal Reserve. It gives to the Congress, not a cartel of bankers called the Federal Reserve, the right to coin money, regulate its value and that of foreign coins, and fix the standard of weights and measures.

The Federal Reserve Act was passed by the Congress in 1913. Thus, it took that private corporation (which, in reality, is nothing more than a middleman… a wholesaler of taxpayer currency) – 98 years to cause all of those little red dots, each representing a foreclosed home in an American city. The Fed has, unlawfully in my view, been in charge of our monetary policy for almost 100 years.

I suggest that this is one hundred year birthday we should not celebrate. It is a celebration we should abort… and I mean that in the worst kind of way.

The United States is $15 trillion in debt. We are spending $1.50 for every $1 in revenue we take in. That is unsustainable. Since every dollar that is printed is 46 cents in debt, it should be called a half-dollar, not a dollar. Printing a dollar bill that is almost 50 percent in debt before the ink dries may provide a new definition of counterfeiting.

The Federal Reserve recently underwent a partial audit that shows it made $16 trillion zero interest secret loans to American and foreign banks and businesses. You’d recognize the usual Wall Street bankster names… e.g., Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan Chase, Citigroup, etc. The foreign banks included some of the biggest in the world… Deutsche Bank, Royal Bank of Scotland, and others. While the Fed was making these zero interest loans (for which U.S. taxpayers are on the line), 6.5 million American homeowners were suffering through delinquent and foreclosed mortgages mostly caused by lost jobs resulting from a rotten economy – created by Federal Reserve policies.

The disastrous policies that have caused these personal nightmares give the American people all the necessary reasons required to demand we take back control of our banking system. We must tell this wholesaler of debt and money that whatever services it provides (other than screwing the people) are no longer needed.

Give authority over our banking system to individual states so the people have more control over their financial futures. When state banks are properly run, both the people and the government prosper… which is the way it’s supposed to be.

If a state implements a new, state-owned financial system, do we need to pay attention and make sure the state doesn’t turn state banks into political toys… follow in the Fed’s footsteps? You’re darned right we do! Had citizens been doing their job this past 98 years, the Federal Reserve wouldn’t have become the biggest financial abuser in world history! We need to watch anything that’s political to keep it from servings its own interests rather than those of the people!

What is a state bank?

There is only one state-owned system of banking in the country and it’s in North Dakota. That state has owned and operated its own system of banking for the past 93 years. So, when I write and talk of the benefits we can expect from implementing a state bank, it’s based on the experience of North Dakota’s bank, not on guess work or estimates.

As of July 2011, the unemployment rate in North Dakota is 3.3 percent. With a population of between 650,000 and 700,000, the North Dakota State Bank has, during the past ten years, paid the State Treasurer more than $325 million from bank profits. These funds keep the tax burden low which, in turn, encourages… what? Business and job growth! That’s one reason unemployment is so low in North Dakota. Think what states with larger populations and very high rates of unemployment – like Michigan – could do!

In 2009-2010, the worst American economy in recent history, North Dakota’s government had it largest surplus in history. The payroll growth in the private sector (not the public sector) during that time frame was 5.2 percent. The payroll growth of Texas placed it second at 2.6 percent. Maybe Governor Dalrymple should be running for President instead of Rick Perry?

When I speak publicly on this subject, people suggest that the North Dakota economy is so successful because of the Bakken oil project where an oil formation lies underground in a shale rock across western North Dakota, northeast Montana, and into Canada’s Saskatchewan Province. The barrels per day went from 3,000 in 2005 to 225,000 in 2010.

There’s no doubt Bakken has enhanced the North Dakota economy, but it’s not what causes the positive economic results. There are almost as many people in Alaska as North Dakota – and Alaska pumps about twice as much oil – unemployment in Alaska is 7.7 percent. Montana and Wyoming extracted far more gas than North Dakota, but neither maintained a continuous budget surplus since our economic crisis began in 2008. North Dakota has.

States with a lot of minerals weren’t initially hurt as badly as other states when the economy turned south. But other states haven’t reduced taxes. North Dakota has. It reduced income and property taxes by $400 million. Thinking of all of those little red dots on my speech slides… North Dakota also has the lowest foreclosure rate and lowest credit card default in the nation.

North Dakota has had no bank failures during the banking crisis, either. It has only one thing not available in other mineral rich states: a state bank.

From 2007 to 2009, the Bank of North Dakota added to the state’s coffers almost as much money as oil and gas tax revenues did.

So, that’s what you can expect from a state bank. Why does having a state bank make such a huge difference? Because the state’s money and banking reserves are maintained within the state and those funds are invested in local communities. And, in addition to a state bank providing needed administrative functions, it serves as a correspondent bank for the independent banks on North Dakota street corners.

There are two or three questions I get asked when I speak publicly about this subject. The most frequently asked question is “Does having a state bank mean that the state runs the banks people do business with?” No. It doesn’t. That would be a socialist system – and state banks are anything but that! The state runs the state bank; individual investors run the commercial banks on Main Street… just like they do now.

A state bank is an administrator which charters the banks that do business in the state (and by doing so, largely controls credit quality). It acts as a correspondent bank for the banks it charters. A “correspondent bank” provides credit services to small, independent banks which places them in a more competitive position with large banks. When a small bank gets a loan request too large for it to make, such a loan is referred to a correspondent bank and becomes a “shared” loan. Without a state bank, independent banks must refer their loans to the big banks – which is one reason they got too big to jail.

I mentioned earlier that North Dakota keeps all state revenues in the state. In other states, a large percentage of those funds are sent to the Federal Reserve – which places them in money center banks in New York. State banks keep those funds in the state and use them to benefit the people.

Some economists estimate that this one difference can turn a state’s economy around within one year.

I started writing about the issue of state banks about two years ago. Since then, numerous states are legislatively investigating how to implement one: Washington, Oregon, California, Montana, Illinois, Florida, Hawaii, Virginia, Maryland and Massachusetts are among them.

Another question audiences ask is: If we own a state bank, will we need to create our own state currency? The answer is no. However, a state bank does provide a needed distribution system for a state currency should a state decide it needs to create one. Why would a state need to create its own currency? If the federal system fails, so too will America’s currency (and with it, the national banking system). To distribute any currency, an organized system of banking is required. There are many questions about state currencies, but that is another article.

The other question asked regards state sovereignty.

Several states have legislatively declared their right to be sovereign states. They include: Alabama, Nebraska, Rhode Island, Wyoming, Washington, Indiana, Kentucky, Georgia, Kansas, Missouri, Mississippi and Maryland.

Remember this about sovereignty. It is impossible to have a sovereign state without having control of your state’s monetary system. To achieve that, you need a state bank. As to the arguments about the legality of sovereignty declarations, I leave that to the lawyers. I’m a banker and what I know is this: If a state declares sovereignty without first having a state bank in place, there will be economic chaos. The bank comes first; sovereignty, second.

We face difficult times ahead. I believe state banks are a key that makes it possible for Americans to maintain every possible lawful alternative to solve the problems headed our way.

© 2011 Marilyn M. Barnewall – All Rights Reserved

Marilyn Barnewall’s Archives


Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall began her career in 1956 as a journalist with the Wyoming Eagle in Cheyenne. During her 20 years (plus) as a banker and bank consultant, she wrote extensively for The American Banker, Bank Marketing Magazine, Trust Marketing Magazine, was U.S. Consulting Editor for Private Banker International (London/Dublin), and other major banking industry publications. She has written seven non-fiction books about banking and taught private banking at Colorado University for the American Bankers Association. She has authored seven banking books, one dog book, and two works of fiction (about banking, of course). She has served on numerous Boards in her community.

Barnewall is the former editor of The National Peace Officer Magazine and as a journalist has written guest editorials for the Denver Post, Rocky Mountain News and Newsweek, among others. On the Internet, she has written for News With Views, World Net Daily, Canada Free Press, Christian Business Daily, Business Reform, and others. She has been quoted in Time, Forbes, Wall Street Journal and other national and international publications. She can be found in Who’s Who in America, Who’s Who of American Women, Who’s Who in Finance and Business, and Who’s Who in the World.

Web site: http://marilynwrites.blogspot.com

E-Mail: marilynmacg@juno.com

SAFE USA OIL for over two hundred years right here


I don’t know how true this is but if it is really accurate, this is all the more reason to get Obama out of the White House along with the many, many other reasons!!!!! Let’s get the Republicans out to vote this Nov.  There is no reason we should lose this election unless we don’t vote. IT IS TIME TO IMPEACH THE MAN IN THE WHITEHOUSE, AND SEND THE ENVIRONMENTALIST A MESSAGE…..”YOU DON’T LIKE IT HERE, GET THE HELL OUT…WHY DON’T YOU GO TO THE MIDDLE EAST AND SEE HOW ENVIRONMENTALLY SAFE THAT HELL HOLE IS…..”OIL- You better be sitting down when you read this !!!!!!
As you may know, Cruz Construction started a division in North Dakota just 6 months ago. They sent every Kenworth (9 trucks) we had here in Alaska to North Dakota and several drivers. They just bought two new Kenworth’s to add to that fleet; one being a Tri Drive tractor and a new 65 ton lowboy to go with it.They also bought two new cranes (one crawler & one rubber tired) for that division. Dave Cruz said they have moved more rigs in the last 6 months in ND than Cruz Construction moved in Alaska in the last 6 years. Williston is like a gold rush town; they moved one of our 40 man camps down there since there are no rooms available. Unemployment in ND is the lowest in the nation at 3.4 percent last I checked. See anything in the national news about how the oil industry is fueling North Dakota ‘s economy? Here’s an astonishing read. Important and verifiable information: About 6 months ago, the writer was watching a news program on oil and one of the Forbes Bros. was the guest. The host said to Forbes, “I am going to ask you a direct question and I would like a direct answer; how much oil does the U.S. have in the ground?” Forbes did not miss a beat, he said, “more than all the Middle East put together. “The U. S.. Geological Service issued a report in April 2008 that only scientists and oil men knew was coming, but man was it big. It was a revised report (hadn’t been updated since 1995) on how much oil was in this area of the western 2/3 of North Dakota, western South Dakota, and extreme eastern Montana. Check THIS out: The Bakken is the largest domestic oil discovery since Alaska ‘s Prudhoe Bay , and has the potential to eliminate all American dependence on foreign oil. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates it at 503 billion barrels. Even if just 10% of the oil is recoverable 5 billion barrels), at $107 a barrel, we’re looking at a resource base worth more than $5.3 trillion. “When I first briefed legislators on this, you could practically see their jaws hit the floor. They had no idea..” says Terry Johnson, the Montana Legislature’s financial analyst. “This sizable find is now the highest-producing onshore oil field found in the past 56 years,” reports The Pittsburgh Post Gazette. It’s a formation known as the Williston Basin , but is more commonly referred to as the ‘Bakken. ‘It stretches from Northern Montana, through North Dakota and into Canada .For years, U. S. oil exploration has been considered a dead end. Even the ‘Big Oil’ companies gave up searching for major oil wells decades ago. However, a recent technological breakthrough has opened up the Bakken’s massive reserves, and we now have access of up to 500 billion barrels. And because this is light, sweet oil, those billions of barrels will cost Americans just $16 PER BARREL !!!!!!That’s enough crude to fully fuel the American economy for 2041 years straight. And if THAT didn’t throw you on the floor, then this next one should – because it’s from 2006 !!!!!!U. S. Oil Discovery – Largest Reserve in the World. Stansberry Report Online – 4/20/2006 Hidden 1,000 feet beneath the surface of the Rocky Mountains lies the largest untapped oil reserve in the world. It is more than 2 TRILLION barrels. On August 8, 2005 President Bush mandated its extraction. In three and a half years of high oil prices none has been extracted. With this mother load of oil why are we still fighting over off-shore drilling? They reported this stunning news:We have more oil inside our borders, than all the other proven reserves on earth. Here are the official estimates:8 times as much oil as Saudi Arabia18 times as much oil as Iraq21 times as much oil as Kuwait22 times as much oil as Iran500 times as much oil as Yemen and it’s all right here in the Western United States !!!!!!HOW can this BE? HOW can we NOT BE extracting this? Because the environmentalists and others have blocked all efforts to help America become independent of foreign oil! Again, we are letting a small group of people dictate our lives and our economy. WHY? James Bartis, lead researcher with the study says we’ve got more oil in this very compact area than the entire Middle East, more than 2 TRILLION barrels untapped. That’s more than all the proven oil reserves of crude oil in the world today, reports The Denver Post. Don’t think ‘OPEC’ will drop its price even with this find? Think again! It’s all about the competitive marketplace, it has to. Think OPEC just might be funding the environmentalists? Got your attention yet? Now, while you’re thinking about it, do this: Pass this along. If you don’t take a little time to do this, then you should stifle yourself the next time you complain about gas prices, by doing NOTHING, you forfeit your right to complain. Now I just wonder what would happen in this country if every one of you sent this to every one in your address book. By the way, this can be verified. Check it out at the link below !!!!!!http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911<http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911>;Cruz Construction: http://www.cruzconstruct.com/



Mike Mathers

U.S. Oil Reserves


Q: Are anti-drilling forces blocking access to the world’s largest oil reserve in the western U.S.?

A: The Bakken Formation touted in a chain e-mail isn’t the world’s largest oil reserve. The amount of oil it contains, according to the U.S. Geological Survey, is less than one one-hundredth of the estimate cited in the e-mail.



I have a friend who always sends me this sort of thing, which I can never verify. sounds like someone selling swamp water… thanks.

Chain e-mail: If you start reading and “don’t believe” go to the bottom of the page and click on the US Government link. You’ll get the same information.


Update, Nov. 4, 2011: Since we wrote this report, technological advances have dramatically changed the prospects for oil recovery from the Bakken Formation. In October 2011, the USGS began an effort to reassess its 2008 report as a result of “new scientific and technological information about the Bakken.” They estimate the update will take approximately two years to complete. We stand by our initial analysis regarding the chain email’s claim that the Bakken contains potentially 503 billion barrels of oil — this news does not affect the fact that neither the USGS nor the EIA had officially projected such lofty numbers in the reports cited. However, it does indicate that the official estimates that we had reported could prove to be well on the conservative side.

Indeed, advances in drilling techniques, like horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing (commonly referred to as “fracking”), are major factors that have led to something of a boom in oil production countrywide. This could very well enable higher yields on recoverable oil in reserves like the Bakken, which saw rapid growth in drilling and production between 2006 and 2010. Continental Resources Inc., the independent oil and natural gas exploration and production company that holds the largest acreage positions and is the most active operator in the Bakken, has estimated that the total could be closer to 24 billion barrels. That’s roughly five times the estimate produced by the USGS in 2008 — much larger, to be sure, but still nowhere near the 503 billion claim.

We’ve received this e-mail from our readers several dozen times, and a Google search for some of its claims turns up hundreds of results. Unfortunately, it is false. It combines and twists several different news stories and studies into a longer tale of sound and fury that ultimately signifies nothing (factually anyway).

The tale begins with an exhortation telling the reader to “go to the bottom of the page and click on the US Government link” for proof of the e-mail’s veracity. Well, we did. And the link to a U.S. Geological Survey press release from April 2008 directly contradicts the e-mail’s main assertion.

The e-mail says that the Bakken Formation oil reserve (which is located in the Dakotas and Montana) “has the potential to eliminate all American dependence on foreign oil” and is estimated to hold 503 billion barrels of oil. That’s not true. It credits the USGS report from 2008 as the source of this information. It’s not.

The glowing language and more optimistic estimates about Bakken quoted in the e-mail can be traced to a 2006 Wall Street Journal story reprinted in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette. But the anonymous author of this e-mail omits an important caveat from that story, which said that “the lofty predictions remain unproven, and skeptics remain.”

And there was an incomplete USGS draft study of the Bakken from 2000 that included estimates ranging up to 500 billion barrels. But the Energy Information Administration explained in 2006 that it was not peer-reviewed and cautioned readers to wait for the official USGS estimate:

EIA, 2006: A draft study by the late organic geochemist Leigh Price provides estimates ranging from 271 to 503 billion barrels (mean of 413 billion) of potential resources in place. The study represents Dr. Price’s work as it stood at the time of his death in August 2000. It was conducted while he was working for the USGS, but it did not receive a complete scientific peer review by the USGS and was not published as a USGS product. A new assessment of the entire basin, due out in about a year, will provide an updated USGS estimate of the technically recoverable oil resources in the Bakken Formation.

The official estimate, contained in the USGS press release from last year, was a substantially smaller estimate of technically recoverable oil: 3 billion to 4.3 billion barrels.

The e-mail cites James Bartis as a “lead researcher of this study,” but he was actually a RAND researcher who led a different, related study. Bartis wrote a 2006 report on oil shale development and resources in the United States that said “the midpoint in our estimate range, 800 billion barrels, is more than triple the proven oil reserves of Saudi Arabia.” That’s for the entire U.S., not Bakken alone. But Bartis also cautioned that the technology to extract oil from the fields was not yet commercially viable and said that even “under high growth assumptions, an oil shale production level of 1 million barrels per day is probably more than 20 years in the future, and 3 million barrels per day is probably more than 30 years into the future.” Nowhere in his study did Bartis say that Bakken has “more than 2 trillion barrels,” as the e-mail falsely claims.

Snopes.com reviewed a similar mutation of this e-mail and traced the 2 trillion barrels of oil estimate to atout sheet from the Stansberry Report Online, a group referenced in the e-mail. Snopes also noted that Stansberry is an investment newsletter trying to sell subscriptions. The Stansberry site appeared to be down when we tried to access it, but the tout sheet was reproduced here.

Snopes ultimatley ruled the e-mail to be a “mixture of true and false information.” We agree. But we’d add that the email’s implication that politicians, environmentalists and the media are preventing oil drilling in the Bakken is decidedly false. The Bakken has already seen drilling and was a principal cause of the recent increase in U.S. proven oil reserves, according to the EIA.

–Justin Bank


Fialka, John J. “Wildcat producer sparks oil boom on Montana plains.” Wall Street Journal, 5 April 2006.

Press Release. “3 to 4.3 Billion Barrels of Technically Recoverable Oil Assessed in North Dakota and Montana’s Bakken Formation—25 Times More Than 1995 Estimate—.” United States Geological Survey Newsroom, 10 April 2008.

USGS Frequently Asked Questions. “What is the time frame to accomplish the retrieval of this oil and gas?” accessed 16 March 2009.


No one can deny, who has any experience in the search for truth, that we are besieged with false information. The truth of America being attacked by the International Investment Bankers in pursuit of global domination has been proven beyond doubt, but thousands of related claims are put forth to discourage more citizens from participating in truth seeking. Sometimes this is the result of hired agents, and sometimes this is due to ignorant American’s being naïve or over zealous. What ever you read and believe is your responsibility to prove regardless of where you find it, and that includes what I publish. That is the only way to become absolutely convinced that we are fighting an enormous army of people intent on global domination by the Bankers. If you do not take the time to fight for your freedom, it will be taken from you, and seeking the truth of everything you read is part of the battle.

A weed free lawn takes time and effort to grow, and so does a comprehension of how we are being enslaved. Lies are weeds in your mind.

The Federal Reserve Cartel Part V The Solution



Thomas Jefferson opined of the Rothschild-led Eight Families central banking cartel which came to control the United States, “Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of the day, but a series of oppressions begun at a distinguished period, unalterable through every change of ministers, too plainly prove a deliberate, systematic plan of reducing us to slavery”.

Two centuries and a few decades later this same cabal of trillionaire money changers – mysteriously immune from their own calls for “broad sacrifice” – utilizes the debt lever to ring concessions from the people of Ireland, Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy and now the United States.

In their never-ending quest to subjugate the planet, the bankers’ IMF enforcer – chronic harasser of Third World governments – has turned its sites on the developed world. To further advance their dizzying concentration of economic power, the whining banksters take a giant wrecking ball to the global middle class as they prepare to eat their young.

No one can argue that the US deficit is not a problem. Much of it accrues paying interest on the $14 trillion debt. Stooped-over Congressional cartel shills with names like Cantor and Boehner argue for slashing entire government departments to satiate the bloodthirsty bond-holders. Liberals argue for higher taxes on the rich and massive Pentagon cuts.

I agree with these latter proposals. The super-rich paid 90% under Eisenhower and 72% under Nixon. Both were Republicans. They now pay 33%. Most corporations and many elites utilize offshore tax havens and pay nothing.

The argument for progressive taxation is that those who benefit more from government should pay more. Cartel apologists propagate the fiction that the poor soak up middle-class tax dollars, sowing division between the poor and middle class. Meanwhile, the Eight Families financial octopus feeds mightily at the public trough be it the SEC (rich investors), the FCC (Gulfstream jet fliers), the USDA (the richest farmers get the biggest checks), Medicaid (insurance fraud, Big Pharma gouging) or the Pentagon (Lockheed Martin, Halliburton, Blackwater).

Still, $15+ trillion is an insurmountable debt. Increasing taxes on the super-rich combined with a global American military withdrawal from its current role as Hessianized mercenary force for the City of London banksters, while welcome, will not be enough to deal with this monster debt, what Jefferson termed, this “deliberate, systematic plan of reducing us to slavery”.

The belt-way dialogue on the deficit remains locked in a tiny intellectual box created by the corporate media and their Federal Reserve cartel owners. But there is another way.

It is a myth that most of that $15+ trillion debt is owed to the Chinese or other “governments”. The vast majority – around $10 trillion – is owed to the Eight Families Federal Reserve crowd.

In a June 9, 2011 article for Marketwatch, Unicredit’s Chief US Economist Harm Bandholz stated that the Federal Reserve is the largest holder of US debt with around 14% of the total. This does not include debt held by Rothschild-controlled central banks of other nations – including China, Japan and the GCC oil fiefdoms.

Through the recent QE2 program, the Fed purchased another $600 billion in Treasury bonds. They claimed it was a last ditch attempt to save the global economy from deflation. Instead, the banksters who got the interest free taxpayer-backed money pushed us further towards deflation by refusing to lend their welfare bonanza to potential homeowners or small business.

Conversely and inherent in the printing of zero-interest money, they created inflation – speculating in oil, food and gold futures and rolling this increased US debt on the roulette tables at their various wholly-owned global stock exchanges. Is it any wonder the financial parasite class is now clamoring for QE3?

What follows is a ten-step proposal which President Obama and the Congress could enact to lift the $14 trillion debt from the backs of future generations of Americans. These should be done concurrently as part of a single sweeping financial reform bill. Modeled after last week’s release of strategic petroleum reserves by twenty-seven nations, this measure should be enacted in tandem with as many willing nations as possible. The same Rothschild-led cabal controls the central banks of most every nation and there is power in numbers. If these measures are enacted separately or by only one nation, the Eight Families cartel will use their financial clout to target and destroy the US:

1) Introduce a Treasury Department-administered infrastructure investment fund, which workers should be strongly encouraged to opt into using accrued funds from their private 401K plans. This is important because the banker’s stock market casino will crash due to the next nine steps and workers must be shielded from this event. This fund can be used to rebuild America’s infrastructure, with American workers acting as lenders and receiving a fair rate of interest in return.

2) The US needs to withdraw from the Bank of International Settlements, the World Trade Organization, the World Bank, the IMF and all Eight Families-controlled multilateral lending facilities. We would save billions funding these banker welfare schemes while freeing ourselves from rules which prevent our financial emancipation.

3) De-link the dollar from all currency baskets and IMF special drawing rights. Ban trade in dollars on all global exchanges. This will create a demand for dollars and strengthen our badly devalued currency. Impose currency controls by fixing the dollar at 1:1 euro, Chinese yuan, Canadian dollar and Swiss franc; 100:1 Japanese yen. During the 1997 Asian financial crisis, Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad fixed the nation’s currency – the ringit. It was the only currency in the region that did not crash when Rothschild front-man George Soros took aim at the region.

4) Nationalize the Federal Reserve. According to a London barrister I have been in contact with, under the Federal Reserve Act there is a provision that allows for the US government to buy back the Fed’s charter for $4 billion. We should pay this fee, revoke the Fed charter and launch a new US dollar issued by the Treasury Department. With the dollar fixed, the vampires cannot crash it.

5) Cancel the $10 trillion debt to the Illuminati bankers. Debt obligations to foreign governments and small bond-holders should be honored at par.

6) Arrest the perpetrators. Prosecute to the fullest extent of the law all fraudulent transactions involving the Fed cartel. Send the FBI to the New York Fed. Seize all documents. Confiscate the world’s largest gold reserves which are stored there. These were stolen from various governments including from our own Ft. Knox reserves.

7) Forget just repealing the Bush tax cuts on the rich. The top tax rate on people who make more than $1 million/ year should be raised to 75%. People making more than $500,000/year should pay 50%. All tax brackets below $75,000/year should see tax cuts. If you get more from government you need to pay for it, instead of soaking the middle-class and blaming it on the poor.

8) Slash Pentagon spending. Shut down all US military bases on foreign soil, including those in Europe, Japan and South Korea. Withdraw ALL troops from Iraq and Afghanistan immediately. Use the savings to pay off government and small bond-holders.

9) Outlaw offshore banking by US citizens and corporations. Bring your money home and pay taxes on it or surrender your US passport/corporate charter. The dramatic increase in tax revenue would be enough to pay off the remaining debt to sovereign governments and small bond-holders, while keeping our obligations to the Social Security trust fund.

10) Introduce single-payer health care and price controls on prescription drugs. The current corporate for-profit health care bonanza depends upon sickness and ill health for its hefty profits. In 2006 Canada government spent $3,678 per person for free single-payer coverage for all its citizens. The US government spent $6,714 per person covering the insurance, pharmaceutical, hospital and AMA cartels. The savings attained from eliminating insurance/pharmaceutical/hospital chain/doctor-perpetrated Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security fraud will save the US Treasury billions. It is the only solution to skyrocketing and unsustainable health care costs.

Using this methodology the US could wipe out both its deficit and its debt within a year. These measures should be planned in secret and introduced swiftly and in rapid succession. Social security and Medicare will be saved. The middle class will see their tax rates go down, while their retirement fund finances the rebuilding of a 21st Century America. Manufacturing jobs will come home, since the Chinese yuan will have seen a dramatic appreciation. Our national security will be enhanced by withdrawing from the role of global policeman.

If we keep thinking inside the banker-manufactured beltway box, our children have no future. They will live in a Third World country which produces nothing, lorded over by debt-collector parasites known as the “financial services industry”.

The wealth-destroying Eight Families banker elite are the perpetrators of the US debt crime. Should a woman who is raped serve the sentence of her rapist? That’s absurd. Then why should Americans or any other nation pay a fraudulent debt foisted upon them by con-men? It is time for Obama and the Congress to get a backbone and force the criminal Federal Reserve cartel to make the “broad sacrifices”.



While Dean nailed it on the history of America and the eight Families, I am not so convinced that some of his recommendations to fix things hold water. Instead, I would recommend he consult with Walter Burien at CAFR1.com and revise his attitude on taxes, and investment funds connected to government. Also, government involvement in health care is way off the path of individual responsibility, and nanny government. Nothing was said about runaway regulations, or the growing police state. Not to mention a return to a republic and a repudiation of democracy.

The Federal Reserve Cartel Part IV



 by Dean Henderson

United World Federalists founder James Warburg’s father was Paul Warburg, who financed Hitler with help from Brown Brothers Harriman partner Prescott Bush. [1]

Colonel Ely Garrison was a close friend of both President Teddy Roosevelt and President Woodrow Wilson. Garrison wrote in Roosevelt, Wilson and the Federal Reserve, “Paul Warburg was the man who got the Federal Reserve Act together after the Aldrich Plan aroused such nationwide resentment and opposition. The mastermind of both plans was Baron Alfred Rothschild of London.”

The Aldrich Plan was hatched at a secret 1910 meeting at JP Morgan’s private resort on Jekyll Island, SC between Rockefeller lieutenant Nelson Aldrich and Paul Warburg of the German Warburg banking dynasty. Aldrich, a New York congressman, later married into the Rockefeller family. His son Winthrop Aldrich chaired Chase Manhattan Bank. While the bankers met, Colonel Edward House, another Rockefeller stooge and close confidant of President Woodrow Wilson, was busy convincing Wilson of the importance of a private central bank and the introduction of a national income tax. A member of House’s staff was British MI6 Permindex insider General Julius Klein. [2]

Wilson didn’t need much convincing, since he was beholden to copper magnate Cleveland Dodge, whose namesake Phelps Dodge became one of the biggest mining companies in the world. Dodge bankrolled Wilson’s political career. Wilson even wrote his inaugural speech on Dodge’s yacht. [3]

Wilson was a classmate of both Dodge and Cyrus McCormick at Princeton. Both were directors at Rockefeller’s National City Bank (now Citigroup). Wilson’s main focus was on overcoming public distrust of the bankers, which New York City Mayor John Hylan echoed in 1922 when he argued, “The real menace to our republic is the invisible government which, like a giant octopus, sprawls its slimy length over our city, state and nation. At the head is a small group of banking houses, generally referred to as the international bankers”. [4]

But the Eight Families prevailed. In 1913 the Federal Reserve Bank was born, with Paul Warburg its first Governor. Four years later the US entered World War I, after a secret society known as the Black Hand assassinated Archduke Ferdinand and his Hapsburg wife. The Archduke’s friend Count Czerin later said, “A year before the war he informed me that the Masons had resolved upon his death.”[5]

That same year, Bolsheviks overthrew the Hohehzollern monarchy in Russia with help from Max Warburg and Jacob Schiff, while the Balfour Declaration leading to the creation of Israel was penned to Zionist Second Lord Rothschild.

In the 1920’s Baron Edmund de Rothschild founded the Palestine Economics Commission, while Kuhn Loeb’s Manhattan offices helped Rothschild form a network to smuggle weapons to Zionist death squads bent on seizing Palestinian lands. General Julius Klein oversaw the operation and headed the US Army Counterintelligence Corps, which later produced Henry Kissinger. Klein diverted Marshall Plan aid to Europe to Zionist terror cells in Palestine after WWII, channeling the funds through the Sonneborn Institute, which was controlled by Baltimore chemical magnate Rudolph Sonneborn. His wife Dorothy Schiff is related to the Warburgs. [6]

The Kuhn Loebs came to Manhattan with the Warburgs. At the same time the Bronfmans came to Canada as part of the Moses Montefiore Jewish Colonization Committee. The Montefiores have carried out the dirty work of Genoese nobility since the 13th Century. The di Spadaforas served that function for the Italian House of Savoy, which was bankrolled by the Israel Moses Seif family for which Israel is named. Lord Harold Sebag Montefiore is current head of the Jerusalem Foundation, the Zionist wing of the Knights of St. John’s Jerusalem. The Bronfmans (the name means “liquorman” in Yiddish) tied up with Arnold Rothstein, a product of the Rothschild’s dry goods empire, to found organized crime in New York City. Rothstein was succeeded by Lucky Luciano, Meyer Lansky, Robert Vesco and Santos Trafficante. The Bronfmans are intermarried with the Rothschilds, Loebs and Lamberts. [7]

The year 1917 also saw the 16th Amendment added to the US Constitution, levying a national income tax, though it was ratified by only two of the required 36 states. The IRS is a private corporation registered in Delaware. [8] Four years earlier the Rockefeller Foundation was launched, to shield family wealth from the new income tax provisions, while steering public opinion through social engineering. One of its tentacles was the General Education Board.

In Occasional Letter #1 the Board states, “In our dreams we have limitless resources and the people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hands. The present education conventions fade from their minds and, unhampered by tradition, we will work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive rural folk. We shall try not to make these people or any of their children into philosophers or men of learning or men of science…of whom we have ample supply.”[9]

Though most Americans think of the Federal Reserve as a government institution, it is privately held by the Eight Families. The Secret Service is employed, not by the Executive Branch, but by the Federal Reserve. [10]

An exchange between Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) and Fed Chairman Paul Volcker at Senate hearings in 1982 is instructive. Kennedy must have thought of his older brother John when he told Volcker that if he were before the committee as a member of US Treasury things would be much different. Volcker, puffing on a cigar, responded cavalierly, “That’s probably true. But I believe it was intentionally designed this way”. [11] Rep. Lee Hamilton (D-IN) put it to Volcker that, “People realize that what that board of yours does has a very profound impact on their pocketbooks, and yet it is a group of people basically inaccessible to them and unaccountable to them.”

President Wilson spoke of, “a power so organized, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breaths when they speak in condemnation of it.” Rep. Charles Lindberg (D-NY) was more blunt, railing against Wilson’s Federal Reserve Act, which had cleverly been dubbed the “People’s Bill”. Lindberg declared that the Act would, “…establish the most gigantic trust on earth…When the president signs this act, the invisible government by the money power will be legitimized. The law will create inflation whenever the trusts want inflation. From now on, depressions will be scientifically created. The invisible government by the money power, proven to exist by the Money Trust Investigation, will be legalized. The whole central bank concept was engineered by the very group it was supposed to strip of power”. [12]

The Fed is made up of most every bank in the US, but the New York Federal Reserve Bank controls the Fed by virtue of its enormous capital resources. The true center of power within the Fed is the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), on which only the NY Fed President holds a permanent voting seat. The FOMC issues directives on monetary policy which are implemented from the 8th Floor of the NY Fed, a fortress modeled after the Bank of England. [13]

In the fifth sub-basement of the 14-story stone hulk lie 10,300 tons of mostly non-US gold, 1/3 of the world’s gold reserves and by far the largest gold stock in the world. [14]

The world of money is increasingly computerized. With the introduction by the Eight Families of complicated financial instruments like derivatives, options, puts and futures; the volume of inter-bank transactions took a quantum leap. To handle this the fed built a superhighway eerily known as CHIPS (Clearing Interbank Payment System), which is based in New York and modeled after Morgan’s Belgium-based Euro-Clear – also known as The Beast.

When the Fed was created five New York banks- Citibank, Chase, Chemical Bank, Manufacturers Hanover and Bankers Trust- held a 43% stake in the New York Fed. By 1983 these same five banks owned 53% of the NY Fed. By year 2000, the newly merged Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase and Deutsche Bank combines owned even bigger chunks, as did the European faction of the Eight Families. Collectively they own majority stock in every Fortune 500 corporation and do the bulk of stock and bond trading. In 1955 the above five banks accounted for 15% of all stock trades. By 1985 they were involved in 85% of all stock transactions. [15]

Still more powerful are the investment banks which bear the names of many of the Eight Families. In 1982, while Morgan bankers presided over negotiations between Britain and Argentina after the Falklands War, President Reagan pushed through SEC Rule 415, which helped consolidate securities underwriting in the hands of six large investment houses owned by the Eight Families: Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, Salomon Brothers, First Boston and Lehman Brothers. These banks further consolidated their power via the merger mania of 1980s and 1990s.

American Express swallowed up both Lehman Brothers-Kuhn Loeb – which had merged in 1977 – and Shearson Lehman-Rhoades. The Israel Moses Seif’s Banca de la Svizzera Italiana bought a 7% stake in Lehman Brothers. [16] Salomon Brothers nabbed Philbro from the South African Oppenheimer family, then bought Smith Barney. All three then became part of Traveler’s Group, headed by Sandy Weill of the David-Weill family, which controls Lazard Freres through senior partner Michel David-Weill. Citibank then bought Travelers to form Citigroup. S.G. Warburg, of which Oppenheimer’s Chartered Consolidated owns a 9% stake, joined the old money Banque Paribas- which merged into Merrill Lynch in 1984. Union Bank of Switzerland acquired Paine Webber, while Morgan Stanley ate up Dean Witter and purchased Discover credit card operations from Sears.

Kuhn Loeb-controlled First Boston merged with Credit Suisse, which had already absorbed White-Weld, to become CS First Boston- the major player in the dirty London Eurobond market. Merrill Lynch – merged into Bank of America in 2008 – is the major player on the US side of this trade. Swiss Banking Corporation merged with London’s biggest investment house S.G. Warburg to create SBC Warburg, while Warburg became more intertwined with Merrill Lynch through their 1998 Mercury Assets tie up. The Warburg’s formed another venture with Union Bank of Switzerland, creating powerhouse UBS Warburg. Deutsche Bank bought Banker’s Trust and Alex Brown to briefly become the world’s largest bank with $882 billion in assets. With repeal of Glass-Steagal, the line between investment, commercial and private banking disappeared.

This handful of investment banks exerts an enormous amount of control over the global economy. Their activities include advising Third World debt negotiations, handling mergers and breakups, creating companies to fill a perceived economic void through the launching of initial public stock offerings (IPOs), underwriting all stocks, underwriting all corporate and government bond issuance, and pulling the bandwagon down the road of privatization and globalization of the world economy.

A recent president of the World Bank was James Wolfensohn of Salomon Smith Barney. Merrill Lynch had $435 billion in assets in 1994, before the merger frenzy had really even gotten under way. The biggest commercial bank at the time, Citibank, could claim only $249 billion in assets.

In 1991 Merrill Lynch handled 26.8% of all global bank mergers. Morgan Stanley did 16.8%, Goldman Sachs 16.3%, Lehman Brothers 16.1% and Credit Suisse First Boston 14.5%. Morgan Stanley did $60 billion in corporate mergers in 1989. By 2007, reflecting the repeal of Glass-Steagel, the top ten NMA advisers in order were: Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, UBS Warburg, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank and Lazard. In the IPO stock underwriting field for 1991 the top four were Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley and CS First Boston. In the arena of global privatization for years 1985-1995, Goldman Sachs led the way doing $13.3 billion worth of deals. UBS Warburg did $8.2 billion, BNP Paribas $6.8 billion, CS First Boston $4.9 billion and Paribas-owner Merrill Lynch $4.4 billion. [17]

In 2006 BNP Paribas bought the notorious Banca Nacionale de Lavoro (BNL), which led the charge in arming Saddam Hussein. According to Global Finance, it is now the world’s largest bank with nearly $3 trillion in assets.

The leading US debt underwriters for the first nine months of 1995 bore the same familiar names. Merrill Lynch underwrote $74.2 billion in the US debt markets, or 15.3% of the total. Lehman Brothers handled $52.5 billion, Morgan Stanley $47.4 billion, Salomon Smith Barney $45.6 billion. CS First Boston, Chase Manhattan and Goldman Sachs rounded out the top seven. The top three municipal debt underwriters that year were Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch and UBS Paine Webber. In the euro-market the top four underwriters in 1995 were UBS Warburg, Merrill Lynch, Deutsche Bank and Goldman Sachs. [18] Deutsche Bank’s Morgan Grenfell branch engineered the corporate takeover binge in Europe.

The dominant players in the oil futures markets at both the New York Mercantile Exchange and the London Petroleum Exchange are Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, Goldman Sachs (through its J. Aron & Company subsidiary), Citigroup (through its Philbro unit) and Deutsche Bank (through its Banker’s Trust acquisition). In 2002 Enron Online was auctioned off by a bankruptcy court to UBS Warburg for $0. UBS was to share monopoly Enron Online profits with Lehman Brothers after the first two years of the deal. [19] With Lehman’s 2008 demise, its new owner Barclays will get their cut.

Following the Lehman Brothers fiasco and the ensuing financial meltdown of 2008, the Four Horsemen of Banking got even bigger. For pennies on the dollar, JP Morgan Chase was handed Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual. Bank of America commandeered Merrill Lynch and Countrywide. And Wells Fargo seized control over the reeling #5 US bank Wachovia. Barclays got a sweetheart deal for the remains of Lehman Brothers.

Former House Banking Committee Chairman Wright Patman (D-TX), declared of Federal Reserve Eight Families owners, “The United States today has in effect two governments. We are the duly constituted government. Then we have an independent, uncontrolled and uncoordinated government in the Federal Reserve System, operating the money powers which are reserved to Congress by the Constitution”. [20]

Since the creation of the Federal Reserve, US debt (mostly owed to the Eight Families) has skyrocketed from $1 billion to nearly $14 trillion today. This far surpasses the total of all Third World country debt combined, debt which is mostly owed to these same Eight Families, who own most all the world’s central banks.

As Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-AZ) pointed out, “International bankers make money by extending credit to governments. The greater the debt of the political state, the larger the interest returned to lenders. The national banks of Europe are (also) owned and controlled by private interests. We recognize in a hazy sort of way that the Rothschilds and the Warburgs of Europe and the houses of JP Morgan, Kuhn Loeb & Co., Schiff, Lehman and Rockefeller possess and control vast wealth. How they acquire this vast financial power and employ it is a mystery to most of us.”[21]

Tomorrow: Part V The Solution

[1] Behold a Pale Horse. William Cooper. Light Technology Press. Sedona, AZ. 1991. p.81

[2] Dope Inc.: The Book that Drove Kissinger Crazy. The Editors of Executive Intelligence Review. Washington, DC. 1992.

[3] Democracy for the Few. Michael Parenti. St. Martin’s Press. New York. 1977. p.67

[4] Descent into Slavery. Des Griffin. Emissary Publications. Pasadena 1991

[5] The Robot’s Rebellion: The Story of the Spiritual Renaissance. David Icke. Gateway Books. Bath, UK. 1994. p.158

[6] The Editors of Executive Intelligence Review. p.504

[7] Ibid

[8] Ibid

[9] Ibid. p.77

[10] “Secrets of the Federal Reserve”. Discovery Channel. January 2002

[11] The Confidence Game: How Un-Elected Central Bankers are Governing the Changed World Economy. Steven Solomon. Simon & Schuster. New York. 1995. p.26

[12] Icke. p.178

[13] Solomon. p.63

[14] Ibid. p.27

[15] The Corporate Reapers: The Book of Agribusiness. A.V. Krebs. Essential Books. Washington, DC. 1992. p.166

[16] The Editors of Executive Intelligence Review. p.79

[17] “Playing the Middle”. Anita Raghavan and Bridget O’Brian. Wall Street Journal. 10-2-95

[18] Securities Data Corporation. 1995

[19] CNN Headline News. 1-11-02

[20] The Rockefeller File. Gary Allen. ’76 Press. Seal Beach, CA. 1977. p.156

[21] Rule by Secrecy: The Hidden History that Connects the Trilateral Commission, the Freemasons and the Great Pyramids. Jim Marrs. Harper Collins Publishers. New York. 2000. p.77