Establishment leftists band together and refuse to admit major debacle

5
0
The day after Rachel Maddow unsuccessfully tried to derail Trump by releasing his 2005 tax returns she went on the Jimmy Fallon show to try and redeem herself.

Despite being criticized for over-hyping the “scoop,” Maddow refused to apologize and actually doubled down on the importance of the documents with encouragement from Fallon.

Even establishment collaborator Stephen Colbert made fun of Maddow’s strange rollout of the overly-promoted story.

Click here to watch a related video!

This is just the beginning of the oil crisis
Why The Price Of Oil Is More Likely To Fall To 20 Rather Than Rise To 80Image Credits: Beatnik Photos / Flickr

by Michael Snyder | Economic Collapse | February 16, 2015

Share on Facebook57Tweet about this on Twitter44Share on Google+0Email this to someonePrint this page

This is just the beginning of the oil crisis.  Over the past couple of weeks, the price of U.S. oil has rallied back above 50 dollars a barrel.  In fact, as I write this, it is sitting at $52.93.  But this rally will not last.  In fact, analysts at the big banks are warning that we could soon see U.S. oil hit the $20 mark.  The reason for this is that the production of oil globally is still way above the current level of demand.  Things have gotten so bad thatmillions of barrels of oil are being stored at sea as companies wait for the price of oil to go back up.  But the price is not going to go back up any time soon.  Even though rigs are being shut down in the United States at the fastest pace since the last financial crisis, oil production continues to go up.  In fact, last week more oil was produced in the U.S. than at any time since the 1970s.  This is really bad news for the economy, because the price of oil is already at a catastrophically low level for the global financial system.  If the price of oil stays at this level for the rest of the year, we are going to see a whole bunch of energy companies fail, billions of dollars of debt issued by energy companies could go bad, and trillions of dollars of derivativesrelated to the energy industry could implode.  In other words, this is a recipe for a financial meltdown, and the longer the price of oil stays at this level (or lower), the more damage it is going to do.

The way things stand, there is simply just way too much oil sitting out there.  And anyone that has taken Economics 101 knows that when supply far exceeds demand, prices go down

Oil prices have gotten crushed for the last six months. The extent to which that was caused by an excess of supply or by a slowdown in demand has big implications for where prices will head next. People wishing for a big rebound may not want to read farther.

Goldman Sachs released an intriguing analysis on Wednesday that shows what many already suspected: The big culprit in the oil crash has been an abundance of oil flooding the market. A massive supply shock in the second half of last year accounted for most of the decline. In December and January, slowing demand contributed to the continued sell-off.

At this point so much oil has already been stored up that companies are running out of places to put in all.  Just consider the words of Goldman Sachs executive Gary Cohn

“I think the oil market is trying to figure out an equilibrium price. The danger here, as we try and find an equilibrium price, at some point we may end up in a situation where storage capacity gets very, very limited. We may have too much physical oil for the available storage in certain locations. And it may be a locational issue.”

“And you may just see lots of oil in certain locations around the world where oil will have to price to such a cheap discount vis-a-vis the forward price that you make second tier, and third tier and fourth tier storage available.”

[…] “You could see the price fall relatively quickly to make that storage work in the market.”

The market for oil has fundamentally changed, and that means that the price of oil is not going to go back to where it used to be.  In fact, Goldman Sachs economist Sven Jari Stehn says that we are probably heading for permanently lower prices

The big take-away: “[T]he decline in oil has been driven by an oversupplied global oil market,” wrote Goldman economist Sven Jari Stehn. As a result, “the new equilibrium price of oil will likely be much lower than over the past decade.”

So how low could prices ultimately go?

As I mentioned above, some analysts are throwing around $20 as a target number

The recent surge in oil prices is just a “head-fake,” and oil as cheap as $20 a barrel may soon be on the way, Citigroup said in a report on Monday as it lowered its forecast for crude.

Despite global declines in spending that have driven up oil prices in recent weeks, oil production in the U.S. is still rising, wrote Edward Morse, Citigroup’s global head of commodity research. Brazil and Russia are pumping oil at record levels, and Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran have been fighting to maintain their market share by cutting prices to Asia. The market is oversupplied, and storage tanks are topping out.

A pullback in production isn’t likely until the third quarter, Morse said. In the meantime, West Texas Intermediate Crude, which currently trades at around $52 a barrel, could fall to the $20 range “for a while,” according to the report.

Keep in mind that the price of oil is already low enough to be a total nightmare for the global financial system if it stays here for the rest of 2015.

If we go down to $20 and stay there, a global financial meltdown is virtually guaranteed.

Meanwhile, the “fracking boom” in the United States that generated so many jobs, so much investment and so much economic activity is now turning into a “fracking bust”

The fracking-for-oil boom started in 2005, collapsed by 60% during the Financial Crisis when money ran out, but got going in earnest after the Fed had begun spreading its newly created money around the land. From the trough in May 2009 to its peak in October 2014, rigs drilling for oil soared from 180 to 1,609: multiplied by a factor of 9 in five years! And oil production soared, to reach 9.2 million barrels a day in January.

It was a great run, but now it is over.

In the months ahead, the trickle of good paying oil industry jobs that are being lost right now is going to turn into a flood.

And this boom was funded with lots and lots of really cheap money from Wall Street.  I like how Wolf Richter described this in a recent article

That’s what real booms look like. They’re fed by limitless low-cost money – exuberant investors that buy the riskiest IPOs, junk bonds, leveraged loans, and CLOs usually indirectly without knowing it via their bond funds, stock funds, leveraged-loan funds, by being part of a public pension system that invests in private equity firms that invest in the boom…. You get the idea.

As all of this bad paper unwinds, a lot of people are going to lose an extraordinary amount of money.

Don’t get caught with your pants down.  You will want your money to be well away from the energy industry long before this thing collapses.

And of course in so many ways what we are facing right now if very reminiscent of 2008.  So many of the same patterns that have played out just prior to previous financial crashesare happening once again.  Right now, oil rigs are shutting down at a pace that is almost unprecedented.  The only time in recent memory that we have seen anything like this was just before the financial crisis in the fall of 2008.  Here is more from Wolf Richter

In the latest reporting week, drillers idled another 84 rigs, the second biggest weekly cut ever, after idling 83 and 94 rigs in the two prior weeks. Only 1056 rigs are still drilling for oil, down 443 for the seven reporting weeks so far this year and down 553 – or 34%! – from the peak in October.

Never before has the rig count plunged this fast this far:

Fracking Bust

What if the fracking bust, on a percentage basis, does what it did during the Financial Crisis when the oil rig count collapsed by 60% from peak to trough? It would take the rig count down to 642!

But even though rigs are shutting down like crazy, U.S. production of oil has continued to rise

Rig counts have long been used to help predict future oil and gas production. In the past week drillers idled 98 rigs, marking the 10th consecutive decline. The total U.S. rig count is down 30 percent since October, an unprecedented retreat. The theory goes that when oil rigs decline, fewer wells are drilled, less new oil is discovered, and oil production slows.

But production isn’t slowing yet. In fact, last week the U.S. pumped more crude than at any time since the 1970s. “The headline U.S. oil rig count offers little insight into the outlook for U.S. oil production growth,” Goldman Sachs analyst Damien Courvalin wrote in a Feb. 10 report.

Look, it should be obvious to anyone with even a basic knowledge of economics that the stage is being set for a massive financial meltdown.

This is just the kind of thing that can plunge us into a deflationary depression.  And when you combine this with the ongoing problems in Europe and in Asia, it is easy to see that a “perfect storm” is brewing on the horizon.

Sadly, a lot of people out there will choose not to believe until the day the crisis arrives.

By then, it will be too late to do anything about it.

Rob Garver

Tuesday, 6 Jan 2015 | 10:21 AM ETFiscal Times

146
SHARES
238

COMMENTSJoin the Discussion

A man fills up for under $3 a gallon in Salisbury, CT on Jan. 1, 2015.

Adam Jeffery | CNBC
A man fills up for under $3 a gallon in Salisbury, CT on Jan. 1, 2015.

When prominent members of both political parties talk about the possibility of taxing fossil fuels – you know something serious has shifted in U.S. politics.

On Monday morning, former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers, a largely pro-business Democrat, published a column in The Washington Post calling for the imposition of a carbon tax.

Read MoreHere’s where pros say oil will bottom (Ouch!)

“The case for carbon taxes has long been compelling,” Summers wrote. “With the recent steep fall in oil prices and associated declines in other energy prices, it has become overwhelming. There is room for debate about the size of the tax and about how the proceeds should be deployed. But there should be no doubt that, given the current zero tax rate on carbon, increased taxation would be desirable.”

Read more from The Fiscal Times:
As gas prices drop, gas taxes will likely rise
Pope Francis to convert Catholics to believe in global warming
States Are Spending More as Economy Improves

Summers’ call for a carbon tax came just a day after prominent Republicans discussed the possibility of an increase in the federal gas tax to shore up the Federal Highway Trust Fund, which will run out of money this May.

The tax has been at 18.4 cents per gallon, without being adjusted for inflation, for more than 20 years. Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) has advocated raising that tax to match inflation by 12 cents over two years as a means of creating a dedicated source of funding – a sort of user fee – for the federal highway system. Appearing with Corker on Fox News Sunday, Sen. John Thune (R-SD), who will chair the Commerce Committee in the new Senate, said he couldn’t rule out the possibility of raising the tax.

Read MoreGas prices may hit 2009 low: GasBuddy.com

“I don’t think we take anything off the table at this point,” Thune said. “I think it’s important to recognize we have a problem and issue that we need a solution for and we need to look at all the possible ways [to] address the problem.”

Corker’s proposed gas tax is less far-reaching than Summers’ proposal, which presumably would hit all emitters of carbon, from cars to factories. Yet the fact that both sides are even considering a move is notable.

<p>Fight to fund infrastructure: Corker</p> <p>Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) supports a bill to raise the federal gas tax as a way to solve the country's long-term infrastructure problems. </p>

Summers’ argument for a broader tax is largely economic. “That which is not paid for is overused,” he writes. This applies to energy in the U.S. because the use of fossil fuels creates what economists call “externalized costs.” When a driver burns a gallon of gas in his car, he is paying for all the costs of extracting and refining oil and delivering gasoline to a filling station. However, he is not contributing anything toward the remediation of the effects of air pollution caused, in part, by his own vehicle’s exhaust.

The same argument applies to power plants that release damaging emissions or foul waterways. The full price of their operations is not reflected in their costs. A carbon tax would attempt to capture the currently externalized costs of burning fossil fuels – basically compensating broader society for the costs it now bears to the advantage of people and companies that use large amounts of carbon-emitting energy.

To be sure, any increase in taxes at the producer level would ultimately find its way to the consumer. Economic pressures, however, cut both ways. Producers compete on price, and if one method of production or delivery becomes expensive, it should spur innovation to find cheaper alternatives. Consumers reward producers who offer lower cost by giving them more business, and cleaner energy becomes a competitive advantage.

Read MoreOil dips below $49 as sector faces ‘Hunger Games’

Yet as Jared Bernstein, a senior fellow with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, pointed out on his blog Monday, a modest increase in the gas tax might be all that advocates of taxing carbon can reasonably hope for.

“[I]t’s probably more realistic – or less unrealistic – given the makeup of the new Congress and where they are on taxes to think smaller and more targeted,” wrote Bernstein, who has argued for raising the gas tax.

“A gas tax is, of course, also a tax on carbon, but a few cents a gallon (say a nickel/gallon a year phased in over three years) won’t be felt by drivers either now or even down the road when gas prices go back up.”

John F. Kennedy
vs
The Federal Reserve

Kennedy

John F. Kennedy vs The Federal Reserve

On June 4, 1963, a virtually unknown Presidential decree, Executive Order 11110, was signed with the authority to basically strip the Bank of its power to loan money to the United States Federal Government at interest. With the stroke of a pen, President Kennedy declared that the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank would soon be out of business. The Christian Law Fellowship has exhaustively researched this matter through the Federal Register and Library of Congress. We can now safely conclude that this Executive Order has never been repealed, amended, or superceded by any subsequent Executive Order. In simple terms, it is still valid.

When President John Fitzgerald Kennedy – the author of Profiles in Courage -signed this Order, it returned to the federal government, specifically the Treasury Department, the Constitutional power to create and issue currency -money – without going through the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank. President Kennedy’s Executive Order 11110 [the full text is displayed further below] gave the Treasury Department the explicit authority: “to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury.” This means that for every ounce of silver in the U.S. Treasury’s vault, the government could introduce new money into circulation based on the silver bullion physically held there. As a result, more than $4 billion in United States Notes were brought into circulation in $2 and $5 denominations. $10 and $20 United States Notes were never circulated but were being printed by the Treasury Department when Kennedy was assassinated. It appears obvious that President Kennedy knew the Federal Reserve Notes being used as the purported legal currency were contrary to the Constitution of the United States of America.

“United States Notes” were issued as an interest-free and debt-free currency backed by silver reserves in the U.S. Treasury. We compared a “Federal Reserve Note” issued from the private central bank of the United States (the Federal Reserve Bank a/k/a Federal Reserve System), with a “United States Note” from the U.S. Treasury issued by President Kennedy’s Executive Order. They almost look alike, except one says “Federal Reserve Note” on the top while the other says “United States Note”. Also, the Federal Reserve Note has a green seal and serial number while the United States Note has a red seal and serial number.

President Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963 and the United States Notes he had issued were immediately taken out of circulation. Federal Reserve Notes continued to serve as the legal currency of the nation. According to the United States Secret Service, 99% of all U.S. paper “currency” circulating in 1999 are Federal Reserve Notes.

Kennedy knew that if the silver-backed United States Notes were widely circulated, they would have eliminated the demand for Federal Reserve Notes. This is a very simple matter of economics. The USN was backed by silver and the FRN was not backed by anything of intrinsic value. Executive Order 11110 should have prevented the national debt from reaching its current level (virtually all of the nearly $9 trillion in federal debt has been created since 1963) if LBJ or any subsequent President were to enforce it. It would have almost immediately given the U.S. Government the ability to repay its debt without going to the private Federal Reserve Banks and being charged interest to create new “money”. Executive Order 11110 gave the U.S.A. the ability to, once again, create its own money backed by silver and realm value worth something.

Again, according to our own research, just five months after Kennedy was assassinated, no more of the Series 1958 “Silver Certificates” were issued either, and they were subsequently removed from circulation. Perhaps the assassination of JFK was a warning to all future presidents not to interfere with the private Federal Reserve’s control over the creation of money. It seems very apparent that President Kennedy challenged the “powers that exist behind U.S. and world finance”. With true patriotic courage, JFK boldly faced the two most successful vehicles that have ever been used to drive up debt:

1) war (Viet Nam); and,

2) the creation of money by a privately owned central bank. His efforts to have all U.S. troops out of Vietnam by 1965 combined with Executive Order 11110 would have destroyed the profits and control of the private Federal Reserve Bank.

Executive Order 11110

AMENDMENT OF EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 10289 AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE PERFORMANCE OF CERTAIN FUNCTIONS AFFECTING THE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY. By virtue of the authority vested in me by section 301 of title 3 of the United States Code, it is ordered as follows:

SECTION 1. Executive Order No. 10289 of September 19, 1951, as amended, is hereby further amended – (a) By adding at the end of paragraph 1 thereof the following subparagraph (j): “(j) The authority vested in the President by paragraph (b) of section 43 of the Act of May 12, 1933, as amended (31 U.S.C. 821 (b)), to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury not then held for redemption of any outstanding silver certificates, to prescribe the denominations of such silver certificates, and to coin standard silver dollars and subsidiary silver currency for their redemption,” and (b) By revoking subparagraphs (b) and (c) of paragraph 2 thereof. SECTION 2. The amendment made by this Order shall not affect any act done, or any right accruing or accrued or any suit or proceeding had or commenced in any civil or criminal cause prior to the date of this Order but all such liabilities shall continue and may be enforced as if said amendments had not been made.

JOHN F. KENNEDY THE WHITE HOUSE, June 4, 1963

Once again, Executive Order 11110 is still valid. According to Title 3, United States Code, Section 301 dated January 26, 1998:

Executive Order (EO) 10289 dated Sept. 17, 1951, 16 F.R. 9499, was as amended by:

EO 10583, dated December 18, 1954, 19 F.R. 8725;

EO 10882 dated July 18, 1960, 25 F.R. 6869;

EO 11110 dated June 4, 1963, 28 F.R. 5605;

EO 11825 dated December 31, 1974, 40 F.R. 1003;

EO 12608 dated September 9, 1987, 52 F.R. 34617

The 1974 and 1987 amendments, added after Kennedy’s 1963 amendment, did not change or alter any part of Kennedy’s EO 11110. A search of Clinton’s 1998 and 1999 EO’s and Presidential Directives has also shown no reference to any alterations, suspensions, or changes to EO 11110.

The Federal Reserve Bank, a.k.a Federal Reserve System, is a Private Corporation. Black’s Law Dictionary defines the “Federal Reserve System” as: “Network of twelve central banks to which most national banks belong and to which state chartered banks may belong. Membership rules require investment of stock and minimum reserves.” Privately-owned banks own the stock of the FED. This was explained in more detail in the case of Lewis v. United States, Federal Reporter, 2nd Series, Vol. 680, Pages 1239, 1241 (1982), where the court said: “Each Federal Reserve Bank is a separate corporation owned by commercial banks in its region. The stock-holding commercial banks elect two thirds of each Bank’s nine member board of directors”.

The Federal Reserve Banks are locally controlled by their member banks. Once again, according to Black’s Law Dictionary, we find that these privately owned banks actually issue money:

“Federal Reserve Act. Law which created Federal Reserve banks which act as agents in maintaining money reserves, issuing money in the form of bank notes, lending money to banks, and supervising banks. Administered by Federal Reserve Board (q.v.)”.

The privately owned Federal Reserve (FED) banks actually issue (create) the “money” we use. In 1964, the House Committee on Banking and Currency, Subcommittee on Domestic Finance, at the second session of the 88th Congress, put out a study entitled Money Facts which contains a good description of what the FED is: “The Federal Reserve is a total money-making machine. It can issue money or checks. And it never has a problem of making its checks good because it can obtain the $5 and $10 bills necessary to cover its check simply by asking the Treasury Department’s Bureau of Engraving to print them”.

Any one person or any closely knit group who has a lot of money has a lot of power. Now imagine a group of people who have the power to create money. Imagine the power these people would have. This is exactly what the privately owned FED is!

No man did more to expose the power of the FED than Louis T. McFadden, who was the Chairman of the House Banking Committee back in the 1930s. In describing the FED, he remarked in the Congressional Record, House pages 1295 and 1296 on June 10, 1932:

“Mr. Chairman, we have in this country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal reserve banks. The Federal Reserve Board, a Government Board, has cheated the Government of the United States and he people of the United States out of enough money to pay the national debt. The depredations and the iniquities of the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal reserve banks acting together have cost this country enough money to pay the national debt several times over. This evil institution has impoverished and ruined the people of the United States; has bankrupted itself, and has practically bankrupted our Government. It has done this through the maladministration of that law by which the Federal Reserve Board, and through the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it”.

Some people think the Federal Reserve Banks are United States Government institutions. They are not Government institutions, departments, or agencies. They are private credit monopolies which prey upon the people of the United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers. Those 12 private credit monopolies were deceitfully placed upon this country by bankers who came here from Europe and who repaid us for our hospitality by undermining our American institutions.

The FED basically works like this: The government granted its power to create money to the FED banks. They create money, then loan it back to the government charging interest. The government levies income taxes to pay the interest on the debt. On this point, it’s interesting to note that the Federal Reserve Act and the sixteenth amendment, which gave congress the power to collect income taxes, were both passed in 1913. The incredible power of the FED over the economy is universally admitted. Some people, especially in the banking and academic communities, even support it. On the other hand, there are those, such as President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, that have spoken out against it. His efforts were spoken about in Jim Marrs’ 1990 book Crossfire:”

Another overlooked aspect of Kennedy’s attempt to reform American society involves money. Kennedy apparently reasoned that by returning to the constitution, which states that only Congress shall coin and regulate money, the soaring national debt could be reduced by not paying interest to the bankers of the Federal Reserve System, who print paper money then loan it to the government at interest. He moved in this area on June 4, 1963, by signing Executive Order 11110 which called for the issuance of $4,292,893,815 in United States Notes through the U.S. Treasury rather than the traditional Federal Reserve System. That same day, Kennedy signed a bill changing the backing of one and two dollar bills from silver to gold, adding strength to the weakened U.S. currency.

Kennedy’s comptroller of the currency, James J. Saxon, had been at odds with the powerful Federal Reserve Board for some time, encouraging broader investment and lending powers for banks that were not part of the Federal Reserve system. Saxon also had decided that non-Reserve banks could underwrite state and local general obligation bonds, again weakening the dominant Federal Reserve banks”.

In a comment made to a Columbia University class on Nov. 12, 1963,

Ten days before his assassination, President John Fitzgerald Kennedy allegedly said:

“The high office of the President has been used to foment a plot to destroy the American’s freedom and before I leave office, I must inform the citizen of this plight.”

In this matter, John Fitzgerald Kennedy appears to be the subject of his own book… a true Profile of Courage.

This research report was compiled for Lawgiver. Org. by Anthony Wayne

What is the Federal Reserve Bank?

What is the Federal Reserve Bank (FED) and why do we have it?

by Greg Hobbs November 1, 1999

The FED is a central bank. Central banks are supposed to implement a country’s fiscal policies. They monitor commercial banks to ensure that they maintain sufficient assets, like cash, so as to remain solvent and stable. Central banks also do business, such as currency exchanges and gold transactions, with other central banks. In theory, a central bank should be good for a country, and they might be if it wasn’t for the fact that they are not owned or controlled by the government of the country they are serving. Private central banks, including our FED, operate not in the interest of the public good but for profit.

There have been three central banks in our nation’s history. The first two, while deceptive and fraudulent, pale in comparison to the scope and size of the fraud being perpetrated by our current FED. What they all have in common is an insidious practice known as “fractional banking.”

Fractional banking or fractional lending is the ability to create money from nothing, lend it to the government or someone else and charge interest to boot. The practice evolved before banks existed. Goldsmiths rented out space in their vaults to individuals and merchants for storage of their gold or silver. The goldsmiths gave these “depositors” a certificate that showed the amount of gold stored. These certificates were then used to conduct business.

In time the goldsmiths noticed that the gold in their vaults was rarely withdrawn. Small amounts would move in and out but the large majority never moved. Sensing a profit opportunity, the goldsmiths issued double receipts for the gold, in effect creating money (certificates) from nothing and then lending those certificates (creating debt) to depositors and charging them interest as well.

Since the certificates represented more gold than actually existed, the certificates were “fractionally” backed by gold. Eventually some of these vault operations were transformed into banks and the practice of fractional banking continued.

Keep that fractional banking concept in mind as we examine our first central bank, the First Bank of the United States (BUS). It was created, after bitter dissent in the Congress, in 1791 and chartered for 20 years. A scam not unlike the current FED, the BUS used its control of the currency to defraud the public and establish a legal form of usury.

This bank practiced fractional lending at a 10:1 rate, ten dollars of loans for each dollar they had on deposit. This misuse and abuse of their public charter continued for the entire 20 years of their existence. Public outrage over these abuses was such that the charter was not renewed and the bank ceased to exist in 1811.

The war of 1812 left the country in economic chaos, seen by bankers as another opportunity for easy profits. They influenced Congress to charter the second central bank, the Second Bank of the United States (SBUS), in 1816.

The SBUS was more expansive than the BUS. The SBUS sold franchises and literally doubled the number of banks in a short period of time. The country began to boom and move westward, which required money. Using fractional lending at the 10:1 rate, the central bank and their franchisees created the debt/money for the expansion.

Things boomed for a while, then the banks decided to shut off the debt/money, citing the need to control inflation. This action on the part of the SBUS caused bankruptcies and foreclosures. The banks then took control of the assets that were used as security against the loans.

Closely examine how the SBUS engineered this cycle of prosperity and depression. The central bank caused inflation by creating debt/money for loans and credit and making these funds readily available. The economy boomed. Then they used the inflation which they created as an excuse to shut off the loans/credit/money.

The resulting shortage of cash caused the economy to falter or slow dramatically and large numbers of business and personal bankruptcies resulted. The central bank then seized the assets used as security for the loans. The wealth created by the borrowers during the boom was then transferred to the central bank during the bust. And you always wondered how the big guys ended up with all the marbles.

Now, who do you think is responsible for all of the ups and downs in our economy over the last 85 years? Think about the depression of the late ’20s and all through the ’30s. The FED could have pumped lots of debt/money into the market to stimulate the economy and get the country back on track, but did they? No; in fact, they restricted the money supply quite severely. We all know the results that occurred from that action, don’t we?

Why would the FED do this? During that period asset values and stocks were at rock bottom prices. Who do you think was buying everything at 10 cents on the dollar? I believe that it is referred to as consolidating the wealth. How many times have they already done this in the last 85 years?

Do you think they will do it again?

Just as an aside at this point, look at today’s economy. Markets are declining. Why? Because the FED has been very liberal with its debt/credit/money. The market was hyper inflated. Who creates inflation? The FED. How does the FED deal with inflation? They restrict the debt/credit/money. What happens when they do that? The market collapses.

Several months back, after certain central banks said they would be selling large quantities of gold, the price of gold fell to a 25-year low of about $260 per ounce. The central banks then bought gold. After buying at the bottom, a group of 15 central banks announced that they would be restricting the amount of gold released into the market for the next five years. The price of gold went up $75.00 per ounce in just a few days. How many hundreds of billions of dollars did the central banks make with those two press releases?

Gold is generally considered to be a hedge against more severe economic conditions. Do you think that the private banking families that own the FED are buying or selling equities at this time? (Remember: buy low, sell high.) How much money do you think these FED owners have made since they restricted the money supply at the top of this last current cycle?

Alan Greenspan has said publicly on several occasions that he thinks the market is overvalued, or words to that effect. Just a hint that he will raise interest rates (restrict the money supply), and equity markets have a negative reaction. Governments and politicians do not rule central banks, central banks rule governments and politicians. President Andrew Jackson won the presidency in 1828 with the promise to end the national debt and eliminate the SBUS. During his second term President Jackson withdrew all government funds from the bank and on January 8, 1835, paid off the national debt. He is the only president in history to have this distinction. The charter of the SBUS expired in 1836.

Without a central bank to manipulate the supply of money, the United States experienced unprecedented growth for 60 or 70 years, and the resulting wealth was too much for bankers to endure. They had to get back into the game. So, in 1910 Senator Nelson Aldrich, then Chairman of the National Monetary Commission, in collusion with representatives of the European central banks, devised a plan to pressure and deceive Congress into enacting legislation that would covertly establish a private central bank.

This bank would assume control over the American economy by controlling the issuance of its money. After a huge public relations campaign, engineered by the foreign central banks, the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was slipped through Congress during the Christmas recess, with many members of the Congress absent. President Woodrow Wilson, pressured by his political and financial backers, signed it on December 23, 1913.

The act created the Federal Reserve System, a name carefully selected and designed to deceive. “Federal” would lead one to believe that this is a government organization. “Reserve” would lead one to believe that the currency is being backed by gold and silver. “System” was used in lieu of the word “bank” so that one would not conclude that a new central bank had been created.

In reality, the act created a private, for profit, central banking corporation owned by a cartel of private banks. Who owns the FED? The Rothschilds of London and Berlin; Lazard Brothers of Paris; Israel Moses Seif of Italy; Kuhn, Loeb and Warburg of Germany; and the Lehman Brothers, Goldman, Sachs and the Rockefeller families of New York.

Did you know that the FED is the only for-profit corporation in America that is exempt from both federal and state taxes? The FED takes in about one trillion dollars per year tax free! The banking families listed above get all that money.

Almost everyone thinks that the money they pay in taxes goes to the US Treasury to pay for the expenses of the government. Do you want to know where your tax dollars really go? If you look at the back of any check made payable to the IRS you will see that it has been endorsed as “Pay Any F.R.B. Branch or Gen. Depository for Credit U.S. Treas. This is in Payment of U.S. Oblig.” Yes, that’s right, every dime you pay in income taxes is given to those private banking families, commonly known as the FED, tax free.

Like many of you, I had some difficulty with the concept of creating money from nothing. You may have heard the term “monetizing the debt,” which is kind of the same thing. As an example, if the US Government wants to borrow $1 million ó the government does borrow every dollar it spends ó they go to the FED to borrow the money. The FED calls the Treasury and says print 10,000 Federal Reserve Notes (FRN) in units of one hundred dollars.

The Treasury charges the FED 2.3 cents for each note, for a total of $230 for the 10,000 FRNs. The FED then lends the $1 million to the government at face value plus interest. To add insult to injury, the government has to create a bond for $1 million as security for the loan. And the rich get richer. The above was just an example, because in reality the FED does not even print the money; it’s just a computer entry in their accounting system. To put this on a more personal level, let’s use another example.

Today’s banks are members of the Federal Reserve Banking System. This membership makes it legal for them to create money from nothing and lend it to you. Today’s banks, like the goldsmiths of old, realize that only a small fraction of the money deposited in their banks is ever actually withdrawn in the form of cash. Only about 4 percent of all the money that exists is in the form of currency. The rest of it is simply a computer entry.

Let’s say you’re approved to borrow $10,000 to do some home improvements. You know that the bank didn’t actually take $10,000 from its pile of cash and put it into your pile? They simply went to their computer and input an entry of $10,000 into your account. They created, from thin air, a debt which you have to secure with an asset and repay with interest. The bank is allowed to create and lend as much debt as they want as long as they do not exceed the 10:1 ratio imposed by the FED.

It sort of puts a new slant on how you view your friendly bank, doesn’t it? How about those loan committees that scrutinize you with a microscope before approving the loan they created from thin air. What a hoot! They make it complex for a reason. They don’t want you to understand what they are doing. People fear what they do not understand. You are easier to delude and control when you are ignorant and afraid.

Now to put the frosting on this cake. When was the income tax created? If you guessed 1913, the same year that the FED was created, you get a gold star. Coincidence? What are the odds? If you are going to use the FED to create debt, who is going to repay that debt? The income tax was created to complete the illusion that real money had been lent and therefore real money had to be repaid. And you thought Houdini was good.

So, what can be done? My father taught me that you should always stand up for what is right, even if you have to stand up alone.

If “We the People” don’t take some action now, there may come a time when “We the People” are no more. You should write a letter or send an email to each of your elected representatives. Many of our elected representatives do not understand the FED. Once informed they will not be able to plead ignorance and remain silent.

Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution specifically says that Congress is the only body that can “coin money and regulate the value thereof.” The US Constitution has never been amended to allow anyone other than Congress to coin and regulate currency.

Ask your representative, in light of that information, how it is possible for the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, and the Federal Reserve Bank that it created, to be constitutional. Ask them why this private banking cartel is allowed to reap trillions of dollars in profits without paying taxes. Insist on an answer.

Thomas Jefferson said, “If the America people ever allow private banks to control the issuance of their currencies, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their prosperity until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”

Jefferson saw it coming 150 years ago. The question is, “Can you now see what is in store for us if we allow the FED to continue controlling our country?”

“The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he breaks, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime, and the punishment of his guilt.”

Source: http://www.john-f-kennedy.net/thefederalreserve.htm

12.19.2012

Attacks individual right to keep and bear arms

Steve Watson
Infowars.com
Dec 18, 2012


Barack Obama’s former head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Cass Sunstein, a long time advocate of eviscerating the Second Amendment, has penned a piece that essentially labels anyone who defends long standing gun rights in the US as “crazy”.

In the editorial titled Gun Debate Must Avoid Crazy Second Amendment Claims, Sunstein argues that the individual right to bear arms, supported and reaffirmed consistently by courts across the nation, constitutes “wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution.”

“Sure, it could fairly be read to support an individual right to have guns.” writes Sunstein of the Second, “But in light of the preamble, with its reference to a well-regulated militia, it could also be read not to confer an individual right, but to protect federalism, by ensuring that the new national government wouldn’t interfere with citizen militias at the state level.”

He then goes on to claim that for decades it was never recognized that the Second Amendment protected the individual’s right to keep and bear arms, and that it was only with the Supreme Court decision in 2008 that individual rights were established.

“We should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established, but a lot of gun-control legislation, imaginable or proposed, would be perfectly consistent with the court’s rulings.” Sunstein writes.

“It is past time to stop using the Second Amendment itself as a loaded weapon, threatening elected representatives who ought to be doing their jobs.” Sunstein concludes.

This constitutes an old argument that is used by big government gun grabbers and those politically motivated to erode individual rights. The Supreme Court decision in 2008 UPHELD the individual right to keep and bear arms, as many other court decisions and Justice Department memoranda has before. It did not ESTABLISH that right, as Sunstein argues.

In 2004, the Justice Department noted, “A ‘right of the people’ is ordinarily and most naturally a right of individuals, not of a State and not merely of those serving the State as militiamen. The phrase ‘keep arms’ at the time of the Founding usually indicated the private ownership and retention of arms by individuals as individuals, not the stockpiling of arms by a government or its soldiers, and the phrase certainly had that meaning when used in connection with a ‘right of the people,’”

“Moreover, the Second Amendment appears in the Bill of Rights amid amendments securing numerous individual rights, a placement that makes it likely that the right of the people to keep and bear arms likewise belongs to individuals,” the DOJ’s report continued.

Sunstein’s argument against individual gun rights hinges on the notion that the Founders used the word “people” to mean “states”, a clearly ridiculous suggestion especially given that the Constitution and Bill of Rights were penned by the most meticulous wordsmiths in history.

Thomas Jefferson himself wrote in several drafts of the Virginia constitution, provisions that “no freeman shall be debarred the use of arms.”

In addition, state-level precursors to the Second Amendment made it clear that keeping arms was each person’s individual right “for the defence of themselves and the state.”

In his argument, Sunstein even wrongly cites the 1939 case of U.S. v. Miller, to argue that there is no individual right to keep and bear arms. In reality, however, the court in that case duly noted that the “militia” mentioned in the Second Amendment comprised all able-bodied males – ie individuals.

Sunstein, and those who have propelled the same argument about the Second Amendment are twisting its meaning. The founders explicitly crafted the Second Amendment as a bulwark against government tyranny. Armed militia — citizens of a country — were to defend against the possible rise of a tyrannical state, not only merely to organize for hunting expeditions or to defend against small scale criminal activity.

We have seen this kind of Rhetoric before from Sunstein. During a lecture at the University of Chicago Law School on October 27, 2007, he argued that “The Supreme Court has never suggested that the Second Amendment protects the individual right to have guns.”

Sunstein either misunderstands the original purpose of the Second Amendment or stands opposed to an armed citizenry guarding against tyranny.

Given that Sunstein has also argued that the First Amendment should be “reformulated”, and has called for taxing or banning outright, as in making illegal, opinions and ideas that the government doesn’t approve of, it is clearly only his views on the Constitution and Bill of Rights that are “crazy”, and not those of the Founders.
Cass Suunsteen

By Saman Mohammadi

Part I: 9 Ways The Hijacked Federal Government Is Waging War Against The American People.
Part II: 9 More Ways The U.S. Government Is Waging War Against America.

1. Ideology.

There is a dictatorship of the mind and spirit in America. The official ideology of the U.S. totalitarian state is counter-terrorism and national security. All domestic and foreign crimes are justified under the umbrella of security and defense. The false flag September 11 attacks served as the catalyst that brought this totalitarian ideology into being on a world stage.

The attacks also had the effect of putting the American people into a psychological state of subservience towards the government and power elite. As a result, the free will of the American people has been destroyed. The minds of the people are directed at non-existent terrorists like Al Qaeda and non-threatening countries like Iraq and Iran for one single purpose: to generate insecurity in the individual so that he/she supports the false and permanent war on terror.

Hans Barth wrote in his 1939 essay called, “Reality and Ideology of the Totalitarian State,” that, “a people completely unified by a totalitarian policy and wholly integrated as a spiritual body, thus offering a foundation for a totalitarian state, is nothing but a flexible instrument for the use of the commander-in-chief in the pursuit of the totalitarian war,” (Barth (1939); The Review of Politics, Volume 1, Issue 03, Pg. 275-306).

The voice of dissent and 9/11 truth is the only way to break the totalitarian conditioning of the American people and the people of other Western countries.

2. Paradigm.

What exists in Washington is one party dictatorship with two political factions. Super committee or no super committee, republican or democrat, the will of the power elite will prevail over the will of the people under the current system.

The false left-right political paradigm enables the power elite to remain in control and continue to loot America without being discovered as the real enemy of the American people.

The one party dictatorship also means that there is no accountability for the political leadership. Both Republicans and Democrats have stabbed America in the back. This political fact has led to the collapse of the American people’s trust in the federal government and Congress.

What lies ahead is social unrest, political collapse, and revolution.

3. Militarization.

Militarized cities are occupied cities.

Urban space is regulated by the hijacked government not to defend the interests of the public but to acquire greater power for the treasonous elite and suppress patriotic dissent.

Essentially, the power elite have turned public space into an urban war zone. An atmosphere of war is created in the public mind, giving the mentally occupied individual two choices: either side with the loving and protective government, or the dangerous and scary domestic terrorists.

Stephen Graham, author of “Cities Under Siege: The New Military Urbanism,” said in a recent interview on Democracy Now about the militarization of the police and the violent government reaction to anti-Wall Street protesters:

Well, there’s been a longstanding shift in North America and Europe towards paramilitarized policing, using helicopter-style systems, using infrared sensing, using really, really heavy militarized weaponry. That’s been longstanding, fueled by the war on drugs and other sort of explicit campaigns. But more recently, there’s been a big push since the end of the Cold War by the big defense and security and IT companies to sell things like video surveillance systems, things like geographic mapping systems, and even more recently, drone systems, that have been used in the assassination raids in Afghanistan and in Pakistan and elsewhere, as sort of a domestic policing technology. It’s basically a really big, booming market, particularly in a world where surveillance and security is being integrated into buildings, into cities, into transport systems, on the back of the war on terror.

Will Grigg, author of “Liberty in Eclipse,” has written about the militarization of the police in America for a number of years. In an interview with Scott Horton of Antiwar Radio on November 22, Grigg said:

“With respect to where we are now with the crackdown on Occupy Wall Street, take a look at the way the enforcers are garbed, take a look at the techniques they use. We’re living in what is essentially a prison society.”

In the prison society that Grigg talks about, the police officer is a guard and the citizen is an inmate who is considered guilty and a potential violent threat to the state. The rule of law is not defended. Instead, police officers are brainwashed and used to rape the public in the name of security.

4. Culture.

The manipulation of mass culture by the elite is part of a larger war against the mental integrity of the individual and the free will of the people. The whole edifice of mainstream culture in the West is designed to control thought and speech. As Terence McKenna said, “Culture is not your friend . . .It insults you, it disempowers you, it uses and abuses you. None of us are well treated by culture. And yet we glorify the creative potential of the individual, the rights of the individual. We understand the felt-presence of experience is what is most important. But the culture is a perversion.”

The culture that is being produced creatively by the alternative media, underground music, and other cultural avenues is countering the official totalitarian culture that is handed down by authoritarian governments, corporate elites, and the treasonous media. The harm that the official culture is doing to the average individual cannot be overstated. State propaganda and predictive programming techniques are regularly used in T.V. programming and films to control behavior and thoughts. People have been turned into animals under this psychological prison system.

The most important element of culture is storytelling. Stories connect us with our past, inform our present actions, and point the way towards the future.

In America, the power of storytelling has been hijacked and misused by the controllers of the U.S. government to indoctrinate the people of the world and destroy freedom of thought. The assassination of JFK and the terrorist attacks on 9/11 have overturned the American constitutional system of government, as well as other Western democratic governments, but the official stories about these events that are told in mainstream culture hide the true nature of these evil crimes.

5. Drugs.

Pharmaceutical drugs are promoted and sold by the government and television, but natural drugs are suppressed and persecuted. Many of these natural drugs have the effect of opening the individual’s minds to amazing experiences and new conceptions of life and the universe.

The mind is liberated from the routine of everyday life and everyday thoughts when natural drugs like mushrooms are taken, and this experience has political implications, as McKenna said. When people start seeing the world in a different light they don’t go back to believing in the fictions and fantasies of the mainstream matrix. The road to intellectual discovery opens up, and the individual begins to search for answers to both personal and political questions.

6. Fear.

Creating fear and chaos is the modus operandi of the U.S. shadow totalitarian state, and of all totalitarian states. Fear is the blood that keeps the fascist state going. The governments of Iran and Israel use the same political playbook against their citizens as the hijacked American government.

Keeping the people in a state of fear and mental insecurity enables political leaders and the criminal power elite to remain in a dominant position in society.

The pumping up of external enemies is the best way to keep the people submissive and scared. But enemies don’t fall out of the sky. Enemies in modern totalitarian nations like Iran and America are made by political elites who painstakingly design a propaganda-oriented society that is constantly fed lies and disinformation.

Propaganda, however, is not enough to generate fear about an outside enemy. The manufacturing of dramatic events like the 9/11 attacks, 7/7 attacks, and the Iranian hostage crisis are necessary to create the image of the external enemy in the public mind of a nation.

There is nothing like drama and fear. 9/11 showed that slow-moving societies need explosive and dramatic acts of murder if they are to be moved in a certain direction by political elites in a short period of time. Without drama, without blood, without fear, without murder, without creating a public spectacle, elites cannot attain their dreams of war and revolution.

Fear shuts down critical thinking and makes people even more stupid than they already are, which is why the religious zealots in Iran and the globalist terrorists in the West both use fear as a political tool.

7. Language.

“Presidential power is the power to persuade.” – Richard Neustadt
“When the president speaks, he governs.” – Sandra Silberstein
“Language is apparently a sword which cuts both ways. With its help man can conquer the unknown; with it he can grievously wound himself.” – Stuart Chase
In a democratic society, citizens use language to define collective priorities and interests, but in the current totalitarian hell that we live in the collective use of language has been hijacked by private interests in the pursuit of private ends.
The Western shadow states and establishment media are misusing language to suppress thought, control the political conservation about 9/11 and the war on terror, and alter cultural beliefs about the freedom of the individual.
The thought police in the totalitarian state love the magic of words because it can shape public perceptions about major events, political figures, and dissidents.
I am fascinated by the power of words. With one simple line, astronaut Neil Armstrong marked the official beginning of the space age. A couple of political slogans helped an inexperienced state senator from Illinois become the President of the United States.

McKenna said that language creates reality. This happened in the immediate hours and days after the 9/11 attacks, when American and Israeli politicians, “journalists,” and national security experts went on television and used the power of the global communication system to put out the false narrative that Al-Qaeda was responsible for the terrorist act.

I was too young to remember what was said in television news reports and newspapers, but I’ve seen many video clips on the Internet of news anchors and special guests speaking on ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, CBC, BBC, and other news networks about the significance of the attacks. It is clear that the Zionist criminals, Neocon terrorists and shadow CIA traitors were not wasting any time. They seized the day on 9/11. It was the opportunity of a lifetime for any fascist and totalitarian leader.

Three thousand dead innocent Americans, New York City’s skyline destroyed, the Pentagon attacked — these dramatic pictures were created and politically exploited by the merchants of death in D.C. and Israel — but pictures are not enough in a time of crisis — words are also needed.

9/11 Commission director Philip Zelikow spelled it out in a lecture in Houston earlier this month called, “The Twilight of War.” Zelikow said: “It’s my job to make meaning of 9/11.” This lowlife also said that the CIA manufactured Al-Qaeda “is the enemy,” and that they “are an unslayable power.” LOL. This traitor relishes his role as the destroyer of America and the bringer of death and pain. He likes the thought of sending the shining knights in the American military to slay fabricated dragons abroad. It gives him something to do. The snake-like teller of lies is his station in life. He couldn’t be a doctor, an architect, or a taxi driver, so he settled for being a war criminal.

8. Stigma.

The power of social stigma, shame, and ridicule cannot be overstated. Society is governed in this matter by criminal rulers who don’t like to use force to dominate the people and keep their privileges.

In totalitarian societies, truth-tellers are treated like outcasts and driven outside of the community while the biggest liars and mass murderers lead the nation. This is the case in America, Iran, Israel, England, and many other countries.

America and Iran became full-scale totalitarian nations in the 1980s, when Reagan and Khomeini, two power-craving traitors, came to dominate the political scene in both countries thanks to much larger forces that put them in power.

Instead of being shamed for using violent rhetoric, attaining power illegally, and sponsoring backdoor arms deals, Khomeini and Reagan were glorified and raised to the status of heroes.

Both totalitarian leaders molded themselves as “revolutionaries” but they were not revolutionaries. They were destroyers and traitors. Khomeini followed the orders of his masters and destroyed Iran. And Reagan did the same to America, with Bush standing right beside him to make sure he didn’t suddenly have a change of heart about committing treason against America.

Even today these two puppets are seen in a heroic light. The statues of Reagan and Khomeini are embraced as god-like by their deluded and brainwashed cult followers.

In a just world, unjust men like Khomeini, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Cheney, Bush II, and Obama would not just be shamed, but hanged, and buried in the sea.

But the reverse is happening.

Murderers and traitors like Reagan, Khomeini, Bush, and Obama are called saviors of the nation and defenders of freedom, while real heroes are shamed and ridiculed as “paranoid conspiracy theorists,” and “domestic terrorists.”

Millions of truth-tellers in America and the West are silenced and stigmatized. In Iran they are tortured and murdered.

Ron Paul is stigmatized as “loony” for advocating freedom in America and peace in the Middle East, but the sociopathic madmen who hijacked the Republican party and call for total world war are given the most media attention.

The weapon of social stigma as wielded by the establishment media can make people not listen to the wise Ron Paul, but instead, make them blindly follow psychopathic leaders like Barack Obama and his Republican foes to the point of complete destruction.

9. Secrecy.

“We have a system of runaway secrecy,” said historian and author Richard Dolan in his lecture about the U.S. government’s cover-up of UFOs in April 2011 in Amsterdam called, “Secret Space Program And Breakaway Civilization.”

The secrecy of the hijacked U.S. government is its essential feature. Almost every public statement and public policy initiative is meant for global public consumption. I wrote an article in June that contained a quote from a U.S. government official named Edmond Taylor who said that U.S. government policy has two levels, “the esoteric and the exoteric.”

The esoteric side is guarded from the American public, low-level government employees, and even high-ranking military and intelligence officials.

The power of the secret and informal government in Washington is beyond imagination. Dolan says the secret-holders have become a “breakaway civilization.”

Over the decades, the secret-holders and power elite have broken their psychological ties to regular reality. Their emotional separation with the people of the world is total and complete. They do not consider themselves as part of our world.

Cutting political ties with the American constitutional government and Western democracies is the next step. And they have been very busy building a global fascist government in the shadows so this step is not as difficult as it was in the past.

Infowars Nightly News
November 21, 2011

On the Monday, November 21 edition of Infowars Nightly News, host Mike Adams talks with Mark Kastel of the Cornucopia Institute about its effort to counter the organized attack on organic farming and a new push to allow dangerous chemicals to be considered organic.

Mike also covers a recent ruling by the EU declaring water does not treat dehydration. He also covers the following topics:

The failure of the unconstitutional Super Committee.

The FBI and its fake terror.

Two nursing home employees charged with water-boarding an elderly woman.

Russian Hackers allegedly burning out and destroying a pump needed to carry water to thousands of homes in Springfield, Illinois.

Tampa Bay, Florida, cops rolling out an armored tank to send a message to protesters.

The bizarre case of “cement butt,” a man arrested for injecting cement, glue and tire sealant in the posteriors of women looking for implants.

And the latest on the NYT attempting to link Alex Jones to the alleged White House shooter and Forbes claiming Jones and trends forecaster Gerald Celente are attempting to instigate a run on banks.

The American Dream
Tuesday, November 15, 2011

Will the shocking insider trading revelations that have come to light in recent days finally be enough to motivate the American people to start throwing all of the con men and charlatans out of Congress?  On Sunday, 60 Minutes opened up a huge can of worms when it did a feature story on insider trading by members of Congress.  Up until now, the vast majority of Americans had no idea that insider trading was actually legal for members of Congress.  In fact, as will be documented later on in this article, members of Congress have been using secrets that they have learned during the course of their duties to make huge amounts of money in the stock market.  If you can believe it, during the financial crisis of 2008 some members of Congress were making huge stock moves that would only pay off if the stock market crashed really hard at a time when they should have been focusing on creating legislation that would help the U.S. financial system survive.  It is hard not to feel sick after learning how low some of our “leaders” have stooped to enrich themselves.  Now that the American people are learning the truth, how can they ever trust Congress again?

Even before these revelations about insider trading by members of Congress came to light, the approval rating for Congress was sitting at about 11 percent.

There is a widespread feeling in this country that our political system simply does not work any longer.

Nearly all of our “leaders” seem to be wealthy elitists that are rapidly becoming wealthier.  Today, the average net worth for a member of Congress is approximately 3.8 million dollars, and the collective net worth of all of the members of Congress increased by 25 percent between 2008 and 2010.


It would be one thing is they were accumulating all of this wealth legitimately.  However, it is just not right for members of Congress to use government secrets and inside information that is not available to the general public to make huge profits in the stock market.

If any of the rest of us engage in insider trading, it could get us thrown into jail.

But as a recent CNBC article noted, members of Congress can pretty much get away with it as much as they want to….

When you buy and sell stocks based on secrets you learned at the office, it could be insider trading.

But when a United States Senator does it, it’s probably perfectly legal.

That’s because the SEC has largely determined that trading stocks based on advance knowledge of action in Congress is not insider trading.

But just because it is legal, that does not make it right.

Former Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff made headlines recently when he claimed that “a dozen members of Congress and their aides took part in insider trading“.

Well, it turns out that there has been a whole lot more insider trading going on than that.

If you have not seen the recent 60 Minutes report on this issue yet, you really should take a few minutes and watch it….

One of the politicians featured in the 60 Minutes story was Nancy Pelosi.

Pelosi has been doing incredibly well financially in recent years.  For example, her net worth soared by 62 percent in 2010.  If you can believe it, Nancy Pelosi is now worth 35.2 million dollars.

That is a nice chunk of change.

So has she been getting a little bit of “extra help” along the way?

According to a recent CNN article, one very preferential stock deal involving a credit card company went very well for her.  It also turns out that there was credit card legislation that was pending in the House at the time….

Pelosi and her husband participated in an initial public offering of Visa in 2008, according to CBS. They bought 5,000 shares at the initial price of $44; two days later, shares were trading at $64, CBS said.

The network reported the investment came at the same time a piece of legislation that was opposed by credit-card companies was making its way through the House.

But what is even worse is what many members of Congress did with secret information that they were told by U.S. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke at the start of the financial crisis of 2008.

On September 16, 2008 Paulson and Bernanke held “closed door meetings” with members of Congress and warned them that the financial system was about to totally collapse.

But instead of racing out to save the financial system, author Peter Schweizer says that many of our representatives in Congress raced out to save their stock portfolios.

In his new book, Schweizer alleges the following….

*Schweizer says that U.S. Senator Dick Durbin sold $74,715 worth of stock on September 17th and $42,000 worth of stock on September 18th.

*Schweizer says that U.S. Representative Jim Moran sold off shares in 90 different corporations on September 17th.

*Schweizer says that U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse sold off at least $250,000 worth of stock between September 18th and September 24th.

*Schweizer says that U.S. Representative Spencer Bachus bet very heavily against the stock market in the days following the September 16th meeting and made tens of thousands of dollars doing so.

*Schweizer says that U.S. Senator John Kerry bought up approximately $350,000of Bank of America stock and approximately $550,000 of Citigroup stock during October 2008 and November of 2008.  It was during this time period that the bailout programs for the big banks were being developed and debated.

Are you feeling sick to your stomach yet?

But it isn’t just members of Congress that are using secrets to make money in the stock market.  According to an article in the Wall Street Journal, quite a few Congressional staffers have also been making questionable trades….

“At least 72 aides on both sides of the aisle traded shares of companies that their bosses help oversee, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of more than 3,000 disclosure forms covering trading activity by Capitol Hill staffers for 2008 and 2009.”

But nobody is getting into trouble for any of this.

This is how corrupt our system has become.

And there are scientific studies that show that members of Congress have been doing significantly better in the stock market than the general public has been doing.

For example, one study from 2004 found that members of Congress do even better in the stock market than corporate insiders do….

“A 2004 study of the results of stock trading by United States Senators during the 1990s found that that senators on average beat the market by 12% a year. In sharp contrast, U.S. households on average underperformed the market by 1.4% a year and even corporate insiders on average beat the market by only about 6% a year during that period. A reasonable inference is that some Senators had access to – and were using – material nonpublic information about the companies in whose stock they trade.”

A recent CNBC article mentioned another recent study that found that investments by members of the U.S. House of Representatives beat the market by about 6 percent a year….

In the 2011 study “Abnormal Returns From the Common Stock Investments of Members of the U.S. House of Representatives,” four university professors found that a portfolio that mimics the purchases of House Members beats the market by 55 basis points per month, or approximately 6 percent annually. That study looked at 16,000 common stock transactions made by approximately 300 House delegates from 1985 to 2001.

Clearly all of this is not just some huge coincidence.

So why doesn’t Congress just pass a law to make it illegal for members of Congress to make trades based on insider information?

Well, a few members of Congress have actually tried to introduce such legislation, but it has never gone anywhere.

It turns out that members of Congress like things just the way that they are.

Being a member of Congress is one of the best jobs in the country.  It is a great way to become famous, get rich and live the high life.

As mentioned earlier, only 11 percent of the American people think that Congress is doing a good job, and yet we keep sending the same people back to Congress time after time.

Since 1964, the reelection rate for members of the U.S. House of Representativeshas never fallen below 85 percent.

Yes, our system is a joke, but the joke is on us.

So do any of you out there actually believe that we have a chance of changing this deeply corrupt system?

Please feel free to leave a comment with your opinion below….

Top Military Commander and Courts Support Right to Protest

Protest

In response to comments from those supporting the police crackdowns on peaceful protesters exercising their constitutional rights but violating local ordinances (see comments here), reader Purplemuse writes:

The Constitution supersedes local ordinances that are being used to OBSTRUCT 1st Amendment Rights. The camping ITSELF is in order to MAKE A STATEMENT – a First Amendment Right. Protesters are not camping because it is fun to expose yourself to the elements and hardship and you want to roast wienies and marshmallows and drink beer while swapping ghost stories.

Would you listen to Colin Powell, retired four-star general in the United States Army, Powell also served as National Security Advisor (1987–1989), as Commander of the U.S. Army Forces Command (1989) and as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (1989–1993) when he says, “It isn’t enough just to scream at the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations. We need our political system to start reflecting this anger back into, ‘How do we fix it? How do we get the economy going again?’” He also states that the Occupy Wall Street Protests are “As American as Apple Pie.”

Does he go on to qualify his statement by saying, “as long as they obey local (misdemeanor) ordinances. No, he does not. He actually goes on to say that he “gets” it.

If a man, well above your rank, that you’d likely drop everything to stand up in a room to honor, “gets” that peaceful protests, by design (that’s why they are referred to as ‘civil disobedience’) infringe on ordinances and make the public uncomfortable in order to be heard, are as American as Apple Pie; do you think you could set your fear of disobedience aside long enough to defend those protesters against physical harm for exercising those American as Apple Pie Rights? If you can’t than I think you need to join the ranks of officers who simply “do as they are told” and jab petite women in the spleen with billy clubs (as in Berkeley) in order to incite a riot. (BTW: They did not succeed, Berkeley stood firm in determined peace).

(Watch Powell’s statement here).

Of course, it’s not just Powell.  Veterans from every branch of the military – and across 3 generations – are coming out to support the “occupy” protests.

And in response to the Berkeley police saying that linking arms and resisting attempts to clear a space is an act of “violence”, reader David writes:

It is every citizen’s duty to resist false arrest

There is no such crime as “resisting arrest.” This is a fictitious crime dreamed up by law enforcement to accuse a citizen of a crime when they refuse to surrender to the illegal demands of the police.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on numerous occasions that resisting a false arrest is not merely a citizen’s right, but his duty! In fact, the Supreme Court has gone so far as to rule that if a law enforcement officer is killed as a result of actions stemming from a citizen’s attempts to defend themselves against a false arrest, it is the fault of the officer, not the citizen.

Here’s a short collection of relevant court rulings on false arrest and resisting arrest:

“When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.

“These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.” Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.

“An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.” (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).

“Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense.” (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).

Do individuals have the right to come to the aid of another citizens being falsely arrested? You bet they do. As another court case ruled:

“One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance.” (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).

And on the issue of actually killing an arresting officer in self defense:

“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer’s life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529.

I believe that violence discredits the entire protest movement.  I therefore hope that the protesters remain peaceful, even when confronted with unlawful arrests. However, as David points out, the police have no right to make unlawful arrests in the first place.

10.10.2011

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
October 8, 2011

Ron Paul has won another straw poll, indicating he is the choice for many if not most voting Republicans.

Demonstrating that the influence of establishment Republicans remains strong in the party, Herman Cain came in a distant second.

Cain recently made the news when he said unemployment is basically the fault of the individual and not transnational corporations that have sent most of the decent jobs to slave labor gulags in China and Asia.

Cain is the former boss of the Kansas City Federal Reserve.

Here is the poll breakdown:

Ron Paul – 36.9% (732)
Herman Cain – 22.5% (447)
Rick Santorum – 16.3% (323)
Rick Perry – 8.4% (167)
Michele Bachmann – 7.9% (157)
Mitt Romney – 4.4% (88)
Newt Gingrich – 2.7% (54)
Undecided – 0.7% (13)
Jon Huntsman – 0.1% (2)

Note that the current darling of the global elite, Mitt Romney, comes in at a dismal 4.4%. Even the wash-out and faux Tea Party cowboy Rick Perry does better than Mitt.

Next Page »