PDA

View Full Version : AIG: The Impetus or a Lot of Hot Air



unimailer1972
03-20-2009, 05:13 PM
The Big Takeover : Rolling Stone (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/26793903/the_big_takeover/)

So, I do not know anything about CDOs or CDSs. Can someone who has more expertise give me their take on this article? Fact or fiction? Is this elaborate scheme plausible, or even possible? I've quoted a few highlights from the article, for those that do not have the attention span to read it.


"We're moving to an oligopolistic situation," Kenneth Guenther, a top executive with the Independent Community Bankers of America, lamented after the Gramm measure was passed.


They named a commission of seven people to oversee the five companies, whose combined assets came to total more than $4 trillion. But in the last year and a half of Cox's tenure, the group had no director and did not complete a single inspection. Great deal for the banks, which originally complained about being regulated by both Europe and the SEC, and ended up being regulated by no one.


When asked why Blankfein was there, one of the government officials who was in the meeting shrugs. "One might say that it's because Goldman had so much exposure to AIGFP's portfolio," he says. "You'll never prove that, but one might suppose."

Market analyst Eric Salzman is more blunt. "If AIG went down," he says, "there was a good chance Goldman would not be able to collect." The AIG bailout, in effect, was Goldman bailing out Goldman.

Eventually, Paulson went a step further, elevating another ex-Goldmanite named Edward Liddy to run AIG a company whose bailout money would be coming, in part, from the newly created TARP program, administered by another Goldman banker named Neel Kashkari.



That's the essence of the bailout: rich bankers bailing out rich bankers, using the taxpayers' credit card.


Some aspects of the bailout were secretive to the point of absurdity. In fact, if you look closely at just a few lines in the Federal Reserve's weekly public disclosures, you can literally see the moment where a big chunk of your money disappeared for good. The H4 report (called "Factors Affecting Reserve Balances") summarizes the activities of the Fed each week. You can find it online, and it's pretty much the only thing the Fed ever tells the world about what it does. For the week ending February 18th, the number under the heading "Repurchase Agreements" on the table is zero. It's a significant number.

In the week of May 1st, 2008, the number was $115 billion "out of control now," according to one congressional aide. For the rest of 2008, the numbers remained similarly in the stratosphere, the Fed pumping as much as $125 billion of these short-term loans into the economy until suddenly, at the start of this year, the number drops to nothing. Zero.

This is when the story gets really interesting. I feel like I'm staying up all night reading a science fiction novel about the big bad bogeyman.



While the rest of America, and most of Congress, have been bugging out about the $700 billion bailout program called TARP, all of these newly created organisms in the Federal Reserve zoo have quietly been pumping not billions but trillions of dollars into the hands of private companies (at least $3 trillion so far in loans, with as much as $5.7 trillion more in guarantees of private investments). Although this technically isn't taxpayer money, it still affects taxpayers directly, because the activities of the Fed impact the economy as a whole. And this new, secretive activity by the Fed completely eclipses the TARP program in terms of its influence on the economy.

No one knows who's getting that money or exactly how much of it is disappearing through these new holes in the hull of America's credit rating. Moreover, no one can really be sure if these new institutions are even temporary at all or whether they are being set up as permanent, state-aided crutches to Wall Street, designed to systematically suck bad investments off the ledgers of irresponsible lenders.

"They're supposed to be temporary," says Paul-Martin Foss, an aide to Rep. Ron Paul. "But we keep getting notices every six months or so that they're being renewed. They just sort of quietly announce it."

None other than disgraced senator Ted Stevens was the poor sap who made the unpleasant discovery that if Congress didn't like the Fed handing trillions of dollars to banks without any oversight, Congress could apparently go **** itself or so said the law. When Stevens asked the GAO about what authority Congress has to monitor the Fed, he got back a letter citing an obscure statute that nobody had ever heard of before: the Accounting and Auditing Act of 1950. The relevant section, 31 USC 714(b), dictated that congressional audits of the Federal Reserve may not include "deliberations, decisions and actions on monetary policy matters." The exemption, as Foss notes, "basically includes everything." According to the law, in other words, the Fed simply cannot be audited by Congress. Or by anyone else, for that matter.




When one considers the comparatively extensive system of congressional checks and balances that goes into the spending of every dollar in the budget via the normal appropriations process, what's happening in the Fed amounts to something truly revolutionary a kind of shadow government with a budget many times the size of the normal federal outlay, administered dictatorially by one man, Fed chairman Ben Bernanke. "We spend hours and hours and hours arguing over $10 million amendments on the floor of the Senate, but there has been no discussion about who has been receiving this $3 trillion," says Sen. Bernie Sanders. "It is beyond comprehension."




Which, when you think about it, is insane: What had brought us to the brink of collapse in the first place was this relentless instinct for building ever-larger megacompanies, passing deregulatory measures to gradually feed all the little fish in the sea to an ever-shrinking pool of Bigger Fish. To fix this problem, the government should have slowly liquidated these monster, too-big-to-fail firms and broken them down to smaller, more manageable companies. Instead, federal regulators closed ranks and used an almost completely secret bailout process to double down on the same faulty, merger-happy thinking that got us here in the first place, creating a constellation of megafirms under government control that are even bigger, more unwieldy and more crammed to the gills with systemic risk.




In essence, Paulson and his cronies turned the federal government into one gigantic, half-opaque holding company, one whose balance sheet includes the world's most appallingly large and risky hedge fund, a controlling stake in a dying insurance giant, huge investments in a group of teetering megabanks, and shares here and there in various auto-finance companies, student loans, and other failing businesses. Like AIG, this new federal holding company is a firm that has no mechanism for auditing itself and is run by leaders who have very little grasp of the daily operations of its disparate subsidiary operations.

In other words, it's AIG's rip-roaringly ****ty business model writ almost inconceivably massive to echo Geithner, a huge, complex global company attached to a very complicated investment bank/hedge fund that's been allowed to build up without adult supervision. How much of what kinds of crap is actually on our balance sheet, and what did we pay for it? When exactly will the rent come due, when will the money run out? Does anyone know what the hell is going on? And on the linear spectrum of capitalism to socialism, where exactly are we now? Is there a dictionary word that even describes what we are now? It would be funny, if it weren't such a nightmare.

And, if you are still reading, we sum up. If these facts can all be confirmed, then the implications are staggering.


By making an already too-complex economy even more complex, Wall Street has used the crisis to effect a historic, revolutionary change in our political system transforming a democracy into a two-tiered state, one with plugged-in financial bureaucrats above and clueless customers below.

The most galling thing about this financial crisis is that so many Wall Street types think they actually deserve not only their huge bonuses and lavish lifestyles but the awesome political power their own mistakes have left them in possession of. When challenged, they talk about how hard they work, the 90-hour weeks, the stress, the failed marriages, the hemorrhoids and gallstones they all get before they hit 40.

"But wait a minute," you say to them. "No one ever asked you to stay up all night eight days a week trying to get filthy rich shorting what's left of the American auto industry or selling $600 billion in toxic, irredeemable mortgages to ex-strippers on work release and Taco Bell clerks. Actually, come to think of it, why are we even giving taxpayer money to you people? Why are we not throwing your ass in jail instead?"

But before you even finish saying that, they're rolling their eyes, because You Don't Get It. These people were never about anything except turning money into money, in order to get more money; valueswise they're on par with crack addicts, or obsessive sexual deviants who burgle homes to steal panties. Yet these are the people in whose hands our entire political future now rests.

Good luck with that, America. And enjoy tax season.

Raistlin
03-22-2009, 10:43 PM
Your head is going to explode when you discover that groups like the Trilateral Commission, Bilderbergs, Council on Foreign Relations, etc., that constitute an "Illuminati" actually exist... and you begin to read the quotes by Rockefeller and others regarding their plans for the One World Government... and you learn that there was a massive electronic run on our banking system just prior to the precipitous collapse that ushered Obama into office as the "guy who understands the economy"... and it comes to your attention that Timothy Geithner (our current Treasury Secretary) is a Trilateral Commission member and Paul Volcker (our current Economic Recovery Advisory Board Chairman) is a Council on Foreign Relations member. It's like a bad dream that you can't wake up from. I hardly have it in me any more to fret over Obama's Marxist takeover of this country. That doesn't even begin to cover what is happening. We are ****ed.

And I am not a conspiracy theorist - I never have been and I never will be. We are talking cold, documented, largely ignored reality here.

Dyndrilliac
03-23-2009, 09:54 AM
The problem is not that Obama and his buddies are intent on carrying out a political coup as Raistlin and some others would have us believe by putting their friends and banking associates in key positions. The problem is that there is a severe lack of newly well-educated individuals to take positions from the old guard. If an employee of yours loses half your profits on some hair-brained greed-driven scheme, your unlikely to hire him for a different position or give him a good reference. But if he is one of only a small number of qualified individuals and your whole financial organization is crumbling to pieces before your eyes people who work for other companies or are looking for work that aren't quite yet on the verge of collapse are very unlikely to come to work for you.

What needs to happen is we need to put a mechanism in place so that struggling blue-collar citizens who work as a clerk at some place like Wal-mart have better choices than go to some 9 month trade school to become either a medical billing/coding specialist or an ultra-sound technician (I'm sure you've all seen the billions of commercials). The crux of the problem is that there aren't enough cheap educational opportunities for career changes in fields we actually need people in. We need to be cranking out scientists, engineers, economists, and computer science specialists. Not glorified nurses or other such nonsense.

Raistlin
03-23-2009, 03:03 PM
The problem is not that Obama and his buddies are intent on carrying out a political coup as Raistlin and some others would have us believe by putting their friends and banking associates in key positions.The problem is much, much bigger than that. There is a tight-knit cabal of men from a handful of extremely wealthy, old, extended families including Rothschild, Rockefeller, Astor, Collins, etc., who are and have for some time been running our government and others from behind the scenes. Their goal is the elimination of national sovereignty to form a one-world Marxist government where they will exercise supranational sovereignty as a ruling class of intellectual elite (while the rest of us are... think about it...). Their literal plans are global domination. This is a much bigger problem than the fact that we have a blatantly unqualified, corrupt Marxist now sitting at the head of our federal government. He is at the lower levels, literally.

unimailer1972
03-23-2009, 03:40 PM
Your head is going to explode when you discover that groups like the Trilateral Commission, Bilderbergs, Council on Foreign Relations, etc., that constitute an "Illuminati" actually exist... and you begin to read the quotes by Rockefeller and others regarding their plans for the One World Government... and you learn that there was a massive electronic run on our banking system just prior to the precipitous collapse that ushered Obama into office as the "guy who understands the economy"... and it comes to your attention that Timothy Geithner (our current Treasury Secretary) is a Trilateral Commission member and Paul Volcker (our current Economic Recovery Advisory Board Chairman) is a Council on Foreign Relations member. It's like a bad dream that you can't wake up from. I hardly have it in me any more to fret over Obama's Marxist takeover of this country. That doesn't even begin to cover what is happening. We are ****ed.

And I am not a conspiracy theorist - I never have been and I never will be. We are talking cold, documented, largely ignored reality here.

Yes, I've read, researched much around the groups you mentioned. My favorite quote is from Mayer Amsched Rothchild: "Permit me to issue and control the money of the nation and I care not who makes its laws." And that is exactly your point.


The problem is not that Obama and his buddies are intent on carrying out a political coup as Raistlin and some others would have us believe by putting their friends and banking associates in key positions. The problem is that there is a severe lack of newly well-educated individuals to take positions from the old guard. If an employee of yours loses half your profits on some hair-brained greed-driven scheme, your unlikely to hire him for a different position or give him a good reference. But if he is one of only a small number of qualified individuals and your whole financial organization is crumbling to pieces before your eyes people who work for other companies or are looking for work that aren't quite yet on the verge of collapse are very unlikely to come to work for you.

What needs to happen is we need to put a mechanism in place so that struggling blue-collar citizens who work as a clerk at some place like Wal-mart have better choices than go to some 9 month trade school to become either a medical billing/coding specialist or an ultra-sound technician (I'm sure you've all seen the billions of commercials). The crux of the problem is that there aren't enough cheap educational opportunities for career changes in fields we actually need people in. We need to be cranking out scientists, engineers, economists, and computer science specialists. Not glorified nurses or other such nonsense.

Now, to your point, and it is a good one. The dumbing down of America is quite alarming. There are plenty of articles and such that attempt to prove without a shadow of a doubt that we are deliberately being dumbed down. And to all appearances, the US has fallen behind in many of the sciences. This article has a lot of information:

Science Education, U.S. vs. World - Vanguard News Network Forum (http://www.vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=66024)

hure
03-24-2009, 02:31 AM
Their goal is the elimination of national sovereignty to form a one-world Marxist government

how would such a "Marxist" government look like? I think you mix up stuff here to polemicise against marx ideology.

Raistlin
03-24-2009, 03:37 PM
I'm not mixing it up. These people believe in total consolidation of global power. Look into what they believe and the things they have financed (including Hitler, Lenin, the Bolsheviks...) Positioning themselves at the top of a Marxist system plays very precisely into their goals.

hure
03-25-2009, 06:14 AM
how can you be on top of somthing thats evend out?

also why do you only list totalitarian systems? they invest also in your gov and in my gov which are both democartic. if you have money, a democartic system is better for you. You dont rely on bribing a single person you have a whole population which is way easier to control coz their mostly dumb and easy to influence.

PocketRevolution
03-25-2009, 02:30 PM
One phrase I'm tired of hearing is how bankers, traders and CEOs are "benefiting from their own mistakes".

I'm sorry, but when the net result is, you get filthy rich and everyone else gets dirty poor, that's no mistake or accident. That takes planning.

Regarding education: search youtube for "Prussian Education" for a few primers on how the school system is designed to produce a malleable, loyal underclass. Anyone who likes books can try to find a copy of "Disciplined Minds" by Jeff Schmidt.

Raistlin
03-25-2009, 03:12 PM
how can you be on top of somthing thats evend out?In a Marxist system, the people at the top running the state have a total monopoly on power, resources and means of production.


also why do you only list totalitarian systems? they invest also in your gov and in my gov which are both democartic.In the United States, we are being pushed farther and farther away from Democracy, and closer and closer to a totalitarian state. I'm not sure what it's like where you are.

If you don't believe that these people are fomenting a one-world government where they exercise supranational sovereignty as a ruling class of intellectual elite, simply do some research, because they have said so plainly and their actions spell it out even more clearly than their words.

Dyndrilliac
03-25-2009, 04:53 PM
In a Marxist system, the people at the top running the state have a total monopoly on power, resources and means of production.In a truly Marxist system, everyone is honest and righteous and there is no knowledge of this strange concept you call "corruption;" Everyone works in a kind of magical, mystical synergy. This is of course naive fantasy that simply is not possible with humanity as we know it. Pretty self-contradictory if you ask me.

Raistlin
03-25-2009, 05:32 PM
In a truly Marxist system, everyone is honest and righteous and there is no knowledge of this strange concept you call "corruption;" Everyone works in a kind of magical, mystical synergy. This is of course naive fantasy that simply is not possible with humanity as we know it.

This is a point of agreement. Marxism is a sham which puts ultimate financial control and power in the hands of a few people at the top; it is not a magical utopia free of greed and power.

unimailer1972
03-25-2009, 05:38 PM
In a truly Marxist system, everyone is honest and righteous and there is no knowledge of this strange concept you call "corruption;" Everyone works in a kind of magical, mystical synergy. This is of course naive fantasy that simply is not possible with humanity as we know it. Pretty self-contradictory if you ask me.

This is an important point, because Marx's Manifesto states that utopia can only be achieved when the populace is free from all want. According to this, as more and more state programs come about, the idea of "cradle to the grave" is the fullfillment of this idea. And, as you so aptly state, humanity is naturally corrupted by complete power or control.

So, is Marx's ideology fatally flawed? And if so, then no matter how hard we try, true socialism is unatainable. And if that is true, then individual rights should always trump the right of the whole. Or, as G. Edward Griffin states:


Let us be specific. Collectivists advocate controlled elections, controlled media, controlled education, the elimination of free speech, disarmament of the population, fiat money, a cartelized health-care system, military imperialism, and global government.

The ideology of Freedom Force is individualism, the opposite of collectivism at every point. Individualists advocate honest elections, a competitive media, an educational system responsive to parents, encouragement of free speech, a well-armed citizenry, sound money, freedom-of-choice in health care, a non-interventionist foreign policy, and national sovereignty.

You may not agree with every point Griffin makes, but he clearly draws the distinction that is at the core. Does the good of the many outweigh the good of the few or the one? And, more importantly, who decides? Bankers? Policians? Philosophers? Priests? Judges?

Dyndrilliac
03-25-2009, 05:47 PM
Marxism does not necessarily equal socialism, or communism for that matter; even though I fundamentally disagree with both marxism and communism, I do not dare question someone else's right to be as idealistic as they please. I am unconcerned with Obama's (or anyone for that matter) "socialist" leanings (I'm not entirely convinced that he is a socialist so much as he is good at catering to socialists to achieve his goals). Plus, there are some socialist governments that work. I'll give you a hint, it starts with a 'C' and ends with an 'a', and Perma along with several of our other members are from there. There are other good examples (New Zealand has a pretty stable government, from what I understand), but that is the most recognizable one.

unimailer1972
03-25-2009, 05:56 PM
Marxism does not necessarily equal socialism, or communism for that matter; even though I fundamentally disagree with both marxism and communism, I do not dare question someone else's right to be as idealistic as they please. I am unconcerned with Obama's (or anyone for that matter) "socialist" leanings (I'm not entirely convinced that he is a socialist so much as he is good at catering to socialists to achieve his goals). Plus, there are some socialist governments that work. I'll give you a hint, it starts with a 'C' and ends with an 'a', and Perma along with several of our other members are from there. There are other good examples (New Zealand has a pretty stable government, from what I understand), but that is the most recognizable one.

Right, but I'm talking about what we are witnessing right now. When we have a global financial network that is controlled by a small group, it can be slowly transitioned to a system that actually helps people. Mind you, I'm taking an overly optimistic outlook of the end result we are going to see. Many see it as a far more sinister outcome.

And as far as socialism goes, the Manifesto is the Bible, is it not? And the other reason I keep bringing it up, is because we currently live in a capitalistic system that is moving toward a socialist or communist system. Therefore, the Manifesto is sort of a guide to what we are witnessing, no? To be accurate, here are the ten tenants:


10 Conditions For Transition To Communism

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equal distribution of the population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c., &c.[6]

According to the Communist Manifesto, all these were prior conditions for a transition from capitalism to communism, but Marx and Engels later expressed a desire to modernize this passage.[7]

I am by no means an expert, but it stands up to the scrutiny of reason that if the US capitalist system does undergo a metamorphosis, communism is the most likely result, no? I realize that looking at this list, there is really only one (5) that you can point to, but that is really the one that controls the whole shebang, no? I am not attempting to be cute, kurt, or claim to know it all. I have a genuine curiosity regarding the capitalist transition that we will witness. After all, I am a US citizen first. I believe that the founders were aware of the dangers of letting bankers control the production of cash, and I also have someone else to be concerned for, my daughter. For myself, I will be ok, I will always survive, have my entertainment to keep me preoccupied, etc. But, I would wish more for my daughter than a life of servitude or to be force-fed the illusion of the American Dream.

Dyndrilliac
03-25-2009, 06:55 PM
When it comes down to it, I simply don't have enough faith in humanity for even a small powerful group to achieve the global domination that is being discussed. Do I think it is an issue? Yes. Do I think it is the most important issue? Not by a long shot. This is one of the few instances that you can safely classify humans characteristic morality and personality traits roughly in the same way as is done in Dungeons & Dragons; For the vast majority (~97+%), they either fall into one of 7 categories: true neutral (rarest), neutral evil, neutral good, lawful evil, lawful good, chaotic evil, chaotic good. What you describe most closely resembles chaotic evil. This group you speak of essentially writes the laws, therefore there is no lawful restriction; chaotic evil does not play well with others. Worst case scenario, it's not going to be the catastrophe you guys make it out to be. Plus, he's only been in office a couple months. It even took Dubya a year or two before he really started to **** up; this is nothing compared to how pissed off people were when Hamilton thought up the bright idea to tax whiskey, and George Washington said "Yea that sounds like a great way to get people behind us!"

Raistlin
03-25-2009, 08:03 PM
When it comes down to it, I simply don't have enough faith in humanity for even a small powerful group to achieve the global domination that is being discussed.A small handful of families have successfully gathered most of the world's wealth. They have successfully positioned themselves above government both by controlling governments' currencies and by steering their policies. They have successfully funded front groups for mid-game global consolidation including the United Nations. They have funded Hitler, Lenin, and the Bolsheviks. They have fomented wars for their own enrichment. They have publicly admitted that what they are working towards is the abolition of national sovereignty to exercise supranational sovereignty as a ruling class of intellectual elite presiding over a global empire. Their plans have been progressing for literally hundreds of years.

All of this is fully documented - no faith is required to understand what is going on. Faith is required to believe otherwise. And unfortunately, there is a lot of that kind of faith in the world. Otherwise these people would all be dead.

I do understand, of course, that whether they will ultimately succeed is a matter of opinion - but I can't help but see it is a problem when they have come so far already.

unimailer1972
03-27-2009, 07:08 PM
Bottom line: you either believe that this current financial crisis was a coordinated effort, or you don't. In addition, if you do not believe that this is the most pressing issue of our times, I submit the following:



• Creating a regulator to monitor the biggest institutions. Geithner did not say which agency should wield such authority, but the administration is expected to favor the Federal Reserve.

You do not overlook the fact that the central banking system of the US (the Fed) was created by those that seek ultimate power. And you do not overlook the fact that the Fed will ultimately gain the most from the current situation. Unless of course you don't care, or think that all of this is unimportant.


Centralized banking was met with much opposition from politicians, who were suspicious of a central bank and who charged that Aldrich was biased due to his close ties to wealthy bankers such as J.P. Morgan and his daughter's marriage to John D. Rockefeller, Jr.

This is not coincidence, or a conspiracy. This is happening right now, and disagree if you like, but this IS the most important point in our nation's history. Some believe that education is the most important issue of our time. Others, health care, and so on and so on. If you do the research and connect the dots, you are left with the facts.


In his first will, of 1877, (before he had accumulated his wealth), Rhodes wanted to create a secret society that would bring the whole world under British rule.[3] The exact wording of the will is:

To and for the establishment, promotion and development of a Secret Society, the true aim and object whereof shall be for the extension of British rule throughout the world, the perfecting of a system of emigration from the United Kingdom, and of colonisation by British subjects of all lands where the means of livelihood are attainable by energy, labour and enterprise, and especially the occupation by British settlers of the entire Continent of Africa, the Holy Land, the Valley of the Euphrates, the Islands of Cyprus and Candia, the whole of South America, the Islands of the Pacific not heretofore possessed by Great Britain, the whole of the Malay Archipelago, the seaboard of China and Japan, the ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of the British Empire, the inauguration of a system of Colonial representation in the Imperial Parliament which may tend to weld together the disjointed members of the Empire and, finally, the foundation of so great a Power as to render wars impossible, and promote the best interests of humanity.

Education, health care, the military-industrial-congressional-complex, television, and many of the other pillars of American society ARE controlled by a small group of men. Again, this is right in front of us. Words from the man who signed the Federal Reserve Act.


"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." -Woodrow Wilson, after signing the Federal Reserve into existence

And, finally, none knew better than any what we face than JFK. And what happened to him?


For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

You can either deceive yourself further, that is your choice; or you can stand up for what you know is right. You can stand up for what our founding fathers foresaw and fought for. I suggest that you all read JFK's words and think about how you choose to face these facts. You can be an ostrich, or you can stand up for what the founders believed in: freedom.


"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."

Private banks, eh?


it is a quasi-public (government entity with private components) banking system[1] that comprises (1) the presidentially appointed Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System in Washington, D.C.; (2) the Federal Open Market Committee; (3) twelve regional privately-owned Federal Reserve Banks located in major cities throughout the nation acting as fiscal agents for the U.S. Treasury, each with its own nine-member board of directors

Woodrow Wilson, Thomas Jefferson, and JFK are not quacks, twoofers, or conspiracy theorists. I could continue to educate you, but I am willing to guess that those of you who are listening are doing your own research. And those of you that have already decided that I am a quack are not listening and are not doing your own research. Again, it is your choice. Choose wisely, for if you do not have children currently, do you plan to ever? And if so, what kind of a world would you choose for them to grow up in?