Monday, June 29, 2009

On Vacation

I'm on vacation bloggers. I haven't been posting within days. I'll try to post some stuff while on vacation. I'll be available after the fourth. I'd like to get back to the blog.

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

The Erosion of the Dollar and the Rise of the East

http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/2009/06/erosion-of-dollar-and-rise-of-east.html

The outcome of the push for globalization is a severe decline in the median standard of living in the US and an erosion of those individual liberties and freedoms which has made the US somewhat unique on the vast historical sweep of world history.

Few understand this. One cannot be completely sovereign when the push for 'competitiveness' is used to consistently erode the commitment to individual freedom.

David Rockefeller, and Sam Walton, and Bill Gates, looked at the social and economic structure of the People's Republic of China and saw the new American paradigm. Not in the evolution of China to democracy and freedom, but in the subjugation of the United States to huddled masses docilely wearing the yoke of debt subservience to the ruling elite.

Too much speculation in this? The pattern of behaviour of those who promote this canard of globalism is too obvious to ignore.

The banks must be restrained and balance must be restored before a sustained economic recovery can be achieved.


The rest of Jesse's piece can be read at his website, provided in the link above the text.

Sunday, June 21, 2009

Blacklisted by History - The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy

I just recently purchased this book - Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy - and I recommend it.

I checked in the index and did not see Eustace Mullins listed. Odd, considering Mullins was McCarthy's personal research assistant. You would figure someone like M. Stanton Evans, historian that he is, would've came across Eustace Mullins in his research. Mullins himself has been writing a biography of his very own on the Late Great Senator, reportedly. I have not been able to get my hands on a copy of it myself and do not know the status of its publication.

I've read a few chapters of this book before through the local library. I remember that when I read it I developed the feeling that M. Stanton Evans was under the impression that the Cold War was an actual threat to America's national security. Of course, I'm going to have to reread the chapters I've already read and then read the rest of the chapters so that I can get a complete understanding.

I know that Eustace Mullins would disagree with Evans if Evans argued that the Cold War was real. Mullins wrote a piece on the Cold War and explained how it was a fraud concocted by those who were of the employ of the Federal Reserve, which I plan to reprint here in the future.

Saturday, June 20, 2009

Obama Regulatory Reform Plan Officially Establishes Banking Dictatorship In United States

An article worth reprinting in spite of the Alex Jones stain.

Paul Joseph Watson & Steve Watson
Prison Planet.com
Thursday, June 18, 200

President Obama’s plan to give the privately-owned and unaccountable Federal Reserve complete regulatory oversight across the entire U.S. economy, which is likely to be enacted before the end of the year, will officially herald the beginning of a new form of government in the United States - an ultra-powerful banking dictatorship controlled by a small gaggle of shadowy and corrupt elitists.

The new rules would see the Fed given the authority to “regulate” any company whose activity it believes could threaten the economy and the markets.

This goes a step further than the centrally planned economies of the Soviet Union or Communist China, in that the Federal Reserve is not even accountable to the U.S. government, it is a private entity that according to former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan, is accountable to nobody but the banking families that own it.

Obama’s regulatory “reform” plan is nothing less than a green light for the complete and total takeover of the United States by a private banking cartel that will usurp the power of existing regulatory bodies, who are now being blamed for the financial crisis in order that their status can be abolished and their roles handed over to the all-powerful Fed.

According to an Associated Press report today, Democratic leaders have committed to enacting the plan before the end of the year and Republicans in both the House and Senate have indicated that they won’t stand in the way of the overhaul.

“The final plan….is expected to sidestep most jurisdictional disputes and simply impose across the board standards to be applied by all financial regulators, according to administration and industry sources, ” reports the Washington Times.

In other words, the Fed, which is already totally unaccountable to Congress, is to be placed in complete control of the entirety of the U.S. financial system, to do as it wishes without repercussion.

As the LA Times reports, the government, in conjunction with the private Federal Reserve, would effectively have the clout to simply seize and take over any company it desires.

In order to appease those opposed to the plan, such as Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, chairman of the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, the Obama administration has agreed to create a “watchdog” council of regulators to “advise the Fed”.

However, as former chairman Alan Greenspan has most recently pointed out, given that the Fed is an independent entity, and therefore accountable to no one, it will have the power to simply reject and overrule any advice it is offered.

Pointing out the flagrant conflict of interest in empowering the Federal Reserve to essentially regulate itself, Professor of public affairs at the University of Texas at Austin Robert Auerbach writes, “The Federal Reserve has massive conflicts of interest that make it ill suited for its present regulatory functions and certainly for an expanded regulatory reach. The officials leading the Fed today preside over an organization that is run in substantial part by the bankers they regulate. Bank regulation begins at its 12 district Federal Reserve Banks, each governed by a nine-member board of directors, two-thirds of whom are elected by the bankers in the district.”

As economic author Nomi Prins highlights, Obama’s plan does nothing whatsoever to fix the excesses of financial institutions blamed for the financial collapse, it only ensures their continued operation and an expansion of the practices that contributed to the economic crisis in the first place.

“The ’sweeping overhaul’ of the financial system detailed by Geithner on behalf of the Obama administration does not overhaul the system at all,” writes Prins, “giving the Fed a bigger role, creating a ‘council of regulators’ to oversee the existing oversight bodies and allowing the biggest Wall Street players to maintain their status, leaves the system intact.”

“The Federal Reserve is not a fully public entity. It has amassed a set of $7.87 trillion worth of facilities and other entities through which it has lavished cheap loans in return for questionable collateral from the banking system. It has kept the true nature of these transactions a secret despite numerous FOIA requests. And, it has actively promoted the creation of bigger institutions in a chaotic environment, rather than putting the brakes on the creation of these giants,” concludes Prins.

Proof that the agenda of implementing overt financial dictatorship is being carefully coordinated can be seen in the fact that an almost identical scheme is also being set up in the United Kingdom, where “The governor of the Bank of England has called for greater powers to allow it to fulfil its new role of promoting financial stability,” according to a BBC report.

Just as in the U.S., King is calling for traditional independent regulatory bodies to be all but abolished and replaced by the Bank of England itself, which just like the Federal Reserve is a private outfit with no accountability to the government whatsoever.

The mainstream media, for the most part, has reported the oversight plan as a much needed regulatory crackdown on those responsible for the financial crisis. However, the details of the plan constitute almost exactly what lobbyists for leading bankers have been pushing for over the past few weeks.

“All derivatives contracts will be subject to regulation and all derivatives dealers subject to supervision,” Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner said at a Time Warner Economic Summit in New York on Monday, also noting “When you have too many people involved, there’s an accountability problem.”

As we reported earlier this month, heads of nine of the biggest banks in the derivatives market, including JP Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup and Bank of America, secretly lobbied to keep derivatives under Federal Reserve “oversight” and away from real scrutiny.

As reported by The New York Times, they all met secretly to discuss how to use the lax regulation and institutional secrecy of the NY Fed to shield their credit-default swaps business from prying eyes and attempts at regulation.

The banks formed a lobby– the CDS Dealers Consortium– only weeks after accepting TARP funds in October 2008 to protect its interests. Heading this effort was Edward Rosen, who previously helped fend off derivatives regulation. Rosen wrote and circulated a “confidential memo” to the Treasury Department and leaders on Capital Hill, making their agenda clear, the Times reported.

Rosen and his backers propose that derivatives be “traded in privately managed clearinghouses, with less disclosure,” according to the Times. The clearinghouse of choice for the big banks in Rosen’s CDS Consortium is ICE U.S. Trust, which is in turned regulated only by the Federal Reserve system.

So the upshot of all this is that the bankers get what they want, are allowed to carry on as they were, while at the same time the fractional reserve banking system and the federal government are both greatly expanded and empowered, and the compliant corporate media ludicrously tells us that a strict crackdown is underway.

This kind of activity is exactly what some leading representatives have warned of in recent weeks.

A fortnight ago, the Democratic Chairman of the Agriculture Committee, Collin Peterson, announced to the press that “The banks run the place,” in reference to the US Congress.

While Peterson is also pushing for legislation to regulate derivatives trading, his proposed bill would limit derivatives trading to public exchanges, rather than private clearinghouses, which are managed by banks.

Peterson’s warning mirrors that of Democratic Senator Dick Durbin, who just a few weeks before uttered the same rarely acknowledged truth.

“And the banks — hard to believe in a time when we’re facing a banking crisis that many of the banks created — are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly own the place,” Durbin said.

How simultaneously dangerous and ridiculous it is that the Federal Reserve is given more authority to oversee the economy. This is the same privately run entity that refused to comply with congressional demands for transparency and disclose the destination of trillions dollars in bailout funds. It is the same privately owned entity that has withheld internal memos, in spite of freedom of information act requests. It is the same private entity, run for the most part by European banking elites, that has arrogantly refused to tell Senators and Congressmen which banks were in receipt of government loans.

The government is ready to hand over everything to a monolithic private corporation and a gaggle of bastard banker offspring, that have gobbled up an amount close to the entire GDP of the country in taxpayers’ money and figuratively stuck the middle finger up regarding questions over where that money has gone.

It can be no more apparent than at this time that legislation to audit, repeal and eventually end the Federal Reserve, must be supported by Americans if they want to see their children and their grandchildren grow up without indentured debt and entrenched servitude to a fascistic marriage of private banks and hugely inflated government.

Thursday, June 18, 2009

BRIC, SCO Discuss "Super-Sovereignty" Currency, USD Alternatives

A little insight into the internal mechanics of China's changing financial policies. What does this mean?

BRIC, SCO Discuss "Super-Sovereignty" Currency, USD Alternatives

China continued to consider a “super-sovereignty” currency among the countries of Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), an intergovernmental mutual-security organization that met today in the Russian city of Yekaterinburg, in the Urals at the division of Asia and Europe. Members include China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan, with India as one of its four observers.

Right after the SCO meeting, the BRIC country (Brazil, Russia, India and China) leaders met formally for the first time. It is not merely coincident that three of them have expressed a desire to adjust their foreign exchange reserve portfolios by reducing the share or volume of US dollar assets.

China has just halted the increase its holding of US Treasury debt. By the end of April, China held $763.5 billion of it, a fall of $4.4 billion, month on month, the first time China has reduced its Treasury holdings. Since May, 2008, China has increased its holding by $260 billion.

Inside China, USD is a hate-more-than-love story. Analysts have long argued that China should be very cautious on buying US government bonds since dollar is bound to weaken. Others hold that US treasury debts are still the best and first choice for China's near $2 trillion foreign exchange reserve.

In March, Madam Hu Xiaolian, the chief of China's State Administration of Foreign Exchange and a deputy governor of the People's Bank of China, China's central bank, said that investing in US national debt is an essential part of China's reserve management. But while continuing to buy US national debt, China is concerned about the risk of the fluctuation in value of its assets.

China has announced that it would buy up to $50 billion in bonds issued by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Meanwhile, Russia and Brazil have said they are planning to buy up to $10 billion in IMF bonds, which would mean selling Treasury bonds. India has expressed the same interest. In April, China, Russia, and Brazil all reduced their holdings of US treasury debt.

China now believes that a long-term dollar decline is inevitable, and the risk to the value of its $2 trillion foreign exchange reserve has become realistic, if not imminent.

China has been a huge beneficiary of the order of the world economy and a monetary system with the US dollar as the reserve currency. China's economy has been anchored by a stable dollar exchange pegged by China's currency, RMB.

But the financial crisis has given China a wake up call that the present monetary system is not sustainable, and neither is China's foreign exchange regime and mode of economic growth, which has been largely based on relentless exporting.

What, then, is the role RMB can play in the future? Russia has been urging China for years to settle their bi-lateral trade in their respective currencies. Brazil intends to trade with China by RMB and the real. Recently Russia suggested making RMB convertible to become an international reserve currency.

China can not challenge US directly. The BRIC summit is a convenient platform for China and the other BRIC powers, set to become the 4 of the 6 largest economic entities by 2050, to put a bit of pressure on the US. Held before the first China-US Strategic and Economic Dialogue in late July in Washington DC, the BRIC summit may give China some leverage in dealing with the US.

Russia is ready to use its exchange reserve to buy securities issued by BRIC countries. In return, Russia hopes the others will be willing to buy financial instruments issued by Russia. The leaders discussed increasing of the share of settlement currencies for trade among them. They also discussed adjusting their reserve assets portfolio in a coordinated way.

At the SCO meeting held just before the BRIC summit and attended by China, Russia and India, China proposed to research the feasibility of using a super-sovereignty currency among SCO member countries.

Kazakhstan president Nursultan Nazarbayev proposed that trade among SCO countries be settled by currencies of member countries. He also suggested that a super-sovereignty currency used inside the SCO eventually become a SCO reserve currency. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev also supported the idea.

Wednesday, June 17, 2009

Pro-Israel Mouthpiece Says Freedom of Speech Dangerous

JINSA’ article says outlets who oppose future wars should be silenced—killed if necessary—by military strike

By Michael Collins Piper


ONE OF THE MOST INFLUENTIAL voices of the pro-Israel lobby has published a shocking essay suggesting that, in the future, there should be “military attacks” on journalists and media outlets that oppose American military ventures on behalf of Israel.

In the spring 2008 issue of its Journal of International Security Affairs, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), a particularly vocal force of the Jewish lobby, published a series of articles devoted to the subject: “The U.S. Military Faces the Future.”

One article, entitled “Wishful Thinking and Indecisive Wars,” written by Ralph Peters (described as “a retired U.S. Army officer”) states flatly that “Although it seems unthinkable now, future wars may require censorship, news blackouts and, ultimately, military attacks on the partisan media.”

The JINSA essay says “Freedom of the press stops when its abuse kills our soldiers and strengthens our enemies. Such a view arouses disdain today, but a media establishment that has forgotten any sense of sober patriotism may find that it has become tomorrow’s conventional wisdom.”

JINSA’s suggestion that the media in America opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq—a key demand by Israel and JINSA—flies in contrast to the truth. In fact, the major media banged the drum for war. AMERICAN FREE PRESS and a few independent newspapers strongly opposed this needless war.

So what JINSA is saying is that those independent media voices—such as AMERICAN FREE PRESS—that opposed the drive for war should ultimately face military violence if they oppose the Jewish lobby’s future military aims.

One analyst, University of Pennsylvania Prof. Edward Herman, has described JINSA as “organized and [run] by individuals closely tied to the Israeli lobby and can be regarded as a virtual agency of the Israeli government.”

JINSA was founded in the mid-1980s by Stephen Bryen. He, along with several of his close associates—including future George W. Bush administration officials Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith—was investigated by the FBI on charges of spying for Israel at various times. JINSA has worked to forge alliances between the Jewish lobby and former American military officials, treating them to international junkets and a variety of business and other financial bonanzas provided by Israeli sympathizers in America and around the globe in return for support for their blatantly pro-Israel policies.

Peters—whose pro-Israel articles are published regularly in The New York Post, owned by pro-Zionist billionaire Rupert Murdoch—is just one of those whose views on the military appeared in JINSA’s journal.

A recurring theme in the essays emphasized the need for the United States to coordinate its international ventures with its “allies,” that is, Israel. The essays underscore the idea that it is vital for the United States to engage in covert action to bring down regimes that stand in the way of Israel’s agenda. Written in “code,” so to speak, the essays carry the theme that Israel’s interests are those of America and vice-versa and that those who oppose Israel are “anti-American,” and that includes American military officers.

An essay by one Patrick Poole alleges that the distinguished Strategic Studies Institute at the U.S. Army War College is in the state of “strategic collapse” because it published a study saying that Hamas, the Palestinian faction, has been misunderstood due to misreporting by what the War College report says are “Israeli and Western sources that villainize the group.”

JINSA’s propagandist claims the War College “is only representative of a larger rot in the U.S. military’s halls of higher learning . . . [that] apparently runs through all levels of our military senior service schools. . . .”

The author of these attacks on American military leaders who refuse to pander to the Jewish lobby, Patrick Poole, is a ubiquitous Internet presence, writing pro-Israel screeds for Frontpagemag.com, the website of ex-communist-turned-neoconservative pro-Israel publicist David Horowitz. (Mister Goldbug - Don't you just love that? David Horowitz goes from being a communist to being a "Trotskyite neoconservative" (ref. Eustace Mullins).)

The record shows that increasing numbers of American military figures, and a host of ex-diplomats, intelligence officers and others are publicly challenging the Jewish lobby. They include Adm. “Fox” Fallon, former ambassadors Charles Freeman and Richard Peck, ex-CIA officers Michael Scheuer and Ray McGovern as well as top academics such as Dr. John Mearsheimer and Dr. Stephen Walt. And former President Jimmy Carter as well.

It is thus no surprise that influential Jewish voices, such as Forward, published in Manhattan, complain there is opposition to Israel within higher circles, a point that surprises many Americans who believe Israel has a firm stranglehold on the American intelligence, diplomatic and law enforcement apparatus.

On May 11, 2005, Forward reported that Barry Jacobs of the Washington office of the American Jewish Committee said there were high-ranking officials in the U.S. intelligence community who were hostile to Israel and unreceptive to pro-Israel lobbyists.

Citing the then-ongoing FBI investigation of espionage by officials of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), Forward noted that this top Jewish leader believed, in Forward’s summary, that “the notion that American Jews and Pentagon neo-conservatives conspired to push the United States into war against Iraq, and possibly also against Iran, is pervasive in Washington’s intelligence community.”

Although the Justice Department recently dropped its case against the AIPAC duo, the FBI investigators remained confident that their criminal case against the intriguers would have resulted in a conviction.

It has been a long-standing concern of JINSA that many in the military are tired of fighting wars for Israel. In the fall of 2006, JINSA’s journal suggested that a full-fledged witch-hunt was in order, designed to root out critics of Israel at high levels, implying that Israel’s critics were allied to “jihadist” fundamentalist Muslims. JINSA asked:

How deeply have jihadist elements infiltrated the U.S. government and federal agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, and various military commands, either through sympathizers or via actual operatives?

Since there are few Muslims in the FBI, Homeland Security, the Department of Defense etc, the suggestion that “jihadist” elements have “infiltrated” our government might seem silly to the average American. But JINSA—determined to enforce Israel’s demands on American foreign policy and military might—is concerned that there are growing numbers in the military, the FBI and the CIA who are opposed to wars for Israel—and this, in JINSA’s view, constitutes collaboration with the dreaded “jihadists.”

http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/pro-israel_mouthpiece_178.html

Monday, June 15, 2009

Federal Reserve Hires PR Firm to Fight Audit

NERVOUS THAT ITS BACKROOM money dealings may soon come under public scrutiny, the Federal Reserve is reportedly bringing in the big guns in an effort to quash Rep. Ron Paul’s landmark “Audit the Fed” bill (H.R. 1207), which has garnered 208 cosponsors as this issue goes to press—nearly half the members of the House of Representatives.

A national news wire service reported in early June that Linda Robertson, who currently heads up public relations for Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, has been brought in by the United States’ private central bank to polish its image.

Previously, Ms. Robertson served in top spots in both Republican and Democrat Treasury Departments. She also had a brief stint at the infamous energy company Enron, the Houston-based corporation that through fraud and deception, managed to fleece investors of billions of dollars.

Most notably, Ms. Robertson worked in the Treasury Department while Robert Rubin was secretary during the time in which the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 was rolled back. Rubin’s Treasury worked with Congress to formulate legislation, which allowed banks to form massive financial institutions by merging with investment firms and insurance companies.

These same megabanks, which formed as a result of the new rules, have now cost U.S. taxpayers trillions of dollars in bailout money.

“Members of Congress have chafed at the Fed’s bold use of its emergency powers and in particular its multi-billion-dollar bailouts of investment bank Bear Stearns and insurer American International Group,” Reuters reported in an article that broke the news about the Federal Reserve’s new hire.

“Critics also bristle at the Fed’s practice of maintaining the confidentiality of the companies that borrow directly from the central bank on the grounds that divulging their names would risk runs on those institutions.”

As a result, says Reuters, the Fed will be bringing on Ms. Robertson to act as its point man when it comes to dealing with Congress.

In May, the federal government’s Inspector General for the Federal Reserve Elizabeth Coleman testified before Congress that she does “not have jurisdiction to directly go out and audit Reserve Bank activities specifically.”

Rep. Paul has already stated that the intention of his bill is to open “all Fed operations to a GAO audit and calling for such an audit to be completed by the end of 2010, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act would achieve much-needed transparency of the Federal Reserve.”

Federal Reserve Hires PR Firm to Fight Audit

9/11 Truth Activist Sues Glenn Beck and Fox News for Defamation

This is wonderful news! Personally, I'd not only sue. I'd also prosecute if the possibility is there.

9/11 Truth Activist Sues Glenn Beck and Fox News for Defamation

An East Coast 9/11 truth activist is preparing to file a defamation lawsuit against TV / radio personality, Glenn Beck, the producers of the Glenn Beck Program, and the Fox News Channel.

Specifically, Greg Hoover will be suing the above-described defendants in Federal Court for Beck’s having repeatedly broadcast statements characterizing those who question the government’s official version of the events of 9/11 as, “anarchists,” “terrorists” and as persons denying the Holocaust.

The complaint will note that - on October 22, 2007 - Beck suggested that those identifying themselves as associated with the 9/11 truth movement are “dangerous” “anarchists” who deny the Holocaust, and are “the kind of group that Timothy McVeigh would come from.”

The suit will also note that during Beck’s June 10th broadcast Beck linked the murder of the Washington D.C. holocaust museum guard with “9/11 truthers.”

As I have previously written, suing people for defamation who falsely claim that 9/11activists are terrorists could be a good way to stand up to these bullies.

Hoover told me by email:

Copies of my actual initial filings will be available for media distribution within the upcoming week…

I do so having now cast off all other personal concerns. Having chosen sides… I’ll stand with the patriots.

Godspeed, Mr. Hoover.

I will update this post with links to Mr. Hoover’s complaint as soon as it is available.

Note: Mr. Hoover has not requested either legal or financial assistance. However, if you are an attorney experienced in defamation claims, please let me know, and I’ll pass on your name.

Saturday, June 13, 2009

Wall Street's Toxic Message Carried in the Winds of Change

Thought I'd post this to the blog. Jesse is always good as a source of information.

This has to do with piece former World Bank President Joseph Stiglitz wrote recently.

Jesse's post follows

Joe Stiglitz writes an important essay, and it is suggested that you take the time to read it. It helps to explain many of the things we have been saying, including the forecast that 'a new school of economics will rise from the ashes of this crisis, as Keynesianism rose from the Great Depression.'

These are changes of an historic nature, and as such they will progress slowly, and be largely unnoticed by those going about their daily business.

But the tides of change have been loosed, and what we have known, and relied upon, and expected will be shaken to its foundations.

Wall Street's Toxic Message by Joseph Stiglitz - Vanity Fair (pdf)

Friday, June 12, 2009

Jim Sinclair on CNN Your Money

Finally, they interview this man.

What's that Tonya Tucker song? It's a Little Too Late To Do The Right Thing Now?



"The degree of amoral sociopathic individuals are more on Wall Street than anywhere else on the planet. And you can't grow a conscience if you don't have one. I've lost sight in one eye. I tell you that blindness is not seeing dark, its simply not seeing. That's similar to the condition of a sociopath whose only purpose in life is to make money at any cost and to do any damage, and actually to enjoy the fact that you're doing that. That's what's called 'ripping faces off'. All laughing and filling up their wine glasses. Now its come home to roost." - Jim Sinclair

Thursday, June 11, 2009

Glenn Beck's Guilt By Association Charge

This is just amazing, although not unexpected. Glenn Beck has proved himself (not that he needed to with me) incredible.

This is one of the recent great gifts the mainstream media has been given in terms of having something to use for purposes of illegitimizing the patriotism of Americans who are concerned about the state of liberty in their country.

Yes, James von Brunn is a 9/11 Truther. He's a member of the Justice for 9/11 Petition for a New 9/11 Investigation, according to Screw Loose Change.

For anyone who doesn't know, James von Brunn has garnered some attention in the press recently for opening fire at the Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C. I'm not going to reprint the story here for purposes of brevity. Although I do encourage many to read as many different pieces on the story as you can find from differing news outlets to see how each one portrays James von Brunn differently.

James von Brunn is also known for making an attempted kidnapping on several members of the Federal Reserve Board in 1981, another tidbit of information I'm sure the mainstream media will love to use in their arguments that anyone who opposes the Federal Reserve is an antisemite.

The only reason Glenn Beck is arguing that it's okay to be against the Federal Reserve is more than likely because Jewish economist Ludwig von Mises said that it was okay. Von Mises never told us who owned the Fed and neither has Lew Rockwell.

And this is why magnifying von Brunn's incident is so important: to imply that if you're against the Federal Reserve and believe that 9/11 was an inside job, you're a Holocaust denier who wants to commit acts of violence.

I do have to wonder though how much of this was a choreographed publicity stunt. This is a gift that falls right into the hands of the ADL who are pushing for hate speech legislation and liberal Democrats who believe in gun control.

With one story, how many millions of Americans now fear that it's 1930s Germany ALL OVER AGAIN?

Accusing 9/11 Truthers of wanting to tear the country down is unconscionable and its slander and Glenn Beck should be taken to court over it. It's character assassination.

I'm sorry. I'm just not a boot-licking state worshiper. Too S&M for me I guess.

Tuesday, June 9, 2009

2nd Tuesday Constitution Group: Mission Statement

I just attended the second meeting of 2nd Tuesday's Constitution Group. The meetings are located at Mama Maria's in Salem, VA at 6:30pm.

Here follows their Mission Statement:

Our group of American patriots cdeclares full support of the Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The inherent Right of Man are forthrightly contained in these documents and are protected by them as the foundational laws of our nation and irrevocably granted by our Creator.

We espouse returning to a truly representative Constitutional Republic, one in which our elected representatives do, in fact, answer to those they represent. This can best be accomplished by educating the public on their duties as conscientious citizens of their county, state and nation.

We do not advocate any form of violence against the "long train of abuses and usurpations" by govenrment, nor do we promote any religious position or political party, as that would defeat our purpose.

We seek to reduce the size of government and intervention of government in our lives. Our efforts are primarily focused toward local and state issues. We demand the commonwealth resume its responsibility for those duties and rights ceded to the federal government maintaining the right of the citizenry to whom it is accountable. In turn, we expect local government to do likewise for those duties ceded to the state.

Saturday, June 6, 2009

Two Senate Republicans Neutralize Rep. Paul's Audit the Fed Bill

I'm surprised by this story found over at Huffington Post.

Wow. Some truth.

The story follows in bold:

Legislation to give Congress greater oversight of the Federal Reserve was severely watered down on the Senate floor Wednesday in private negotiations between two powerful Republican senators.

Thanks to an overlooked document posted on the website of Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, the top ranking Republican on the Finance Committee, voters can virtually watch the water being dumped into the brew that Grassley had hoped to force the Fed to drink. (See the document at the bottom of this story.)

On page five of Grassley's amendment, he intends to give the Comptroller General of the Government Accountability Office power to audit "any action taken by the Board under...the third undesignated paragraph of section 13 of the Federal Reserve Act" -- which would be almost everything that it has done on an emergency basis to address the financial crisis, encompassing its massive expansion of opaque buying and lending.

Handwritten into the margins, however, is the amendment that watered it down: "with respect to a single and specific partnership or corporation." With that qualification, the Senate severely limited the scope of the oversight.

On the Senate floor, Grassley named the top Republican on the banking committee, Richard Shelby of Alabama, as the man pouring the water.

"Although I would have preferred to include all of the Fed's emergency actions under 13(3), in consultation with Senator Shelby I agreed to limit my amendment to actions aimed at specific companies," said Grassley.

"This modified version of the amendment does not give GAO authority to look at all of that additional taxpayer risk. It is much narrower than the one I originally filed, but it is a reasonable step in the right direction, and it does not threaten monetary policy independence."

The original version of the amendment also scratches out congressional authority to oversee Fed actions as they relate to the TARP bailout or "similar authority that the Board exercises under urgent and exigent circumstances."

The Senate walked right up to the edge, thought about auditing the Fed, and with the stroke of a pen, backed off. (Or maybe it was a pencil.)

The action the Senate took, however, is not meaningless.

Grassley entered into the congressional record a list of Fed actions that do fall within the limits of the language in his amendment (which could still be eliminated in conference committee negotiations):

1. Actions related to Bear Stearns and its acquisition by JP Morgan Chase, including:

a. Loan To Facilitate the Acquisition of The Bear Stearns Companies, Inc. by JPMorgan Chase & Co. (Maiden Lane I)

b. Bridge Loan to The Bear Stearns Companies Inc. Through JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

2. Bank of America -- Authorization to Provide Residual Financing to Bank of America Corporation Relating to a Designated Asset Pool (taken in conjunction with FDIC and Treasury)

3. Citigroup -- Authorization to Provide Residual Financing to Citigroup, Inc., for a Designated Asset Pool (taken in conjunction with FDIC and Treasury)

4. Various actions to stabilize American International Group (AIG), including a revolving line of credit provided by the Federal Reserve as well as several credit facilities (listed below). AIG has also received equity from Treasury, through the TARP, which would also be captured in amendment #1020.

a. Secured Credit Facility Authorized for American International Group, Inc., on September 16, 2008

b. Restructuring of the Government's Financial Support to American International Group, Inc., on November 10, 2008 (Maiden Lane II and Maiden Lane III)

c. Restructuring of the Government's Financial Support to American International Group, Inc., on March 2, 2009

5. TALF -- finally, amendment #1020 would expand GAO's authority to oversee the TARP, including the joint Federal Reserve-Treasury Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (TALF)

*Neither* Amendment #1021 nor #1020 would include short-term liquidity facilities:

1. Asset-Backed Commercial Paper Money Market Mutual Fund Liquidity Facility
2. (AMLF)
3. Commercial Paper Funding Facility (CPFF)
4. Money Market Investor Funding Facility (MMIFF)
5. Primary Dealer Credit Facility and Other Credit for Broker-Dealers (PDCF)
6. Term Securities Lending Facility (TSLF)


Grassley and Shelby. Two bought and owned by Wall Street politicians.

ADL Director Declares War on Freedom of Speech

A MySpace friend of mine's blogspot, I guess? Anyway, I found this story interesting. Here's a little bit of evidence that supports the argument that the promotion of hate crime legislation is mainly pushed by Jewish supremacists (or their associations).

ADL Director Declares War on Freedom of Speech

The Anti-Defamation League Director for the Plains States Alan Potash, has just declared war against our First Amendment right to freedom of speech. Potash made the following statement, which was published in the May 26 edition of The Omaha World Herald.

“Dangers of hate,” was right to point out that freedom of speech does not extend to racist groups, nor give their supporters the right to threaten and intimidate others or commit acts of violence.

But when bigots step over the line, it is vital that law enforcement and the courts have the proper tools to respond effectively.

This is why Congress should move expeditiously to approve the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevent Act - legislation that would add protection for all citizens from violent acts of intolerance.

The bill, which was approved in the House last month, would equip local law enforcement officials with tools, training and resources to investigate and prosecute bias-motivated crimes.

Like acts of terrorism, hate crimes can hurt more than the individual victim. They can instill fear and insecurity within an entire community."
The Hate Crimes Prevention Act recently passed the Congress and is now on its way to the Senate, where it is likely to pass and signed by President Obama. The Anti-Defamation League has been at the forefront of promoting hate crime legislation, and openly advocates for their model anti-hate law. In 1988 the ADL gave out an award to law student Joseph Ribikoff for writing a proposed hate crime bill that would criminalize hate speech against gays and minorities.

On the ADL's website they state their mission is "to stop the defamation of the Jewish people and to secure justice and fair treatment to all." That sounds fair enough but the organization has gone out of its way to vilify anyone who disagrees with their political agenda. On a number of occasions as I have pointed out they have opposed the right to freedom of speech. The ADL has smeared as anti-semites, Professor John Mearsheimer for his book critical of the Israeli Lobby and former President Jimmy Carter for his book "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid". The ADL has also supported Europe and Canada's policies on prosecuting what their governments deem as hate speech. While they have aligned themselves with the Neoconservatives on the issue of Israel they have also joined with leftist organizations such as the Southern Poverty Center by smearing CNN's Lou Dobbs as well as Pat Buchanan for their views on immigration as racist while ignoring the fact that Israel's immigration policy makes Dobb's and Buchanan's look liberal in comparison.

The ADL claims to be fighting the defamation of the Jewish people but they are doing a grave disservice to Jewish Americans who believe in liberty and freedom of speech by claiming to advocate on their behalf. The ADL has also tried to stifle dissent within the Jewish community such as in the cases of Tony Judt and Norman Finkelstein.

Friday, June 5, 2009

Are Drug Companies Using Third-World People as Guinea Pigs?

(Natural News) Pharmaceutical companies are increasingly turning to the practice of testing their drugs on Third World populations in order to keep costs down, according to a report by researchers from Duke University, titled Ethical and Scientific Implications of the Globalization of Clinical Research.

The practice has raised concerns over exploitation of vulnerable populations and the accuracy of research conducted in such conditions."We don't want to imagine that lower-income countries are the clinical trial mill for higher-income countries," said lead author Kevin A. Schulman.

The Duke researchers compared the prevalence of clinical drug trial "outsourcing" by looking at the locations of 300 studies published in three major medical journals in either 1995 or 2005. They found that the number of countries taking part in clinical trials had increased by more than 100 percent over the course of those 10 years.

This finding is consistent with information gathered from the FDA by researchers from the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development. Researchers found that between 1997 and 2007, the percentage of FDA-registered principal investigators based in the United States has decreased from 86 percent to 54 percent.

Tufts researcher Kenneth A. Getz said that drug companies are motivated primarily by the lower cost of conducting research in the Third World, as well as the increased ease of recruiting study participants who have never received certain drugs.

Yet the relatively low cost of recruiting participants in the Third World may present a problem in itself, the Duke researchers warned, with poor people being unduly swayed by the promise of large payments and free medical treatment. Such obvious incentives could convince people to disregard the risks of participating in drug trials.

The researchers also expressed concern that drugs might act differently in the bodies of people living in significantly different environments and with drastically different developmental histories than First World populations."

There are issues with the interpretability of the findings" of outsourced studies, Glickman warned.

Sources for this story include: www.nytimes.com.

Thursday, June 4, 2009

Alex Jones and Jews in the Media

So Jason Bermas says that the world isn't ran by "Hook-nosed people don't run the world in some kind of cave while they suck the blood out of babies in some weird ritual you believe in."

While not all of them are hook-nosed (are any of them hook-nosed?), and I have yet to find a researcher who believe they operate from "some kind of cave", there is some legitimacy to the argument that they do "run the media."

BTW, not all of this information may be up to date. It's also possible this list is incomplete.

MORTIMER ZUCKERMAN - Owner of the New York Daily News, US News & World Report and chair of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish American Organizations, one of the largest pro-Israel lobbying groups.

LESLIE MOONVES, president of CBS television, great-nephew of David Ben-Gurion, and co-chair with Norman Ornstein of the Advisory Committee on Public Interest Obligation of Digital TV Producers, appointed by Clinton.

JONATHAN MILLER, chair and CEO of AOL division of AOL-Time-Warner

NEAL SHAPIRO, president of NBC News, resigned in 2005.

JEFF GASPIN, Executive Vice-President, Programming, NBC

DAVID WESTIN, president of ABC News

SUMNER REDSTONE (Murray Rothstein is his real name), CEO of Viacom, “world’s biggest media giant” (Economist, 11/23/2) owns Viacom cable, CBS and MTVs all over the world, Blockbuster video rentals and Black Entertainment TV.

MICHAEL EISNER, major owner of Walt Disney, Capitol Cities, ABC.

RUPERT MURDOCH, Owner Fox TV, New York Post, London Times, News of the World (Jewish mother) (Mister Goldbug - There seems to be some controversy over this one, controvery over whether or not its true that he's Jewish)

MEL KARMAZIN, president of CBS

DON HEWITT, Exec. Director, 60 Minutes, CBS

JEFF FAGER, Exec. Director, 60 Minutes II. CBS

DAVID POLTRACK, Executive Vice-President, Research and Planning, CBS

SANDY KRUSHOW, Chair, Fox Entertainment

LLOYD BRAUN, Chair, ABC Entertainment

BARRY MEYER, chair, Warner Bros.

SHERRY LANSING. President of Paramount Communications and Chairman of Paramount Pictures' Motion Picture Group.

HARVEY WEINSTEIN, CEO. Miramax Films.

BRAD SIEGEL., President, Turner Entertainment.

PETER CHERNIN, second in-command at Rupert Murdoch's News. Corp., owner of Fox TV

MARTY PERETZ, owner and publisher of the New Republic, which openly identifies itself as pro-Israel. Al Gore credits Marty with being his "mentor."

ARTHUR O. SULZBERGER, JR., publisher of the NY Times, the Boston Globe and other publications.

WILLIAM SAFIRE, syndicated columnist for the NYT.

TOM FRIEDMAN, syndicated columnist for the NYT.

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, syndicated columnist for the Washington Post. Honored by Honest Reporting.com, website monitoring "anti-Israel media."

RICHARD COHEN, syndicated columnist for the Washington Post

JEFF JACOBY, syndicated columnist for the Boston Globe

NORMAN ORNSTEIN, American Enterprise Inst., regular columnist for USA Today, news analyst for CBS, and co-chair with Leslie Moonves of the Advisory Committee on Public Interest Obligation of Digital TV Producers, appointed by Clinton.

ARI FLEISCHER, Dubya's press secretary.

STEPHEN EMERSON, every media outlet's first choice as an expert on domestic terrorism.

DAVID SCHNEIDERMAN, owner of the Village Voice and the New Times network of "alternative weeklies."

DENNIS LEIBOWITZ, head of Act II Partners, a media hedge fund

KENNETH POLLACK, for CIA analysts, director of Saban Center for Middle East Policy, writes op-eds in NY Times, New Yorker

BARRY DILLER, chair of USA Interactive, former owner of Universal Entertainment

KENNETH ROTH, Executive Director of Human Rights Watch

RICHARD LEIBNER, runs the N.S. Bienstock talent agency, which represents 600 news personalities such as Dan Rather, Dianne Sawyer and Bill O'Reilly.

TERRY SEMEL, CEO, Yahoo, former chair, Warner Bros.

MARK GOLIN, VP and Creative Director, AOL

WARREN LIEBERFORD, Pres., Warner Bros. Home Video Div. of AOL- TimeWarner

JEFFREY ZUCKER, President of NBC Entertainment

JACK MYERS, NBC, chief.NYT 5.14.2

SANDY GRUSHOW, chair of Fox Entertainment

GAIL BERMAN, president of Fox Entertainment

STEPHEN SPIELBERG, co-owner of Dreamworks

JEFFREY KATZENBERG, co-owner of Dreamworks

DAVID GEFFEN, co-owner of Dreamworks

LLYOD BRAUN, chair of ABC Entertainment

JORDAN LEVIN, president of Warner Bros. Entertainment

MAX MUTCHNICK, co-executive producer of NBC's "Good Morning Miami"

DAVID KOHAN, co-executive producer of NBC's "Good Morning Miami"

HOWARD STRINGER, chief of Sony Corp. of America

AMY PASCAL, chair of Columbia Pictures

JOEL KLEIN, chair and CEO of Bertelsmann's American operations

ROBERT SILLERMAN, founder of Clear Channel Communications

BRIAN GRADEN, president of MTV entertainment

IVAN SEIDENBERG, CEO of Verizon Communications

WOLF BLITZER (former lobbyist for AIPAC), host of CNN's Late Edition

LARRY KING, host of Larry King Live

TED KOPPEL, host of ABC's Nightline

ANDREA KOPPEL, CNN Reporter

PAULA ZAHN, CNN Host

MIKE WALLACE, Host of CBS, 60 Minutes

BARBARA WALTERS, Host, ABC's 20-20

MICHAEL LEDEEN, editor of National Review

BRUCE NUSSBAUM, editorial page editor, Business Week

DONALD GRAHAM, Chair and CEO of Newsweek and Washington Post, son of ATHERINE GRAHAM MEYER, former owner of the Washington Post

HOWARD FINEMAN, Chief Political Columnist, Newsweek

WILLIAM KRISTOL, Editor, Weekly Standard, Exec. Director Project for a New American Century (PNAC)

RON ROSENTHAL, Managing Editor, San Francisco Chronicle

PHIL BRONSTEIN, Executive Editor, San Francisco Chronicle

RON OWENS, Talk Show Host, KGO (ABC-Capitol Cities, San Francisco)

JOHN ROTHMAN, Talk Show Host, KGO (ABC-Capitol Cities, San Francisco)

MICHAEL SAVAGE, Talk Show Host, KFSO (ABC-Capitol Cities, San Francisco) Syndicated in 100 markets

MICHAEL MEDVED, Talk Show Host, on 124 AM stations

DENNIS PRAGER, Talk Show Host, nationally syndicated from LA. Has Israeli flag on his home page.

BEN WATTENBERG, Moderator, PBS Think Tank.

ANDREW LACK, president of NBC

DANIEL MENAKER, Executive Director, Harper Collins

DAVID REZNIK, Editor, The New Yorker

NICHOLAS LEHMANN, writer, the New York

HENRICK HERTZBERG, Talk of the Town editor, The New Yorker

SAMUEL NEWHOUSE JR, and DONALD NEWHOUSE own Newhouse Publications, includes 26 newspapers in 22 cities; the Conde Nast magazine group, includes The New Yorker; Parade, the Sunday newspaper supplement; American City Business Journals, business newspapers published in more than 30 major cities in America; and interests in cable television programming and cable systems serving 1 million homes.

Wednesday, June 3, 2009

"What Are We Protecting You From? A Wrong Cheeseburger?"



This is a perfect example of the dumbing down of America.

The Aldrich Plan

I haven't continued my "debunking Federal Reserve debunkers" series since March and I sincerely apologize. It seems I'm making apologies alot.

But better late than never right?

If you haven't read my first blog article, The Jekyll Island Hunt Club, on the Federal Reserve Conspiracy, you can read it here.

Let's review. B.C. Forbes wrote an article on the Jekyll Island meeting ten months before the Magazine was established in 1917. This was six years after the Jekyll Island meeting occurred which means that it was never read during the time it could have had a crucial impact on the turnout of what became the Federal Reserve.

The gestation period lasted between its conception period (1908) to the birth of the Fed (1913). After his European trip to learn about banking reform there is no evidence that Aldrich ever made a report on the results of his trip, nor had he offered any plan of banking reform. It was a waste of money at the taxpayers expense.

The first mention of the Jekyll Island meeting appeared in Nathaniel Wright Stephenson's biography on Aldrich, Chapter XXIV, "Jekyll Island", which was written in 1930. T.W. Lamont three years later stated in Harper that Henry P. Davison was the arbitrator of the Jekyll Island meeting. This was exactly 20 years after the Federal Reserve came into being, 23 years after the meeting itself.

Jekyll Island was chosen for its isolation and privacy as well as being the property of the very same millionaires who frequented the island for recreational purposes. In these instances when the island wasn't being used for hunting, the club's members were asked to not appear, so this became a conventional method of choice and was ideal for the preservation of secrecy that was needed in drafting the plan.

The agreement was made by the participants of this meeting to refer to each other by their first names only because their last names were too well known. The meeting lasted for two weeks with the "new servants brought in from the mainland for this occasion who did not know the names of any of those present," and was to be a one-time only outing because a second meeting would've raised public suspicion.

Paul Warburg created the title of the bank to conceal the reality of it being a privately-owned banking cartel that had control over the general direction of the economy, meaning that it could cause the stock market to rise and fall at whim.

Warburg established a Federal Reserve Board of Governors whose members would be appointed by the President but the real work would be handled by the Federal Advisory Council who would meet with the Board of Governors. The members of the Federal Advisory Council itself would be chosen by the directors of the twelve Federal Reserve banks.

Next, Warburg introduced the illusion that the Federal Reserve System wouldn't be dominated by the New York money markets by setting up the regional reserve system. As Mullins said in his book:


Few people outside the banking world would realize that the existing concentration of the nation's money and credit structure in New York made the proposal of a regional reserve system a delusion.
His most nefarious idea came last. The proposal that the bank should be subjected to executive approval by the President.

This meant the Federal Reserve was unconstitutional from its very inception. Ed Winston asks "Since when is the Federal Reserve Act unconstitutional?" Because Ed, it was drafted by a banker, Paul Warburg, when the constitution expresses that a bill originates in the house and is drawn up by a Congressman. Senator Aldrich shouldn't even have been in the meeting. Secondly it removes Congressianal control by subjecting the banks to the executive approval by the President. This deprived Congress of its sovereignty and destroyed the checks and balances of power set up by Thomas Jefferson.

Refer to Article 1, Sec. 8, Par. 5 of the Constitution. It says "coin", not "print".

Warburg never once made a mention of Jekyll Island in his 1,750 page length tome on the Federal Reserve.

Warburg however did admit on page 60 of his tome: The results of the conference were entirely confidential. Even the fact there had been a meeting was not permitted to become public.

On May 7th, 1910, Harper's Weekly noted:


Finance and the tariff are reserved by Nelson Aldrich as falling within his sole purview and jurisdiction. Mr. Aldrich is endeavoring to devise, through the National Monetary Commission, a banking and currency law. A great many hundred thousand persons are firmly of the opinion that Mr. Aldrich sums up in his personality the greatest and most sinister menace to the popular welfare of the United States. Ernest Newman recently said, 'What the South visits on the Negro in a political way, Aldrich would mete out to the mudsills of the North, if he could devise a safe and practical way to accomplish it.'
The participants in the Jekyll Island conference returned to New York to direct a nationwide propaganda campaign in favor of the "Aldrich Plan". Three of the leading universities, Princeton, Harvard, and the University of Chicago, were used as the rallying points for this propaganda, and national banks had to contribute to a fund of five million dollars to persuade the American public that this central bank plan should be enacted into law by Congress.

Woodrow Wilson, governor of New Jersey and former president of Princeton University, was enlisted as a spokesman for the Aldrich Plan. During the Panic of 1907, Wilson had declared:



All this trouble could be averted if we appointed a committee of six or seven public-spirited men like J.P. Morgan to handle the affairs of our country.
In his biography of Nelson Aldrich in 1930, Stephenson says:


A pamphlet was issued January 16, 1911, 'Suggested Plan for Monetary Legislation', by Hon. Nelson Aldrich, based on Jekyll Island conclusions.
Stephenson says on page 388:


An organization for financial progress has been formed. Mr. Warburg introduced a resolution authorizing the establishment of the Citizens' League, later the National Citizens League . . . Professor Laughlin of the University of Chicago was given charge of the League's propaganda.
It is notable that Stephenson characterizes the work of the National Citizens League as "propaganda", in line with Seligman's exposition of Warburg's work as "the education of the country" and "to break down prejudices".

Much of the five million dollars of the bankers slush fund was spent under the auspices of the National Citizens' League, which was made up of college professors. The two most tireless propagandists for the Aldrich Plan were Professor O.M. Sprague of Harvard, and J. Laurence Laughlin of the University of Chicago.

Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh, Sr. notes:



J. Laurence Laughlin, Chairman of the Executive Committee of the National Citizens' League since its organization, has returned to his position as professor of political economics in the University of Chicago. In June, 1911, Professor Laughlin was given a year's leave from the university, that he might give all of his time to the campaign of education undertaken by the League . . . He has worked indefatigably, and it is largely due to his efforts and his persistence that the campaign enters the final stage with flattering prospects of a successful outcome . . . The reader knows that the University of Chicago is an institution endowed by John D. Rockefeller, with nearly fifty million dollars.
In his biography of Nelson Aldrich, Stephenson reveals that the Citizens' League was also a Jekyll Island product. In chapter 24 we find that:


The Aldrich Plan was represented to Congress as the result of three years of work, study and travel by members of the National Monetary Commission, with expenditures of more than three hundred thousand dollars.

In 1911, the Aldrich Plan became part of the official platform of the Republican Party.
Testifying before the Committee on Rules, December 15, 1911, after the Aldrich plan had been introduced in Congress, Congressman Lindbergh stated:


Our financial system is a false one and a huge burden on the people . . . I have alleged that there is a Money Trust. The Aldrich plan is a scheme plainly in the interest of the Trust . . . Why does the Money Trust press so hard for the Aldrich Plan now, before the people know what the money trust has been doing?
Lindbergh continued his speech:


The Aldrich Plan is the Wall Street Plan. It is a broad challenge to the Government by the champion of the Money Trust. It means another panic, if necessary, to intimidate the people. Aldrich, paid by the Government to represent the people, proposes a plan for the trusts instead. It was by a very clever move that the National Monetary Commission was created. In 1907, nature responded most beautifully and gave this country the most bountiful crop it had ever had. Other industries were busy too, and from a natural standpoint all the conditions were right for a most prosperous year. Instead, a panic entailed enormous losses upon us.

Wall Street knew the American people were demanding a remedy against the recurrence of such a ridiculously unnatural condition. Most Senators and Representatives fell into the Wall Street trap and passed the Aldrich Vreeland Emergency Currency Bill. But the real purpose was to get a monetary commission which would frame a proposition for amendments to our currency and banking laws which would suit the Money Trust. The interests are now busy everywhere educating the people in favor of the Aldrich Plan. It is reported that a large sum of money has been raised for this purpose. Wall Street speculation brought on the Panic of 1907. The depositors' funds were loaned to gamblers and anybody the Money Trust wanted to favour. Then when the depositors wanted their money, the banks did not have it. That made the panic.
Edward Vreeland, co-author of the bill, wrote in the August 25, 1910 Independent (which was owned by Aldrich):


Under the proposed monetary plan of Senator Aldrich, monopolies will disappear, because they will not be able to make more than four percent interest and monopolies cannot continue at such a low rate. Also, this will mark the disappearance of the Government from the banking business.
Edward Vreeland's fantastic claims were typical of the propaganda flood unleashed to pass the Aldrich Plan. Monopolies would disappear, the Government would disappear from the banking business. Pie in the sky.

Nation Magazine, January 19, 1911, noted:



The name of Central Bank is carefully avoided, but the 'Federal Reserve Association', the name given to the proposed central organization, is endowed with the usual powers and responsibilities of a European Central Bank.
After the National Monetary Commission had returned from Europe, it held no official meetings for nearly two years. No records or minutes were ever presented showing who had authored the Aldrich Plan. Since they held no official meetings, the members of the commission could hardly claim the Plan as their own. The sole tangible result of the Commission's three hundred thousand dollar expenditure was a library of thirty massive volumes on European banking.

Typical of these works is a thousand page history of the Reichsbank, the central bank which controlled money and credit in Germany, and whose principal stockholders were the Rothschilds and Paul Warburg's family banking house of M.M. Warburg Company. The Commission's records show that it never functioned as a deliberative body. Indeed, its only "meeting" was the secret conference held at Jekyll Island, and this conference is not mentioned in any publication of the Commission. Senator Cummins passed a resolution in Congress ordering the Commission to report on January 8, 1912, and show some constructive results of its three years' work. In the face of this challenge, the National Monetary Commission ceased to exist.

With their five million dollars as a war chest, the Aldrich Plan propagandists waged a no-holds barred war against their opposition. Andrew Frame testified before the House Banking and Currency Committee of the American Bankers Association. He represented a group of Western bankers who opposed the Aldrich Plan:


CHAIRMAN CARTER GLASS: Why didn't the Western bankers make themselves heard when the American Bankers Association gave its unqualified and, we are assured, unanimous approval of the scheme proposed by the National Monetary Commission?

ANDREW FRAME: I'm glad you called my attention to that. When that monetary bill was given to the country, it was but a few days previous to the meeting of the American Bankers Association in New Orleans in 1911. There was not one banker in a hundred who had read that bill. We had twelve addresses in favor of it. General Hamby of Austin, Texas, wrote a letter to President Watts asking for a hearing against the bill. He did not get a very courteous answer. I refused to vote on it, and a great many other bankers did likewise.

MR. BULKLEY: Do you mean that no member of the Association could be heard in opposition to the bill?

ANDREW FRAME: They throttled all argument.

MR. KINDRED: But the report was given out that it was practically unanimous.

ANDREW FRAME: The bill had already been prepared by Senator Aldrich and presented to the executive council of the American Bankers Association in May, 1911. As a member of that council, I received a copy the day before they acted upon it. When the bill came in at New Orleans, the bankers of the United States had not read it.

MR. KINDRED: Did the presiding officer simply rule out those who wanted to discuss it negatively?

ANDREW FRAME: They would not allow anyone on the program who was not in favor of the bill.

CHAIRMAN GLASS: What significance has the fact that at the next annual meeting of the American Bankers Association held at Detroit in 1912, the Association did not reiterate its endorsement of the plan of the National Monetary Commission, known as the Aldrich scheme?

ANDREW FRAME: It did not reiterate the endorsement for the simple fact that the backers of the Aldrich Plan knew that the Association would not endorse it. We were ready for them, but they did not bring it up.
Andrew Frame exposed the collusion which in 1911 procured an endorsement of the Aldrich Plan from the American Bankers Association but which in 1912 did not even dare to repeat its endorsement, for fear of an honest and open discussion of the merits of the plan.

Chairman Glass then called as witness one of the ten most powerful bankers in the United States, George Blumenthal, partner of the international banking house of Lazard Freres and brother-in-law of Eugene Meyer, Jr.. Carter Glass effusively welcomed Blumenthal, stating that "Senator O'Gorman of New York was kind enough to suggest your name to us." A year later, O'Gorman prevented a Senate Committee from asking his master, Paul Warburg, any embarrassing questions before approving his nomination as the first Governor of the Federal Reserve Board.

George Blumenthal stated, "Since 1893 my firm of Lazard Freres has been foremost in importations and exportations of gold and has thereby come into contact with everybody who had anything to do with it."

Congressman Taylor asked, "Have you a statement there as to the part you have had in the importation of gold into the United States?" Taylor asked this because the Panic of 1893 is known to economists as a classic example of a money panic caused by gold movements.

"No," replied George Blumenthal, "I have nothing at all on that, because it is not bearing on the question."

A banker from Philadelphia, Leslie Shaw, dissented with other witnesses at these hearings, criticizing the much vaunted "decentralization" of the System. He said:


Under the Aldrich Plan the bankers are to have local associations and district associations, and when you have a local organization, the centered control is assured. Suppose we have a local association in Indianapolis; can you not name the three men who will dominate that association? And then can you not name the one man everywhere else. When you have hooked the banks together, they can have the biggest influence of anything in this country, with the exception of the newspapers.
To promote the Democratic currency bill, Carter Glass made public the sorry record of the Republican efforts of Senator Aldrich's National Monetary Commission. His House Report in 1913 said:

Senator MacVeagh fixes the cost of the National Monetary Commission to May 12, 1911 at $207,130. They have since spent another hundred thousand dollars of the taxpayer's money. The work done at such cost cannot be ignored, but, having examined the extensive literature published by the Commission, the Banking and Currency Committee finds little that bears upon the present state of the credit market of the United States. We object to the Aldrich Bill on the following points:

Its entire lack of adequate government or public control of the banking mechanism it sets up.

Its tendency to throw voting control into the hands of the large banks of the system.

The extreme danger of inflation of currency inherent in the system.

The insincerity of the bond-funding plan provided for by the measure, there being a barefaced pretense that this system was to cost the government nothing.

The dangerous monopolistic aspects of the bill.

Our Committee at the outset of its work was met by a well-defined sentiment in favor of a central bank which was the manifest outgrowth of the work that had been done by the National Monetary Commission.
Glass's denunciation of the Aldrich Bill as a central bank plan ignored the fact that his own Federal Reserve Act would fulfill all the functions of a central bank. Its stock would be owned by private stockholders who could use the credit of the Government for their own profit; it would have control of the nation's money and credit resources; and it would be a bank of issue which would finance the government by "mobilizing" credit in time of war. In "The Rationale of Central Banking," Vera C. Smith (Committee for Monetary Research and Education, June, 1981) writes:

The primary definition of a central bank is a banking system in which a single bank has either a complete or residuary monopoly in the note issue. A central bank is not a natural product of banking development. It is imposed from outside or comes into being as the result of Government favors.
Thus a central bank attains its commanding position from its government granted monopoly of the note issue. This is the key to its power. Also, the act of establishing a central bank has a direct inflationary impact because of the fractional reserve system, which allows the creation of book-entry loans, and thereby money, a number of times [greater than] the actual "money" which the bank has in its deposits or reserves.

The Aldrich Plan never came to a vote in Congress, because the Republicans lost control of the House in 1910, and subsequently lost the Senate and the Presidency in 1912.

Supreme Hypocrisy

A nice piece over at Modern History Project

"If Judge Sonia Sotomayor is confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court, she will be the sixth Roman Catholic of the nine justices... Two other justices — Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer — are Jewish. When Justice David Souter, an Episcopalian, soon retires, Justice John Paul Stevens will be the lone Protestant." -- AP News

Many Catholic lawyers belong to an organization called the "Thomas More Society", named for their patron saint. Each year, the Society sponsors the "Red Mass" (see photos) at the opening of the Supreme Court sessions in both the U.S. and Canada. Is this ominous ritual compatible with the separation of Church and State?

"St. Thomas More, counsellor and advocate, learned in the law, chancellor of charity and jurist of justice, merry martyr, scholar and canonized saint, may the Lord of all law and of all lawyers make me at your request a little more like you today than I was yesterday." -- Prayer to St. Thomas More
One of "saint" Thomas More's famous persecutions was that of William Tyndale, the Protestant hero (and ex-Catholic) who produced and distributed the first English translations of the Bible in defiance of the papacy. Thomas More, to whom these Catholic lawyers pray for guidance, and the Bishop of London arranged to have Tyndale burned alive as a "heretic" for his defence of religious freedom and his criticism of the corrupt Roman Church.

"Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered." -- Luke 11:52

Tuesday, June 2, 2009

Sonia Sotomayor and Obama’s Idea of Justice

If Sonia Sotomayor was indeed and is still indeed a member of the National Council of La Raza, then this is bad news. The minority right activists in this country are going to crucify Buchanan for this.

One of the arguments that is sure to be made against Buchanan is anything the may look two-faced on in these issues. This is done to sidetrack the issue, make it seem less important, just so that the Latino population can be allowed to be racist.

Isn't it interesting that every ethnicity is allowed to be racist except for whites? Well, I guess their reasoning is that since whites were racist for so long, now its time to let the minorities be racist as well. Hey, it's alright! Equal rights and all that!

I'm however looking to the sky, constantly watching, keeping my eyes open....

In all seriousness, I don't care what race you are. What I'm against is activist judges using the "implied powers" of the Constitution to enact legislation that expands the government's power into doing things that they think the government should do. And this includes any type of racial profiling or discrimination.

We've really become more obsessed about racial identities in our pursuit for "equal rights" than we have ever before.


Sonia Sotomayor and Obama's Idea of Justice

by Pat Buchanan

When you think about it, Sonia Sotomayor is the perfect pick for the Supreme Court — in Barack Obama’s America.

Like Obama, himself a beneficiary of affirmative action, she thinks “Latina women,” because of their life experience, make better judicial decisions than white men, that discrimination against white men to advance people of color is what America is all about, that appellate courts are “where policy is made” in the United States.

To those who believe the depiction of our first Hispanic justice as an anti-white liberal judicial activist, hearken to her own words.

Speaking at Berkeley in 2001, Sonia told her audience, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion (as a judge) than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

Imagine if Sam Alito had said at Bob Jones University, “I would hope that a wise white male with the richness of his life experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Hispanic woman, who hasn’t lived that life.”

Alito would have been toast. No explanation, no apology would have spared him. He would have been branded for life a white bigot.

Judge Sotomayor will be excused because the media agree with her and she is a Latina who will use her court seat to impose upon the nation the values of the National Council of La Raza (The Race), of which she is a member.

Indeed, she sees this as her mission. Speaking at Duke in 2005, Sotomayor declared: “(The) court of appeals is where policy is made. I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don’t make law I know.” She and the audience joined in the laughter.

Who were they laughing at? Americans who still believe the role of judges is to apply the Constitution as the Framers intended and to interpret the law as written by our elected legislators.

In Barack Obama’s America, that is so yesterday.

Sotomayor’s support for discrimination against white males was on exhibit when Ricci v. DeStefano came before a three-judge panel of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals on which Sotomayor sits.

Frank Ricci is the New Haven firefighter who, suffering from dyslexia but desperate to realize his dream of becoming an officer, quit his second job, bought $1,000 worth of books and had a friend read them to him to prepare for the crucial exam. He made it, coming in sixth among 77 firefighters, qualifying for promotion to lieutenant.

A problem immediately arose. Seems that of those who qualified for promotion, all but one were white, and he was a Hispanic.

Can’t have that. So, the New Haven City Council, under pressure from the usual suspects, threw out the tests, refused to promote Ricci or any white firemen, and called for new tests — to produce greater diversity.

In other words, get rid of at least some of those white guys who somehow managed to come in near or at the top of their class.

Ricci and 19 other firemen sued, claiming they had been denied the promotions they had won for one reason: They were white.

What did Sotomayor’s three-judge panel do with Ricci’s appeal of the district court decision that turned him down? She tried to kill and bury it in a single dismissive unpublished paragraph so Ricci and the white firefighters would never get a hearing in the Supreme Court.

Stuart Taylor, former New York Times Supreme Court reporter and a National Journal columnist, charges Sotomayor with engaging “in a process so peculiar as to fan suspicions that some or all of the judges were embarrassed by the ugliness of the actions that they were blessing and were trying to sweep quietly under the rug, perhaps to avoid Supreme Court review or public criticism, or both.”

Had it not been for the intervention of Judge Jose Cabranes — a Clinton appointee outraged that so momentous a case was being put in a dumpster — Sotomayor’s misconduct might never have been uncovered, and those firemen would forever be denied their chance for justice.

The process by which Sotomayor was selected testifies to what we can expect in Obama’s America. Not a single male was in the final four. And she was picked over the three other women because she was a person of color, a “two-fer.” Affirmative action start to finish.

Reading 30 of her opinions, GW law professor Jonathan Turley found them “notable” for “lack of depth.”

Liberal law professor and Supreme Court expert Jeff Rosen of The New Republic reports, after talking to prosecutors and law clerks, that Sotomayor covers up her intellectual inadequacy by bullying from the bench.

The lady is a lightweight.

What should Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee do?

Abjure the vicious tactics Democrats used on Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito. Lay out the lady’s record. And let America get a close look at the kind of justice Barack Obama believes in.

Monday, June 1, 2009

Lincoln as Hitler - Southern Avenger

Another home run hit by the Southern Avenger.