How Goldman Sachs Made Tens of B of $ from the Economic Collapse

How Goldman Sachs Made Tens of Billions of Dollars from the Economic Collapse of America

by The Economic Collapse Blog


The Economic Collapse - 2010-01-02

Investment banking giant Goldman Sachs has become perhaps the most prominent symbol for everything that is wrong with the U.S. financial system, but most Americans cannot even begin to explain what they do or how they have made tens of billions of dollars from the economic collapse of America. The truth is that what Goldman Sachs did was fairly simple, and there may not have even been anything "illegal" about it (although they are now being investigated by the SEC among others).

The following is how Goldman Sachs made tens of billions of dollars from the economic collapse of America in four easy steps....

Step 1: Sell mortgage-related securities that are absolute junk to trusting clients at vastly overinflated prices.

Step 2: Bet against those same mortgage-related securities and make massive bets against the U.S. housing market so that your firm will make massive profits when the U.S. economy collapses.

Step 3: Have ex-Goldman executives in key positions of power in the U.S. government so that bailout money can be funneled to entities such as AIG that Goldman has made these bets with so that they can get paid after they win their bets.

Step 4: Collect the profits - Goldman Sachs is having their "most successful year" and will end up reporting approximately $50 billion in revenue for 2009.

So is it right for the biggest fish on Wall Street to make tens of billions of dollars by betting that the U.S. housing market will collapse?

You see, when you are talking about a financial giant the size of Goldman Sachs, the line between "betting that something will happen" and "making something happen" gets blurred very quickly.

Not that Goldman Sachs was the only one betting against the housing market.

According to the New York Times, firms like Deutsche Bank and Morgan Stanley also created mortgage-related securities and then bet that they would fail.....

Goldman was not the only firm that peddled these complex securities — known as synthetic collateralized debt obligations, or C.D.O.’s — and then made financial bets against them, called selling short in Wall Street parlance. Others that created similar securities and then bet they would fail, according to Wall Street traders, include Deutsche Bank and Morgan Stanley, as well as smaller firms like Tricadia Inc.

But certainly Goldman Sachs was the most prominent financial player involved in this type of activity.

In fact, without mentioning specifics, Goldman has even admitted publicly to wrongdoing. On November 17th, 2008 Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein even issued a public apology....

"We participated in things that were clearly wrong and have reason to regret."

But complicated financial transactions are something that most Americans simply do not understand, so the public outrage towards Goldman Sachs and others has been somewhat limited. But that does not change the very serious nature of the activities that Goldman was involved in....

"The simultaneous selling of securities to customers and shorting them because they believed they were going to default is the most cynical use of credit information that I have ever seen," Sylvain Raynes, an expert in structured finance at R & R Consulting in New York,recently told The New York Times. "When you buy protection against an event that you have a hand in causing, you are buying fire insurance on someone else’s house and then committing arson."

But the sad thing is that many Americans do not even understand what Goldman Sachs is. Goldman Sachs was founded in 1869 and has forged a reputation as one of the elite financial institutions in the entire world. They only hire "the best and the brightest" and Ivy League graduates flock to the firm. Of the five major investment banks that dominated Wall Street before the crash, only Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley have survived. Merrill Lynch and Bear Stearns were severely damaged by the crash and ended up being purchased by retail banks and Lehman Brothers ended up folding.

There are persistent rumors that Goldman played a major role in the collapse of Bear Stearns and that ex-Goldman CEO Hank Paulson could have done much more to bail out Lehman Brothers, but perhaps nobody will ever know the full truth. All we do know is that at the end of the crash several of Goldman's competitors were destroyed and Goldman found itself in a more dominant position than ever.

The truth is that Goldman is a financial shark and they do not apologize for it.

An article in Rolling Stone recently put it this way....

"The first thing you need to know about Goldman Sachs is that it's everywhere. The world's most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money."

So how did Goldman Sachs prosper so greatly in an environment that destroyed their competitors?

The following is an extended breakdown of just how Goldman Sachs was able to reap tens of billions of dollars in profits from the collapse of the U.S. housing market....

Step 1: Sell mortgage-related securities that are absolute junk to trusting clients at vastly overinflated prices.

In late 2006, Goldman Sachs made some fundamental changes in the way that they were approaching the U.S. housing market. According to a McClatchy report, Goldman spokesman Michael DuVally said that the firm decided at that time to reduce its mortgage risks by selling off subprime mortgage-related securities and by purchasing credit-default swaps to hedge against a serious downturn in the U.S. housing market.

The key moment came in December 2006. After "10 straight days of losses" in Goldman's mortgage business, Chief Financial Officer David Viniar called a meeting of key Goldman personnel.

Vanity Fair described the results of that meeting this way....

"After a now famous meeting in David Viniar’s office on December 14, 2006, Goldman’s traders began to protect the firm against further declines in the market. Just as you can short the S&P 500, the traders took short positions in an index that tracked the price of mortgage-backed securities. They also either sold assets they owned to others at losses or dramatically marked down the price on their own books. In the aftermath of the crisis, criticism erupted that Goldman had continued to sell mortgage-backed securities to its clients while betting against those very securities for its own account. Clearly, in the simplest terms possible, this is true: while Goldman was never the biggest underwriter of C.D.O.’s (collateralized debt obligations—Wall Street’s vehicle of choice for mortgage-backed securities), the firm did remain in the top five until the summer of 2007, when the market crashed to a halt."

So Goldman Sachs proceeded to sell approximately $39 billion of its own mortgage securities in 2006 and 2007 and they sold at least $17 billion more mortgage securities for others, but they never told the buyers of those securities that Goldman was secretly betting that a significant drop in U.S. housing prices would send the value of those mortgage securities plummeting.

These sales and the massive clandestine wagers placed by Goldman enabled the firm to pass most of its potential losses on to others prior to the collapse of the U.S. housing market.

But many of the investors who got the short end of the stick were not pleased. When they discovered that what Goldman had promoted as triple-A rated investments were actually a bunch of garbage, many of them were absolutely furious.

"The Securities and Exchange Commission should be very interested in any financial company that secretly decides a financial product is a loser and then goes out and actively markets that product or very similar products to unsuspecting customers without disclosing its true opinion," said Boston University economics professor Laurence Kotlikoff. "This is fraud and should be prosecuted."

One of the victims of this fraud was the state of Mississippi....

"Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood, whose state has lost $5 million of the $6 million it invested in Goldman's subprime mortgage-backed bonds in 2006, said the state's funds are likely to lose "hundreds of millions of dollars" on those and similar bonds."

Another one of the victims of this fraud was California's retirement system for public employees....

"California's huge public employees' retirement system, known as CALPERS, purchased $64.4 million in subprime mortgage-backed bonds from Goldman on March 1, 2007. While that represented a tiny percentage of the fund's holdings, in July CALPERS listed the bonds' value at $16.6 million, a drop of nearly 75 percent, according to documents obtained through a state public records request."

So who is left holding the bag in cases such as these?

The taxpayers.

And that is just fine with Goldman Sachs. Just as long as they keep raking in huge profits.

Vanity Fair was even more blunt regarding this injustice....

"Goldman’s management team was almost flawless in its execution. But how many people needed government help because of the things Goldman sold them?"

The truth is that a lot of people needed help because of the things Goldman sold them, but up until now Goldman has completely gotten away with it.

Step 2: Bet against those same mortgage-related securities and make massive bets against the U.S. housing market so that your firm will make massive profits when the U.S. economy collapses.

Not only did Goldman sell mortgage-related securities that were absolute junk to investors at vastly overinflated prices, they also placed massive bets that the U.S. housing market would absolutely collapse.

The New York Times recently described how Goldman used a new index known as the ABX to make many of these bets....

"A handful of investors and Wall Street traders, however, anticipated the crisis. In 2006, Wall Street had introduced a new index, called the ABX, that became a way to invest in the direction of mortgage securities. The index allowed traders to bet on or against pools of mortgages with different risk characteristics, just as stock indexes enable traders to bet on whether the overall stock market, or technology stocks or bank stocks, will go up or down.

Goldman, among others on Wall Street, has said since the collapse that it made big money by using the ABX to bet against the housing market. Worried about a housing bubble, top Goldman executives decided in December 2006 to change the firm’s overall stance on the mortgage market, from positive to negative, though it did not disclose that publicly."

These bets would only make money for Goldman Sachs if the U.S. housing market declined.

So if the biggest giant on Wall Street has a huge financial incentive to see the U.S. housing market fail, what do you think the odds are that they are going to do anything to support it?

Step 3: Have ex-Goldman executives in key positions of power in the U.S. government so that bailout money can be funneled to entities such as AIG that Goldman has made these bets with so that they could get paid.

For years, Goldman Sachs has encouraged executives to serve in U.S. government positions. Now they are world famous for the amount of influence their former employees have over government policy.

For example, according to the New York Times, Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson (also a former Goldman CEO) spoke with the current CEO of Goldman Sachs about two dozen times during the week of the bailout, although Paulson says that he obtained an "ethics waiver" before doing so.

So does an "ethics waiver" make everything okay?

But the sad thing is that is not an isolated example.

It turns out that Goldman benefited greatly from a number of decisions made by their former CEO while he was Treasury Secretary....

*Goldman greatly benefited when Paulson elected not to save rival Lehman Brothers from collapse. Paulson certainly stepped in to help Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and AIG, but apparently had no problem with letting Lehman Brothers fall apart.

*Under Paulson's direction, Goldman ended up receiving bailout money (which they may or may not have needed) from the U.S. government and has since paid back much of that money with interest. So why didn't Bear Stearns or Lehman Brothers get the bailout funds that they needed?

*Goldman greatly benefitted when Paulson organized a massive rescue of American International Group while in constant telephone contact with Goldman CEO Blankfein. AIG ultimately ended up using $12.9 billion taxpayer dollars to pay off every single penny that it owed to Goldman.

But it is not just Paulson who has had significant influence in Washington.

On October 16th, Adam Storch, a Goldman Sachs vice president, was named managing executive of the SEC's enforcement division. What do you think the odds are that he will crack down hard on Goldman?

In addition, former Goldman Sachs lobbyist Mark Patterson is the chief of staff for current Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.

In fact, ex-Goldman employees are seemingly everywhere. According to Vanity Fair, at one G-7 meeting an anonymous source identified at least 24 out of 32 finance officials in attendance as ex-Goldman employees.

The influence of Goldman Sachs even reaches to the White House. Goldman was Barack Obama's number one campaign donor, and its employees gave $981,000 to his campaign.

If you don't think that kind of money does not buy influence then you are delusional.

Goldman used some of that powerful influence to get the U.S. government to bail out AIG so that AIG could pay off the bets that Goldman had made with them. In a recent article, Vanity Fair described part of what went down....

"After the government bailout of A.I.G., in order to end the collateral calls on the insurance giant, the New York Federal Reserve—whose chairman at the time was former Goldman chairman Steve Friedman—decided to purchase a slew of the securities that A.I.G. had insured, including $14 billion of those on which Goldman had purchased insurance. The government—meaning taxpayers—did so at full price, although according to a recent Bloomberg story, there had been negotiations with A.I.G. to do so at a 40 percent discount. Goldman says that the New York Fed broached the topic of a discount only once. The firm’s response: a flat no. While no one will ever know what would have happened had A.I.G. gone under, the essence of what did happen is perfectly clear. As a recent report by the Office of the Special Inspector General for tarpput it, the decision to pay full price “effectively transferred tens of billions of dollars of cash from the Government to A.I.G.’s counterparties.” Or to put it another way: because Goldman felt it was owed its billions by A.I.G., the firm took it from taxpayers instead."

So what about all of the thousands of small businesses that are failing and what about the millions of Americans that are losing their jobs and homes?

Do they get bailouts?

Of course not.

But the U.S. government definitely made sure that AIG and Goldman were taken care of.

Step 4: Collect the profits - Goldman Sachs is having their "most successful year" and will end up reporting approximately $50 billion in revenue for 2009.

Goldman Sachs ranks #1 in annual net income when compared with 86 peers in the investment services sector. They are on course for their best year ever.

Yes, they are having a really good "crisis".

Goldman Sachs is on course to surpass $50 billion in revenue in 2009 and to pay its employees more than $20 billion in year-end bonuses.

20 billion just in bonuses?

That would mean that the average bonus for all Goldman employees would be over $700,000.

No wonder everyone wants to work for them.

It's good to be on the winning side.

So just how are they making so much money?

In their recent article, Vanity Fair described it this way....

"But because so many of Goldman’s competitors were gone or disabled, spreads—the difference between the price at which you sell and buy a variety of securities—were wider than they had been in years, meaning that Goldman could practically mint money. By acting at the moment it did, with Lehman out and Merrill Lynch down for the count, the government enabled this situation.

The other reason for Goldman’s profits is that the government has flooded the system with money, not just the money it used to rescue the financial system but hundreds of billions more in stimulus, in support of the housing market, and in the Federal Reserve’s purchases of securities."

But all of this success has not come without controversy. In fact, Goldman executives are very much aware of the growing backlash against the firm.

Senior officials at Goldman Sachs have reportedly loaded up on firearms and are now equipped to defend themselves if there is a "populist uprising" against the bank.

In addition, Goldman Sachs employees are now not allowed to gather in groups of 12 or more outside the office. The firm very much discouraged "holiday parties" as they most definitely did not want to be seen as celebrating the downfall of the U.S. economy.

But the truth is that Goldman Sachs won because so many others lost.

In his very revealing article on Goldman Sachs in Rolling Stone, Matt Taibbi described how Goldman keeps making money from the bursting of these economic bubbles....

"They achieve this using the same playbook over and over again. The formula is relatively simple: Goldman positions itself in the middle of a speculative bubble, selling investments they know are crap. Then they hoover up vast sums from the middle and lower floors of society with the aid of a crippled and corrupt state that allows it to rewrite the rules in exchange for the relative pennies the bank throws at political patronage. Finally, when it all goes bust, leaving millions of ordinary citizens broke and starving, they begin the entire process over again, riding in to rescue us all by lending us back our own money at interest, selling themselves as men above greed, just a bunch of really smart guys keeping the wheels greased. They've been pulling this same stunt over and over since the 1920s — and now they're preparing to do it again, creating what may be the biggest and most audacious bubble yet."

The truth is that in this latest economic collapse there were millions of losers and just a few winners.

Goldman Sachs was one of those winners.

So will they lose next time?

Not likely.

In their recent article, Vanity Fair quoted an anonymous source in the financial industry as saying the following....

"Are they the Yankees? No, the Yankees actually lose! Goldman never loses."

ORGANIZED CRIME AND GOVERNMENT

Additional Titles

ORGANIZED CRIME AND GOVERNMENT

By Michael LeMieux
January 4, 2010
NewsWithViews.com

Scenario: You’re working hard at building your business. You come in early each morning, check your stock, arrange the shelves, sweep the floor, and get the till ready for what you hope will be another busy day.

Things are going well when a man enters the store wearing a black suit coat and a fedora. He walks straight up to the counter not looking at any of the merchandise and he locks his eyes with yours. “Who is the owner here?” he asks. You reply that you are. He then proceeds to tell you that for the privilege of operating this business and for the protection he provides he demands that you pay him thirty percent of all the profit from your business. He further tells you that if you refuse then some very bad things just might happen and you could lose it all.

We have seen this scenario played out many times in old movies of the gangster lore. The mobster would demand protection payments even when the protection you are paying for was from that very same gang. And if you did not pay you would end up losing everything.

Now I am going to ask what some would deem a ridiculous question; what is the difference between the government and organized crime?

When I ask this question most people would reply that the government does what it does within the confines of the law! Oh, really? What is the basis of all law in the United States; the Constitution, right? How many times have we had laws deemed unconstitutional? Plenty! How many times have people had their lives ruined and sent to jail for years only to find out they were innocent. Thousands! How many times have we heard of Constitutional violations by all the various levels of government? Too many to number!

So what is the real difference between government and organized crime? In my opinion it is the ability to amass force against the victims. Organized crime may be able to get 20 or 30 guys together to run a neighborhood. The government can get hundreds of thousands.

Case in point; how many people if they were told that they have a tax burden placed on them by the government would ‘voluntarily’ pay that tax if they were also told no one will bother them if they did not pay it? Besides the exception to the rule the vast majority will not. So why do we pay taxes to the government? We do so because if we do not men with guns will show up at our door and take our belongings, take our home, and possibly put us in a cell for years and years. This is called coercion, doing something out of fear of the consequences of not doing it, even when we would not otherwise do so.

Why do we, for the most part, buckle our seat belt when we get in a car? Besides being the smart thing to do for safety, we do it because we know that if we get stopped we will be punished for not doing what the parent government said we had to do. There is really no crime involved because there is no injured party you just did not comply with what you were told to do.

Unless we are believers in precognition, knowing something is going to happen before it does, an officer cannot arrest or cite you before a crime has been committed but in this case you are treated as a criminal because you did not do what you were told! Nothing criminal took place, no property damage, no personal injury, but you are damaged by having to pay a fine and points put on your license. Oh, I guess a little loss of liberty is okay to keep us safe, right?

Now parents this may sound very familiar, and even for those that can remember back to when you were children, and you asked why you had to do something and were responded to with ‘because I said so.’ That is exactly what thousands of these statutes consist of; no criminal intent, no injured party, no attempt to gain something that is not ours, and in many cases only a desire to be left alone. Yet each and every day citizens of the states of this nation are criminalized because they ‘did not comply’ with the wishes of the mob, I mean government.

Don’t get me wrong government is a necessary evil but one that must be held firmly in the grasp of those that create it. Thomas Paine said: “Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil, in its worst state, an intolerable one.” A question to ponder; who determines when it has become intolerable?

In defense of the government there is a great difference between the mob and our government. The mob is doing what it is doing solely for self enrichment. The government, however well intentioned, is governed by the nature of all governments and that is to expand its power to fulfill it designed creation. The problem though is that its goals, when taken to the extreme, suffocate those to whom it is supposed to benefit.

Case in point, one of the primary responsibilities of government is the protection of the nation. In order to do so a government must know what is going on around them so they can thwart off any attack against them. Over time when your mission is to look for the evil that may attack you you start looking everywhere. Before long there is evil everywhere you look.

During my career with the government I have been involved in creating plans for varying missions. When building a plan one must look at all possible scenarios and determine certain courses of action to defeat those scenarios. For domestic defense one must also entertain the likelihood of internal or domestic threats. Even though the domestic threat might be the least likely to occur you cannot ignore it. The problem is that the least likely scenario is the easiest to monitor, the easiest to respond to, and the easiest to control.

So as a government you start instituting ‘protections’ into the system to try and thwart such things from happening. These protections start to infringe on what many in the society deem as rights, even though the intent is to keep them safe. Then more restrictions are enacted, travel documentations, increased taxation to pay for enhancements and departments that run them. Soon the government starts to look at their own population as an even bigger threat as more and more rumblings are being detected within the communities. Protests are becoming more and more frequent and even prior government workers and soldiers are starting to mix with the protestors.

Suddenly the government identifies vast sections of the population that can no longer be trusted or may need to be identified as potential terrorists because they have skills and knowledge above that of the regular citizenry. So you put out warnings to the local police intelligence units to be watchful for anyone who displays certain political positions on bumper stickers, or if they display prior association with the military and pro Second Amendment position, they may be a threat. Soon the government needs to expand even more due to the expansion of the perceived threat and the cycle is renewed; like a self licking ice cream cone.

As Thomas Paine so plainly stated; governments are at best necessary evils, what is the purpose for which OUR government was created?

The Declaration of Independence tells us that we are endowed, upon our creation, with certain unalienable Rights and “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted…” The Constitution states the government is there to “establish justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessing of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…”

Nowhere in these documents or the reasons for their creation do I find that they are to burden the populace under massive taxation, control the populace under hundreds of thousands of intrusive laws, steal from the populace without due process and without a trial (current takings laws and withholding), more and more taxes, and licensing of rights that are not supposed to be infringed upon when in fact they are supposed to be protecting them.

As our forefathers knew, and many of us have forgotten or never learned, governments on the whole are much like man in general. They are prone to abuses, self aggrandizement, power hungry, and corruptible. Every government, every society in the history of mankind has undergone this cycle of government corruption and we are no different.

We have Congressmen admitting that they do not decide whether a law is constitutional before they vote on it, even though they swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution. I ask how can you support and defend something when you are voting on laws that you know may not be constitutional. We have courts and judges that will not allow the Constitution to be a defense or will not allow the law to be presented as a defense (Tax court), yet people are sentenced to years in prison for supposedly breaking the very same laws that would acquit them.

We have people in the White House who are self admitted communists, Marxists, and followers of Mao with the ear of the President. We have a President whose actions and words at the best slant toward socialism and at worst embraces communism. We have federal takeovers of vast sections of industry, an ever expanding deficit with attempts to increase that deficit by trillions, laws enacted to fight terrorism that point their efforts inward toward our own citizens, ever expanding powers given to monitor, track, invade the rights of the very people they were created to protect.

As a parent I sometimes wanted to be able to put my child in a padded room where I could guarantee that they would not get hurt, that no evil could get to them, that their every need would be met (food, shelter, safety, etc). But I realized that they would never become all they could be if they did not have the liberty to make their own choices, bear the responsibility of those choices, and to overcome adversity.

Perhaps; if we just gave in to the will of the all knowing and protective government we would all be taken care of and we wouldn’t be hurt by the evils of the world or even by our own actions. But then I remembered the old adage of Paul, “When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.” We must take the responsibility for where we are in relation to our government on ourselves. It is our responsibility to reign in a government that has gone far beyond the scope for which they were created. Just as a parent must reign in a wayward child we like wise must do so with our current wayward child.

It is time to put away childish things!

© 2010 Michael LeMieux - All Rights Reserved

Michael LeMieux was born in Midwest City, Oklahoma in 1956 and graduated from Weber State University in Utah with a degree in Computer Science. He served in both the US Navy and US Army (Active duty and National Guard) and trained in multiple intelligence disciplines and was a qualified paratrooper. He served with the 19th Special Forces Group, while in the National Guard, as a Special Forces tactical intelligence team member. He served tours to Kuwait and Afghanistan where he received the Purple Heart for injuries received in combat.

Mr. LeMieux left military duty at the end of 2005 after being medically discharged with over 19 years of combined military experience. He currently works as an intelligence contractor to the US government.

Michael is a strict constitutionalist who believes in interpreting the constitution by the original intent of the founding fathers. His research has led him to the conclusion that the republic founded by the Constitution is no longer honored by our government. That those who rule America today are doing so with the interest of the federal government in mind and not the Citizens. Michael believes that all three branches of government have strayed far from the checks and balances built into the Constitution and they have failed the American people. A clear example is the Second Amendment, which the Supreme Court and the founders have all said was an individual right and could not be "infringed" upon, now has more than 20,000 state and federal laws regulating every aspect of the individuals right, a definite infringement. He has traveled around the world living in 14 States of the Union including Hawaii, and visited (for various lengths of time) in Spain, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Korea, Scotland, Pakistan, Mauritius, Somalia, Diego Garcia, Australia, Philippines, England, Italy, Germany, and Puerto Rico.

Michael now lives in Nebraska with his wife, two of his three children, Mother-in-Law and grandchild. His hobbies include shooting, wood-working, writing, amateur inventor and scuba diving when he can find the time.

Contact Michael through his Website: www.constitutiondenied.com

The Federal Reserve Bank

The Federal Reserve Bank: The fundamental promise of a central bank like the Federal Reserve is economic stability. The theory is that manipulating the value of the currency allows financial booms to go higher, and crashes to be more mild. If growth becomes speculative and unsustainable, the central bank can make the price of money go up and force some deleveraging of risky investments - again, promising to make the crashes more mild. The period leading up to the American revolution was characterized by increasingly authoritarian legislation from England. Acts passed in 1764 had a particularly harsh effect on the previously robust colonial economy. The Sugar Act was in effect a tax cut on easily smuggled molasses, and a new tax on commodities that England more directly controlled trade over. The navy would be used in increased capacity to enforce trade laws and collect duties. Perhaps even more significant than the militarization and expansion of taxes was the Currency Act passed later in the year 1764.

"The colonies suffered a constant shortage of currency with which to conduct trade. There were no gold or silver mines and currency could only be obtained through trade as regulated by Great Britain. Many of the colonies felt no alternative to printing their own paper money in the form of Bills of Credit." The result was a true free market of currency - each bank competed, exchange rates fluctuated wildly, and merchants were hesitant to accept these notes as payment. Of course, they didn't have 24-hour digital Forex markets, but I'll hold off opinions on the viability of unregulated currency for another time. England's response was to seize control of the colonial money supply - forbidding banks, cities, and colony governments from printing their own. This law, passed so soon after the Sugar Act, started to really bring revolutionary tension inside the colonies to a higher level. American bankers had learned early on that debasing a currency through inflation is a helpful way to pay off perpetual trade deficits - but Britain proved that the buyer of the currency would only take the deal for so long... Following the (first) American Revolution, the "First Bank of the United States" was chartered to pay off collective war debts, and effectively distribute the cost of the revolution proportionately throughout all of the states. Although the bank had vocal and harsh skeptics, it only controlled about 20% of the nation's money supply.

Compared to today's central bank, it was nothing. Thomas Jefferson argued vocally against the institution of the bank, mostly citing constitutional concerns and the limitations of government found in the 10th amendment. There was one additional quote that hints at the deeper structural flaw of a central bank in a supposedly free capitalist economy. "the existing banks will, without a doubt, enter into arrangements for lending their agency, and the more favorable, as there will be a competition among them for it; whereas the bill delivers us up bound to the national bank, who are free to refuse all arrangement, but on their own terms, and the public not free, on such refusal, to employ any other bank" –Thomas Jefferson. Basically, the existing banks will fight over gaining favor with the central bank - rather than improving their performance relative to a free market. The profit margins associated with collusion would obviously outweigh the potential profits gained from legitimate business. The Second Bank of the United States was passed five years after the first bank's charter expired. An early enemy of central banking, President James Madison, was looking for a way to stabilize the currency in 1816. This bank was also quite temporary - it would only stay in operation until 1833 when President Andrew Jackson would end federal deposits at the institution.

The charter expired in 1836 and the private corporation was bankrupt and liquidated by 1841. While the South had been the major opponent of central banking systems, the end of the Civil War allowed for (and also made necessary) the system of national banks that would dominate the next fifty years. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) says that this post-war period of a unified national currency and system of national banks "worked well." [3] Taxes on state banks were imposed to encourage people to use the national banks - but liquidity problems persisted as the money supply did not match the economic cycles. Overall, the American economy continued to grow faster than Europe, but the period did not bring economic stability by any stretch of the imagination. Several panics and runs on the bank - and it became a fact of life under this system of competing nationalized banks. In 1873, 1893, 1901, and 1907 significant panics caused a series of bank failures.

The new system wasn't stable at all, in fact, many suspected it was wraught with fraud and manipulation. The Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis is not shy about attributing the causes of the Panic of 1907 to financial manipulation from the existing banking establishment. "If Knickerbocker Trust would falter, then Congress and the public would lose faith in all trust companies and banks would stand to gain, the bankers reasoned." In timing with natural economic cycles, major banks including J.P. Morgan and Chase launched an all-out assault on Heinze's Knickerbocker Trust. Financial institutions on the inside started silently selling off assets in the competitor, and headlines about a few bad loans started making top spots in the newspapers. The run on Knickerbocker turned into a general panic - and the Federal Government would come to the rescue of its privately owned "National Banks." During the Panic of 1907, "Depositors 'run' on the Knickerbocker Bank. J.P. Morgan and James Stillman of First National City Bank (Citibank) act as a "central bank," providing liquidity ... [to stop the bank run] President Theodore Roosevelt provides Morgan with $25 million in government funds ... to control the panic. Morgan, acting as a one-man central bank, decides which firms will fail and which firms will survive." How did JP Morgan get so powerful that the government would provide them with funding to increase their power? They had key influence with positions inside the Administrations.

They had senators, congressmen, lobbyists, media moguls all working for them. In 1886, a group of millionaires purchased Jekyll Island and converted it into a winter retreat and hunting ground, the USA's most exclusive club. By 1900, the club's roster represented 1/6th of the world's wealth. Names like Astor, Vanderbilt, Morgan, Pulitzer and Gould filled the club's register. Non- members, regardless of stature, were not allowed. Dignitaries like Winston Churchill and President McKinley were refused admission. In 1908, the year after a national money panic purportedly created by J. P. Morgan, Congress established, in 1908, a National Monetary Authority. In 1910 another, more secretive, group was formed consisting of the chiefs of major corporations and banks in this country. The group left secretly by rail from Hoboken, New Jersey, and traveled anonymously to the hunting lodge on Jekyll Island. In fact, the Clubhouse/hotel on the island has two conference rooms named for the "Federal Reserve." The meeting was so secret that none referred to the other by his last name. Why the need for secrecy?

Frank Vanderlip wrote later in the Saturday Evening Post, "...it would have been fatal to Senator Aldrich's plan to have it known that he was calling on anybody from Wall Street to help him in preparing his bill...I do not feel it is any exaggeration to speak of our secret expedition to Jekyll Island as the occasion of the actual conception of what eventually became the Federal Reserve System." At Jekyll Island, the true draftsman for the Federal Reserve was Paul Warburg. The plan was simple. The new central bank could not be called a central bank because America did not want one, so it had to be given a deceptive name. Ostensibly, the bank was to be controlled by Congress, but a majority of its members were to be selected by the private banks that would own its stock. To keep the public from thinking that the Federal Reserve would be controlled from New York, a system of twelve regional banks was designed. Given the concentration of money and credit in New York, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York controlled the system, making the regional concept initially nothing but a ruse.

The board and chairman were to be selected by the President, but in the words of Colonel Edward House, the board would serve such a term as to "put them out of the power of the President." The power over the creation of money was to be taken from the people and placed in the hands of private bankers who could expand or contract credit as they felt best suited their needs. Why the opposition to a central bank? Americans at the time knew of the destruction to the economy the European central banks had caused to their respective countries and to countries who became their debtors. They saw the large- scale government deficit spending and debt creation that occurred in Europe. But European financial moguls didn't rest until the New World was within their orbit. In 1902, Paul Warburg, a friend and associate of the Rothschilds and an expert on European central banking, came to this country as a partner in Kuhn, Loeb and Company.

He married the daughter of Solomon Loeb, one of the founders of the firm. The head of Kuhn, Loeb was Jacob Schiff, whose gift of $20 million in gold to the struggling Russian communists in 1917 no doubt saved their revolution. The Fed controls the banking system in the USA, not the Congress nor the people indirectly (as the Constitution dictates). The U.S. central bank strategy is a product of European banking interests. Government interventionists got their wish in 1913 with the Federal Reserve (and income tax amendment). Just in time, too, because the nation needed a new source of unlimited cash to finance both sides of WW1 and eventually our own entry to the war. After the war, with both sides owing us debt through the federal reserve backed banks, the center of finance moved from London to New York. But did the Federal Reserve reign in the money trusts and interlocking directorates? Not by a long shot. If anything, the Federal Reserve granted new powers to the National Banks by permitting overseas branches and new types of banking services. The greatest gift to the bankers, was a virtually unlimited supply of loans when they experience liquidity problems.

From the early 1920s to 1929, the monetary supply expanded at a rapid pace and the nation experienced wild economic growth. Curiously, however, the number of banks started to decline for the first time in American history. Toward the end of the period, speculation and loose money had propelled asset and equity prices to unreal levels. The stock market crashed, and as the banks struggled with liquidity problems, the Federal Reserve actually cut the money supply. Without a doubt, this is the greatest financial panic and economic collapse in American history - and it never could have happened on this scale without the Fed's intervention. The number of banks crashed and a few of the old robber barons' banks managed to swoop in and grab up thousands of competitors for pennies on the dollar.

The following documentary is called America: From Freedom to Fascism:

This next documentary is called, The Money Masters:

This documentary is called, Monopoly Men:

New World Order: conspiracy theorists were right

The New World Order: This popular conspiracy theory claims that a small group of international elites controls and manipulates governments, industry and media organisations worldwide. The primary tool they use to dominate nations is the system of central banking. They are said to have funded and in some cases caused most of the major wars of the last 200 years, primarily through carrying out false flag attacks to manipulate populations into supporting them, and have a grip on the world economy, deliberately causing inflation and depressions at will. The people behind the New World Order are thought to be international bankers, in particular the owners of the private banks in the Federal Reserve System, Bank of England and other central banks, and members of the Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission and Bilderberg Group. Now, although this conspiracy theory was ridiculed for years, it turns out that the Bilderberg does meet and requests no media coverage. They receive no media coverage. The world’s elite meet every year and it goes largely unreported, for what?

Discussions at the meetings include the economy, world affairs, war and in general, world policy. After the financial collapse, the Bilderberg played a key role in proposing that the world prepare for a new world order and have a standard world currency. This was propsed shortly after by almost all attendees of the Bilderberg meeting. During the 20th century, many statesmen, such as Woodrow Wilson and Winston Churchill, used the term "new world order" to refer to a new period of history evidencing a dramatic change in world political thought and the balance of power after World War I and World War II. They all saw these periods as opportunities to implement idealistic or liberal proposals for global governance only in the sense of new collective efforts to identify, understand, or address worldwide problems that go beyond the capacity of individual nation-states to solve. These proposals led to the creation of international organizations, such as the United Nations and N.A.T.O., and international regimes, such as the Bretton Woods system and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which were calculated both to maintain a balance of power as well as regularize cooperation between nations, in order to achieve a peaceful phase of capitalism. In the aftermath of the two World Wars, progressives welcomed these new international organizations and regimes but argued they suffered from a democratic deficit and therefore were inadequate to not only prevent another global war but also foster global justice.

Thus, activists around the globe formed a world federalist movement bent on creating a "real" new world order. A number of Fabian socialist intellectuals, such as British writer H. G. Wells in the 1940s, appropriated and redefined the term "new world order" as a synonym for the establishment of a full-fledged social democratic world government. In the 1960s, a great deal of right-wing conspiracist attention, by groups like the John Birch Society and the Liberty Lobby, focused on the United Nations as the vehicle for creating the "One World Government", and contributed to a conservative movement for United States withdrawal from the U.N.. American writer Mary M. Davison, in her 1966 booklet The Profound Revolution, traced the alleged New World Order conspiracy to the creation of the U.S. Federal Reserve System in 1913 by international bankers, who she claimed later formed the Council on Foreign Relations in 1921 as the shadow government. At the time the booklet was published, "international bankers" would have been interpreted by many readers as a reference to a postulated "international Jewish banking conspiracy" masterminded by the Rothschilds and Rockefellers. American televangelist Pat Robertson with his 1991 best-selling book The New World Order became the most prominent Christian popularizer of conspiracy theories about recent American history as a theater in which Wall Street, the Federal Reserve System, Council on Foreign Relations, Bilderberg Group, and Trilateral Commission control the flow of events from behind the scenes, nudging us constantly and covertly in the direction of world government for the Antichrist.

After the turn of the century, specifically during the financial crisis of 2007–2009, many politicians and pundits, such as Gordon Brown, Henry Kissinger, and Barack Obama, used the term "new world order" in their advocacy for a Keynesian reform of the global financial system and their calls for a "New Bretton Woods", which takes into account emerging markets such as China and India. These declarations had the unintended consequence of providing fresh fodder for New World Order conspiracism, and culminated in former Clinton administration adviser Dick Morris and conservative talk show host Sean Hannity arguing on one of his Fox News Channel programs that "conspiracy theorists were right". In 2009, American film directors Luke Meyer and Andrew Neel released New World Order, a critically-acclaimed documentary film which explores the world of conspiracy theorists, such as American radio host Alex Jones, who are committed to exposing and vigorously opposing what they perceive to be an emerging New World Order.

May 24, 1992 Report on New World Order:

Operation Gladio

Operation Gladio: Gladio is a code name denoting the clandestine NATO "stay-behind" operation in Italy after World War II, intended to continue anti-communist resistance in the event of a Warsaw Pact invasion of Western Europe. Although Gladio specifically refers to the Italian branch of the NATO stay-behind organizations, "Operation Gladio" is used as an informal name for all stay-behind organizations, sometimes called "Super NATO". The role of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in sponsoring Gladio and the extent of its activities during the Cold War era, and its relationship to right-wing terrorist attacks perpetrated in Italy during the Years of Lead and other similar clandestine operations is the subject of ongoing debate and investigation. Italy, Switzerland and Belgium have had parliamentary inquiries into the matter. What can we prove about that role? Thousands of documents, depositions and testimony as well as recorded conversations and admission by the highest levels of government in Italy. That’s about as credible as it gets, regardless of the CIA’s adamant denial it ever happened. What took place? The shooting of innocent civilians, terrorism and assassinations all blamed on leftist communists were actually apart of well coordinated, “black operations.” Black operations are typically involving activities that are highly clandestine and, often, outside of standard military protocol.

“The right hand doesn’t know what the left hand is doing.” Black ops missions often fit into the deniable category, a situation in which there is no claim of responsibility for the action, and/or a false flag operation is used to give the appearance that another actor was responsible, or – most often – black operations involve extensive arrangements so as to be able to hide the fact that the black operation ever occurred. Black military operations, or paramilitary operations, can be used by various secret services to achieve or attempt to achieve an unusually sensitive goal. The methods used in black operations are also used in unconventional warfare. Depending on the precise situation in a given case, and the level of authoritarianism of the national government or other responsible party, some tasks will be conducted as black operations, while there are usually other activities that can be admitted openly. Black operations may include such things as assassination, sabotage, extortion, spying on allied countries or one's own citizens, kidnapping, supporting resistance movements, torture, use of fraud to obtain funds, use of child soldiers, human experimentation, trafficking in contraband items, etc. Since 9/11, many black operations and long time unethical standings have been approved for legality in the war on terror. In other words, since September 11^th, 2001, it is no a longer conspiracy for any of this to occur, a simple decision by a top level military or CIA official is enough, without oversight or even one thread of admission by the Government or Private conspirators. Much of the Black operations today are performed by private contract companies like Blackwater (now Xe).

This is a documentary banned in the United States that was allowed to air on BBC. It was an investigation into Operation Gladio:

LE SOCIETA' di MUTUO SOCCORSO

LE SOCIETA' di MUTUO SOCCORSO
______________________________
a cura di Ubaldo Schiavo*

Da Consul Press, Dicembre 2009 - Gennaio 2010

La storia italiana delle società di mutuo soccorso.
Periodo antecedente alla legge 15 aprile 1886 n.3818.

L'idea mutualistica di affrontare insieme difficoltà o problemi dei singoli o di una categoria di persone risale a tempi remotissimi.
Già nella letteratura della Grecia antica, si ritrovano forme di sinedries éramos (cooperazioni operaie) mentre in quella romana sodalilates o di collegia opificum, che rappresentavano forme di organizzazione volontaria per affrontare i disagi dovuti a malattie, invalidità, guerre, povertà o vecchiaia e costituivano una protezione per diverse categorie professionali.
Successivamente, con la decadenza di queste civiltà, bisogna aspettare il Medio Evo per ritrovare forme associative create per scopi mutualistici.
E' però nel periodo del Rinascimento che diversi mestieri e professioni si organizzano e si riuniscono sotto diverse denominazioni: per esempio, in Scandinavia e Danimarca troviamo le Guilds, società di assistenza; in Germania le Gilde ma anche gli Hirsch Dunkerrsche Gewewrerkreine fra gli operai ed il Knappschaftsverin fra i minatori; in Francia sono diffuse le associazioni di compagnottaggio secours mutuel per offrire assistenza ai membri di una stessa professione nei loro spostamenti da un paese all'altro attraverso associazioni affiliate.
In Italia le denominazioni variano di città in città e di regione in regione: per esempio, in Toscana ci sono le Arti ,a Venezia le Fraglie, a Roma le Senole, a Genova gli Alberghi, in Sardegna i Gremi.
Ma lo sviluppo di un vero e proprio sistema mutualistico si ha intorno alla metà del XIX secolo ed è collegato alla rivoluzione industriale ed ai problemi di ordine sociale che da essa scaturiscono, per supplire alla carenza di ogni forma di stato sociale ed aiutare i lavoratori che si trovavano nella impossibilità economica di far fronte ad eventuali eventi dannosi che li colpiscono.
E' nell'Inghilterra vittoriana, colpita da una serie di rivoluzioni settoriali, che andavano dal settore dell’ agricoltura a quello dei trasporti, delle innovazioni tecniche fino a quelle finanziarie, che sorgono le prime associazioni di mutuo soccorso tra lavoratori dette Friendly Societes..
In questo Paese, infatti, il processo di industrializzazione inizia in netto anticipo rispetto alle altre nazioni e vede presto sfruttato un enorme numero di lavoratori nelle fabbriche, comprese donne e bambini a partire di 9/10 anni.
Le Friendly Societes sono associazioni, tutt'oggi esistenti, basate su un accordo stipulato da persone allo scopo di soccorrersi vicendevolmente per il caso di danno. Rappresentano una forma alternativa di assicurazione, ma non basata sul sul sistema contrattuale, bensì su quello mutualistico.
Queste associazioni, poi chiamate “cooperative”, sono presto imitate in altri Paesi contribuendo ad espandere il concetto di mutuo aiuto per la difesa di interessi di consumi e di lavoro.
Non trascorre molto tempo che alcune di esse assumono carattere di associazioni generali dei lavoratori, arrivando a determinare la nascita delle Trade Unions nel 1825 in Inghilterra e di forme parallele ”più sindacali” in Germania nel 1869, fino in Italia (dove saranno riconosciute nel 1902).
Le forme di mutualità volontaria si moltiplicano dalla seconda metà del XIX secolo in tutta Europa.
I contributi dei membri sono fissati sulla base della ripartizione dei rischi e molte mutue sono coinvolte anche nella prestazione di cure tramite istituti nati su loro iniziativa o tramite prestatori di servizi con i quali hanno stipulato contratti per meglio controllare i prezzi e l'offerta delle cure mediche (pratica che proseguirà fino ai nostri giorni).
In Italia il processo di industrializzazione si sviluppa con maggiore ritardo: all'inizio dell'unificazione il paese ha ancora una vocazione essenzialmente agricola e la struttura industriale è ancora arretrata, basta pensare che i chilometri di “strada ferrata” in Italia sono solo 2000 a fronte dei 17.000 dell'Inghilterra e che l'industria siderurgica non è ancora stata avviata, mentre nello stato inglese produce già 3 milioni di tonnellate di acciaio.
Tuttavia, grazie alla promulgazione dello Statuto Albertino il 4 marzo 1948, che all'art.32 sancisce il diritto alla libertà di associazione ed all'abrogazione degli articoli del Codice Penale limitanti tale libertà, cominciano subito a essere costituite le prime società di mutuo soccorso (SMS).
Fino ad allora l'unica forma di difesa dei lavoratori contro la cessazione dal lavoro per qualunque motivo si aveva attraverso le “Corporazioni”, alla cui esperienza, comunque, si rifanno le prime forme di SMS, che, basate su concetti mutualistici, vanno a scalzare l'importanza delle Corporazioni, troppo settoriali e statiche.
Bisogna considerare che il processo di sviluppo del pensiero mutualistico non è assolutamente repentino. Le prime forme assistenziali di tipo mutualistico/corporativo hanno origine o da una certa borghesia “illuminata” animata da spirito filantropico, per concedere sussidi, in particolare modo in caso di malattia – e di organizzare iniziative per innalzare il livello culturale e sociale dei lavoratori, oppure trovano spazio nell'ambiente caritativo ecclesiastico,
Le forme assistenziali di tipo mutualistico/corporativo hanno avuto il grande merito di portare la classe lavoratrice ad una progressiva presa di coscienza e desiderio di ricerca in sé stessa, prima ancora che nelle istituzioni politiche, religiose o nella classe borghese, della forza e degli strumenti necessari per fare fronte alle proprie esigenze.

*REVISORE CONTABILE
COMMISSARO LIQUIDATORE presso il Ministero Attività Produttive

Strange Phenomena

No one can really explain it, it’s really inexplicable, however, very real. Ordinarily if someone ran up to a car and from a range of two meters shot at the driver, the shooter would be charged with murder or attempted murder. However give the murderer a badge and uniform and all of a sudden the act of murder seems to disappear and the victim is thrown in jail on some ridiculous cooked up charge. Or when US troops invade other nations, slaughtering men women and children by the millions and citizens of those nation rise up to defend themselves, they are called terrorists and insurgents. The Phenomenon of "Opposite Speak".

Take Obama, for example, as he sends more troops to support the illegal US invasion and occupation of Afghanistan he is awarded the “Nobel Peace Prize”. Perhaps the 'authorities' are mocking Americans to show how really stupid they are? Seeing Ben Bernanke, the Chairman of the criminal enterprise they call the Federal Reserve Bank on the front of TIME magazine, his face made to look like one of the presidents on a dollar note, called “The Man of the Year”, perhaps takes the cake. After literally crashing the market and forcing a worldwide depression then literally handing out trillions of stolen dollars to political colleagues, Bernanke, certainly is the man of the year, the worst man of the year, ever.

Quoting Ben Bernanke at a conference to honor one of the world’s leading economists, Milton Friedman on November 8, 2002: "Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve. I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression. You're right, we did it. We're very sorry. But thanks to you, we won't do it again." Clearly Bernanke lied.

This time they used the “Great Depression” methodology, loosen the money supply (remember all those 0% interest loans?), then shut off credit and presto, a guaranteed great depression. Usually the Fed simply cranks up the interest rates to trigger recessions so they can swoop in with their money they make out of nothing and buy up corporations, the media and your home. When plotted in a graph, the track record of instability caused by the Fed screams out Irrefutable instability. However, how stable, one must ask, are Americans who allow this fraud and opposite speak to occur?

Calling themselves a “Christian Country”, the US makes any Muslim cleric’s ranting look like angelic hosts proclaiming the coming of peace. The violent “US Crusades” in the name of “democracy” and “freedom” not only slaughter millions of innocent men women and children every year, they make the worst pollution from the industrial era look like a fresh bubbling brook in virgin country.

Literally dumping more than eighteen million gallons of poison so deadly it literally kills and strips vegetation off the branches of trees, Agent Orange does not even get a mention from any of the hip global warming environmentalist’s like All Gore. Like everything that gets dumped on the land, Agent Orange poison is steadily making it’s way to the ocean. Will it kill a quarter of the life in the ocean? If Agent Orange won’t do it, then perhaps the two thousand tones of nuclear waste the US blasted into Iraq and the Gulf region in the form of “DU” can improve the odds of American’s destroying the earth. With a half life of four and a half billion years, the “DU” which is only 40% less active than the primed nuclear power plant rods they are machined from, can hardly be called ‘depleted’. However, that’s child’s change, the current US’s New World Disorder is not just focusing on a single nation like Vietnam or a region like the Gulf War region, this time the sights are focused on the entire world:

In what is clearly one of the most massive bombing exercises ever, the fleets of heigh-tec Bio-Weapon Bombers, disguised as commercial airliners, streak chemical trails across every populated area of the world and in perspective make Agent Orange and DU almost irrelevant. The tons of barium and other chemicals the NWO is dumping on the earth with their Chemtrail bombers is likely to kill more life than any war. Having invested more than thirty five billion dollars on developing Biological Weapons of Mass Destruction, Bush and the US politic of the New World Order are more than ready to deliver the final death blow. All it takes to accomplish their goal of wiping out six billion people is to switch the ingredients in the Bio-Weapon Chemtrail Bombers.

The bombing has already begun and the masses are too stupid to even realize it. Instead the masses eat up the NWO Opposite Speak without so much as realizing what is going on around them.

"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought into the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them that they are being attacked, and denounce the peace makers for their lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." Herman Goering, Nazi Germany.

While many people do not know what is going on because the bankers Old New World Order has taken control of the media, what is more perplexing is how gullible the public is, their vocabulary is so utterly confused with opposite speak, they can not even see crimes carried out right in front of them. Is it because the people are stupid, drugged or neuro linguistically programmed, or do the people not give a dam? Considering that Bio-Bombers are carrying out active runs above their heads, with more than enough evidence proving the fact, perhaps one has to lean towards drugged and neuro linguistically programmed.

This public will do anything to call crimes committed by their public servants anything but what it is. Across America people wearing black robes kidnap children and incarcerate the innocent eliminating the most rudimentary human rights while doing everything to protect the bankers and their BAR buddies. Somehow the public accepts the judges and courts as though they were their sovereign and not their public servants. The State in the US now assumes even more rights than King George did. What is astonishing is seeing people put up with it. We are well aware that the Fed's funded Hitler and carried out a number of experiments in population control, however, can chemicals and TV be so effective? Apparently so according to Stanley Milgram.

If you are not already aware of the fact that the Federal Reserve Bank owners funded both Hitler and Stalin, perhaps you aught to do some homework! These people have no problem committing mass murder. We don’t recommend any lesson from a State School or mass media though. All that can come out of a State Church School is a fool, as is clearly evident from the fact that Americans are so utterly switched off. If you have a brain, goggle the information. Internet is full of good sites that reveal the truth. Cross verification and plain logic serve well. Ask the question who benefits? When Kennedy is murdered within six months of setting aside the Federal Reserve Bank you can reasonably assume the Fed killed him, obviously they would not leave any traces. You can guarantee you will not be getting the truth on banker controlled media turn off your TV. If you believe you are 'strong enough' to not be programmed from TV then go to a hypnotist and see if they can hypnotize you, if they can, then you can be hypnotized by the TV. Don't be so dam stupid!

If you read this, there is a good chance you are one of the half a percent or so of Americans who may even remotely know what is going on. It is imperative that you assume the responsibility of educating you neighbors. If we don’t wake up the Americans fast, we may all be taking a forever sleep when they switch tanks in the Chemtrail bombers (opposite).

Liberty For Life
C

C-Live, Love Oppose Evil. Novus Ordo Seclorum.