Saturday, January 21, 2012

日本‧文件曝光揭“宗教行為”面具‧日政府主導靖國供奉戰犯

(日本‧東京21日訊)多年來引發亞洲國家強烈反彈的日本靖國神社問題,原來是由日本政府在背後主導!日本政府多年來表明,靖國神社供奉二戰甲級戰犯是宗教行為,亦是神社的決定,強調並無違反憲法中,政教分離的原則。
不過,左派大報《朝日新聞》週六揭發,該報調查衛生勞動部(日本稱厚生勞動省)的內部資料,發現了衛生部(衛生勞動部前身)於1950年代謀求靖國神社合祀二戰甲級戰犯靈位的相關文件。

靈位存入靖國為最終目標
這份舊政府文件顯示,衛生部在1953年(日本二戰後宣佈恢復主權的第二年)決定,先將二戰被判死刑的甲級戰犯的靈位,供奉於福岡等地的護國神社,最終以存入東京靖國神社為目標的方針。
衛生部並根據該方針,敦促各地“作為英靈合祀靖國神社的前提,各地護國神社該合祀的如未合祀要合祀”。
到1978年,前首相東條英機、前日軍特務頭目土肥原賢二等甲等14名甲級戰犯的靈位,得以集合在東京的靖國神社合祀供奉。這也證明了,日本政府一直宣稱靖國神社供奉二戰甲級戰犯靈位是“靖國神社的判斷”的答辯,與事實不符,實際上是舊政府官員經過長期的狡猾謀略的結果。
此後,除了中韓等鄰國抗議日本官員參拜靖國神社的外交糾紛外,日本天皇也絕跡靖國神社。不能干預政治的天皇雖從未公開表達,但一般相信這是天皇不滿靖國神社合祀甲級戰犯。
近年,政客參拜靖國神社在日本還有違反政教分離憲法等的內政爭議,甚至訴訟法庭。

中國‧“送我我不要”遏止官員收紅包‧粵設“35581”廉政帳戶

(廣州21日訊)中國廣東省為了遏止官員收紅包,在銀行設立帳號為“35581”(送我我不要)的廉政帳戶,讓幹部把無法拒收的紅包(現金)存放到帳戶內。
《南方都市報》報導,中共廣東省紀律檢查委員會等單位已在工商銀行設立廉政帳戶,以便有關人員在規定的時間(1個月內)上繳無法拒收的紅包。

廣東先前已規定,領導幹部和國家工作人員對以各種理由贈送的紅包,應堅決拒收,當場退回;至於因各種原因無法當場退回的,應在1個月內把全額上繳同級紀檢監察機關或存入廉政帳戶,並領取相關憑證。
對於不能全額上繳或存入廉政帳戶的,或在收送紅包一方接受調查後才上繳或存入廉政帳戶的,則按違紀論處。

香港‧配合美國打擊網絡盜版‧凍結MU逾億資產

(香港21日訊)香港海關配合美國司法部和聯邦調查局的全球性執法行動,搗破一個龐大跨境網絡儲存平台侵權集團,並凍結逾3億港元(約1億2千萬令吉)涉案資產。
美國司法部週四關閉以香港為基地、全球最大檔案分享網站Megaupload.com(簡稱MU),並透過紐西蘭警方拘捕有香港居留權的MU創辦人金德康等4人,他們被控侵權、串謀洗黑錢及詐騙等五罪,下週一會再次提堂,並將被引渡到美國受審。

香港海關配合採取行動,週五晨調動約100人搜查四處目標地點,包括酒店房間、辦公室和住宅,查獲大量電子證據,並凍結逾3億港元涉案資產。
FBI調查後發現,該網站管理人分布在不同國家及地區,主要伺服器在美國,專門複製及發佈侵權的盜版電影及音樂,又獎賞上載盜版內容的用戶,藉以獲利約5億4千300萬令吉,導致版權持有人損失約15億5千200萬令吉。金德康去年就賺了1億3千萬令吉。
紐西蘭警方亦撿獲鎗械、藝術品、逾2千484萬令吉現金及多輛名貴汽車,仍有3名涉案人士在逃。
MU有1億5千萬登記用戶,每日點擊率達5千萬次,更獲得多位樂壇巨星力撐。

“有沒拍拖?薪水多少?”‧拜年十大“毒舌”問題

(中國‧北京21日訊)“有沒有拍拖?甚麼時候結婚啊?薪水多少?吃甚麼長這麼胖啊?”
春節到親友家中拜年,最怕就是被長輩問到這些尷尬問題,近日,中國互聯網流傳一份《親戚聚會發 言大綱列表》,表中羅列出長輩們愛問的毒舌問題,還有網民總結出十大過年見面的禁忌問題,而對於男性網民來說,被問“有沒有買房”是致命傷。這張名為《親 戚聚會發言大綱列表》的制圖以“不認識我了嗎?小時候抱過你呢”開始,列舉了親戚見面可能提起的第一句話。

緊接著,列表以“結婚了麼?”的問題作為出發點,對可能發生的兩種回答作為延伸,將話題擴展。其中列舉了如果已結婚,等待著的將是對另一半的所有信息(重點是收入)的拷問。闖過這一關又會迎來“生孩子沒?”的提問等等,諸如此類。
眾多網友圍觀後表示感同深受,並吐槽自己過年期間遇見過的各種尷尬問題。
也有一些網友則提出已想好應對這些“炮彈”的方法,如“反客為主、率先發問、聲東擊西、健忘一點兒”等策略。
來一回絕地反擊網民“卡多呢”厭倦了每年都被這樣盤問,今年,他準備來一回絕地反擊,總結三種 方法來應對親戚們的嘮叨:“一、被念到時可以假裝蒙娜麗莎,但實際上認真貫徹左耳進右耳出原則。二、說理推卸,以“有沒有對象”這一問題為例,藉口有幾 種:“其實有順眼的了,不過時間不久,等時機成熟了一定帶來給您過目”、“不是我的問題,是我周圍的男人們太噁心”……三、鴕鳥式逃避,減少回家次數。”
十大毒舌問題
1.交男女朋友了嗎?甚麼時候結婚啊?
2.小朋友考試第幾名啊?
3.去年賺了多少錢?工資多少?
4.吃甚麼長這麼胖啊?
5.工作怎麼樣啊?
6.怎麼還不叫人?長這麼大還不會叫人啊?
7.今年多大啦?(言下之意要給壓歲錢嗎?)
8.不打算再讀研究院了嗎?
9.不認識我了嗎?小時候抱過你呢!
10.啥時候買房啊?

SOPA and PIPA postponed indefinitely after protests

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- When the entire Internet gets angry, Congress takes notice. Both the House and the Senate on Friday backed away from a pair of controversial anti-piracy bills, tossing them into limbo and throwing doubt on their future viability.
The Senate had been scheduled to hold a proceedural vote next week on whether to take up the Protect IP Act (PIPA) -- a bill that once had widespread, bipartisan support. But on Friday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he was postponing the vote "in light of recent events."
Meanwhile, the House of Representatives said it is putting on hold its version of the bill, the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). The House will "postpone consideration of the legislation until there is wider agreement on a solution," House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith said in a written statement.
The moves came after several lawmakers flipped their position on the bills in the wake of widespread online and offline protests against them.
Tech companies, who largely oppose the bills, mobilized their users this week to contact representatives and speak out against the legislation. Sites including Wikipedia and Reddit launched site blackouts on January 18, while protesters hit the streets in New York, San Francisco, Seattle and Washington, D.C. Google (GOOG, Fortune 500) drew more than 7 million signatures for an anti-SOPA and PIPA petition that it linked on its highly trafficked homepage.
The tide turned soon after the protest, and both bills lost some of their Congressional backers.
"I have heard from the critics and I take seriously their concerns," Smith said Friday in a prepared statement. "It is clear that we need to revisit the approach on how best to address the problem of foreign thieves."
PIPA and SOPA aim to crack down on copyright infringement by restricting access and services to sites that host or facilitate the trading of pirated content. (Click here for our explainer: What SOPA is and why it matters.)
Backed by media companies, including CNNMoney parent Time Warner, the bills initially seemed on the fast track to passage. PIPA was approved unanimously by a Senate committee in May.
But when the House took up its own version of the bill, SOPA, tech companies began lobbying heavily in opposition -- an effort that culminated in this week's demonstrations.
Reid hinted that PIPA may not be dead yet, saying: "There is no reason that the legitimate issues raised by many about this bill cannot be resolved."
Meanwhile, alternative legislation has also been proposed. A bipartisan group of senators introduced the Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade Act (OPEN) on January 18 -- the same day as the Wikipedia site blackout.
Among other differences, OPEN offers more protection than SOPA would to sites accused of hosting pirated content. It also beefs up the enforcement process. It would allow digital rights holders to bring cases before the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), an independent agency that handles trademark infringement and other trade disputes.
California Republican Darrell Issa introduced OPEN in the House, and Oregon Democrat Ron Wyden introduced the Senate version. OPEN's backers had posted the draft legislation online and invited the Web community to comment on and revise the proposal.
Soon after SOPA and PIPA were tabled, Issa released a statement cheering "supporters of the Internet" for their protest efforts.
He wrote: "Over the last two months, the intense popular effort to stop SOPA and PIPA has defeated an effort that once looked unstoppable but lacked a fundamental understanding of how Internet technologies work."

Ron Paul This Speech Gave Me Chills

URGENT - FOX News Caught Using Fake Video Of Riots HA, HA!

Destruction Can't Create Jobs: The Broken Window Fallacy

No, Rick Santorum, We Don't Need a Little Inflation

How RON PAUL Would Fix the Economy Don't Bailout Banks No Corporate Welfare

Obama Pushes Hard to Protect Big Banks from Fraud Prosecutions ... But We Can Stop Him




As we've noted for years, the entire strategy of Washington towards the economy is to cover up the fraud which caused the financial crisis ... even though prosecuting fraud and re-establishing the rule of law is the only way to get out of this depression.

One major front in Washington's cover-up effort has been to settle fraud cases with the big banks for pennies on the dollar. This is a backdoor bailout for the banks, encourages them to commit more fraud, and fails to plug the basic holes in the economy which are preventing a recovery.

Why are we bringing this up now?

Because Obama is making a giant push to pressure the states attorneys general to settle all of their mortgage-related fraud claims against the banks for pennies on the dollar.
Yves Smith - who has an ear to the ground on this - warns that a settlement which hurts consumers and the economy will happen very quickly if people don't raise a ruckus.

Smith is asking people to call their state attorney general (not their elected reps) to oppose the settlement:
Here are some of the reasons to oppose a settlement:

1. There have been virtually no investigations, and the Administration has engaged in cover-ups rather than trying to get to the bottom of the mortgage mess

2. The big argument made in favor of the deal, that it will help borrowers, is patently false. Remember, Countrywide entered into a deal with attorney generals just like this, where they agreed to do mods in return for a settlement on abuses. Guess what? They didn’t do the mods. To add insult to injury, they actually abused homeowners who should have gotten mods. Nevada AG is suing Countrywide now over its failure to comply with the terms of its settlement. And even if some mods miraculously did get done, the settlement is designed to have banks hit a dollar amount. That means they will focus on the biggest loans, which means any relief will go to a comparatively small number of people in (originally) big ticket houses.

3. The Administration has only one chance to get this right. Now you might argue that Team Obama has no intention of getting the mortgage mess right, but the tectonic plates suddenly seem to be moving in elite circles. The Fed realizes that housing is a BIG problem and has even started making noise about it. Yet Obama is moving forward with a plan cooked up in late 2010 that is completely out of whack with the urgency and severity of the problem. Note that this settlement will NOT stop private actions, such as borrowers fighting foreclosures. And we will continue to banks refuse to take losses and drag out foreclosures to maximize fees. That will lead to continued pressure on housing prices in many markets as buyers stay on the sidelines, fearful of buying before a large shadow inventory clears.

Leaving the AGs free to investigate and increase the pressure that is already building up in the system is the best chance we have to deal with widespread fraud.

The attorneys general really need your support. It helps them to hear that their constituents appreciate them standing up to the banks and the Obama administration.

PLEASE call them TODAY. Here is a list of phone numbers. If you can’t get through, send an e-mail.

Please also sign this petition from Campaign for America’s Future (it has some talking points if you need them for the AG calls). Note you can opt out of being put on their mailing list (I know that has been a sore point with some past petitions). I know it is futile to ping Obama, but they will collect the number of people who sign, and that will in turn bolster the dissident AGs.

Please call today. Unlike Congresscritters, who get a lot of constituent mail and phone calls, AGs get much less in the way of messages from state citizens, so your calls will make a difference.
Smith tells me that it is especially important for residents of California,  Virgina,  Texas, Florida and South Carolina to call their attorneys general and tell them that they need to stand firm in the face of pressure from Obama.

5
Your rating: None Average: 5 (3 votes)

Government Lawsuit Says Bank Of America Mortgage Fraud Even WORSE Than Countrywide


This story (from Sep. 2011) has never been published here.  I've been saving it for the right time, and news earlier this week that BofA CEO Brian Moynihan has been named as a defendant in a federal foreclosure lawsuit, makes now a pretty good time for a BofA pile-on.
---
Marketwatch
By Al Lewis
Federal lawsuit says even Angelo Mozilo was shocked...
NEW YORK (MarketWatch) — Bank of America Corp.’s story has long been that Countrywide did it. But a lawsuit filed last week by the Federal Housing Finance Agency tells a different tale.
The lawsuit claims that when former Countrywide Financial Corp. CEO Angelo Mozilo marveled at the dizzying recklessness of the mortgage-lending business, he was in fact looking at Charlotte-based Bank of America.
This is perhaps one of the most insulting claims ever leveled in a mortgage-fraud lawsuit.  Bank of America would probably feel outraged if it weren’t so overwhelmed with its nauseating plunge on the stock market.  Mozilo has easily eclipsed Enron’s brass as one of the most-hated executives of all time. He has become the poster child for the fraudulent mortgage-lending practices that torpedoed the U.S. banking system and the entire global economy.
But he was smart enough to sell Countrywide as it nearly collapsed in January 2008. And Bank of America was dumb enough to buy it for $4.1 billion.
Since then, Bank of America has been blaming Countrywide for a litany of problems.
You’ve heard the allegations before: These banks sold billions worth of mortgage-backed securities while lying about the thousands of funny little mortgages behind them.
Since Bank of America bought Countrywide, it will indeed pay for things Countrywide did. But it will pay for things it did, too.
The government is suing Bank of America for Countrywide, and it is suing Bank of America, separately, for things it did without Countrywide.
Bank of America issued a statement in response to the lawsuits, essentially saying Fannie and Freddie knew the risks of the securities they bought, and that the losses are due to a downturn in the housing market. But the United States of America would rather blame the Bank of America.
BOA was one of the most aggressive competitors in the mortgage-origination market,” the government’s lawsuit reads.
And that’s where it hints that Bank of America was even worse than Countrywide:
“Even the top executives of Countrywide Financial Corp., the notorious mortgage lender ...complained to each other...that BOA’s appetite for risky products was greater than that of Countrywide,” the lawsuit reads.
“In a June 13, 2005, email, Countrywide CEO Angelo Mozilo wrote to President and COO David Sambol: “This is the third deal in the last 10 days that BOA has offered that is impossible to beat. In fact, the other two were substantially worse than this one. It appears to me that BOA is making an aggressive move into mortgages once again.’”
Imagine that. Bank of America doing mortgage deals that even Mozilo found shocking.
Read the whole thing at Marketwatch...

How to watch Press TV in UK

Southgate pawnbroker says woman offered herself, daughter to pay debt

A mother offered up herself and her daughter this week for sex to pay off a debt at a Southgate pawnshop, the owner of the shop said Wednesday.
Al Hassan, a co-owner of DaSilva's Pawn and Exchange on Eureka, said the mother, believed to be in her mid-30s, came into the shop Monday night and offered him sex with her and her daughter, who he estimated to be 9-11 years old, if he agreed not to sell a laptop she pawned a few weeks ago for $120.
A $25 payment was due to keep the laptop from being sold, Hassan said.
Hassan said he quickly notified police and reported the incident to Children's Protective Services.
Southgate police confirmed they are looking into the allegations.
"It's still under investigation," said Lt. Kasper Ohannasian.
David Akerly, spokesman for the state Department of Human Services, said confidentiality laws prevent the state from commenting on individual cases, and he couldn't confirm that the state is investigating.
WDIV-TV (Channel 4) said it interviewed the mother at her home in Monroe, and she said the offer was meant as a joke.
"I wasn't serious," said the mother. "I don't want to be considered a bad mother just because I needed some money for gas and groceries."
Hassan said he believes the woman may have a drug habit that drove her to desperation.
"I felt disgusted," Hassan said of his reaction to her offer. "I was sick."

HELL FREEZES OVER - Bank Of America CEO Moynihan Named As Defendant In Federal Foreclosure Lawsuit


PHOTO - Brian Moynihan attempts a smile.
Foreclosure Fightclub attorney George Babcock strikes again.  The devil is starting to shiver.
--
Hat tip to Foreclosure Hamlet for their coverage.
BAC CEO Named as Defendant in Federal Foreclosure Fraud Lawsuit
---
Compare these two assignments:
Document 1 Bogus Assignments of Mortgage
---
And Bank of America's useless response:
Bank of America Gratuitous Letter
Source:
http://www.foreclosurehamlet.org/profiles/blogs/bank-of-america-ceo-moynihan-to-be-named-as-defendant-in-federal

Dr. Marc Faber - US is in 50-100 trillion worth of debt!

http://revolutionarypolitics.tv/video/viewVideo.php?video_id=17434

EI financing agency spends millions doing nothing

A federal agency created by the Harper government with great political fanfare in 2008 is costing millions of dollars to achieve pretty much nothing.
The Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board has just about everything a budding government agency could want.
So far, it has spent over $3.3 million for new offices, computers and furniture, well-paid executives and staff, travel budgets, expense accounts, board meetings, and lots of pricey consultants.
All that's missing is a reason for it to exist at all.
Chairman David Brown: 'We haven't had to do nearly as much as our original mandate intended.' Chairman David Brown: 'We haven't had to do nearly as much as our original mandate intended.' (CBC )The Conservative government set up the agency ostensibly to perform three main functions.
The first was to set the annual employment insurance contribution rates that determine how much Canadian workers and employers have to pay into the EI fund in a given year.
But in all three years the board has been in existence, the Harper government has simply capped EI rates to spare Canadian workers from potentially huge premium increases.
As a result, the rate-setting agency has yet to set a single rate.
The board's other main responsibility is to invest any surplus EI funds.
That has never happened, either.
Since the government started capping EI contribution rates, the employment insurance program has been running a deficit now totalling almost $9 billion.
There has simply never been a surplus dime for the board to invest.
Finally, the agency is charged with managing a $2 billion EI contingency fund the government promised to set up, but never did.

Not overwhelmed

In short, the board has no rates to set, no surplus to invest, no contingency fund to manage, and little chance any of that will change in the near future.
Executive director Phil Charko: about $150,000 a year to work part time. Executive director Phil Charko: about $150,000 a year to work part time. (CBC)The chair of the agency, Toronto lawyer David Brown, admits the organization isn't exactly overwhelmed with work.
"We haven't had to do nearly as much as our original mandate intended us to do," Brown said in an interview.
"So we've slowed down on some of our development activities until it is clear that we are going to be able to do some of the things that we will be asked in the future."
The head of the Canadian Taxpayers' Federation is incensed.
"I think average taxpayers want to know what these people are doing with their time," Gregory Thomas tells CBC News.
"I think people need to call their MPs and let them know that they are tired of their money being wasted."

Raises for everyone

Mostly, the little agency that doesn't seems to have been keeping busy spending millions of dollars turning itself into a thoroughly modern bureaucracy.
Its published budget for the current year includes giving everyone raises, and moving the entire agency into new offices — all at an expected cost of $1.8 million.
Finance Minister Jim Flaherty tells Parliament about the new agency in 2008. Finance Minister Jim Flaherty tells Parliament about the new agency in 2008. (CBC)Compensation costs include stipends and expenses for the seven appointed board members, and $244,000 for a couple of executives.
The agency's executive director, retired senior public servant Phil Charko, is being paid about $150,000 a year to work part time.
The budget provides another $200,000 to pay an investment manager if the agency ever has any money to invest.
Another $300,000 is budgeted for "additional corporate services such as IT management, human resources management, and translation services."

'Improve corporate culture'

Despite so many having so little to do, the agency has earmarked over $250,000 to pay outside consultants, including public relations professionals to help produce the board's annual report showing what happened to all the money.
Finally, with two full-time employees on the payroll this year, the entire agency moved out of its former offices into larger space in a different building to "improve the corporate culture."
The total costs of the move are not shown in the agency's budget, although it mentions an estimated $89,000 just for new furniture.
Board chair Brown says the move was mainly to create enough space to accommodate financial experts on a temporary basis as needed, even though they all have permanent desks in various federal government departments.
Aside from spending money, what the agency seems to do best is create bureaucratic plans and policies for itself.

Fits in a minivan

Its planning report details many important "strategic priorities" for this year, including implementing "the communication and outreach strategy."
The agency's entire staff would fit into a minivan, but one of the priorities this year has been to "develop and implement formal HR (human resources) policies in such areas as staffing, staff relations and training."
Finally, the agency with no real purpose wants to develop "measures of corporate performance."
All of which may leave ordinary Canadians wondering what the Harper government was thinking.
The Conservatives passed legislation creating the new agency in June of 2008.
For years, the EI fund had been running huge annual surpluses that mainly Liberal governments had simply siphoned off to help pay down the country's debt and other uses.

$8.8B in the red

The new agency's primary role was to eliminate those surpluses in future by setting the annual EI contribution rate at break even, taking in just enough revenue from workers and employers to cover unemployment benefits and any deficits in the fund.
Five months later, the economic crash caused unemployment to soar and EI contributions to plummet.
By last year, the EI fund was swimming in $8.8 billion of red ink.
If the board had been allowed to exercise its mandate to set EI rates high enough to cover deficits in the fund, Canadian workers would have been hit with huge increases in annual employment insurance premiums. Instead, the Harper government used its own powers to simply freeze EI premiums for 2010, and then capped increases to relatively minor amounts in subsequent years.
Thomas of the Taxpayers' Federation says the government should cut its losses.
"I think they have to fess up that things didn't work out, and it's a waste of money."
Alyson Queen, a spokeswoman for Human Resources Minister Diane Finley, says the government has no intention of scrapping "an important stewardship group that oversees the integrity and transparency of EI financing."
The agency, Queen says, "is operating in a fiscally responsible manner," and will someday be fully operational.

Wall Street Lobbyist's Secret Plan To Squash The 99% Movement

http://12160.info/video/object-moved?xg_source=shorten_twitter

INTRODUCING - THE LECTRO!!

Michael Rivero
As the world financial markets watch as the Plunge Protection Team shovels US taxpayer dollars into the flames of reality, propping up the stock markets in a gravity-defying display (I would bet on gravity to win), it is becoming obvious to all that the debt-based currency system of the private central banks, while quite profitable for the bankers, is a dismal failure for civilization as a whole. Humans have labored under this failed experiment for almost 200 years while the media proclaims this is the only form of banking possible, leaders who say otherwise are assassinated, nations trying alternatives are invaded, and hotel maids assaulted. As a means to great wealth for little effort, private central banking using debt-based currency is a marvelous invention, although contrary to the devotees of Adam Smith, this elaborate exercise in personal greed has not advanced civilization along at all. Quite the contrary, any advances made have been in spite of the extreme hindrances and burdens placed on the world at large by the private bankers. Modern economic theory, usually bought and paid for by those bankers, strive to reconcile the revealed dogma with the ever-growing evidence that the system is deeply flawed and should be abandoned. In this, said economists are not unlike students of epicycles, who strove valiantly to reconcile Galileo's observations suggesting a heliocentric solar system with the church's enforced-by-torture geocentric dogma.
The fact is that this model of a private central bank creating money out of thin air to loan to the people and governments was the very economic system this nation fought a revolution to be free of. While our schools teach us of tea parties and stamp acts, they rarely mention the Currency Act any more, even though it was the primary reason for the revolution.
The American colonies issued their own currency, which existed in ample supply to ensure full employment and prosperity for all. But when Ben Franklin described this economic paradise while ambassador to London, the Bank of England panicked! England was even then in the grip of monumental poverty for the masses brought on by the predations of the bankers, and the Bank of England feared that if word of an alterative system reached the people, riots would be the result. So, the Bank of England lobbied King George III to pass the Currency act which ordered the colonists only to use banknotes borrowed at interest from the Bank of England. It took only a few years for this Currency act to reduce the American colonies to the same level of poverty and starvation as their English brethren.
"[It was] the poverty caused by the bad influence of the English bankers on the Parliament which has caused in the colonies hatred of the English and . . . the Revolutionary War." -- Benjamin Franklin
Naturally our schools stopped teaching about the Currency act the same time the Federal Reserve system was brought into being, to obscure the fact that we had all been returned, courtesy of a corrupt Congress and a corrupt President, into the clutches of the very same sort of banker slavery we had fought a war to be free of.
"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is now controlled by its system of credit.We are no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men." -- Woodrow Wilson 1919
More and more citizens everywhere cry for a return to the economic system that worked best for the people. They yearn for a government issued value-based currency such as this nation was started with. But should we return to a gold standard?
Throughout history, many materials have been used as a medium of exchange. Primitive people used shells, Arabs used salt (origin of the expression "the man is worth his salt.") , and during the last Great Depression a town newspaper printed up their own promissory notes good for free advertising in the paper and used them to barter goods in the town. These ad-based currencies came to be more trusted than the US issued dollars! Germany, when freeing itself from the private central bank imposed by the Treaty of Versailles, redeemed their value-based currency in units of labor. The result was the German Miracle that so terrified the private bankers they organized a boycott to destroy the new German economy before other nations decided to copy it.
Click for larger
World War 2 was the result.
More recently, Libya established a state-controlled bank issuing a value-based currency, the Gold Dinar, which was gaining in popularity across Africa. Invasion followed. Even in the United States, we have had three Presidents try to pry the nation's finances back form the grip of the private bankers, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, and John F. Kennedy.
"Gentlemen, I have had men watching you for a long time and I am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter, I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and by the Eternal God, I will rout you out." -- Andrew Jackson
Of the three, only Andrew Jackson succeeded in shutting down the bank. He is also the only US President to pay off the National Debt completely. There was an attempted assassination shortly afterwards, with a confession that clearly indicated a financial motive for the attempt. Both Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy used Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution to issue government money free of interest to the private banks. Both men were assassinated and their interest-free money destroyed. In Kennedy's case, a banker, John J. McCloy, President of the Chase Manhattan Bank and President of the World Bank, was appointed to the Warren Commission that whitewashed the circumstances of the assassination.
So, should we return to the gold standard?
My reply is "no."
To be useful as money, the medium for exchange must be something that is universally agreed upon to have value while at the same time existing in enough supply to prevent manipulation by the money-junkies. In arguing about a new value standard for money one detractor argued that gold was the only possible basis for a new monetary system because only gold was universally valued. Obviously, that is not true. One could walk into any nation carrying a gallon of gasoline and find someone willing to trade for it. So clearly, other mediums of exchange are possible, even if we did not have prior history to assure us if their validity and success.
The problem with gold and silver as mediums of exchange is they exist in too small a quantity relative to the growing population. Gold and silver can be manipulated, hoarded, and shorted, to make the speculators rich at the expense of everyone else. Most of the existing gold and silver are already in the hands of the very same bankers who wrecked our present system, so moving to a gold standard merely trades one form of banker-slavery for another.
What is needed is a medium for exchange that increases in supply right alongside the population itself, in order to maintain stability and constant value.
So, my suggestion is to use electricity as the universal basis for a new value-based money system. For the purposes of discussion I call the new US monetary unit the "Lectro." It is redeemable for one kilowatt hour of electricity. The reason I think this is an idea worth pursuing are as follows.
1. While the US Government will have a motive to create electrical power in order to redeem the tokens (coins) and claim checks (Lectro certificates) issued for commerce, creation of electricity and hence money cannot be monopolized. There is no central issuing authority. Every home can have solar panels generating power to the grid, which is redeemable in Lectro notes. In a way we already do this when we pay for power for paper notes and for those able to sell power back to the utility, trade generated power for notes back. This is simply taking the idea to a national scale and making it the de-fact monetary system. and because everyone can generate electricity, artificial scarcity of supply cannot be created.
2. Because power is now the actual monetary system, this approach encourages efficient (and with the proper tax penalties for pollution) clean power generation as well as conservation at the consumer and factory levels.
3. Nobody can short the money supply because everyone can create their own power and monetize it through the treasury. Runaway inflation is impossible because all the coins and certificates in circulation are tied to the available power grid. As power is created, coins and certificates flow into circulation. As power is used, the coins and certificates are taken out of circulation.
4. In the long term, creation of an energy-based money system will smooth the transition from a human-labor to machine-labor society. At present, human labor precedes all capital, payable in a monetary system that pays primarily for human labor. In switching to a monetary system that pays for machine based power production, we evolve towards a society where machines become the primary creators of capital, and all humans shift towards the demand side of the economy. Instead of creating poverty, the push towards automation creates more wealth.