Monday, December 7, 2009

Abolish The Fed And Return Money Creation Power To Congress

In her extraordinary book, "Web of Debt," financial writer Ellen Brown tells "the shocking truth about our money system, (how it) trapped us in debt, and how we can break free." She quotes banker/developer Reed Simpson saying:

"Credible evidence (reveals) a world (banking) power elite intent on gaining absolute control over the planet and its natural resources, including its subservient human (ones)." It's the Bilderberg Group classless society idea of rulers, serfs, and no middle class by controlling the world's money. What Baron MA Rothschild (1818 - 1874) meant by saying:

"Give me control over a nation's currency and I care not who makes its laws." Today it applies globally.

Money is bankers' "lifeblood,....fear (their) weapon." Ill-used, they'll "enslave nations and ensure perpetual wars and bondage." Brown explained all and proposed a solution.

Congressman Ron Paul has led a congressional campaign to abolish the Federal Reserve by introducing legislation in the 106th, 107th, 108th, and 110th Congresses. Each time it died in committee, but he's not deterred. He believes it's essential to:

-- end a private banking cartel's illegal monopoly over the nation's money supply and price;

-- return that power to Congress as the Constitution's Article I, Section 8 mandates;

-- end a fiat currency system that's dysfunctional, broken and corrupted;

-- return the country to a sound, hard currency monetary system; and/or

-- replace private banking with a public alternative at the federal, state, county, and municipal levels to end Fed dominance, and return the nation to sustainable, productive, stable, non-inflationary growth, free from predatory banker control.

On February 3, Paul again tried (with no co-sponsors) by introducing HR 833: Federal Reserve Board Abolition Act:

"To abolish the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal reserve banks, to repeal the Federal Reserve Act, and for other purposes."

It was referred to the House Financial Services Committee where no action so far has been taken.

House and Senate measures, however, are underway to audit the Fed. On February 26, Paul introduced HR 1207: Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009:

"To amend title 31, United States Code, to reform the manner in which the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is audited by the Comptroller General of the United States and the manner in which such audits are reported, and for other purposes."

It was referred to the House Financial Services Committee where action is now pending. As of November 20, the bill has 313 co-sponsors, a solid majority.

On November 20, the House Financial Services Committee passed the Paul-Grayson "Audit the Fed" amendment 43 - 26. It's an important step forward calling for a comprehensive Fed audit and replaces an earlier introduced weaker one. The amendment also softens HR 3996: Financial Stability Improvement Act of 2009, introduced by Rep. Barney Frank on November 3, now in four House committees, to more greatly empower the Fed, masquerading as protection from further bailouts. The House is expected to vote on HR 1207 in December.

On March 16, Senator Bernie Sanders introduced S 604: Federal Reserve Sunshine Act of 2009:

"A bill to amend title 31, United States code, to reform the manner in which the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is audited by the Comptroller General of the United States and the manner in which such audits are reported, and for other purposes."

It was referred to the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee and currently has 30 co-sponsors. A super (three-fifths) majority is needed for passage to thwart a Republican filibuster to stop it.

Origin of the Federal Reserve

In 1910, the following men met secretly on the privately-owned Jekyll Island off the Georgia coast for nine days to change America's financial structure forever. They included:

-- Republican Senator Nelson Aldrich;

-- A. Piat Andrew, Assistant Treasury Secretary;

-- Benjamin Strong, head of JP Morgan's Bankers Trust and later de facto Fed chairman as governor of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, the mother bank;

-- Henry Davison, Sr., JP Morgan partner;

-- Paul Warburg, Kuhn, Loeb & Co. partner, representative for the Rothshilds and Warburgs in Europe, and the main Fed architect;

-- Frank Vanderlip, William Rockefeller representative and president of National City Bank of New York; and

-- Charles Norton, president of 1st National Bank of New York.

On December 23, 1913, they prevailed when Congress passed the Federal Reserve Act to let private bankers control the nation's money and effectively annul the Constitution's Article I, Section 8, mandating only to Congress the power to coin (create) money and regulate the value thereof. Nothing ever since has been the same. Thereafter, "we the people" meant Wall Street, not the "general welfare" or "the blessings of liberty" as the Constitution's Preamble affirms.

Congress established the Fed in the middle of the night by shepherding the legislation through a carefully arranged Congressional Conference Committee meeting between 1:30 - 4:30AM on December 22. It was then enacted the next day when many members were away for the holidays, most others hadn't read it, and it didn't matter for those who did because the text was intentionally vague. The nation's money would be printed by the US Bureau of Engraving and Printing, then issued as a government obligation, or debt, to the private Federal Reserve with interest.

Woodrow Wilson was Morgan's man in the White House with an administration full of his cronies. The Federal Reserve Act was a major coup, giving them what they long wanted and finally got, control over the nation's money and unlimited power with it. According to Brown:

Private bankers got "the exclusive right to 'monetize' the government's debt (that is, print their own money and exchange it for government securities or IOUs)." The obscure language hid the scheme's real aim "to create money out of nothing, lend it to the government at interest, and control the national money supply, expanding or contracting it at will."

Wilson signed the act, then later said:

"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activites are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world. No longer a government of 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" running everything today more than Wilson ever could have imagined.

Ron Paul: "The Federal Reserve Isn't Federal and Has No Reserves" - It's Privately Owned by a Powerful Banking Cartel that Runs America

Dominant member banks own it in each of the 12 Federal Reserve districts. The amount of stock each holds is proportional to its size. As mother bank, the New York Fed is most dominant, owning 53% of all shares because the nation's largest commercial banks are on Wall Street, including JP Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, and Morgan Stanley. Bank of America was founded in California, remains heavily concentrated in Western and Southwestern states, yet operates globally like the other giants. The same is true for Wells Fargo.

The largest banks are financial superpowers with interests in commercial and investment banking, insurance, real estate, home mortgages, credit cards, and virtually everything related to finance, insurance and real estate globally (the so-called FIRE sector).

The Fed is composed of a Board of Governors in Washington (its headquarters) and the 12 regional Districts/Banks in New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Richmond, Atlanta, Cleveland, Chicago, St. Louis, Minneapolis, Kansas City, Dallas, and San Francisco.

Several times previously, the Fed's legitimacy was challenged in federal court to no avail. Each time, the the current system was upheld under which each Federal Reserve Bank was ruled a separate corporation owned by commercial banks in its region. In one case, Lewis v. United States (1982), the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals held that "federal reserve banks are not federal instrumentalities....but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations (statutorily) empowered to conduct (their affairs) without day to day direction from the federal government." In other words, they're independent of government, can do as they please, and take full advantage as the Federal Reserve Act allows, yet Congress does nothing to deter them.

Madison, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln and Kennedy Disagreed

In 1691, three years before the Bank of England's founding, Massachusetts became the first colony to issue its own money backed by the full faith and credit of the government. Other colonies followed, called "scrip." It freed them from British banks to run their affairs inflation free with no taxes. For over 25 years, they needed none, yet achieved sustained, stable, prosperous growth, the kind impossible under a privately run system. More on that below.

In 1751, colony-based British merchants and financiers got King George II to ban new paper money and force colonial governments to borrow it from UK bankers. In 1764, Benjamin Franklin petitioned to stop it without success. Instead, the Bank of England got Parliament to pass a Currency Act making it illegal for the colonies to issue their own money. It turned prosperity into poverty, the root cause, Franklin believed, for the Revolutionary War.

America's Founders and later presidents railed against bankers. James Madison, called them "Money Changers" saying:

"History records that the Money Changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and its issuance."

Thomas Jefferson said:

"I sincerely believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a money aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs."

Jefferson opposed the first Bank of the United States, Andrew Jackson the second, and both for similar reasons:

-- distrust of profiteers controlling the nation's money; and

-- concern about the nation's banking system falling into foreign hands.

At Jefferson's urging, Congress refused renewal of the first 1811 Bank of the United States charter and discovered on liquidation that two-thirds of its owners were foreigners, mostly British and Dutch, none more influential than the Rothschilds. Later, Madison signed a 20-year charter, but after congressional renewal, Jackson vetoed what he called "a hydra-headed monster" entrapping the nation in debt.

Lincoln feared:

"The money powers prey(ing) upon the nation in times of peace and conspir(ing) against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than a monarch, more insolent than autocracy, and more selfish than a bureaucracy. It denounces, as public enemies, all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at the rear is my greatest foe."

In "Web of Debt," Brown explained that they wanted 24 - 36% interest to fund the North's war on the South. As a result, Lincoln got Congress to pass the 1862 Legal Tender Act empowering the Treasury to issue "Greenbacks," interest free to finance the war and grow the economy prosperously.

In spite of assassination threats before inauguration as well as "treason, insurrection, and national bankruptcy" during his first year in office, he:

-- built the world's largest standing army;

-- defeated the South;

-- turned the country into the world's "greatest industrial giant;"

-- launched the steel industry, a continental railroad system, and a new era of farm machinery and cheap tools;

-- established free higher education;

-- gave settler ownership rights and encouraged land development through the Homestead Act;

-- had government support all branches of science;

-- standardized mass production methods;

-- increased labor productivity by 50 - 75%; and

-- more still "with a Treasury that was completely broke and a Congress that hadn't been paid."

How? By nationalizing banking so government could print its own money, interest free, without paying usury to bankers. As a result, "the economy was jump-started with a 600 percent increase in government spending and cheap credit directed" toward productive growth, the kind impossible under a predatory bank-run financialized system for their own self-interest.

After the war, Lincoln was assassinated, of course. The Legal Tender Act was rescinded. A new national banking act was passed, and money became interest-bearing again in private hands.

Nonetheless, John Kennedy confronted Wall Street by issuing Executive Order (EO) 11110 on June 4, 1963 to:

-- amend EO 10289 (dated September 17, 1951) designating and empowering the Treasury Secretary to perform certain "functions of the President without the approval, ratification, or other action of the President;"

-- perhaps bypass the Fed and empower the president to issue currency; it constitutionally empowered the federal government to create and "issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury;"

-- though not verified, some believe he then ordered the Treasury Secretary to issue nearly $4.3 billion worth of United States Notes, perhaps to replace Federal Reserve Notes; whether or not he planned to end the Federal Reserve System is speculation, but perhaps fearing it, among other reasons, led to his assassination five months later;

-- in 1964, Lyndon Johnson said: "Silver has become too valuable to be used as money;"

-- in late 1963, US Notes were withdrawn from circulation; and

-- noted Fed critic and author of "The Creature from Jekyll Island," G. Edward Griffin, wrote on page 569 of his book:

"There was a third point, however, which everyone seemed to overlook. The Executive Order 11110 did not instruct the Treasury to issue Silver Certificates. It merely authorized it to do so if the occasion should arise. The occasion never arose. The last issuance of Silver Certificates was in 1957....six years before the Kennedy (EO). In 1987 (it) was rescinded by (EO) 12608 signed by Ronald Reagan."

Without mentioning EO 11110, it did it by amending EO 10289, rescinding the Treasury's right to issue silver-backed notes.

Publicly-Run Banks Work

Their history is impressive:

-- in colonial America;

-- under Lincoln;

-- in early 20th century Australia when its Commonwealth Bank created money, made loans, and charged a fraction of privately-charged interest; until they took over, the country had one of the highest living standards in the world;

-- in the Middle Ages under a banker-free tally system;

-- in China for thousands of years before private banking, and today because Beijing directs the semi-independent People's Bank of China to grow the economy and create millions of jobs; and

-- in North Dakota, the only US state with its own bank that sustains its uniqueness and strength; it's one of two states, with Montana, running budget surpluses and the only one creating jobs because, as Brown explains:

"it('s) ha(d) its own credit machine (since) The Bank of North Dakota (BND) was established by the state legislature in 1919, specifically to free farmers and small businessmen from the clutches of out-of-state bankers and railroad men;" ever since, BND was tasked with delivering "sound financial services that promote agriculture, commerce and industry," something no other state can match because they don't have state-owned banks.

Again Brown: It works because bankers can "create 'credit' with accounting entries on their books" through fractional reserve banking that multiplies each deposited dollar magically into about 10 in the form of loans or computer-generated funds. It lets banks re-lend many times over, and the more deposits, the greater amount of lending for sustained, productive growth. If all states owned public banks, they'd be as prosperous as North Dakota, and so would America. Instead, private bankers hold the nation hostage.

Ostensibly, the Fed was established to stabilize the economy, smooth out the business cycle, manage a healthy, sustainable growth rate, and maintain stable prices. In fact, it caused 19 recessions (including the Great Depression and current crisis nowhere near resolved and likely to intensify) and substantial equity market declines each time ranging from 18.8% in 1998 to 89% from October 1929 to July 1932.

In addition, the Fed is directly responsible for inflation and the decline in the US standard of living since 1913, and, besides the Great Depression, especially since the 1970s. From the late 18th century to 1913, virtually no inflation existed under the gold standard, except during times of war. Using government data, it now takes over $2,000 to equal $100 of pre-Fed purchasing power. In other words, a 1913 dollar is worth about a nickel, and given recent dollar weakness, even less.

Operating as a hidden government, Fed-created inflation dilutes purchasing power. It practices usury through interest rate manipulation, forcing borrowers to pay their rates. The income tax was established to pay interest on the national debt that wouldn't exist under a public banking system creating Treasury, not Federal Reserve notes.

The Constitution has no federal tax provision because the Founders believed private income was "the ultimate source of productivity." It wasn't coincidental that the February 13, 1913 16th Amendment (establishing an income tax) was ratified ahead of the year-end establishment of the Fed. It's run the country ever since, and when in trouble, gets the public to bail it out with more tax dollars, enough since 2008 to put a lien on future generations, perhaps in perpetuity unless public pressure forces change that won't come from the top down as long as bankers are in charge.

Congress empowered them to commit grand theft by transferring public wealth to themselves, a process especially virulent since the 1980s under Reaganomics-instituted "trickle-down" designed to trickle up. Ever since:

-- tax cuts for the rich replaced a progressive system;

-- the rich became super-rich;

-- consumer debt soared;

-- record high budget and national debt levels prevail;

-- real wages haven't kept up with inflation;

-- low-paying service jobs replaced higher-paying production ones offshored to low-wage countries;

-- technology-driven productivity pressures employees to work harder for less; and

-- during grim times like today, economic instability, lost jobs, home foreclosures, depleted savings, and personal bankruptcies have created growing poverty, hunger, homelessness, and despair with few measures taken to address them under a system favoring wealth by transferring it from the many to the few.

Privatized money control imperils democracy. If the public doesn't regain it, economic tyranny will prevail and eventually the political kind already entrenched with a strong foothold.

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at

Also visit his blog site and listen to the Lendman News Hour on Monday - Friday at 10AM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on world and national issues. All programs are archived for easy listening.

By Stephen Lendman

What we are witnessing with the Democratic and the Republican parties is a corporate merger.

having lived through some, I think I recognize the signs.

Much holdover of key management. No radical rocking of policy, more continuance of same rather than change. Completely unnecessary "bi-partisan" appointments despite electoral wishes/mandates.

The hard-core remnants of both parties will be spun off as specialty shops - "Teabaggers" on one side "Old-fashioned Liberals" on the other. Makes for good theater. The stances of the candidates of the two parties will become increasingly difficult to differentiate. The bare minimum legislatively will be passed by either/both parties and they will blame the other for obstructionism. They will all grant each other plausible deniability for why we end up with the crap legislation we will get for time immemorial.

Notice how well this kabuki is working in the sham we have going on for what passes for "Healthcare Reform". We will get the barest, crappiest reform possible, in fact a great victory for profit healthcare, but it will be framed as a Herculean struggle to get the populace some crumbs - that we will celebrate and be grateful for.

My continuing to proudly declare myself a Democrat will have as much credance as crowing over the merits of a Mercury over a Ford - different finishes, same car.

79% of Americans Want an Audit of the Fed, Only 21% are in Favor of Confirming Bernanke, and Only 20% Think Geithner is Doing a Good Job

79 percent of the American public is in favor of auditing the Fed
, according to a new poll by Rassumussen. Because another 14% are not sure, that leaves only 7% opposed to an audit. And as Rassumussen, the support for auditing the Fed is nonpartisan and very widespread:

Unlike many issues tracked by Rasmussen Reports, there is virtually no partisan disagreement on the issue of auditing the Fed.

Similarly, investors and non-investors are equally supportive of the idea. Generally speaking, there is overwhelming support for such auditing across all demographic categories.

Another poll by Rassumussen shows that only 21 percent of Americans favor confirming Bernanke for another term as Fed chairman.

Rasumussen also points out:

Americans continue to be critical of another key player on the economic front, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. Forty-two percent (42%) of Americans say Geithner has done a poor job handling the credit crisis and federal bailout programs. Twenty percent (20%) rate Geithner’s performance in these areas as good or excellent.

Consumer confidence as measured by the Rasmussen Consumer Index has fallen to a four-month low.

Small Businesses Have Lost Confidence Also

You might assume that - despite the public's lack of confidence in Bernanke, Geithner and the economy - at least businesses are confident.

However, as Rassumussen notes:

After three months of gains, the Rasmussen Employment Index dropped more than four points in November to its lowest level since July. Just 14% of workers now say their employers are hiring, the lowest total since February.

Economic confidence among America's small business owners in the Discover (R) Small Business Watch(SM) index plummeted in November, as more owners cited serious concerns about cash flow and saw economic conditions for their own businesses getting worse.

Specifically, Discover reports:

Economic confidence among America's small business owners plummeted in November, as more owners cited serious concerns about cash flow and saw economic conditions for their own businesses getting worse. The Discover Small Business Watch index fell 12 points in November to 76.5 from 88.5 in October...

  • The mood of small business owners generally has soured in November for three straight years, as economic confidence dropped from October to November in 2007 and 2008. The November 2008 index of 67.5 is the low point for the Watch since it started in August 2006.
  • 52 percent of owners say they have experienced cash flow issues in the past 90 days, up from 44 percent in October. Forty-one percent of owners say they have not experienced cash flow issues, which is the lowest response in this category since the Watch began. The remaining 6 percent said they weren't sure.
  • 53 percent of small business owners see conditions getting worse in the next six months, up from 43 percent in October; while 19 percent report that conditions are improving, a sharp decline from 29 percent in October; 23 percent see conditions as the same, and 5 percent weren't sure.
  • 62 percent of small business owners rate the economy as poor, an increase from 55 percent in October; 30 percent rate it as fair, and 8 percent say it is good or excellent.
  • 53 percent of small business owners think the overall economy is getting worse, up from 44 percent in October but still significantly lower than the 69 percent of owners who felt that way in February 2009, the last time the Watch index was this low. For November; 28 percent say the economy is getting better, down from 35 percent in October; 16 percent see it staying the same, and 3 percent are not sure.
Wall Street might believe that everything is grand, but small businesses are the engines which create job growth in America, and if they are pessimistic, they won't hire.

The Economy Cannot Recover Until Bernanke and Geithner are replaced

As I have repeatedly written, the economy cannot fundamentally stabilize until trust is restored.

Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich wrote that Wall Street's biggest problem right now is the collapse of trust:

The problem is, government bailouts, subsidies, and insurance aren't really helping Wall Street. The Street's fundamental problem isn't lack of capital. It's lack of trust. And without trust, Wall Street might as well fold up its fancy tents.

A 2005 letter in premier scientific journal Nature reviews the research on trust and economics:

Trust ... plays a key role in economic exchange and politics. In the absence of trust among trading partners, market transactions break down. In the absence of trust in a country's institutions and leaders, political legitimacy breaks down. Much recent evidence indicates that trust contributes to economic, political and social success.

Forbes wrote an article in 2006 entitled "The Economics of Trust". The article summarizes the importance of trust in creating a healthy economy:

Imagine going to the corner store to buy a carton of milk, only to find that the refrigerator is locked. When you've persuaded the shopkeeper to retrieve the milk, you then end up arguing over whether you're going to hand the money over first, or whether he is going to hand over the milk. Finally you manage to arrange an elaborate simultaneous exchange. A little taste of life in a world without trust--now imagine trying to arrange a mortgage.

Being able to trust people might seem like a pleasant luxury, but economists are starting to believe that it's rather more important than that. Trust is about more than whether you can leave your house unlocked; it is responsible for the difference between the richest countries and the poorest.

"If you take a broad enough definition of trust, then it would explain basically all the difference between the per capita income of the United States and Somalia," ventures Steve Knack, a senior economist at the World Bank who has been studying the economics of trust for over a decade. That suggests that trust is worth $12.4 trillion dollars a year to the U.S., which, in case you are wondering, is 99.5% of this country's income. ***

Above all, trust enables people to do business with each other. Doing business is what creates wealth. ***

Economists distinguish between the personal, informal trust that comes from being friendly with your neighbors and the impersonal, institutionalized trust that lets you give your credit card number out over the Internet.

Similarly, market psychologists Richard L. Peterson M.D. and Frank Murtha, Ph.D. wrote in 2008:
Trust is the oil in the engine of capitalism, without it, the engine seizes up.

Confidence is like the gasoline, without it the machine won't move.

Trust is gone: there is no longer trust between counterparties in the financial system. Furthermore, confidence is at a low. Investors have lost their confidence in the ability of shares to provide decent returns (since they haven't).
And two professors of finance write:

The drop in trust, we believe, is a major factor behind the deteriorating economic conditions. To demonstrate its importance, we launched the Chicago Booth/Kellogg School Financial Trust Index. Our first set of data—based on interviews conducted at the end of December 2008—shows that between September and December, 52 percent of Americans lost trust in the banks. Similarly, 65 percent lost trust in the stock market. A BBB/Gallup poll that surveyed a similar sample of Americans last April confirms this dramatic drop. At that time, 42 percent of Americans trusted financial institutions, versus 34 percent in our survey today, while 53 percent said they trusted U.S. companies, versus just 12 percent today.

As trust declines, so does Americans’ willingness to invest their money in the financial system. Our data show that trust in the stock market affects people’s intention to buy stocks, even after accounting for expectations of future stock-market performance. Similarly, a person’s trust in banks predicts the likelihood that he will make a run on his bank in a moment of crisis: 25 percent of those who don’t trust banks withdrew their deposits and stored them as cash last fall, compared with only 3 percent of those who said they still trusted the banks. Thus, trust in financial institutions is a key factor for the smooth functioning of capital markets and, by extension, the economy. Changes in trust matter.

They quote a Nobel laureate economist on the subject:
“Virtually every commercial transaction has within itself an element of trust,” writes economist Kenneth Arrow, a Nobel laureate. When we deposit money in a bank, we trust that it’s safe. When a company orders goods, it trusts its counterpart to deliver them in good faith. Trust facilitates transactions because it saves the costs of monitoring and screening; it is an essential lubricant that greases the wheels of the economic system.
Although it is easy to demonstrate that Bernanke and Geithner's actions have harmed the economy, it is not even necessary to show what a poor job they have done economically.

America knows that Bernanke and Geithner have acted in the interests of the largest banks, and have done too little to help Main street and the American people.

Trust will not be restored until Bernanke and Geithner are replaced with people whose loyalty is to the American public and small businesses, rather than the Wall Street giants, and whose track record demonstrates that they will put the American people and entire economy as a whole - rather than the big boys - first.

Philanthropist pleads guilty to bribes

Elliott Broidy, a leading investor in the Israeli economy and major donor and activist in the Los Angeles Jewish community, pleaded guilty Thursday to the felony charge of rewarding official misconduct.

According to New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, Broidy admitted that he made nearly $1 million in payoffs to four senior New York state officials as he pursued an investment from the state public pension fund...

Cuomo said that Broidy has acknwoledged paying at least $75,000 for high-price luxury trips to Italy and Israel for a top official in the New York State Comptroller and his relatives...

By raising $800 million, Broidy turned his Markstone Capital Group into the largest private equity fund in Israel.... In Los Angeles, Broidy has been a major donor to the United Jewish Fund and Friends of the Israel Defense Forces, a trustee of the University of Southern California and USC Hillel, and has served on the Hebrew Union College board of governors and as a trustee of Wilshire Boulevard Temple.

He is credited with revitalizing the dormant California-Israel Chamber of Commerce in the mid-1990s, together with Stanley Gold and Stanley Chais. Gold is president and CEO of Shamrock Holdings and outgoing president of the Jewish Federation of Greater Los Angeles. Chais, a large contributor to Israeli and Jewish causes, faces three legal actions as an alleged middleman for Bernard Madoff.

Broidy has also been a GOP heavy hitter, serving as finance chairman of the Republican National Committee and a top fund raiser for the presidential campaigns of President George W. Bush in 2004 Sen. John McCain in 2008. Full story


Click this link .......



























































Invest in silver now! The dollar crash and the run for silver

Click this link ......

Cold wars: Antarctica cooling, not melting under Ozone Hole shield?

Click this link .......

From Bondage to Rothschild to Freedom Within.

Dog Poet Transmitting…….

I wonder if it has always been this way and it ‘seems’ that some professions are just naturally inclined toward evil ways. These would include politics, religion, the media and occupations directly connected to the pursuit of profit, to the exclusion of all else. Certainly that last group would include bankers. Weaving through all of these activities would be those who are engaged in the manipulation and interpretation of whatever laws there may be. This last group is an indispensable item for all of the other groups.

It might seem that these groups include and employ a very large number of people but, compared to all of the occupations going on, they are not that large. They are just the most visibly evident because they tend to affect our lives in so many ways. They influence what we do and how we do it. They influence how we live and whether our lives are more or less under a shadow. These days the shadow is wide and reaching into every corner of human life.

The more powerful the shadow is then the greater the proliferation of self interest and the will to individual power. Here is a classic example of the sort of men who are connected to the decisions that affect so many lives. In his own words he reveals the kind of man that he is. Shortly after The Mossad and The CIA pulled off the 9/11 attacks, Bush the Lesser immediately put forward Henry Kissinger to head the commission to investigate what happened. The public uproar took care of that idea PDQ. Now we have Climate Diddling and the forces in power have nominated this man. The article says it all. It requires no editorial on my part.

9/11 changed life on Earth in a dramatic fashion. You can see the effect of it everywhere. You see it when you want to travel. You see it in a thousand different ways and it has coiled up inside the minds of those who believe what they are told …and that is a very large number of people. The people who have made all the legal adjustments, which have added to the weight that presses down upon us all, are the very same people who were engaged in orchestrating the event they used as an excuse for all of these oppressions.

These entities have an extended game plan in mind. It infiltrates into every area of life and is especially focused on shaping the mind of the youth. I might have picked another source for this story which originally comes from somewhere else but I am short of time at the moment. The story is expanded at the same site here and with many related links below. The medium for this information isn’t the important thing. The important thing is; is this information true? Is it mostly true? Is some of it true? That will be up to you to chase down and you can let me know what you find.

Here’s one of the major sources for a large part of the unpleasantness on Earth. There’s a weird comment in the video where the announcer attributes the control of 500 trillion dollars and yet refers to Evelyn as the second richest man on the planet. Did I hear it wrong? Well, no matter. This is the group that arranged for what you are told occurred in Nazi Germany. They set it up in order to get their hands on Palestine- not for some group of people called Jews who turn out to not even be Semitic but- so that their world banking operation would have the benefit of operating under the protections of a sovereign nation. This is about having a location from which to loot and control the world.

You might well ask how it is that members of a particular group of people got control of the world’s press and the entertainment industry. The general impression is that it happened because of hard work and keen business sense. It happened because the money was given to them to make it possible and it was not given to someone else. Just about everything that we have been told about history is a lie. Henry Ford said it with the most brevity; “History is bunk.” Henry Ford was a very interesting man.

I used to read widely in many curious areas. I had an insatiable hunger to know what actually happened and to know what was real and what was not. I don’t do much of that anymore because all of my inquiry led me to the same conclusions. I still try to differentiate between what is real and what is not and I find that most everything, like the official record of History, is not real. I’ve come to this understanding according to the Hindu perspective on how the mind operates in relation to appearances through the agency of the senses. This is an ancient science and I find it rings most true with me in comparison to other systems. Patanjali has been a great help to me in this area.

Each of us has to find our own way through the maze and since it is a rare individual who can accomplish this on their own; one might even say there is no such person, your success depends on who is guiding you.

I realize the danger in saying the things I do. I’m not the only one who does this. The numbers of people saying similar things increases every day. Those prone to awakening are finding themselves more and more able to see with a greater clarity. The rest of us are falling deeper and deeper into sleep. The sleepwalkers are troubled and so they are thrashing about in a state of nightmare. They hit each other as they toss and turn. They want to wake up from the nightmare and they repeatedly believe they have woken up, only to find that they are still dreaming. I don’t think that’s a pleasant place to be. Actually seeing what is going on is not all that pleasant either. These things have to run their course. For the moment it seems to be an unfortunate birth that put us in such times as these but we have not seen the end yet so… we do not know.

The pressure of the times is intense. People are drinking too much and seeking out whatever substances might cocoon them from the night terrors. They immerse themselves in fantasies as they become increasingly alienated from their fellows. Suspicion is rampant and superstition is on the rise. We are coming to the grand summing up and I can’t say that too often. Sometimes all you can do is endure.

I would have liked a more charming life. I would have liked to have seen more of my friends and had the continued company of my artistic collaborators. I miss the days when you could travel with ease from one place to another. I miss some of the illusions that I had about world leaders and various things I once believed that made the journey easier. That’s not entirely true. I miss them… but not as much as I would miss being aware of what I am aware of now. Everything has a price and that is one of the biggest reasons that people avoid seeking the truth. It changes you and you can never be who and what you were again.

We should all take some comfort at the peculiar anomalies going on these days. Some would say that the exposure of the climate fraud and the expanding awareness of who actually did 9/11 and so many other things is simply one more trend being manipulated by the people who caused the problems in the first place. I don’t think so. Whether your glass is half empty, half full or… entirely empty is your choice. If you think the whole world is in the unshakeable grip of these miscreants then you will have to live with that state of mind until you find it disproved.

We let them win when they get into our heads. This is where the real battle is taking place; not outside you but inside your minds and your hearts. This is also where you can be victorious, regardless of the size of their armies or their power in the marketplace.

I understand how hard it can be to believe in something beyond the appearances but this capacity is actually based on something very real and there are ancient traditions which explain it very well. You have to know where to look and there is no better way than to look within. Once you have seen the extent of yourself, it is much easier to understand how the world got the way it is. You don’t have to be like these other people. That option is always open to you. You can change at any time and it is the purpose of life to give you that opportunity.

Visible is on the radio tonight with an Origami textured broadcast or you can download it a day or so after.

David Ray Griffin reviews John Farmer's book "The Ground Truth"

Although John Farmer's "The Ground Truth" has attracted a lot of favorable attention, it is a deeply flawed book, containing misleading claims and providing an extremely one-sided account of 9/11.

Much of the attention received by the book has been prompted by misleading claims made by Farmer and his publisher. The book's dust-jacket calls it the "definitive account" of 9/11, but it actually deals almost entirely with only one question about that day: why the airliners were not intercepted.

Also, the book's subtitle calls it "the untold story" of 9/11 and its dust-jacket says that it "breathtakingly revises" our understanding of that day. In reality, however, it simply provides new support for the story told about the planes in "The 9/11 Commission Report," which appeared in 2004, and in two publications that appeared in 2006: Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton's book "Without Precedent," and Michael Bronner's essay in "Vanity Fair."

Most provocatively, Farmer presents his book as a rejection of the "official" account of 9/11, which was given by "the government," by which he means primarily the FAA and the Pentagon. But this rhetoric is misleading for three reasons.

First, Farmer's book is a defense of the 9/11 Commission's report, which he calls "accurate, and true" (2), and the Commission was itself a governmental body: its chairman, Thomas Kean, was appointed by Bush; the other members were appointed by Congress; and the executive director, Philip Zelikow, was essentially a member of the Bush White House.

Second, the "official account of 9/11," as generally understood, is the Bush-Cheney administration's conspiracy theory, according to which the 9/11 attacks resulted from a conspiracy between Osama bin Laden and some members of al-Qaeda, and Farmer supports this theory.

Third, in rejecting the "official version," Farmer is referring only to the first version of the official account. It was replaced in 2004 by the 9/11 Commission's version, which since then has been the official version of the official account. In spite of his rhetoric, therefore, Farmer is defending the official account of 9/11 produced by the government in 2004, so the book is far less radical than it has been promoted as being.

Even more serious than the book's misleading rhetoric is its one-sidedness. Rather than containing an impartial examination of various types of relevant evidence, this book by Farmer - a former prosecuting attorney - reads like a lawyer's brief: Besides citing a large number of facts that appear to support the Bush-Cheney conspiracy theory and trying to undermine some of the contrary evidence (which supports the alternative theory, according to which 9/11 was an inside job), it seeks to suppress, by simply ignoring, the enormous bulk of this contrary evidence.

This one-sided approach is acceptable within an adversarial law court, given the presence of an opposing lawyer, but it does not result in a book that is acceptable by scholarly standards.

The one-sidedness of Farmer's book is manifest in his endnotes, which include no reference to any writings aimed at exposing serious problems with the 9/11 Commission: Besides not referring to any of my own books, one of which is entitled "The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions," Farmer does not even mention "The Commission" by former New York Times writer Philip Shenon - who pointed out, among other things, that Zelikow had secretly written a detailed outline of the Commission's report before his research staff had even begun its work.

This bibliographic one-sidedness is important because it is reflected in substantive one-sidedness, one form of which is the ignoring of a great number of relevant facts. I will mention 15.

1. Claiming that the military did not have information about AA 77 in time to prevent it from striking the Pentagon, Farmer strongly attacks the claim (in the first version of the official account) that the FAA had notified the military about this flight at 9:24 AM. In doing so, he ignores a memo - even though it was discussed and read into the Commission's record in May 2003 - that was sent by the FAA's Laura Brown, explaining that 9:24 was only the time of the "formal notification" - that the FAA had set up phone bridges with the Pentagon and that "real-time information . . . about . . . Flight 77 . . . was conveyed continuously during the phone bridges before the formal notification" (Griffin, "The New Pearl Harbor Revisited" [NPHR] Chs. 1 & 2).

2. Simply assuming that Osama bin Laden authorized the 9/11 attacks, Farmer fails to mention that the FBI has admitted that "no hard evidence" supports this assumption (Griffin, "9/11 Contradictions" [9/11Contra] Ch. 18).

3. While mentioning that some of the alleged hijackers spent time in Las Vegas (62), Farmer fails to point out that, while there and in other places, they drank, went to strip clubs, and did other things that contradicted the Commission's portrayal of them as devout Muslims ready to die for their faith (9/11Contra Ch. 15).

4. Farmer calls Hani Hanjour, who allegedly flew AA 77 (a Boeing 757) through an extremely difficult trajectory to crash into the Pentagon, a "trained pilot" (45), failing to mention the much-documented fact that Hanjour could not even safely fly a single-engine plane (9/11Contra Ch. 19).

5. While claiming that "American 77 crashed into the Pentagon at a speed of 530 miles per hour" (186), Farmer does not point out that, according to the official seismic report, no station, including one only 63 km away, recorded the impact. He also fails to mention that many witnesses at the scene, both inside and outside, reported seeing no crashed airliner (NPHR Ch. 2).

6. Claiming that the alleged hijackers purchased tickets and boarded planes (62, 106), Farmer fails to mention that none of their names - indeed, no Arab names whatsoever - were on the passenger manifests of the flights released by the airlines or on the Pentagon autopsy report (NPHR Ch. 6).

7. Repeating the Commission's claim that Mohamed Atta and Abdul Aziz al Omari took an early morning flight from Portland (Maine) to Boston to catch American Flight 11 (103-05), Farmer does not point out that this story was a late invention, created after authorities learned that Adnan and Ameer Bukhari, originally said to have taken that flight, had not died on 9/11 (9/11Contra Ch. 16).

8. Writing as if the alleged phone calls from the airliners actually happened, Farmer does not point out that, after originally supporting the view that many of the reported calls were made on cell phones, the FBI in 2004 - after members of the 9/11 Truth Movement showed that cell phone calls from high-altitude airliners would have been impossible - quietly withdrew its support for such calls. The FBI thereby contradicted, among others, Deena Burnett, who was positive that she had been called by her husband, Tom Burnett (whom Farmer mentions), because she recognized his cell phone number on her Caller ID (9/11Contra Ch. 17).

9. Farmer repeats the claim, supported in 2004 by "The 9/11 Commission Report," that CNN commentator Barbara Olson had twice called from AA 77 to talk to her husband, Solicitor General Ted Olson (163, 166). But Farmer fails to point out that in 2006, after members of the 9/11 Truth Movement had reported that American's 757s did not have onboard phones, the FBI - in its report for the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui (the so-called 20th hijacker) - said that Barbara Olson's (one) attempted call did not go through and therefore lasted "0 seconds" (9/11Contra Ch. 8).

10. Farmer endorses the claim that the hijackers had box-cutters (161, 163), not mentioning the fact that this claim had been made only in the reported calls from Barbara Olson, which the FBI now says never happened (9/11Contra Ch 8).

11. While repeating the Commission's claim that al-Qaeda hijackers finally succeeded in breaking into UA 93's cockpit 30 seconds after they started trying (189), Farmer fails to ask why, in all that time, the pilots did not use the transponder to squawk the hijack code - a procedure that takes about 2 seconds (NPHR Ch. 6).

12. While claiming, like the Commission, that "Vice President Cheney learned that the Pentagon had been hit while he was in the tunnel under the White House leading to the shelter" (207), Farmer does not point out that Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta told the Commission that Cheney had been in the shelter (the Presidential Emergency Operations Center) at least since 9:20 AM, hence about 20 minutes before the reported time of the Pentagon attack - an observation that was supported by other witnesses, including counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke (9/11Contra Ch. 2).

13. While acknowledging that Richard Clarke's account of his White House videoconference contradicts the 9/11 Commission's claims about the whereabouts of not only Cheney but also Donald Rumsfeld and General Richard Myers, Farmer simply asserts that Clarke's account "does not square in any significant respect with what occurred that morning" (184), failing to point out that the question of who told the truth could be cleared up simply by looking at the videotape.

14. Suggesting that the Twin Towers came down because each one was "fragile at its core" (28), Farmer implicitly denies the fact that each tower was supported by 47 massive core columns and ignores the question of why several scientific studies, including one by the US Geological Survey, showed that the dust at Ground Zero contained various elements that, unless explosives had been used to bring down the buildings, should not have been there (Griffin, "The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7," Ch. 4).

15. Although Farmer's entire case for the 9/11 Commission's version of the official account, which involves his accusing a remarkable number of people of lying, rests entirely on logs and audiotapes not examined by the Commission until several years after 9/11, he fails to consider reasons that have been provided for believing that these tapes and logs had been doctored (NPHR Chs 1-3, 10).

There would be much more to say in a complete review, but the above points suffice to suggest that Farmer's book is deeply flawed, providing an account that is far from the "ground truth" about 9/11.

Dysfunctional US media stoop to new depths

Two disturbing news items: The first, a Haaretz column (29 November 2009) on a "Senate report: U.S. decided to let bin Laden slip through their fingers. According to the report, US could have captured or killed bin Laden shortly after 11 September 2001 attacks."

Charles Cooper, one of few bloggers commenting on the report says: "The Senate report notes how Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and General Tommy Franks rejected requests for US troops to block the mountain paths leading to sanctuary a few miles away near the border with Pakistan."

This news is important enough to deserve more than a passing nod by bloggers and one major TV news channel. The leading news sources have been busy covering Sarah Palin's book signings, White House party crashers, Tiger Woods's 2 a.m. auto escapades and other mundane issues of little relative importance to most people.

The US is about to add 30,000 or more troops to keep Afghanistan from appearing to be a NATO failure, yet few ask why Franks and Rumsfeld failed to capture bin Laden eight years ago.

The media simply rubbishes off the Senate committee findings – a kind of acceptance of their discovery as self-evident – something like a pre-emptive strike against ferreting out the truth.

The second major news commentary travesty came from op-ed columnist Thomas Friedman in the New York Times (28 November 2009), who provided a leading example of disgusting Islamophobic punditry in mainstream media.

Friedman couldn't resist using his position as a major columnist to turn a psychopathic killer’s shootup into a general diatribe against Arabs and Islam.

After asking, "What should we make of Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, who apparently killed 13 innocent people at Fort Hood?" Friedman uses that to develop a generalized Arab-Muslim “narrative”.

Friedman brays:

The narrative is the cocktail of half-truths, propaganda and outright lies about America that have taken hold in the Arab-Muslim world since 9/11. Propagated by jihadist websites, mosque preachers, Arab intellectuals, satellite news stations and books – and tacitly endorsed by some Arab regimes...

To Friedman, the villain happens to be any Muslim exposed to the extremist voices in the Islamic community. Before making idiotic judgments, Friedman should look around at some of the crimes and criminals in America and conclude that the American "narrative" is the root problem.

Friedman continues his diatribe against Muslims with "this narrative posits that America has declared war on Islam, as part of a grand ‘American-Crusader-Zionist conspiracy’ to keep Muslims down."

American Muslims have justified fears that Americans have declared war on Islam. Leslie Evans, reporting on a lecture by Abdulkader Sinno at University of California, Los Angeles, wrote:

There have been indiscriminate deportations of Muslims in the US. Hundreds have been quietly deported. Many spent months in windowless solitary confinement cells without even the opportunity to undergo questioning in which they could confront the supposed charges against them.

An eight-year crusade is enough reason for Muslims to believe that America is waging a battle against Islam. However, Friedman has been listening to the wrong voice and accepting what he hears without question.

Sinno had more to say:

Thousands of Muslims were interrogated by the FBI, mosques were put under surveillance. Bush described the war on terror as a crusade, a most unfortunate choice of words. Hundreds of Middle Eastern immigrants in Los Angeles were incarcerated when they reported in response to a request from the INS (Immigration & Naturalization Service).

Strangely, a newspaper like Haaretz in Israel occasionally does a better job of reporting on important events in the USA than the American press. It's shameless when a major American newspaper – the New York Times – publishes anti-Muslim bile from a bigoted commentator.

By Paul J. Balles

Paul J. Balles views the dysfunctional mainstream US media, in a week where they have ignored a major news story – the revelation that the US government allowed Osama bin Ladin to escape – and allowed the bigoted New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman to spew out anti-Muslim bile.

Jones: Bin Laden still spends time in Afghanistan

WASHINGTON – National security adviser James Jones said Sunday that al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden still spends some time inside Afghanistan. Most recent U.S. estimates have placed bin Laden inside Pakistan. But Jones, a retired general, said the best estimate is that bin Laden "is somewhere in North Waziristan, sometimes on the Pakistani side of the border, sometimes on the Afghan side of the border."

Jones described it as "very, very rough, mountainous area. Generally ungoverned and we're going to have to get after that to make sure that this very, very important symbol of what al-Qaida stands for is either, once again, on the run or captured or killed."

Earlier, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the U.S. hasn't had any good intelligence for years on bin Laden's whereabouts. He said he couldn't confirm reports that bin Laden had been seen recently in Afghanistan.

"If, as we suspect, he is in North Waziristan, it is an area that the Pakistani government has not had a presence in, in quite some time," Gates said.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said it was important to kill or capture bin Laden and other al-Qaida leaders, "but certainly you can make enormous progress absent that."

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said people in the region have told him bin Laden "moves back and forth." He said the hunt for bin Laden has prevented him from establishing bases for training and equipping terrorists, adding, "Don't think al-Qaida could not flourish without him if we give them a safe haven."

Jones appeared on CNN's "State of the Union," Gates and Clinton were on ABC's "This Week," NBC's "Meet the Press" and CBs' "Face the Nation." McCain was on NBC.

Where is bin Laden? Secretary Gates Says No Intel in 'Years'

efense Secretary Robert Gates told me that the U.S. has not had any good intelligence on the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden in "years."

He also couldn’t confirm reports that a detainee in Pakistan had claimed that he had information on where bin Laden was earlier this year. He made the startling admission during my interview with him for "This Week" airing Sunday.

Here's the exchange:

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: "The Pakistani Prime Minister shrugged off any concerns about that this week, about whether or not he’d done enough to go after Osama bin Laden. He said he doesn’t believe Osama is in Pakistan. Is he right and do you think the Pakistanis have done enough to get him?"

DEFENSE SECRETARY ROBERT GATES: "Well, we don’t know for a fact where Osama bin Laden is. If we did, we’d go get him"

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: "What was the last time we had any good intelligence on where he was?

DEFENSE SECRETARY ROBERT GATES: "I think it’s been years."



GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: "So these reports that came out just this week about a detainee saying he might have seen him in Afghanistan earlier this year, we can’t confirm that?
Gates: No."

You can watch the complete interview with Gates and Secretary Clinton Sunday on "This Week."

1958 - Global Warming - It's NOT newly known

Click this link .......

Why Switzerland Has The Lowest Crime Rate In The World

Click this link ......

Climategate UN Eugenics Crime Syndicate Exposed on CBC News

Click this link ......

China pays web surfers to find porn: Report

Chinese authorities have offered rewards of up to 10,000 yuan (1,465 dollars) to Internet users who report websites that feature pornography, state media reported Sunday.

However, the censors' latest campaign against content that harms public morality appears to have encouraged Internet users to look for porn online.

Within the first 24 hours, a hotline set up Friday by Internet Illegal Information Reporting Centre was flooded with more than 500 phone calls and 13,000 online tips, the official Xinhua news agency reported.

The centre is looking for websites and mobile phone-accessible sites that contain obscene material or advertise sex products, the report said.

Rewards ranging from 1,000 yuan to 10,000 yuan will go to the first person to report each website, the centre said in a notice, adding a committee would review the tipoffs to determine what award was appropriate, Xinhua said.

China has launched several Internet crackdowns on pornography, con artists and political activists in the past.

Earlier this year China threatened to sanction major websites, including search engine giants Google and Baidu, alleging that pornography and other material that could corrupt young people was turning up in search results.