INDEX

Februry 2017        MONEY MASTERS
September 2016  CORRUPTION
August 2016          CANDIDATES  2008 (MCCAIN, HILLARY AND OBAMA
July 2016                MEDIA   From the archives
June 2016               9/11    From the archives
May 2016                 IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN  from the archives 
April 2016               ARCHIVES Lebanon
June 2015               OCEAN AND ASBURY BLUES    ARCHIVES 
December 2015     WHAT DID ISRAEL KNOW IN ADVANCE OF 9/11 
December 2014     FREEMAN DYASON  WEAPONS AND HOPE  
December 2014     TRANNY OF US-NATO MILITARISM ETC.
December 2014     IS ISRAEL LOSING THE BATTLE TO WAGE WAR ON IRAN? 
November 2014     PETER DALE SCOTT  THE AMERICAN DEEP STATE  
September 2014    OLIVER STONE PETER KUZNICK UNTOLD HISTORY  
September 2014    HUDSON COMMENTS ON UNTOLD HISTORY   
September 2014   HUDSON ESSAYS ON  CONSCIOUSNESS

Advertisements

Finding your way through our blog

At the top of the blog, on the upper right corner, there are three colored symbols, one with three horizontal ” lines”, another with a “gear” in its center, and a third with a symbol of a magnifying glass. Please click on the one with “3 line symbol” and then “about” to bring up the Introduction to the Hudson’s’ Blog to get to know us and the general contents of this blog. Clicking on the “gear symbol” will take you to monthly postings which are detailed in the Index below. We also note that simply scrolling down the entries will bring up one after the other entry from the latest to the first and that our most recent entry will always be at the top of the blog until the Index and the” Finding your way. . . ” are moved to the top later.

The Money Masters

 

In 1995 Patrick S. J. Carmack co-produced a two-volume video The Money Masters: How International Bankers Gained Control of America. Mr. Carmack, a member of the bar of the US Supreme Court of the United States, a BBA, JD, has practiced corporate law and was a former Administrative Law Judge for the Corporation Commission of the State of Oklahoma. His video

. . . . in addition to giving a history of Rothchild banking establishment argues among other things that private central banks owned and controlled American large media and other outlets. The Money Masters discusses the topics of money (as it relates to central banking and fractional reserve banking), debt, and taxes, and purports to describe the development of those subjects from their origin in the “dark ages”. The film claims that what it calls the “safe and easy guaranteed huge profit made by printing money” is currently being used in the United States to benefit a few wealthy individuals. It argues that this situation should be remedied, so that this alleged profit benefits the public good, as, according to the film, has been the case during four periods in the history of the United States.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Money_Masters

At the beginning of the excerpts of the video the commentator asks the listener “What is going on in America today?” explaining that property ownership, a general feature of our society before the Civil War and largely until the Great Depression, has been replaced by debt and dependence on wages or salaries

Why are we over our heads in debt? Why can’t the politicians bring debt under control? Why are so many people – often both parents now – working at low-paying, deadend jobs and still making do with less? What’s the future of the American economy and way of life? Why does the government tell us inflation is low, when the buying power of our paychecks is declining at an alarming rate? Only a generation ago, bread was a quarter and you could get a new car for $1,995!

Unlike W. H. Brands in The Money Men who sees the Federal Reserve a quasi private and public venture responsible for our great prosperity, Carmack sees the Federal Reserve the last and most lethal private US bank relating American history to show some of our most valiant presidents rejecting and dismantling US national banks for the reasons he explains. As to our monetary system,

. . . . . we have one of the worst, , , ever devised – a central bank that operates independently of our government, which, with other private banks, creates all of our money with a parallel amount of interest-bearing debt. That’s why we can never get out of debt. And that’s why a deep depression is a certainty, for most of our citizens, whether caused suddenly in a severe economic crash, or gradually through continued relentless inflation. The Fed is creating it to enrich its private stockholder. . .

In times of prosperity, Americans might be unwilling to accept a history which destroys so many of our myths. But sitting as we do on top of a financial world that seems ready to crumble beneath us, such history begins to explain how we came to be atop such a dangerous precipice. At the beginning of 2008, our Federal Reserve prints money to deflate our currency in order to bail out financial institutions who created mortgage vehicles that turned out bogus and therefore worthless infecting banks throughout the world. While financial transactions often operate quietly behind the scenes to keep their overall power over the economy hidden, in this latest phase concerning mortgages, Wall Street collides with Main Street. Americans are losing their homes in groves and although the system may be bad, it is the one on which we all depend. At its heart are our banks which are freezing up, unable or too afraid to lend money. When the Federal Reserve retreats that many analysts predict they will be forced to do, institutions that are interconnected and intertwined will tumble one after another. The Feds efforts to save the system have helped to bring on more inflation and devalue the dollar. More and more mortgages will be unpaid as the prices of homes decline with their equity. Can we find the roots to such problems?

The extensive American history in the transcripts of The Money Masters helps us come to understand some of this as well as other global issues that have led to the exporting of jobs, declining standards of living, and importing of millions of immigrants. It is a story about them vs. us; a story about an aristocracy of capital living in the midst of a nation wanting to be a democracy. The main story begins, as previously reviewed, with international banking promoted by Rothschild’s’ agent Alexander Hamilton and coming to include others such as the Morgan’s and the Rockefeller’s

First, Part Seven of the The Money Masters video presents additional information on the origins and influence of the Rothschilds

The Rise of the Rothschilds

. . . . . Meyer Rothschild soon learned that loan money to governments and kings was more profitable than loaning to private individuals. Not only were the loans bigger, but they were secured by the nation’s taxes. . . . .


The Rothschilds broke into dealings with European royalty in Wilhelmshohe, the palace of the wealthiest man in Germany – in fact, tbe wealthiest monarch in all of Europe – Prince William of Hesse-Cassel.


At first, the Rothschilds were only helping William speculate in precious coins. But when Napoleon chased Prince William into exile, William sent £550,000 (a gigantic sum at that time, equivalent to many millions of current U.S. dollars) to Nathan Rothschild in London with instructions from him to buy Consola – British government bonds also called government stock. But Rothschild used the money for his own purposes. With Napoleon on the loose, the opportunities for highly profitable wartime investments were nearly limitless.

William returned to Wllhelmshohe, sometime prior to the Battle of Waterloo in 1815. He summoned the Rothschilds and demanded his money back. The Rothschilds returned William’s money, with the 8% interest the British Consols would have paid him had the investment actually been made. But the Rothschilds kept all the vast wartime profits they had made using Wilhelm’ s money—a shady practice in any century.

Partly by such practices, Nathan Rothschild was able to later brag that in the seventeen years he had been in England, he had increased his original £20,000 stake given to him by his father by 2,500 times (=£50,000,000), a truly vast sum at that time, comparable to billions of current U.S. dollars in purchasing power.

As early as 1817, the director of the Prussian Treasury, on a visit to London, wrote that Nathan Rothschild had:   “… incredible influence upon all financial affairs here in London. It is widely stated … that he entirely regulates the rate of exchange in the City. His power as a banker is enormous. “

 
Austrian Prince Metternich’s secretary wrote of the Rothschilds as early as 1818 that:
“…they are the richest people in Europe”.

By cooperating within the family, using fractional reserve banking techniques (it could lend out money it didn’t have, then charge interest on it), the Rothschilds’ banks soon grew unbelievably wealthy. By the mid-1800s, they dominated all European banking, and were certainly the wealthiest family in the world. A large part of the profligate nobility of Europe became deeply indebted to them.

In virtue of their presence in five nations as bankers, they were effectively autonomous – an entity independent from the nations in which they operated. If one nation’s policies were displeasing to them or their interests, they could simply do no further lending there, or lend to those nations or groups opposed to such policies. Only they knew where their gold and other reserves were located, thus shielding them from government seizure, penalty, pressure or taxation, as well as effectively making any national investigation or audit meaningless. Only they knew the extent (or paucity) of their fractional reserves, scattered in five nations – a tremendous advantage over purely national banks engaging in fractional reserve banking too.

It was precisely their international character that gave them unique advantages over national banks and governments, and that was precisely what rulers and national parliaments should have prohibited, but did not. This remains true of international or multi-national banks to this very day, and is the driving force of globalization – the push for one-world government.
The Rothschilds provided huge loans to establish monopolies in various industries, thereby guaranteeing the borrowers’ ability to repay the loans by raising prices without fear of price competition, while increasing the Rothschild’s economic and political power.

They financed Cecil Rhodes, making it possible for him to establish a monopoly over the gold fields of South Africa and the deBeers over diamonds. In America, they financed the monopolization of railroads.
The National City Bank of Cleveland, which was identified in Congressional hearings as one of three Rothschild banks in the United States, provided John D. Rockefeller with the money to begin his monopolization of the oil refinery business, resulting in Standard Oil.

Jacob Schiff, who had been born in the Rothschild “Green Shield” house in Frankfort and who was then the principal Rothschild agent in the U.S., advised Rockefeller and developed the infamous rebate deal Rockefeller secretly demanded from railroads shipping competitors’ oil.

These same railroads were already monopolized by Rothschild control through agents and allies J.P. Morgan and Kuhn, Loeb & Company (Schiff was on the Board) which together controlled 95% of all U.S. railroad mileage.   By 1850, James Rothschild, the heir of the French branch of the family, was said to be worth 600 million French francs – 150 million more than all the other bankers in France put together.

James had been established in Paris in 1812 with a capital of $200,000 by Mayer Amschel. At the time of his death in 1868, 56 years later, his annual income was $40,000,000. No fortune in America at that time equaled even one year’s income of James. Referring to James Rothschild, the poet Heinrich Heine said:   “Money is the god of our times, and Rothschild is his prophet.” James built his fabulous mansion, called Femeres, 19 miles northeast of Paris. Wilhelm I, on first seeing it exclainned, “Kings couldn’t afford this. It could only belong to a Rothschild.”

Another 19 century French commentator put it this way;   “There is but one power in Europe and that is Rothschild.”
There is no evidence that their predominant standing in European or world finance has changed, to the contrary, as their wealth has increased they have simply increased their “passion for anonymity”. Their vast holdings rarely bear their name.
Author Frederic Morton wrote of them that they had “conquered the world more thoroughly, more cunningly, and much more lastingly than all the Caesars before

 

American History


The Revolution
By the mid-1700s, the British Empire was approaching its height of power around the world. Britain had fought four wars in Europe since the creation of its privately- owned central bank, the Bank of England. The cost had had been high. To finance these wars, the British Parliament, rather than issuing its own debt-free currency, had borrowed heavily from the Bank. ]

By the mid-1700s, the government’s debt was £140,000,000 – a staggering sum for those days. Consequently, the British government embarked on a program of trying to raise revenues from its American colonies in order to make the interest payments to the Bank.

But in America, it was a different story. The scourge of a privately-owned central bank had not yet landed in America, though the Bank of England exerted its baneful influence over the American colonies after 1694.
Four years earlier, in 1690 the Massachusetts Bay colony printed its own paper money – the first in America. This was followed in 1703 by South Carolina and then by other colonies. In the mid-1700s, pre-Revolutionary America was still relatively poor. There was a severe shortage of precious metal coins to trade for goods, so the early colonists were increasingly forced to experiment with printing their own home-grown paper money. Some of these experiments were successful. Tobacco was used as money in some colonies with success.

In 1720 every colonial Royal Governor was instructed to curtail the issue of colonial money. This was largely unsuccessful. In 1742 the British Resumption Act required that taxes and other debts be paid in gold. This caused a depression in the colonies – property was seized on foreclosure by the rich for one-tenth its value.

Benjamin Franklin was a big supporter of the colonies printing their own money. In 1757, Franklin was sent to London to fight for colonial paper money. He ended up staying for the next 18 years – nearly until the start of the American Revolution. During this period, ignoring Parliament, more American colonies began to issue their own money. Called Colonial Scrip, the endeavor was successful, with notable exceptions. It provided a reliable medium of exchange, and it also helped to provide a feeling of unity between the colonies. Remember, most Colonial Scrip was just paper money – debt-free money – printed in the public interest and not really backed by gold or silver coin. In other words, it was a fiat currency.

Officials of the Bank of England asked Franklin how he would account for the new-found prosperity of the colonies. Without hesitation he replied:   “That is simple. In the colonies we issue our own money. It is called Colonial Scrip. We issue it in proper proportion to the demands of trade and industry to make the products pass easily from the producers to the consumers…  In this manner, creating for ourselves our own paper money, we control its purchasing power, and we have no interest to pay to no one.”
This was just common sense to Franklin, but you can imagine the impact it had at the Bank of England. America had learned the secret of money and that genie had to be returned to its bottle as soon as possible.

1st American Central Bank War (1764-1776)
As a result, Parliament hurriedly passed the Currency Act of 1764. This prohibited colonial officials from issuing their own money and ordered them to pay all future taxes in gold or silver coins. In other words, it forced the colonies on a gold and silver standard. This initiated the first intense phase of the first “Bank War” in America, which ended in defeat for the Money Changers beginning with the Declaration of Independence, and concluded by the subsequent peace Treaty of Paris 1783.

For those who believe that a gold standard is the answer for America’s current monetary problems, look what happened to America afar the Currency Act of 1764 was passed. Writing in his autobiography, Franklin said:  “In one year, the conditions were so reversed that the era of prosperity ended, and a depression set in, to such an extent that the streets of the Colonies were filled with unemployed.”

Franklin claims that this was even the basic cause for the American Revolution. As Franklin put it in his autobiography:   “The Colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters had it not been that England took away from the Colonies their money, which created unemployment and dissatisfaction.”

In 1774, Parliament passed the Stamp Act which required that a stamp be placed on ever instrument of commerce indicating payment of tax in gold, which threatened the colonial paper money again. Less than two weeks later, the Massachusetts Committee of Safety passed a resolution directing the issuance of more colonial currency and honoring the currency of other colonies.

On June 10 and June 22, 1775, the “Congress of the Colonies” resolved to issue million in paper money based on the credit and faith of the “United Colonies”. This flew in the face of the Bank of England and Parliament. It constituted an act of defiance, a refusal to accept a monetary system unjust to the people of the colonies.

“Thus the bills of credit [ie. paper money] which historians with ignorance or prejudice have belittled as instruments of reckless financial policy, were really the standards of the Revolution. They were more than this: they were the Revolution itself.” – Alexander Del Mar, historian

NOTE Alexander del Mar, also Alex Delmar (1836–1926), was an American political economist, historian, numismatist and author. He was the first director of the Bureau of Statistics at the U.S. Treasury Department from 1866–69

By the time the first shots were fired in Concord and Lexington, Massachusetts on April 19, 1775, the colonies had been drained of gold and silver coin by British taxation. As result, the Continental government had no choice but to print its own paper money to finance the war.

At the start of the Revolution, the U.S. (colonial) money supply stood at $12 million. By the end of the war, it was nearly $500 million. This was partly a result of massive British counterfeiting. As a result, the currency was virtually worthless. Shoes sold for $5,000 a pair.
George Washington lamented, “A wagon load of money will scarcely purchase wagon of provisions.”

Earlier, Colonial scrip had worked because just enough was issued to facilitate trade and counterfeiting was minimal. Today, those who support a gold-backed currency point to this period during the Revolution to demonstrate the evils of a fiat currency. But remember, the currency had worked so well twenty years earlier during times of peace that England had Parliament outlaw it, and during the war the British deliberately sought to undermine it by counterfeiting it in England and shipping it “by the bale” to the colonies.

2nd American Central Bank War (1781-1785)
Towards the end of the Revolution, the Continental Congress, meeting at Independence Hall in Philadelphia, grew desperate for money. In 1781, they allowed Robert Morris, their Financial Superintendent, to open a privately-owned central bank in hopes that would help. Incidentally, Morris was a wealthy man who had grown wealthier during the Revolution by trading in war materials.

Called the Bank of North America, the new bank was closely modeled after the Bank of England. It was allowed to practice (or rather, it was not prohibited from) fractional reserve banking – that is, it could lend out money it didn’t have, then charge interest on it. If you or I were to do that, we would be charged with fraud, a felony. Few understood this practice at the time, which was, of course, concealed from the public and politicians as much as possible. Further, the bank was given a monopoly on issuing bank notes, acceptable in payment of taxes.

The Bank’s charter called for private investors to put up $400,000 worth of initial capital. But when Morris was unable to raise the money, he brazenly used his political influence to have gold deposited in the bank which had been loaned to America by France. He then loaned this money to himself and his friends to reinvest in shares of the bank. The second American Bank War was on.

Soon, the dangers became clear. The value of American currency continued to plummet, so, four years later, in 1785, the Bank’s charter was not renewed, effectively ending the threat of the Bank’s power. Thus the second American Bank War quickly ended in defeat for the Money Changers.

The leader of the successful effort to kill the Bank, a patriot named William Findley, of Pennsylvania, explained the problem this way:   “This institution, having no principle but that of avarice, will never be varied in its object … to engross all the wealth, power and influence of the state.”

Plutocracy, once established, will corrupt the legislature so that laws will be made in its favor, and the administration of justice, to favor the rich.   The men behind the Bank of North America – Alexander Hamilton, Robert Morris and the Bank’s President, Thomas Willing – did not give up.   Only six years later, Hamilton – then Secretary of the Treasury – and his mentor, Morris, rammed a new privately-owned central bank through the new Congress.   Called the First Bank of the United States, Thomas Willing again served as the Bank’s President. The players were the same, only the name of the Bank was changed.

The Constitutional Convention
In 1787, colonial leaders assembled in Philadelphia to replace the ailing Articles of Confederation. As we saw earlier, both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were unalterably opposed to a privately-owned central bank. They had seen the problems caused by the Bank of England. They wanted nothing of it. As Jefferson later put it:   “If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and the corporations which grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”

During the debate over the future monetary system, another one of the founding fathers, Governor Morris, headed the committee that wrote the final draft of the Constitution. Morris knew the motivations of the bankers well.
Along with his old boss, Robert Morris, Governor Morris and Alexander Hamilton were the ones who had presented the original plan for the Bank of North America to the Continental Congress in the last year of the Revolution.  In a letter he wrote to James Madison on July 2, 1787, Governor Morris revealed what was really going on:   “The rich will strive to establish their dominion and enslave the rest. They always did. They always will. … They will have the same effect here as elsewhere, if we do not, by [the power of] government, keep them in their proper spheres.”
Despite the defection of Governor Morris from the ranks of the Bank, Hamilton, Robert Morris, Thomas Willing, and their European backers were not about to give up.

NOTE:  Robert Morris and Governor Morris were two different founding fathers, and as explained here, while both had been allied with Hamilton Governor came to defect from that alliance

They convinced the bulk of the delegates to the Constitution Convention not to give Congress the power to issue paper money. Most of the delegates were still reeling from the wild inflation of the paper currency during the Revolution. They had forgotten how well Colonial Scrip had worked before the War. But the Bank of England had not. The Money Changers could not stand to have America printing her own money again.

Many believed the Tenth Amendment, which reserved powers to the States which were not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution, made the issuance of paper money by the federal government unconstituonal, since the power to issue paper money was not specifically delegated to the federal government in the Constitution. The Constitution is silent on this point. However, the Constitution specifically forbade the individual States to “emit bills of credit” (paper money).

Most of the framers intended the Constitution’s silence to keep the new federal government from having the power to authorize money creation. Indeed, the journal of Convention for August 16 reads as follows:   “It was moved and seconded to strike out words ‘and emit bills of credit,’ and the motion. . ..passed in the affirmative.”
But Hamilton and his banker friends saw this silence as an opportunity of keeping the government out of paper money creation which they hoped to monopolize privately. So both bankers and anti-banking delegates, for opposing motives, supported leaving any federal government authority for paper money creation out of the Constitution, by a four to one margin. This ambiguity left the door open for the Money Changers, just as they had planned.

Of course, paper money was not itself the main problem, fractional reserve lending was the greater problem since it multiplied any inflation caused by excessive paper currency issuance by several times. But this was not understood by many, whereas the evils of excessive paper currency issuance were.

In their belief that prohibiting paper currency was a good end the framers were well advised. Prohibiting all paper currency would have severely limited the fractional reserve banking then practiced, since the use of checks was minimal and would, arguably, have been prohibited as well. But bank loans, created as book entries, were not addressed, and so were not prohibited.
As it happened, the federal and state governments were widely regarded as prohibited from paper money creation, whereas private banks were not – it being argued that this power, by not being specifically prohibited, was reserved to the people (including legal persons, such as incorporated banks).
The contrary argument was that bank corporations were instruments or agencies of the states which incorporated them and so were prohibited from “emitting bills of credit” as were the states themselves. This argument was ignored by the bankers, who proceeded to issue paper bank notes based on fractional reserves, and it lost all force once the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that even the federal government could charter a bank (the 1st BUS) which could issue paper money.

In the end, only the states were prohibited from issuing paper money, not the federal government, and neither private banks nor even municipalities were prohibited from issuing paper money (as happened in 400 cities during the Great Depression).

Another error not often understood concerns the authority given the federal government “to coin money” and “to regulate the value thereof.” Regulating the value of money (that is to say its purchasing power, or value relative to other things) has nothing to do with quality or content (e.g. so many grains of gold or copper, etc,), but has to do with its quantity – the supply of money. It is quantity that determines its value, and never has Congress legislated any total quantity of money in the U.S.

Legislating a total money supply (including currency, checks and all bank deposits) would, in fact, regulate the value (purchasing power) of each dollar. Legislating the rate of growth of the money supply would then determine its future value. Congress has never done either, though it clearly has the constitutional authority to do so. It has left this function to the Fed and the 10,000+ banks which create our money supply.

3rd American Central Bank War (1791- 1811)
In 1790, less than three years after the Constitution had been signed, the Money Changers struck again. The newly-appointed first Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, proposed a bill to the Congress calling for a new privately-owned central bank. Coincidentally, that was the very year that Meyer Rothschild made his pronouncement from his flagship bank in Frankfort:
“Let me issue and control a nation’s money and I care not who writes its laws.”

Alexander Hamilton was a tool of the international bankers. He wanted to create another private central bank, the Bank of the United States, and did so. He convinced Washington to sign the bill over Washington’s reservations and over Jefferson’s and Madison’s opposition.

To win over Washington, Hamilton developed the “implied powers” argument used so often since to eviscerate the Constitution. Jefferson correctly predicted the dire consequences of opening such a Pandora’s box which would allow judges to “imply” whatever they wished. . . . .

“Never was a great historic event followed by a more feeble sequel. A nation arises to claim for itself liberty and sovereignty. It gains both of these by immense sacrifice of blood and treasure. Then, when victory is gained and secure, it hands the nation’s credit – that is to say a national treasure – over to private individuals, to do as they please with.” – Alexander Del Mar, historian

The first Bank of the United States was headquartered in Philadelphia. The Bank was even given authority to print currency and make loans, based on fractional reserves, even though 80% of its stock would be held by private investors. The other 20% would be purchased by the U.S. Government, but the reason was not to give the government a piece of the action, it was to provide the initial capital for the other 80% owners.

As with the old bank of North America and the Bank of England before that, the stockholders never paid the full amount for their shares. The U.S. government put up their initial $2,000,000 in cash, then the Bank through the old magic of fractional reserve lending, made loans to its charter investors so they could come up with the remaining $8,000,000 in capital needed for this risk-free investment.

Like the Bank of England, the name of the Bank of the United States was deliberately chosen to hide the fact that it was privately controlled. And like the Bank of England, the names of the investors in the Bank were never revealed.

“Under the surface, the Rothschilds long had a powerful influence in dictating American financial laws. The law records show that they were the power in the old Bank of the United States” – Myers, History of the Great American Fortunes.

The Bank was promoted to Congress as a way to bring stability to the banking system and to eliminate inflation. So what happened? Over the first five years, the U.S. government borrowed $8.2 million from the Bank of the United States. In that period, prices rose by 72%.

Jefferson, as the new Secretary of State, watched the borrowing with sadness and frustration, unable to stop it.    “I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution – taking from the federal government the power of borrowing.”
President Adams denounced the issuance of private bank notes as a fraud upon the public. He was supported in this view by all conservative opinion of his time. Why continue to farm out to private banks, for nothing, a prerogative of government?

Millions of Americans feel the same way today. They watch in helpless frustration as the Federal government borrows the American taxpayer into oblivion; borrowing from private banks and the rich the money the government has the authority and duty to issue itself, without debt. So, although it was called the First Bank of the U.S., it was not the first attempt at a privately-owned central bank in this country. As with the first two, the Bank of England and the Bank of North America, the government put up the cash to get this private bank going, then the bankers loaned that money to each other to buy the remaining stock in the bank.

It was a scam, plain and simple. And they wouldn’t be able to get away with it for long, but first we have to travel back to Europe to see how a single man was able to manipulate the entire British economy by obtaining the first news of Napoleon’s final defeat.

Napoleon’s Rise to Power
Here in Paris, the Bank of France was organized in 1800 just like the Bank of England. But Napoleon decided France had to break free of debt and he never trusted the Bank of France, even when he put some of his own relatives on the governing Board. He declared that when a government is dependent upon bankers for money, the bankers, not the leaders of the government are in control:   “The hand that gives is above the hand that takes. Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency: their sole object is gain.He clearly saw the dangers, but did not see the proper safeguards or solution. Back in America, unexpected help was about to arrive.

In 1800, Thomas Jefferson narrowly defeated John Adams to become the third President of the United States. By 1803, Jefferson and Napoleon had struck a deal. The U.S. would give Napoleon $3,000,000 in gold in exchange for a huge chunk of territory west of the Mississippi River – the Louisiana Purchase.

 
With that three million dollars, Napoleon quickly forged an army and set off across Europe, conquering everything in his path. But England and the Bank of England quickly rose to oppose him. They financed every nation in his path, reaping the enormous profits of war. Prussia, Austria, and finally Russia all went heavily into debt in a futile attempt to stop Napoleon.

Four years later, with the main French Army in Russia, 30-year-old Nathan Rothschild – the head of the London office of the Rothschild family – personally took charge a bold plan to smuggle a much-needed shipment of gold right through France to finance an attack by the Duke of Wellington from Spain. Nathan later bragged at a dinner party in London that it was the best business he ever done. He made money on each step the shipment. Little did he know that would do much better business in the near future.
Wellington’s attacks from the south, and other defeats, eventually forced Napoleon to abdicate, and Louis XVIII was crowned King. Napoleon was exiled to Elba, a tiny island off the coast of Italy, supposedly exiled from France forever. While Napoleon was in Elba, temporarily defeated by England with the financial help of the Rothschilds – America was trying to break free of its central bank as well.

Death of the First Bank–War of 1812

In 1811, a bill was put before Congress to renew the charter of the Bank of the United States. The debate grew very heated and the legislature of both Pennsylvania and Virginia passed resolutions asking Congress to kill the Bank.   The press corps of the day attacked the Bank openly, calling it “a great swindle”, a “vulture”, a “viper”, and a “cobra”. Oh, to have an independent press once again in America.
A Congressman named P.B. Porter attacked the bank from the floor of Congress, prophetically warned that if the bank’s charter were renewed, Congress,   “will have planted in the bosom of this Constitution a viper, which one day or another will sting the liberties of this country to the heart.”
Prospects didn’t look good for the Bank. Some writers have claimed that Nathan Rothschild warned that the United States would find itself involved in a most disastrous war if the Bank’s charter were not renewed.
But it wasn’t enough. When the smoke had cleared, the renewal bill was defeated by a single vote in the House and was deadlocked in the Senate. By now, America’s fourth President, James Madison, was in the White House. Remember, Madison was a staunch opponent of the Bank. His Vice President, George Clinton, broke a tie in the Senate and sent the Bank, the second privately-owned central bank based in America, into oblivion. Thus, the third American Bank War, lasting twenty years, ended in defeat for the Money Changers.

Within 5 months, as Rothschild was said to have predicated, England attacked the U.S. and the War of 1812 was on. But the British were still busy fighting Napoleon, and so the war of 1812 vended in a draw in 1814.  It is interesting to note that during this war, the Treasury printed some government paper money, not bearing interest, to fund the war effort. This was not repeated until the Civil War.

Though the Money Changers were temporarily down, they were far from out. It would take them only another two years to bring a fourth private central bank back – bigger and stronger than before.

Waterloo

. . . . . This episode aptly demonstrates the cunning of the Rothschild family in gaining control of the British stock market after Waterloo.
In 1815, a year after the end of the War of 1812 in America, Napoleon escaped his exile and returned to Paris. French troops were sent out to capture him, but such was his charisma that the soldiers rallied around their old leader and hailed him as their Emperor once again. Napoleon returned to Paris a hero. King Louis fled into exile and Napoleon again ascended to the French throne – this time without a shot being fired.

In March of 1815 Napoleon equipped an army which Britain’s Duke of Wellington defeated less than 90 days later at Waterloo. He borrowed 5 million pounds to rearm from the Ouvard banking house in Paris. Nevertheless, from about this point on, it was not unusual for privately-controlled central banks to finance both sides in a war.

Why would a central bank finance opposing sides in a war? Because war is the biggest debt-generator of them all. A nation will borrow any amount for victory. The ultimate looser is loaned just enough to hold out the vain hope of victory, and the ultimate winner is given enough to win. Besides, such loans are usually conditioned upon the guarantee that the victor will honor the debts of the vanquished. Only the bankers cannot lose. . . . .

4th American Central Bank War (1816- 1836)


Meanwhile, back in Washington, in 1816, just one year after Waterloo and Rothschilds’ alleged takeover of the Bank of England, the American Congress passed a bill permitting yet another privately-owned central bank – the fourth American Bank War had begun.

This bank was called the Second Bank of the United States. The new Bank’s charter was a copy of the previous Bank’s. The U.S. government would own 20% of the shares. Of course, the Federal share was paid by the Treasury up front, into the Bank’s coffers. Then, through the magic of fractional reserve lending, it was transformed into loans to private investors who then bought the remaining 80% of the shares. Sound familiar by now?

Just as before, the primary stockholders remained secret. But it is known that, at the largest single block of shares- about one-third of the total- was held by foreigners. As one observer put it:
“It is certainly no exaggeration to say that the Second Bank of the United States was rooted as deeply in Britain as it was in America.”

 
So by 1816, some authors claim the Rothschilds and their allies, some by now related by marriage, had taken control over the Bank of England and backed the new privately-owned central bank in America as well. With Napoleon’s defeat about the same time, they began to dominate the Bank of France as well.
Andrew Jackson
After about a decade of monetary manipulations on the part of the Second Bank of the U.S., the American people, once again, had had just about enough. Opponents of the Bank nominated a famous senator from Tennessee, Andrew Jackson, the hero of the Battle of New Orleans, to run for president. His home he named “The Hermitage”. No one gave Jackson a chance initially. The Bank had long-ago learned how the political process could be controlled with money.

To the surprise and dismay of the Money Changers, Jackson was swept into office in 1828. Jackson was determined to kill the Bank at the first opportunity, and wasted no time to trying to do so. But the Bank’s 20 year charter didn’t come up for renewal until 1836, the last year of his second term – if he could survive that long. During his first term, Jackson contented himself with rooting out the Bank’s many minions from government service. He fired 2,000 of the 11,000 employees of the federal government.
In 1832, with his re-election approaching, the Bank struck an early blow, hoping Jackson would not want to stir up controversy. It asked Congress to pass a bank charter renewal bill four years early. Congress complied, and sent it to the President for signing. But Jackson weighed in with both feet. “Old Hickory,” never a coward, vetoed the bill. His veto message is one of the great American documents. It clearly lays out the responsibility of the American government towards its citizens – rich and poor.

   “It is not our own citizens only who are to receive the bounty of our Government. More than eight millions of the stock of this bank are held by foreigners… It is easy to conceive that great evils to our country and its institutions might flow from such a concentration of power in the hands of a few irresponsible to the people.  Is there no danger to our liberty and independence in a bank that in its nature has so little to bind it to our country? Controlling our currency, receiving our public moneys, and holding thousands of our citizens in dependence… would be more formidable and dangerous than a military power of the enemy…It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes… If [government] would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favor alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing.  In the act before me there seems to be a wide and unnecessary departure from these just principles. Many of our rich men have not been content with equal protection and equal benefits, but have besought us to make them richer by act of Congress…  If we can not at once, in justice to interests vested under improvident legislation, make our Government what it ought to be, we can at least take a stand against all new grants of monopolies and exclusive privileges, against any prostitution of our Government to the advancement of the few at the expense of the many, and in favor of compromise and gradual reform in our code of laws and system of political economy. . . . .
Jackson also declared:  “If Congress has the right to issue paper money, it was given them to be used by themselves, and not to be delegated to individuals or corporations.”
Later that year, in July 1832, Congress was unable to override Jackson’s veto. Now Jackson had to stand for re-election. . . . .

The National Republican Party ran Senator Henry Clay against Jackson. Despite the fact that the Bank poured in over $3,000,000 into Clay’s campaign, an enormous sum at that time, Jackson was re-elected by a landslide in November of 1832.

Despite his presidential victory, Jackson knew the battle was only beginning: “The hydra of corruption is only scotched, not dead,” said the newly-elected President. . . . . But the Bank was not through fighting yet. .. . . . In a rare, public display of arrogance, Biddle (the Bank’s President) threatened to cause a national economic depression if the Bank were not rechartered. He declared war:
 

What a stunning revelation! Here was the pure truth, revealed with shocking clarity. Biddle intended to use the money contraction power given to the Bank to cause a massive depression until America gave in. Unfortunately, this has happened time and time again throughout U.S. history, though without the blunder of Biddle’s arrogant admission, and may be about to happen again in our time. . . . .

Nicholas Biddle made good on his threat. The Bank sharply contracted the money supply by calling in old loans and refusing to extend new ones. A financial panic ensued, followed by a deep economic depression. Predictably, Biddle blamed Jackson for the crash, saying that it was caused by the withdrawal of federal funds from the Bank. Unfortunately, his plan worked well. Wages and prices sagged. Unemployment soared along with business bankruptcies. The nation quickly went into an uproar. . . . 
  Six months after he had withdrawn funds from the bank, Jackson was officially censured by a resolution which passed the Senate by a vote of 26 to 20. It was the first time a President had ever been censured by Congress. Jackson lashed out at the Bank.   “You are a den of vipers. I intend to rout you out and by the Eternal God I will rout you out.” . . . .

Then something close to a miracle occurred. The Governor of Pennsylvania, where the 2nd BUS was headquartered, came out supporting the President and strongly criticized the Bank. On top of that, Biddle had been caught boasting in public about the Bank’s plan to crash the economy. Suddenly the tide shifted. In April of 1834, the House of Representatives voted 134 to 82 against re-chartering the Bank.

On January 8, 1835, eleven years after taking office, Jackson paid off the final installment on the national debt which had been necessitated by allowing the banks to issue currency to buy government bonds, rather than simply issuing Treasury notes without such debt. He was the only President ever to pay off the national debt.

A few weeks later, on January 30, 1835, an assassin by the name of Richard Lawrence tried to shoot President Jackson. Both pistols misfired. Lawrence was later found not guilty by reason of insanity. After his release, he bragged to friends that powerful people in Europe had put him up to the task and promised to protect him if he were caught.

The following year, when its charter ran out, the Second Bank of the United States ceased functioning as the nation’s central bank. Biddle was later arrested and charged with fraud. He was tried and acquitted, but died shortly thereafter while still tied up in civil suits. The Second Bank of the US went belly up. The fourth American Bank War had ended in the fourth defeat for the Money Changers.

After his second term as President, Jackson retired to The Hermitage outside Nashville.. . . Jackson also warned future generations of Americans:   “The bold effort the present bank had made to control the government… the distress it had wantonly produced … are but premonitions of the fate that awaits the American people should they be deluded into a perpetuation of this institution or the establishment of another like it.”

Abe Lincoln and the Civil War

. . . . .One month after the inauguration of Abraham Lincoln, the first shots of the American Civil War were fired at Fort Sumter, South Carolina on April 12, 1861. The fifth and final American Bank War was beginning.   Certainly slavery was a cause for the Civil War, but not the primary cause. Lincoln knew that the economy of the South depended upon slavery and so (before the Civil War) he had no intention of eliminating it. Lincoln had put it this way in his inaugural address only one month earlier:    “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it now exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”

Even after the first shots were fired at Fort Sumter, Lincoln continued to insist that the Civil War was not about the issue of slavery:   “My paramount objective is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it.”

So what was the Civil War all about? There were many factors at play. Northern industrialists had used protective tariffs to prevent their southern states from buying cheaper European goods. Europe retaliated by stopping cotton imports from the South. The Southern states were in a financial bind. They were forced to pay more for most of the necessities of life while their income from cotton exports plummeted. The South grew increasingly angry.
But there were other factors at work. The Money Changers were still stung by America’s withdrawal from their control 25 years earlier. Since then, America’s wildcat economy, despite the presence of fractional reserve banking with its attendant booms and busts, had made the nation rich – a bad example for the rest the world.

The central bankers now saw an opportunity to use the North/South divisions to split the rich new nation – to divide and conquer by war. Was this just some sort of wild conspiracy theory? Well, let’s look at what a well placed observer of the scene had to say at time.

This was Otto von Bismarck, Chancellor of Germany, the man who united the German states in 1871. A few years later, in 1876, he is quoted as saying:   “It is not to be doubted, I know of absolute certainty,” Bismarck declared, “that the division of the United States into two federations of equal power was decided long before the Civil War by the high financial powers of Europe. These bankers were afraid that the United States, if they remained as one block and were to develop as one nation, would attain economic and financial independence, which would upset the capitalist domination of Europe over the world.”

Within months after the first shots were fired at Fort Sumter, the central bankers loaned Napoleon III of France (the nephew of the Waterloo Napoleon) 210 million francs to seize Mexico and station troops along the southern border of the U.S., taking advantage of the Civil War to violate the Monroe Doctrine and return Mexico to colonial rule.

We add another note about The Monroe Doctrine: It . . . was a U.S. policy of opposing European colonialism in the Americas beginning in 1823. It stated that further efforts by European nations to take control of any independent state in North or South America would be viewed as “the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States.”[1] At the same time, the doctrine noted that the U.S. would recognize and not interfere with existing European colonies nor meddle in the internal concerns of European countries. The Doctrine was issued in 1823 at a time when nearly all Latin American colonies of Spain and Portugal had achieved or were at the point of gaining independence from the Portuguese and Spanish Empires. President James Monroe first stated the doctrine during his seventh annual State of the Union Address to Congress. The term “Monroe Doctrine” itself was coined in 1850 By the end of the 19th century, Monroe’s declaration was seen as a defining moment in the foreign policy of the United States and one of its longest-standing tenets. It would be invoked by many U.S. statesmen and several U.S. presidents, including Ulysses S. Grant, Theodore Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and many others . . . . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine

No matter what the outcome of the Civil War, it was hoped that a war-weakened America, heavily indebted to the Money Changers, would open up Central and South America once again to European colonization and domination – the very thing America’s Monroe Doctrine had forbade in 1823.

At the same time, Great Britain moved 11,000 troops into Canada and positioned them along America’s northern border. The British fleet went on war alert should their quick intervention be called for.

Lincoln knew he was in a bind. He agonized over the fate of the Union. There was a lot more to it than just differences between the North and the South. That’s why his emphasis was always on “Union” and not merely the defeat of the South. But Lincoln needed money to win.

In 1861, Lincoln and his Secretary of the Treasury, Salmon P. Chase, went to New York to apply for the necessary war loans. The Money Changers, anxious to maximize their war profits, only offered loans at 24-36% interest. Lincoln said thanks, but no thanks, and returned to Washington. He sent for an old friend, Colonel Dick Taylor of Chicago, and put him onto the problem of financing the War. At one particular meeting, Lincoln asked Taylor how else to finance the war. Taylor put it this way:   “Why, Lincoln, that is easy; just get Congress to pass a bill authorizing the printing of full legal tender treasury notes… pay your soldiers with them and go ahead and win your war with them also.”
When Lincoln asked if the people of the United States would accept the notes, Taylor said:   “The people or anyone else will not have any choice in the matter, if you make them full legal tender. They will have the full sanction of the government and be just as good as any money … the stamp of full legal tender by the Government is the thing that makes money good any time, and this will always be as good as any other money inside the borders of our country. “

So that’s exactly what Lincoln did. From 1862 to 1865, with Congressional authorization, he printed up $432,000,000 of the new bills.   In order to distinguish them from private bank notes in circulation, he had them printed with green ink on the back side. That’s why the notes were called “Greenbacks.” With this new money, Lincoln paid the troops, and bought their supplies. During the course of the war, nearly all of the 450 million dollars of Greenbacks authorized by Congress were printed at no interest to the federal government.

By now Lincoln realized who was really pulling the strings and what was at stake for the American people. Lincoln understood the matter better than even Jackson apparently had. This is how he explained his monetary views:   “The Government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency and credit needed to satisfy the spending power of the Government and the buying power of consumers… The privilege of creating and issuing money is not only the supreme prerogative of Government, but it is the Government’s greatest creative opportunity… By the adoption of these principles, the long-felt want for a uniform medium will be satisfied. The taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest. The financing of all public enterprises and the conduct of the Treasury will become matters of practical administration. Money will cease to be master and become the servant of humanity.”
. . . . .Keep in mind, by this time the European monarchs were already chained to their private central banks, hence the bankers’ concern to preserve their captive monarchs. Within four days of the passage of the law which allowed Greenbacks to be issued, bankers met in convention in Washington to discuss the situation. It was agreed that Greenbacks would surely be their ruin. Something had to be done. They devised a scheme gradually to undermine the value of the Greenbacks.

Seemingly unimportant limitations on the use of Greenbacks (printed on the green back), insisted on by the bankers, forbidding their use to pay import duties and interest on the public debt, were utilized by the banks to slap a surcharge on Greenbacks of up to 185%. This undermined the confidence of the people in Greenbacks and necessitated further concessions to the bankers to obtain more, discounted as the Greenbacks now were.

This scheme was effective – so effective that the next year, 1863, with Federal and Confederate troops beginning to mass for the decisive battle of the Civil War, and the Treasury in need of further Congressional authority at that time to issue more Greenbacks, Lincoln gave in to the pressure, which he described:   “They persist, they have argued me almost blind – I am worse off than St. Paul. He was in a strait between two. I am in a strait between twenty and they are bankers and financiers.”

Lincoln allowed the bankers to push through the National Banking Act of 1863 in exchange for their support for the urgently needed additional Greenbacks.   This act created “National Banks” (hence the N.A. still in use after National banks’ names) and gave them a virtual tax-free status. The new banks also got the exclusive power to create the new form of money – National Bank Notes. Though Greenbacks continued to circulate, their quantity was limited and no more were authorized after the war.

On June 13, 1863, according to Judge Rutherford’s book, “Vindication” this letter was sent from the Rothschilds’ London office, which does, in fact, accurately assess the National Banking Act of 1863:
“Rothschild Brothers, Bankers, London, June 25th, 1863
Messrs Ikleheimer, Morton and Vandergould, No 3 Wall St., New York, US.A.

Dear Sirs:
A Mr. John Sherman has written us from a town in Ohio, U.S.A., as to the profits that may be made in the National Bankng business under a recent act of your Congress, a copy of which act accompanied his letter. Apparently this act has been drawn upon the plan formulated here last summer by the British Bankers Association and by that Association recommended to our American friends as one that if enacted into law, would prove highly profitable to the banking fraternity throughout the world.

Mr. Sherman declares that there has never been such an opportunity for capitalists to accumulate money, as that presented by this act, and that the old plan of State Banks is so unpopular, that the new scheme will, by contrast, be most favorably regarded, notwithstanding the fact that it gives the National Banks an almost absolute control of the National finance.
‘The few who can understand the system,’ he says, ‘will either be so interested in its profits, or so dependent of its favors that there will be no opposition from that class, while on the other hand, the great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantages that capital derives from the system, will bear its burdens without complaint and perhaps without even suspecting that the system is inimical to their interests.’

Please advise fully as to this matter and also state whether or not you will be of assistance to us, if we conclude to establish a National Bank in the City of New York. If you are acquainted with Mr. Sherman (he appears to have introduced the Banking Act) we will be glad to know something of him. If we avail ourselves of the information he furnished, we will, of course, make due compensation.

Awaiting your reply, we are
Your respectful servants, Rothschild Brothers”

From this point on, the U.S. money supply would be created in parallel with an equivalent quantity of debt by bankers buying U.S. government bonds, which they used as reserves for National Bank Notes, the nation’s new form of money, instead of by direct debt-free issue by the government, as were Lincoln’s Greenbacks. The banks got interest from the government on the bonds and from borrowers of their Bank Notes – thus almost doubling their interest income. As historian John Kenneth Galbraith explained:   “In numerous years following the war, the Federal government ran a heavy surplus. It could not [however] pay off its debt, retire its securities, because to do so meant there would be no bonds to back the national bank notes. To pay off the debt was to destroy the money supply.”

Predictably, the new National Banks quickly applied pressure to Congress to have state bank notes taxed out of existence. Congress complied. Thus the fifth American Bank War progressed in small stages in favor of the Money Changers, culminating in passage of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and the National Bank Act of 1935. . . . 
  . . .. .Victorious in the Civil War, had he lived, as his statements quoted above and following make – abundantly clear, Lincoln would surely have killed the National Banks’ money monopoly extracted from him during the war. On November 21, 1864, he wrote a friend

“The money power preys upon the nation in times of peace and conspires against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to trem- } ble for the safety of my country. Corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the republic is destroyed.”

Shortly before Lincoln was assassinated, his former Secretary of the Treasury, Salrnon P. Chase, bemoaned his role in helping secure the passage of the National Banking Act only one year earlier:   “My agency in promoting the passage of the National Banking Act was the greatest financial mistake in my life. It has built up a monopoly which affects every interest in the country.”

Return of the Gold Standard

. . . . .”Right after the Civil War there was considerable talk about reviving Lincoln’s brief experiment with the Constitutional monetary system. Had not the European money-trust intervened, it would have no doubt become an established institution.”

. . . . .On April 12, 1866, nearly one year to the day of Lincoln’s assassination, Congress went to work at the bidding of the European central-banking interests. It passed the Contraction Act, authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury to begin to retire the Greenbacks in circulation and to contract the money supply.

Authors Theodore R. Thoren and Richard F. Warner explained the results of the money contraction in their book on the subject, The Truth in Money Book:   “The hard times which occurred after the Civil War could have been avoided if the Greenback legislation had continued as President Lincoln had intended. Instead, there were a series of ‘money panics’ – what we call ‘recessions’ – which put pressure on Congress to enact legislation to place the banking system under centralized control. Eventually the Federal Reserve Act was passed on December 23, 1913.”

In other words, the Money Changers wanted two things: 1) the re-institution of a privately-owned central bank under their exclusive control, and, 2) an American currency issued by them and backed by their gold. . . . . .
. . . . .Today, bank-funded economists try to sell the idea that recessions and depressions are a natural part of something they call the “business cycle.” One economist actually tried to explain business cycles with reference to sun spots! The truth is, our money supply is completely manipulated now, just as it was after the Civil War, just as it was by Nicholas Biddle and the 2nd BUS (during Jackson’s Adm.).. . . .
How did money become so scarce? Simple – bank loans were called in and no new ones were given. In addition, Greenbacks were retired by the millions and silver coins were melted down.

On March 13, 1868, James Rothschild wrote to his U.S. agent, Belmont, “warning ruin to those who might oppose the payment of U.S. Bonds in coin, or who might advocate their liquidation in greenbacks.” Another scheme was afoot.

On March 18, 1869, Congress, at these bankers’ bidding, passed the Credit Strengthening Act which provided that U.S. bonds purchased during the Civil War with greenbacks the bankers had discounted on receipt to as little as $.35 on the dollar, would be repaid, in gold at full value. By this means the Treasury paid the bankers some $500 million more than they had paid for the bonds, plus the interest due. A colossal sum, equivalent to well over 5 billion dollars today, was thus transferred from the Treasury to the Money Changers. Thereafter, their power over the U.S., thus mightily augmented, continually increased.

In 1872, a man named Ernest Seyd was given £100,000 (about $5,000,000 then) by the Bank of England and sent to America to bribe the necessary Congressmen to get silver “demonetized to further reduce the money supply.” He was told that if this was not sufficient, to draw an additional £100,000, “or as much more as was necessary.” The next year, Congress passed the Coinage Act of 1873 and the minting of silver dollars abruptly stopped.

In fact, Rep. Samuel Hooper, who introduced the bill in the House, acknowledged that Mr. Seyd actually drafted the legislation. But it gets worse than that. In 1874, Seyd himself admitted who was behind the scheme:   “I went to America in the winter of 1872-73, authorized to secure, if I could, the passage of a bill demonetizing silver. It was in the interest of those I represented – the governors of the Bank of England – to have it done.”

The international bankers accomplished the same demonetization of silver in Germany (1871-73); the Latin Monetary Union (France, Italy, Be1gium, Switzerland) in 1873-74; the Scandinavian Union (Denmark, Norway and Sweden) in 1875-76; and the Netherlands in 1875-76. Within five short years, the gold standard was thus imposed worldwide, with China being the only significant holdout.. . . .

On February 28, 1878, Congress passed the Sherman Law allowing the minting of a limited number of silver dollars, ending a 5-year hiatus. This did not end gold-backing of the currency, however. Nor did it completely free silver. Previous to 1873, anyone who brought silver to the U.S. mint could have it struck into silver dollars free of charge. No longer. But at least some silver money began to flow back into the economy again. Under political pressure, the bankers loosened up on loans for awhile and the post-Civil War depression was finally ended.

Three years later, the American people elected Republican James Garfield President. Garfield understood how the economy was being manipulated. As a Congressman, he had been chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and was a member of the Banking and Currency Committee. After his inauguration, he slammed the Money Changers publicly in 1881:   “Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce… and when you realize that the entire system is very easily controlled, one way or another, by a few powerful men at the top, you will not have to be told how periods of inflation and depression originate.”

Garfield understood. Within a few weeks of making this statement, on July 2 of 1881, President Garfield was assassinated.


Free Silver

. . . . By 1896, the issue of more silver money had become the central issue in the Presidential campaign. William Jennings Bryan, a Senator from Nebraska ran for President as a Democrat on the “Free Silver” issue. His father had been an ardent Greenbacker. At the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, he made an emotional speech which won him the nomination entitled, “Crown of Thorns and Cross of Gold.” Though Bryan was only 36 years old at the time, this speech is widely regarded as the most famous oration ever made before a political convention. In the dramatic conclusion. Bryan said:   “We will answer their demand for a gold standard by saying to them: You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns, you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of old.”

The bankers lavishly supported the Republican candidate, William McKinley, who favored the gold standard. The resulting contest was among the most fiercely contested Presidential races in American history.

Bryan made over 600 speeches in 27 states. Bryan stood with the Greenbackers:  “The right to coin and issue money is a function of Government. It is a part of sovereignty and cannot, with safety, be delegated to private individuals.”
The McKinley campaign got manufacturers and industrialists to inform their employees that if Bryan were elected, all factories and plants would close and there would be no work. The ruse succeeded. McKinley beat Bryan by a small margin.

Some authors believe, and the course of history supports them, that under the bankers’ President, McKinley, before the summer of 1897, the United States entered into a secret agreement (no papers of any sort were signed) that the U.S. would support England in its inevitable conflict with Germany – the product of Bismarck’s nation building.

This was, de facto, an agreement surrendering American independence into a worldwide alliance (France being a minor partner) to dominate the world, presided over by the Money Changers who dominated the Bank of England from the City, in London, and through it, the British government.

Almost immediately, in 1898, the Spanish-American War was begun. Later, the U.S. was dragged into two World Wars (and other minor ones) to secure the worldwide imperialistic designs of the Money Changers. The 1897 Agreement made the U.S. a principal in the British Empire, which has been succeeded by the international financial empire of the Money Changers, defended and expanded by U.S., and more recently, by U.S.-led U.N. armed forces.
Bryan ran for president again in 1900 and in 1908, but fell short each time. But the threat his presence presented to the National Bankers afforded the Republican alternatives, Roosevelt and Taft, a grating measure of independence from the bankers (Roosevelt mildly opposed their monopolies and Taft was unenthusiastic about their proposed central bank legislation), who therefore shifted support to Wilson in 1912.

During the 1912 Democratic Convention, Bryan was a powerful figure who stepped aside to help Woodrow Wilson win the nomination. When Wilson became President he appointed Bryan as Secretary of State. But Bryan soon became disenchanted with the Wilson administration.

Bryan served only two years . . . before resigning in 1915 over the highly-suspicious sinking of the Lusitania, the event which was used to drive America into World War I.

Although William Jennings Bryan never gained the Presidency, his efforts delayed the Money Changers for seventeen years from attaining their next goal – a new, privately-owned central bank for America. But like Wilson, Bryan was deceived as to the true import of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. Both initially supported it. Both later publicly repented over their support of it. Bryan later wrote:   “That is the one thing in my public career that I regret – my work to secure the enactment of the Federal Reserve Law.”


J.P. Morgan and the Crash of 1907/Rockefeller

Now it was time for the Money Changers to get back a new, private central bank for America, the fifth private central bank to control and manipulate America’s money supply.

A major final panic would be necessary to focus the nation’s attention on the supposed need for a central bank. The thin rationale offered was that only a central bank can prevent widespread bank failures and stabilize the currency. The critically important feature of who would own and control it was an issue carefully avoided.

Before the Civil War, the Rothschilds had previously used, as principal agents in the U.S., J.L and S.I Joseph & Company. Later George Peabody, an American bond salesman, traveled to London before the Civil War and developed a relationship with Nathan Rothschild, which became a highly profitable one for Peabody. His business expanding, he took on an American partner, Junius Morgan, father of J.P.

In 1857 Junius was the recipient of a £800,000 loan from the Bank of England at a time of financial crisis when many other firms were denied such loans. Junius Morgan became the Union’s financial agent in Britain, often closely associated with the Rothschilds.

In the post-Civil War period the connection between Morgan and the Rothschilds was certainly well known in financial circles. As one writer noted:  “Morgan’s activities in 1895-1896 in selling U.S. gold bonds in Europe were based on his alliance with the House of Rothschild.”
After his father’s death, J.P. Morgan took on a British partner, Edward Grenfell, a long-time director of the Bank of England. There is speculation the Morgans became the Rothschilds’ principal agents in the U.S., eventually to be eclipsed by the Rockefellers.

Early in this century, in U.S. finance, the press and in politics, all lines of power converged on the financial houses of J.P. Morgan (J.P. Morgan Company; Bankers Trust Company; First National Bank of New York, Guaranty Trust), the Rockefellers (National City Bank of New York; Chase National Bank; Chemical Bank); Kuhn, Loeb & Company (a representative of the Rothschild banks; National City Bank of New York) and the Warburg’s (Manhattan Corp. bank).

Morgan was clearly the most powerful banker in America, and like his father, worked as an agent for the Rothschild family, but also for his own interests. He helped finance the monopolization of various industries, consolidated big steel holdings into a monopoly by buying Andrew Carnegie’s steel companies, and owned numerous industrial companies and banks.

Interestingly, though reputedly America’s richest banker, upon J.P.’s death, his estate contained $68 million dollars, only 19% of J.P. Morgan company. The bulk of the securities most people thought he owned, were in fact owned by others. When J.P. Morgan, Jr. (Jack) died in 1943 his estate was valued at only $16 million. By contrast, when Alphonse Rothschild died in 1905 his estate contained $60 million in U.S. securities alone.

John D. Rockefeller and his brother William used their enormous profits from the Standard Oil monopoly to dominate the National City Bank, merged in 1955 with Morgan’s and Kuhn, Loeb & Company’s First National Bank of New York, which resulted in Citibank (Citicorp).

Similarly, John D. bought control of Chase National Bank, and merged it with Warburg’s Manhattan bank, resulting in the Rockefeller-dominated Chase Manhattan bank, recently merged with the Rockefeller-controlled Chemical Bank.

The combination of the Rockefeller-controlled Chase-Manhattan/Citicorp banks gives them majority control over the New York Fed (52%), which completely dominates the Federal Reserve System. But the New York Fed was controlled by Rockefeller long before any majority ownership was reached.

By these mergers, the Rockefellers gradually replaced the Morgans, Schiffs and Warburgs as the principal Rothschild allies in the U.S. . . . . .
The relationship between the Rothschilds and Rockefellers was initially one of debtor/creditor, as the Rothschild’s provided the seed money for J.D. Rockefeller to monopolize the U.S. oil refinery business . . . . .   Subsequently, the relationship entered into measured competition here (local wars between subordinates sometimes resulting) and cooperation there, but like the competition between the other banks, this too has resolved into a power sharing arrangement.

The centers of power are not easy to identify and remain to a large extent hidden through carefully concealed and interlocking directorships, off-shore accounts, nominee holdings, private foundations, trusts and the rest. But the top international bankers are vested with the last word in economic and political power.

Most commentators are of the opinion that the Rothschilds are definitely the dominant partner; citing for example, the 1950’s appointrnent of J. Richardson Dilworth, partner of Kuhn, Loeb & Co. (a satellite of the Rothschild family) who left to take control of the Rockefeller family purse strings, where he managed the investments of Rockefeller descendants in as many as 200 private foundations.

However, the operative relationship described by Georgetown historian Carroll Quigley is “feudalistic”, that is, analogous to the relationships between a feudal king and the aristocracy consisting of dukes, earls, barons, etc., all mutually supportive, while safeguarding their own turf and “independence”, expanding it when permitted without violating the fundamental hierarchical relationships – violations can result in wars.

Lesser members of this “feudalistic” international banking plutocracy include or have included, the Sassoon’s (in India and the Far East); Lazard Freres France; Mendelsohn (Netherlands); Israel Moses Seif (Italy); Kuhn, Loeb (U.S.); Goldman Sachs (U.S.) Lehman Bros. (U.S.); Schroeders (Germany) ; Hambros (Scandinavia), the Bethmanns, Ladenburgs, Erlangers, Sterns, Seligmans, Schiffs, Speyers, Abs, Mirabauds, Mallets, Faulds, and many others. The ruling clique in most nations now, excepting a portion ofthe Muslim world and a few so called “rogue” states, are equivalent to local barons, subservient to the higher banking dukes, earls, etc.

This generally reaches right down to the city level, where the dominant local bankers are usually the petty aristocracy, affiliated through banking and commercial relationships with their banking “barons” and so on.
As Georgetown historian Professor Carroll Quigley has noted, if it were possible to detail the asset portfolios of the banking plutocrats one would find the title-deeds of practically all the buildings, industries, farms, transport systems and mineral resources of the world. Accounting for this, Quigley wrote:   “Their secret is that they have annexed from governments, monarchies, and republics the power to create the world’s money on debt-terms requiring tribute both in principal and interest.”

. . . .To return to 1902: President Theodore Roosevelt allegedly went after Morgan and his friends by using the Sherman Anti-Trust Act to try to break up their industrial monopolies. Actually, Roosevelt did very little to interfere in the growing monopolization of American industry by the bankers and their surrogates.

For example, Roosevelt supposedly broke up the Standard Oil monopoly. But it wasn’t really broken up at all. It was merely divided into seven corporations, all still controlled by the Rockefellers, who had been originally financed by the Rothschild-controlled National City Bank of Cleveland. The public was aware of this thanks to political cartoonists like Thomas Nast who referred to the bankers as the “Money Trust.”

By 1907, the year after Teddy Roosevelt’s re-election, Morgan decided it was time to try for a central bank again. Using their combined financial muscle, Morgan and his friends were able to crash the stock market.   Thousands of small banks were vastly overextended. Some of Morgan’s principal competitors went under. Some had reserves of less than one percent (1%), thanks to the fractional reserve banking technique.

Within days, runs on banks were commonplace across the nation. Now Morgan stepped into the public arena and offered to prop up the faltering American economy by supporting failing banks with money he generously offered to create out of nothing.

It was an outrageous proposal, worse than even fractional reserve banking, but, in a panic, Congress let him do it. Morgan manufactured $200 million worth of this completely reserveless, private money – and bought things with it, paid for services with it, and sent some of it to his branch banks to lend out at interest.

His plan worked. Soon, the public regained confidence in money in general and quit hoarding their currency. But in the interim, many small banks failed and banking power was further consolidated into the hands of a few large banks. By 1908 the arranged panic was over and Morgan was hailed as a hero by the president of Princeton University, a naive man by the name of Woodrow Wilson, who naively wrote:   “All this trouble could be averted if we appointed a committee of six or seven public-spirited men like J.P. Morgan to handle the affairs of our country.”

Economic textbooks would later explain that the creation of the Federal Reserve System was the direct result of the panic of 1907, quote: “with its alarming epidemic of bank failures: the country was fed up once and for all with the anarchy of unstable private banking.”

But Minnesota Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh, Sr., the father of the famous aviator, “Lucky Lindy,” later explained that the Panic of 1907 was really just a scam:   “The Money Trust caused the 1907 panic… those not favorable to the Money Trust could be squeezed out of business and the people frightened into demanding changes in the banking and currency laws which the Money Trust would frame.”

Since the passage of the National Banking Act of 1863, the National Banks that Act established as a cartel had been able to coordinate a series of booms and busts. The purpose was not only to fleece the American public of their property, but later to claim that the decentralized banking system was basically so unstable that it had to be further consolidated and control centralized into a central bank once again, as it had been before Jackson ended it.

The supremely critical economic issue of private vs. state ownership and control was carefully skirted, as was the fractional reserve banking fraud causing the booms and busts.

After the crash, Teddy Roosevelt, in response to the Panic of 1907, signed into law a bill creating something called the National Monetary Commission. The Commission was to study the banking problem and make recommendations to Congress. Of course, the Commission was packed with Morgan’s friends and cronies.

The Chairman was a man named Senator Nelson Aldrich from Rhode Island. Aldrich represented the Newport, Rhode Island homes of America’s richest banking families and was an investment associate of J.P. Morgan, with extensive bank holdings. His daughter married John D. Rockefeller, Jr., and together they had five sons: John, Nelson (who would become the Vice-President in 1974), Laurence, Winthrop, and David (the head of the Council on Foreign Relations and former Chairman of Chase Manhattan bank).
As soon as the National Monetary Commission was set up, Senator Aldrich immediately embarked on a two-year tour of Europe, where he consulted at length with the private central bankers in England, France and Germany. The total cost of his trip to the taxpayers was $300,000 – a huge sum in those days.

Shortly after his return, on the evening of November 22, 1910, seven of the wealthiest and most powerful men in America boarded Senator Aldnch’s private rail car and in the strictest secrecy journeyed to Jekyll Island, off the coast of Georgia.

With Aldrich and three Morgan representatives was Paul Warburg. Warburg had been given a $500,000 per year salary to lobby for passage of a privately-owned central bank in America by the investment firm, Kuhn, Loeb & Company. Warburg’s partner in this firm was a man named Jacob Schiff, the grandson of the man who shared the Green Shield house with the Rothschild family in Frankfort.

Schiff, as, we’ll later find out, was in the process of spending $20 million to finance the overthrow of the Czar of Russia. These three European banking families, the Rothschilds, the Warburgs, and the Schiffs were interconnected by marriage down through the years, just as were their American banking counterparts, the Morgans, Rockefellers and Aldrichs.

Secrecy was so tight that all seven primary participants were cautioned to use only first names to prevent servants from learning their identities. Years later one participant, Frank Vanderlip, president of Rockefeller’s National City Bank of New York and a representative of the Kuhn, Loeb & Company interests confirmed the Jekyll Island trip in the February 9, 1935 edition of the Saturday Evening Post:   “I was as secretive – indeed, as furtive – as any conspirator… Discovery, we knew, simply must not happen, or else all our time and effort would be wasted. If it were to be exposed that our particular group had got together and written a banking bill, that bill would have no chance whatever of passage by Congress.”

The participants came together to figure out how to solve their major problem – how to bring back a privately-owned central bank – but there were other problems that needed to be addressed as well. First of all, the market share of the big national banks was shrinking fast.

In the first ten years of the century, the number of U.S. banks had more than doubled to over 20,000. By 1913, only 29% of all banks were National Banks and they held only 57% of all deposits. As Senator Aldrich later admitted in a magazine article:  “Before passage of this Act, the New York bankers could only dominate the reserves of New York. Now, we are able to dominate the bank reserves of the entire county.”

Therefore, something had to be done to bring these new banks under their control. As John D. Rockefeller put it: “Competition is a sin.” Actually, moralists agree that monopoly abuse is a sin. But why quibble when there’s money to be made.

Secondly, the nation’s economy was so strong that corporations were starting to finance their expansion out of profits instead of taking out huge loans from large banks. In the first 10 years of the new century, 70% of corporate funding came from profits. In other words, American industry was becoming independent of the Money Changers, and that trend had to be stopped.

All the participants knew that these problems could be hammered out into a workable solution, but perhaps their biggest problem was a public relations problem – the name of the new central bank. That discussion took place in one of the many conference rooms in the sprawling hotel now known as the Jekyll Island Club.

Aldrich believed that the word “bank” should not even appear in the name. Warburg wanted to call the legislation the National Reserve Bill or the Federal Reserve Bill. The idea here was to give the impression that the purpose of the new central bank was to stop bank runs, but also to conceal its monopoly character. However, it was Aldrich, the egotistical politician, who insisted it be called the Aldrich Bill.

After nine days at Jekyll Island, the group dispersed. The new central bank (with twelve branches, ultimately) would be very similar to the old Bank of the United States. It would eventually be given a monopoly over the national currency and create that money out of nothing. . . . .

Once the participants left Jekyll Island, the public relations blitz was on. The big New York banks pooled an “educational” fund of five million dollars to finance professors at respected universities to endorse the new bank. Woodrow Wilson at Princeton was one of the first to jump on the bandwagon.
But the bankers’ subterfuge didn’t work. The Aldrich Bill was quickly identified as a banker’s bill – a bill to benefit only what had become known as the “Money Trust.” As Congressman Lindbergh put it during the Congressional debate:   “The Aldrich Plan is the Wall Street Plan. It means another panic, if necessary, to intimidate the people. Aldrich, paid by the government to represent the people, proposes a plan for the trusts instead.”
Seeing they didn’t have the votes to win in Congress, the Republican leadership never brought the Aldrich Bill to a vote. President Taft would not back the Aldrich bill. The bankers quietly decided to move to track two, the Democratic alternative.   They began financing Woodrow Wilson as the Democratic nominee. He was considered far more tractable than Bryan. As historian James Perloff put it, Wall Street financier Bernard Baruch was put in charge of Wilson’s education:
To increase Wilson’s chances of defeating the popular Taft, they funded the unwitting Teddy Roosevelt in order to split the Republican vote – a tactic often used since to insure getting their man in. The campaigning Roosevelt said:   “Issue of currency should be lodged with the government and be protected from domination by Wall Street… We are opposed to the Aldrich Bill because its provisions would place our currency and credit system in private hands.”
This was certainly correct, and it helped draw votes from Taft and got Wilson elected.

Fed Act of 1913

During the Presidential campaign, the Democrats were careful to pretend to oppose the Aldrich Bill. As Rep. Louis McFadden, himself a Democrat as well as chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee, explained it 20 years after the fact:    “The Aldrich bill was condemned in the platform … when Woodrow Wilson was nominated… The men who ruled the Democraic party promised the people that if they were returned to power there would be no central bank established here while they held the reins of government. Thirteen months later that promise was broken, and the Wilson administration, under the tutelage of those sinister Wall Street figures who stood behind Colonel House, established here in our free country the worm-eaten monarchical institution of the ‘king’s bank’ to control us from the top downward, and to shackle us from the cradle to the grave.”

Once Wilson was elected, Warburg, Baruch and company advanced a “new” plan, which Warburg named the Federal Reserve System. The Democratic leadership hailed the new bill, called the Glass-Owen Bill, as something radically different from the Aldrich Bill. But in fact, the bill was virtually identical in every important detail.

In fact, so vehement were the Democratic denials of similarity to the Aldrich Bill that Paul Warburg – the father of both bills – had to step in privately to reassure his paid fiends in Congress that the two bills were virtually identical:  “Brushing aside the external differences affecting the ‘shells,’ we find the ‘kernels ‘ of the two systems very closely resembling and related to one another.”

But that admission was of private consumption only. Publicly, the Money Trust trotted out Senator Aldrich and Frank Vanderlip, the president of the Morgan/Rockefeller dominated National City Bank of New York and one of the Jekyll Island seven, to offer token opposition to the new Federal Reserve System.

Years later, however, Vanderlip admitted in the Saturday Evening Post that the two measures were virtually identical:
  Saturday Evening Post,
February 9, 1935, p. 25,
“From Farmboy to Financier    Although the Aldrich Federal Reserve Plan was defeated when it bore the name Aldrich, nevertheless its essential points were all contained in the plan that finally was adopted.”

As Congress neared a vote, they called Ohio attorney Alfred Crozier to testify. Crozier noted the similarities between the Aldrich Bill and the Glass-Owen Bill:    “The … bill grants just what Wall Street and the big boys for twenty-five years have been striving for – private instead of public control of currency. It [the Glass-Owen bill] does this as completely as the Aldrich Bill. Both measures rob the government and the people of all effective control over the public’s money, and vest in the banks exclusively the dangerous } power to make money among the people scarce or plenty.”

Exactly. During the debate on the measure, Senators complained that the big banks were using their financial muscle to influence the outcome. “There are bankers in this country who are enemies of the public welfare,” declared one Senator. What an understatement!

Despite the charges of deceit and corruption, the bill was finally rammed through the House and Senate on December 23, 1913, after many Senators and Representatives had left town for the Holidays, having been assured by the leadership that nothing would be done until long after the Christmas recess. On the day the bill was passed, Congressman Lindbergh prophetically warned his countrymen that:  “This Act establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President signs this bill, the invisible government by the Monetary Power will be legalized. The people may not know it immediately, but the day of reckoning is only a few years removed… The worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking bill.”

On top of all this, only weeks earlier, Congress had finally passed a bill legalizing the income tax. Why was the income tax law importt? Because bankers finally had in place a system which would run up a virtually unlimited federal debt. How would the interest on this debt be repaid, never mind the principal? Remember, a privately-owned central bank creates the principal out of nothing. The federal government was small then. Up to then, it had subsisted merely on tariffs and excise taxes.

Just as with the Bank of England, the interest payments had to be guaranteed by direct taxation of the people. The Money Changers knew that if they had to rely on contributions from the states, eventually the individual state legislatures would revolt and either refuse to pay the interest on their own money, or at least bring political pressure to bear to keep the debt small.
It is interesting to note that in 1895 the Supreme Court had found a similar income tax law to be unconstitutional. The Supreme Court even found a corporate income tax law unconstitutional in 1909. As a result, in October, 1913 Senator Aldrich hustled a bill through the Congress for a constitutional amendment allowing income tax.

The proposed 16th Amendment to the Constitution was then sent to the state legislatures for approval, but some critics claim that the 16th Amendment was never passed by the necessary 3/4s of the states. In other words, the 16th Amendment may not be legal. But the Money Changers were in no mood to debate the fine points. Without the power to tax the people directly and bypass the states, the Federal Reserve Bill would be far less useful to those who wanted to drive America deeply into their debt.

A year after passage of the Federal Reserve Bill, Congressman Lindbergh explained how the Fed created what we have come to call the “Business Cycle” and how they use it to their advantage:
“To cause high prices, all the Federal Reserve Board will do will be to lower the rediscount rate…, producing an expansion of credit and a rising stock market; then when… business men are adjusted to these conditions, it can check… prosperity in mid-career by arbitrarily raising the rate of interest.  It can cause the pendulum of a rising and falling market to swing gently back and forth by slight changes in the discount rate, or cause violent fluctuations by a greater rate variation, and in either case it will possess inside information as to financial conditions and advance knowledge of the coming change, either up or down.   This is the strangest, most dangerous advantage ever placed in the hands of a special privilege class by any Government that ever existed.  They know in advance when to create panics to their advantage. They also know when to stop panic. Inflation and deflation work equally well for them when they control finance…”

Congressman Lindbergh was correct on all points. What he didn’t realize was that most European nations had already fallen prey to the private central bankers decades or even centuries earlier. But he also mentions the interesting fact that only one year later, the Fed had cornered the market in gold: According to Lindbergh, “Already the Federal Reserve banks have cornered the gold and gold certificates…”

But Congressman Lindbergh was not the only critic of the Fed. Congressman Louis McFadden, the Chairman of the House Banking and Currency committee from 1920 to 1931 remarked that the Federal Reserve Act brought about:  “A super state controlled by international bankers and international industrialists acting together to enslave the world for their own pleasure.”
Notice how McFadden saw the international character of the stockholders of the Federal Reserve.

Another chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee in the 1960s, Wright Patman from Texas, put it this way:   “In the United States today we have in effect two governments … We have the duly constituted Government … Then we have an independent, uncontrolled and uncoordinated government in the Federal Reserve System, operating the money powers which are reserved to Congress by the Constitution.”

Even the inventor of the electric light, Thomas Edison, joined the fray in criticizing the system of the Federal Reserve:   “If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill. The element that makes the bond good makes the bill good, also… It is absurd to say that our country can issue $30 million in bonds and not $30 million in currency. Both are promises to pay, but one promise fattens the userers and the other helps the people.”

Three years after the passage of the Federal Reserve Act, even President Wilson began to have second thoughts about what he had unleashed during his first term in office.   “We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled governments in the civilized world – no longer a government of free opinion, no longer a government by … a vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.
Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.”

Before his death in 1924, President Wilson realized the full extent of the damage he had done to America, when he sadly confessed:  “I have unwittingly ruined my government.”

So finally, the Money Changers, those who profit by creating and manipulating the amount of money in circulation, had their privately owned central bank installed again in America. The major newspapers (which they owned or heavily influenced through their advertising) hailed passage of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, telling the public that “now depressions could be scientifically prevented.” The fact of the matter was that now depressions could be scientifically initiated.

By bribery, deceitful political manipulation and abuse of their press influence and ownership, they had usurped the monetary function of government. The U.S. government was left with only trivial relics of its sovereign monetary power: the minting of coins (a tiny fraction of the money supply, but a debt-free one); the re-printing of Lincoln’s U.S. notes (Greenbacks, but limited to $300,000,000 total); and issuing a limited number of gold and silver certificates.

As Mr. James Rand, former President of Remington Rand, Inc. well said:
“No government should permit such coercive power over its own credit to be held by any one group or class as the privately owned Federal Reserve System holds today.   No government should delegate to private interests the control over the purchasing power of money.  The issue must be faced and settled. There can be no complete restoration of confidence until the conflict between private and government control over money is ended.”

The 5th American Bank War ended in victory for the Money Changers and the defeat of the American people.   In the interim, the Money Changers’ grip has gradually tightened, hiding this history, propagandizing our people to support their various nefarious activities through their media control, and choking our liberties by degrees.   Whether America will escape their tightening grip is an open question, but is increasingly unlikely.

Morgan/World War I

Economic power was now centralized to a tremendous extent. Now it was time for a war – a really big war – in fact, the First World War. Of course, as the central bankers knew, nothing creates debts like warfare. England was the best example up to that time. During the 119-year period between the founding of the Bank of England and Napoleon’s defeat at Waterloo, England had been at war for 56 years. And much of the remaining time, she’d been preparing for war.

In World War I, the German Rothschilds loaned money to the Germans, the British Rothschilds loaned money to the British, and the French Rothschilds loaned money to the French. It was all highly profitable. In America, J.P. Morgan was the sales agent for war materials to both the British and the French.

In fact, six months into the war, Morgan became the largest consumer on earth, spending $10 million a day. His offices at 23 Wall Street were mobbed by brokers and salesmen trying to cut a deal. In fact, it got so bad that the bank had to post guards at every door and at the partners’ homes as well.
Other Rothschild allies in the United States made out as well from the war. President Wilson appointed Bernard Baruch to head the War Industries Board. According to historian Jarnes Perloff, both Baruch and the Rockefellers profited by some $200 million during the war.

But profits were not the only motive. There was also revenge and power. The Money Changers never forgave the Czars for their opposition nor for supporting Lincoln during the Civil War. Also, Russia was the last major European nation to refuse to give in to the privately-owned central bank scheme.

Three years after World War I broke out, the Russian Revolution toppled the Czar. Jacob Schiff of Kuhn, Loeb & Company bragged on his deathbed that he had spent $20 million towards the defeat of the Czar. But the truth was that much of that money funded the communist coup d’etat replacing the democratically elected Kerensky regime, which had replaced the Czar months earlier.

The bankers were not so much enemies of the Czar, as they were intent on seizing power in Russia, through the Bolsheviks. Three gold shipments in 1920 alone, from Lenin to Kuhn, Loeb & Company and Morgan Guaranty Trust repaid the $20 million to the bankers, and this was just a small down payment.
But would some of the richest men in the world financially back communism, the system that was openly vowing to destroy the so-called capitalism that made them wealthy? Communism, like plutocracy, is a product of capitalism. Researcher Gary Allen explained it was this way:
“If one understands that socialism is not a share-the-wealth program, but is in reality a method to consolidate and control the wealth, then the seeming paradox of super-rich men promoting socialism becomes no paradox at all. Instead, it becomes logical, even the perfect tool for power-seeking megalomaniacs. Communism or more accurately, socialism, is not a movement of the downtrodden masses, but of the economic elite.”
As W. Cleon Skousen put it in his 1970 book The Naked Capitalist:
“Power from any source tends to create an appetite for additional power… It was almost inevitable that the super-rich would one day aspire to control not only their own wealth, but the wealth of the whole world. To achieve this, they were perfectly willing to feed the ambitions of the power-hungry political conspirators who were committed to the overthrow of all existing governments and the establishment of a central world-wide dictatorship.”
But what if these revolutionaries get out of control and try to seize power from the Money Changers? After all, it was Mao Tse-tung who in 1938 stated his position concerning power:
“Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”

The London/Wall Street axis elected to take the risk. The master-planners attempted to control revolutionary communist groups by feeding them vast quantities of money when they obeyed, and contracting their money supply, or even financing their opposition or fascist parties in bordering nations, if they got out of control. Lenin began to understand that although he was the dictator of the new Soviet Union, he was not pulling the financial strings, someone else was silently in control:“The state does not function as we desired. The car does not obey. A man is at the wheel and seems to lead it, but the car does not drive in the desired direction. It moves as another force wishes.”
Who was behind it? Rep. Louis T. McFadden, the Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee throughout the 1920s and into the Great Depression years of the 1930s, explained it this way:   “The course of Russian history has, indeed, been greatly affected by the operations of international bankers… The Soviet Government has been given United States Treasury funds by the Federal Reserve Board … acting through the Chase Bank England has drawn money from us through the Federal Reserve banks and has re-lent it at high rates of interest to the Soviet Government… The Dnieper story Dam was built with funds unlawfully taken from the United States Treasury by the corrupt and dishonest Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks.”

In other words, the Fed and the Bank of England, along with their controlling stock-holders, the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Morgans, Schiffs, Warburgs, etc., were creating a monster, one which would fuel seven decades of unprecedented Communist revolution, warfare, and most importantly – debt.
The Soviet Union was also a useful counterbalance to Germany, and later to the U.S., until 1989 with its dismemberment into fifteen countries. China then became a new counterbalance to the U.S., and is being built up at the rate of over $100 million dollars a day by lopsided trade deals, IMF loans and Western investments.

Such balance-of-power arrangements assure that the Money Changers cannot be overthrown worldwide by a political revolt in any single country. In that case, they simply shift support to the counter-balanced country. Additionally, the inevitable military rivalry between roughly balanced powers results in massive expenditures and so more national borrowing and debt.
In case one thinks there is some chance that the Money Changers got communism going and then lost control – keep in mind that even in the socialist paradise, Rockefeller’s National City Bank (now Citigroup) in St. Petersburg was never nationalized, as were all Russian banks. Numerous Western bankers operated openly in the Soviet Union, and made vast profits.

However, setbacks, some major, did occur. For instance, it is likely the bankers early on preferred the more compliant Mensheviks to the more independent Bolsheviks, but Lenin got the upper hand. But both groups had the same end and so this was not a fundamental division. However, it did lead to a serious problem when Lenin died, as an even more independent sort – Stalin – squeezed out the bankers’ candidate – Leon Trotsky (real name: Bronstein; whose wife was linked to the Warburgs) – and took control of Soviet Communism. Even then Stalin continued to fear Trotsky’s powerful connections, and so had him tracked down and eventually assassinated in Mexico.
To pressure Stalin back into the ranks, as C.G. Rakovsky explained, the bankers financed Hitler, who was an avowed enemy of communism and openly advocated invading the Soviet Union. Anthony C. Sutton and others have documented the money trail from Wall Street to Hitler, which was mentioned above by Congressman McFadden. But it was only on the death of Stalin, with the rise of Khruschev et seq., that the Soviet Union was fully back in the ranks, securely under the bankers’ control.

In 1992, The Washington Times reported that Russian President Boris Yeltsen was upset that most of the incoming foreign aid was being siphoned off “straight back into the coffers of Western banks in debt service.” Much of that debt was incurred under the prior communist regimes, which were heavily in debt to the Money Changers.

Similarly, once in power, Mao Tse-Tung spread his wings and expelled the Soviets from Red China leading to the Sino-Soviet rift of the 1960’s. The U.S. and the U.S.S.R. initiated an encirclement policy of China including: heavy Soviet troop concentrations and border provocations in Manchuria; drawing North Korea and Mongolia tightly into the Soviet camp; placing nuclear weapons in Manchuria; arming Tibetan freedom fighters and Taiwanese troops; and establishing important U.S. (now Soviet) air and naval bases in Vietnam (such as Cam Rahn Bay) while beefing up U.S. forces in Guam, Japan, Laos and Thailand, all under the pretext of the Vietnam War.
Under this growing pressure, Mao first responded with internal political purges just as Stalin had done, but with the failure of the Great Leap Forward and with the U.S./U.S.S.R. noose tightening, Mao blinked and Kissinger was sent in to strike the deal.

Still, Mao’s price for China’s cooperation and integration in the bankers’ one-world scheme was obviously high, here is the result: the encirclement ended, including U.S. abandonment of South Vietnam and Laos; China got Taiwan’s U.N. seat (and doubtless a pledge of eventually getting Taiwan itself); a free hand in Tibet, Hong Kong; and gigantic bribes in the form of Western development of China.

This left the Bankers with few obstacles worldwide: Muslim fundamentalism here and there, India’s nuclear development, and the weak remnants of Western nationalism (concentrated in the large [but rapidly shrinking] U.S. middle class and in a minority of the British, French, and Russian aristocracy [e.g. Thatcher and Le Pen]).

To overcome these, the Russian Empire was dismembered into fifteen nations; the U.K, France and the U.S.A. are gradually being submerged into regional and global entities (such as NAFTA, WTO, MAI, EEC, EU, etc.) and Desert Storm et seq. is keeping the Muslims on a tight leash while India is being pressured to abandon its nuclear program.

The bankers’ three main regional groupings: the European Union, the proposed American Union in the Western hemisphere, and Chinese dominance in Asia, are rapidly bringing to life Orwell’s three virtually identical world nations set forth in his book 1984: Eurasia, Oceania and East Asia – all set to engage in perpetual war (WWIII) with its attendant debt and population reduction and control.

Wars are complex things with many causative factors. But on the other hand, it would also be equally foolish to ignore as a prime cause of World Wars I and II those who would profit the most from war, both financially and politically.

Senator Nye of North Dakota raised the possibility that the Wilson administration entered WWI, at a critical juncture for the allies, in order to protect huge Wall Street bank loans to the allies. During the War the U.S. money supply was doubled to pay for it, halving the dollar’s purchasing power and so Americans’ savings.

It is also interesting to note that the most belligerent pro-war hawk surrounding President Wilson was a man named Colonel Edward Mandell House, the son of a man commonly believed to be a Rothschild agent, who was himself closely associated with Wall Street and European bankers.

The role of the Money Changers is no wild conspiracy theory. They had a motive – a short-range, self-serving motive as well as a long-range, political motive of advancing totalitarian government, with the Money Changers maintaining the financial clout to control whatever politicians might emerge as the leaders.

http://ia341225.us.archive.org/0/items/TheMoneyMasters/Money_Masters.pdf
http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/money-masters.html

 

Corruption

Corruption

In this research, democracy’s powerful enemy is capitalism that has produced a potent military industrial complex and entertainment-riddled complicit mainstream media. These nearly unstoppable forces controlled by a powerful elite in business and government incorporate elements of organized crime that are perhaps the most powerful force within their dominant structure. Viewed alone, organized crime seems nearly ubiquitous in American life whether on Wall Street where legitimate or illegitimate businesses cannot be differentiated; in government that employs mobsters in covert operations and elects and appoints others to office to be bribed and sometimes sent to jail; and in media where roots in Hollywood attached to mostly Jewish and Italian mobsters producing then and now, along with regular fare, evermore violent and degrading films for the movies and television world markets.

Organized crime no doubt has always been part of structures of governments everywhere and in every age but in our modern times the question must be ask if it has become the dominant force. One of its latest American expressions is the proliferation of once banned and now legal gambling casinos in nearly every state since the first was built outside of Las Vegas in the 1970’s  in New Jersey.   Another expression is television where poker games seem just another sport. Our children are growing up to be gamblers in a toxic environment producing a constant stream of scandals pouring out of the nation’s local communities about bribes and illegal contributions most of which subvert local zoning laws and, as previously described, Wall Streets scams and rip-offs whose losses Americans taxpayers will absorb as manipulators are rewarded with the monies they steal and the exemptions they receive.
Las Vegas and Organized Crime

In 2000 Sally Dentin and Roger Morris published The Power and Money: The Making of Las Vegas.

. . . .  Sally Dentin, a native Nevadan who grew up around Lake Mead just outside of Las Vegas, spent nearly 25 years as an investigative reporter. Her husband, Roger Morris, served in the White House and on the National Security Council before becoming a researcher and author of histories among which include presidential biographies. Their book covers the period from 1947 through 2000 the period in which Las Vegas began and grew into a crossroad city for the collusion of political, economic and criminal elements with international connections. In their Prologue the authors describe a meeting in Las Vegas in 1998 in which a Customs agents’ sting “Operation Casablanca” took in 12 prominent Mexican bankers who were among 140 arrests in six locales across three continents.   The investigation has uncovered crimes in the hundreds of billions of dollars amid international corruption at the highest levels of business and government. And now, as over the past half century, Las Vegas is a nexus of it all. (Page 4)

In beginning chapters the authors relate biographical detail about major American criminals of the Syndicate whose founding father was Meyer Lansky.   Tidbits about small time organized crime hoodlums include those about Jack Ruby,  the assassin of the assassin Oswald as well as information about the Kennedy’s,  a recent Las Vegas boss Steve Wynn and major organized crime members connected to major political figures.

Among other facts, we learn the Teamsters pension fund controlled by Jimmy Hoffa ignited the growth of Las Vegas while other monies flowing into the city among other sources came from Mormon banks in Utah and Wall Street corporations and investors. In all, the story is about the dark forces of a shadow government controlling the country which, as these author mention, the eminent and respected historian Daniel Bornstein, who served as Librarian of Congress, had warned Americans in his book Hidden History. Unfortunately, as Ms. Denton and Mr. Morris note, most historians find such a subject uncomfortable.

Other absorbing information about Las Vegas concerns how and when cash called “juice” from gambling and illegal drug crimes spread through the country into the hands or resources of often identified major political leaders and presidents up to and including Clinton. One of their most important points is the major misfortune that the Italian mafia came to be identified as the country’s major and sometimes apparently only organized crime group as seen in the mantra “the mob did it!”. Such concentration set up other ethnic criminals to be more lethal, information that harps back to those in Gus Russo’s 2007 book Supermob. As Dentin and Morris explain, the Syndicate, in fact, had participants from many ethnic groups.  Jews in Las Vegas represented one-half of them and Italians a quarter with Irish and Poles having some shares and it is the kingpin Meyer Lansky and his Jewish cohorts who have a special place in the criminals’ cannons.  For one thing, Lansky possessed compromising photographs of Edgar Hoover’s homosexual activities to keep the FBI chief at a distance. Hoover in turn famously laid off the Syndicate keeping his own files on major politicians to maintain his job. As to Meyer’s seminal position in organized crime, it was he who first and most understood the importance of Wall Street.

. . . . .a gifted mathematician who organized crime along hierarchical lines. . . . recognizing how much the country was in the grip of Wall Street financial houses and powerful local banks, industrial gains in steel, automobiles, mining and manufacturing, the growing power of labor unions, the entrenched political machines. . .. (Page 23)

Lanksy and his ilk get major credit for blending legitimate and illegitimate enterprises:

. . . . .The term “Lansky operation” came to be used by insiders—even when he himself was not involved at all—to denote a generic, classic blending of organized crime with the legal, surface world, even employing in many cases some of his purposed official pursuers as well as his Syndicate associates. That evolution to a largely compromised, exploitative economy was his real legacy, and his real heirs much of a corporate and political elite—from the monopolistic owners of Las Vegas casinos to the masters of conglomerate mergers to presidential candidates taking in tens of millions of dollars from vested interests—governing the nation by Lansky principles at the turn of the next century. . . . .    Their capital in spirit would always be Las Vegas. What Lansky brought there in symbol and substance—the national power and organization of the Syndicate, the centrality of drugs and money-laundering as means of finance, the compromising of law enforcement and the corrupt collusion with government, the underlying principle that the only player who wins is the one who controls the game—would be constant elements in the rise and expansion of gambling and thus of the town itself. In what he had once called that “horrible place” in the Nevada desert, Lansky founded a city that would represent the essence of his vision of America. Far more than a string of carpet joints, it was to be an entire society dominated by the ethic he had adopted so long before—a boss’s paradise of suckers. (Page 29)

In a Current Affairs interview available on the Internet, Ms. Denton and Mr. Morris their book sum up some of their book’s major points.

. . . . .   The Strip was founded by Meyer Lansky and a truly multi-ethnic criminal consortium of underworld and legitimate business with most of the capital coming from the international drug trade, Mormon-dominated banks, and other financial institutions, insurance companies, Wall Street and other ostensibly legitimate interests. The Strip was certainly not founded and sustained by a stereotypical Italian mafia.    The corruption of America’s government, economy, and society nationwide in the 1920s and ’30s traced principally to that multi-ethnic force, of which the popular Mafia caricature was only a fragment. Our book shows that from the beginning in the 1940s and ’50s the city became a national, and soon global, money laundering capital of underworld profits from every conceivable pursuit—from petty vice in dozens of American cities and rural areas to international arms trafficking to the Middle East and Central America. . . . . 

Denton and Morris recognize that Americans find it difficult to look into the face of the reality of its corruption for one important reason that both its legitimate and illegitimate systems are based on similar principles.

. . . . .It is misleading in Las Vegas, and even in much of America, to draw that old distinction between criminal and legal. The system we are describing in the nation and the city is so profoundly and inextricably enmeshed, the old criminal ethic of exploitation and greed is so much the ethic of corporate “legal” America, that the distinctions are difficult to make when it comes to understanding power, the way things really work in America. The short answer is that a practically and/or ethically criminal system survived and survives in Las Vegas and elsewhere because it’s in essence inseparable from the ruling regime.. . . . .

When the authors were asked if they would consider Las Vegas an American financial success story, they said they did but at an extraordinary price. While no city has grown faster, generated more visitors and wealth and profits for its size, or made money more freely and rapidly for its people, its dark side leaves the city and the nation dominated by an oligopoly that has brought

. . . . . the ethics and values of a corrupt company town to the rest of the nation. The price of success was and has been terrible.    Everyone who reads our book will realize that this is not a diatribe against gambling. In fact, both of us believe that Americans, who have a long tradition of wagering, ought to be free to gamble. The issues at stake are: who controls the billions of dollars involved, how much exploitation is inflicted on gamblers and the rest of society, and how much the huge power generated from this activity controls and distorts the rest of our political, economic, and social system.. . . .  Most of America has learned the wrong lessons, if any. Most of the country is still content to see Las Vegas as a distant aberration, a fun place in the desert that has little to do with the reality of their own lives even if casino gambling and the political power of the industry is dominant in their own home states. But as the book makes plain, to come to grips with the reality of Las Vegas is not to understand some pariah city, but rather to confront the underlying reality of America’s worship of money and all its materialism and the devastation of our democracy and economy by that obsession.  http://www.randomhouse.com/vintage/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780375701269&view

The Las Vegas book, written and published before 9/11, cannot bring that story into its perspective and also omits major discussion of the country’s democratic history and values in which the power and conglomeration of its mainstream media played and continues to play a vital role. Surely, as they write, Americans had within their legitimate capitalistic economic system the seeds brought to fruition by its criminals, bringing to mind words of Tocqueville, the famous 19th Century Frenchman, who toured the country and found Americans all wanting to become rich unlike Europeans who either were too rich to care or never could have such hope. Nevertheless, those Americans having real democratic instincts saw them buried under mainstream media’s power, especially in television, to indoctrinate a whole people with a message about keeping up with the Jones tying them to a treadmill of materialistic life centered on just another credit card purchase and a lottery ticket to wipe away their misery. While some of us are old enough to have escaped such media saturation, we remained victims helpless to stop the indoctrination of our children and their children who were turned into gamblers and too often criminals fascinated by shootouts and murders.

Assassination of JFK

While our nation has been changing from a democracy to an empire since   its inception, corruption played a major part in that process and many historians. Then in the ‘60s some came to conclude that our dismal fate was sealed after the assassinations of the Kennedy’s and Martin Luther King with some concluding that the Kennedy’s were America’s last chance to check its rampant corruption. Others not so sure see the Kennedy’s as part and parcel of the country’s corrupt power structure with Robert Kennedy’s famous investigations of mob figures excluding people like Sydney Korshak of Chicago who was an associate of his father and Robert McNamara, JFK’s Secretary Defense, giving the mobbed- up Chicago company and owner, General Dynamics and Henry Crown, the contract over Boeing to make the disastrous F 111. http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn03012004.html

While such facts cannot be denied, neither can the truth of RFK’s statement especially in light of our present environment that if organized crime was not stopped then it would come to run the country for it had infiltrated legitimate businesses and our local communities. Unfortunately it was the Kennedy’s and King, a progressive leader igniting his black community to action, who were stopped dead in their tracks and all three investigations of their murders closed with the conclusions that each had been killed by a crazy lone gunman to stir eternal conflict since most people studying the murders found evidence of conspiracy.

The Warren Commission investigating JFK’s assassination examined only evidence that accommodated their agenda which was to assure Americans that the murder of their president was committed by Lee Harvey Oswald and not part of a conspiracy to bring down their government. The media proliferated that view but most people remained at least skeptical. Something was surely fishy when Jack Ruby killed Oswald not long after Oswald was arrested as Oswald was escorted through a corridor of the Dallas Police Station.  Jack Ruby was an open book, a small time hoodlum with big time associates running a seedy Dallas nightclub where the Dallas police came in for free drinks and other favors.  Just days before the assassination his telephone records show he was calling back and forth to major crime figures. Could it really be, as he said, he killed Oswald because he grieved over the death of his president?   Not likely although the Warren Commission accepted that story and others like it.

There are many reasons to believe Oswald had not operated alone. JFK opposed his military and CIA leaders many of whom attempted to kill Castro several times and one at least advocated nuclear war with the Russians. Early in his first term, after the debacle of the Bay of Pigs, the invasion of Cuba in which the military, CIA agents and organized crime figures from the US and from Cuba cooperated, the furious and deceived President fired and relocated key military and CIA players having refused their overtures to make a full scale invasion of Cuba and making his intentions known that he would pursue détente with the Soviets. As to suspects in organized crime who were most likely to have been at least part of the conspiracy as they had long been part of CIA covert actions, certainly grudges were held against the Kennedy’s whose father had enlisted their members to help elect his son only to see the brothers in office trying to put them in jail.

As to Oswald, no one ever questioned the fact that he fired from the warehouse in Dealey Plaza and after killed Officer Tippit who pulled him over as he walked a street and then fled to hide in a movie house where he was captured and arrested. Suspicion of conspiracy involves questions about how many shooters fired at the President and was or was not Oswald working for the CIA.

In contrast to the open book that was Ruby, Lee Harvey Oswald was an enigma wrapped in a mystery as described by G. Robert Blakely, Chief Counsel and Staff Director for the House Select Committee on Assassinations investigating the crime fifteen years after it occurred.   He concluded  previous investigations of the FBI and Warren Commission had been seriously flawed for one reason that the CIA had been uncooperative. In their conclusion Kennedy was assassinated by a conspiracy in which four shots had been fired, the first, second and fourth by Oswald and a third by an unnamed second assassin. Years after the House investigation Mr. Blakely called into question the honesty of the CIA in his own House’s investigation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy_assassination

Amateur photographer Abraham Zapruder, who stood that fateful day on the sidewalk watching and filming the scene, captured the assassination. As he relates, he heard a shot and after saw the President slump to his side then heard another shot or two to see, as his film shows, the President’s head falling forward not backward from a bullet in front not in the back of him.   JFK’s body was whisked away and an autopsy if ever completed never appeared to explain exactly how he died.

Taken into the Dallas police headquarters, Oswald called himself a patsy while his mother raved until her death that he had been a CIA agent. Serving in the army as a young man in the ‘50’s, soon after he began to claim he was a communist curiously finding his way to Russia where its secret service kept an eye on him but in the end thought that he was too insignificant a figure to be working for the CIA. There marrying his wife Marina and having a daughter, he retuned to the US and here, fluent in Russia, he worked intermittently at menial jobs while establishing himself pro-Castro. In April 1963 having quit his job and moved to Dallas, he shot and wounded through the window of his home General Edwin Walker, a known rabid anti-Castro fanatic who Kennedy was known to hate and had forced into retirement. Later Oswald would be in New Orleans passing out on its streets pro-Castro leaflets, the only member of his pro-Castro club. However, he seemed in New Orleans to have other connections. People swore they saw him in the office of Guy Bannister and in the company of David Ferrie.

. . . .William Guy Banister was a career member of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and a private investigator. He gained notoriety from the allegations made by New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison after Banister’s death that he had been involved in the Assassination of John F. Kennedy. He was an avid anti-communist — member of the Minutemen, the John Birch Society, Louisiana Committee on Un-American Activities and publisher of the Louisiana Intelligence Digest. He also supported various anti-Castro groups in the New Orleans area: “Cuban Democratic Revolutionary Front”; “Anti- Communist League of the Caribbean”; and “Friends of Democratic Cuba”[1].. . . . . On the afternoon of November 22, 1963, the day that President John F. Kennedy was assassinated, Banister and one of his investigators, Jack Martin, were drinking together at the Katzenjammer Bar, located in New Orleans next door to 544 Camp Street. On their return to Banister’s office, the two men got into a dispute. Banister believed that Martin had stolen his files and drew his .357 magnum revolver, striking Martin with it several times. During the argument Martin asked: “What are you going to do, kill me? Like you all did Kennedy?” Martin was badly injured and treated at Charity Hospital.  Over the next few days Martin told authorities and reporters that Banister and Ferrie (David) had been involved in the assassination. He claimed that Ferrie knew Oswald from their days in the New Orleans Civil Air Patrol and may have taught Oswald how to use a rifle with a telescopic sight. Martin also claimed that Banister drove Ferrie to Texas so Ferrie could fly the assassins of JFK out of the state. Additionally, within hours of the assassination a tip from an employee of Banister was submitted to the New Orleans authorities linking Bannister, Ferrie and Oswald with the activities of the Fair Play For Cuba Committee. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Bannister

David Ferrie was a rabid anti-communist who became convinced Castro was a communist and joined an anti-Castro movement to work with right-wing Cuban exile, Sergio Archaca Smith, director of the CIA-backed Cuban Democratic Revolutionary Front. Ferrie had been a member of the Civil Air Patrol, starting as a “senior” with the Fifth Cleveland Squadron at Hopkins Airport in 1947. Moving to New Orleans he transferred to its Cadet Squadron at Lakefront Airport, first as an instructor and later as a Commander. He lost his position after the death of a pilot he had trained becoming a guest lecturer at a smaller squadron at Moisant Airport. There he met a 15 year old Lee Harvey Oswald who joined this squadron on July 27, 1955. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David Ferrie

PBS Frontline documentary Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald? provides an excellent account of such complex circumstances around Lee Harvey Oswald’s life and the assassination. A note about Oswald’s wife Marina who never provided information for or against conspiracy theories comes from Sally Dentin and Roger Morris in their book on Las Vegas.

. . . . . Not long after the killings, Oswald’s wife, Marina, would be provided legal aid and patronage from the Great Southwest Corporation of Dallas, a real estate venture controlled by a close associate of Bobby Baker—and ties from all that wound back to the Teamsters’ pension fund, through Washington lawyer Ed Morgan, and ultimately back to Las Vegas. (Page 253)

Of the many books and movies supporting the theory that JFK was a victim of conspiracy is Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years by David Talbot, one of the latest and best of the lot. Mr. Talbot is a journalist and founder of the online news magazine Salon who does not claim to know who killed JFK but rather sets forth a compelling circumstantial story about the president and his brother and their enemies to conclude that the assassins came from organized crime, the military, CIA, FBI or Cuban anti Castro forces offering his best guess that the greatest probability is a conspiracy of some combination of them. What Mr. Talbot advocates most of all is a reinvestigation to discover the real truth, recalling to mind other like critics of the 9/11 investigation who have a similar wish.

One of Talbot’s new revelations in his book concerns Bobby Kennedy’s quiet investigation of his brother’s murder. RFK publicly supported the conclusion of the Warren Commission for complicated reasons but believed his brother like Mr. Talbot had been killed by some combination of members of the mentioned organizations. He also questioned why the Secret Service hadn’t protected his brother. Among the relevant information presented in the book linked to conspiracy is the Chief of Secret Service, James Rowley, telling Bobby that his brother had been cut down in a crossfire by three, perhaps four, gunmen; that the autopsy of JFK had been in the “. . . hands of three inexperienced pathologists under the constant supervision of a cadres of high ranking military men”; that Bobby had said Jack Ruby had the mob written all over him” and later when he looked at Ruby’s telephone records that “the list was almost a duplicate of the people I called before the Rackets Committee”. Further, RFK ‘s crusade against organized crime connected to his understanding that it was threatening to take control of the economy of the US. With their deep pockets criminals were paying off politicians, judges and elected officials around the country. Also, although he had known of his father’s ties to corruption, during his investigations he was crushed learning just how deep they were.

Talbot goes on to report that after the assassination a Kennedy emissary who was a friend of the family was sent to explain that RFK believed his brother was killed by a large conspiracy and certainly not by a lone assassin which Talbot says shows that in the days following the murder, RFK put more trust in the Russian government than he did in his own. Then in 1976 a Senate investigation, The Church Committee, mentioned above, concluded that since the CIA had been capable of working hand in hand with Mafia assassins against Castro, it had been capable of other such crimes. Further, during the active days of the administration, the Kennedy’s knowing the powerful influence of Hollywood tried to enlist their friends to make a move of Bobby’s book The Enemy Within to bring the country knowledge about the great influence of organized crime. With so much organized crime muscle in Hollywood, the movie was never made and this outcome a lesson revealing to RFK an even deeper truth about the dark powers he wanted to expose.

Of all the powers the Kennedy’s took on in their brief time, nothing was as great as that of the military and their partner the CIA which had been growing every since World War II. As Talbot explains  . . . .  Cuba was the Iraq of its day, no more than a swath of sugar cane afloat in the Caribbean, but to the national security elite who determined such things, it was where the forces of good and evil were arrayed against one another, the epicenter of a struggle that would come close to a literally earth-shattering climax. And in his first test in this supreme confrontation, Kennedy was judged by military and intelligence officials to be a dangerously weak link at the top of the chain of command. (Page 50)

General Curtis LeMay who was portrayed by Sterling Hayden as General Jack D. Ripper in the film Dr. Strangelove especially hated the “Kennedy crowd” calling them ruthless and vindictive cockroaches. . . . . The Air Force chief stunned the capital in July when Washington Post columnist Marquis Childs reported that he (the general) causally predicted that nuclear war would break out in the final weeks of the year. . . to a Senator’s wife at a Georgetown dinner party, telling the shocked woman that war was inevitable and that it would likely incinerate such major U.S. cities as Washington, New York , Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Chicago and Detroit as well as level most Soviet cities. (Page 66)

JFK pushed LeMay into retirement and got rid of or outmaneuvered others like him including Generals Lucius Clay, Edwin Walker and Lyman Lemnitzer, chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Lemnitzer had approved Operation Northwoods which was a plan that included a string of false flag events to discredit Castro.   Presented to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, he in turn took it to the president who refused to consider it and denied Lemnitzer another term as Join Chief of Staff chairman.

In Brothers Talbot relates to the Kennedy’s as heroes coming to pay the price for taking on the country’s right-wing military and organized crime and provides reason for their contradictions of being both hawks and doves. While RFK in fact early on even advocated the elimination of Castro,  with his brother they advocated negotiation with the Russians to find peaceful resolutions to military problems, a side they kept under cover until winning office because of the popularity of strong militaristic positions. Thus, JFK outmaneuvered his political opponent Nixon, a stronger hawk who also had underworld alliances.

The Kennedy’s were nothing if not complicated and their story has elements of a Shakespearean or Greek tragedy. After Dallas, Bobby Kennedy remarked that he had learned then that his world had not been the real world. Dominating their lives was a rich, corrupt and hugely loving father that Talbot describes as a mother hen. With unrequited ambitions, he schooled his children to fulfill himself and in that process give them the edge of political wisdom beyond their years. But these children,  although spoiled having been raised with the proverbial silver spoons,  must have been as all children would be in painful conflict trying to fulfill their father’s ambition and become their own persons. Of all forms of human domination love is the most powerful and complex. Perhaps the crazy sexual excesses of JFK combined with his long history of medical problems accounted for his recklessness that might have had him writhing in pain locked in emotional bondage that had placed him in his dangerous office. As Talbot informs he had often spoken about his premonitions of assassination. While politically and emotionally divided, in office he rose to idealistic heights which must also have been part of his rearing inspiring people like Talbot and other Americans to revere him.


Connecting the dots

The assassinations of the ’60’s and the environment we live in today, especially after 9/11, have disturbing similarities.  JFK and the other assassinations remain uninvestigated and  so does 9/11. A corrupted capitalism has advanced to a new corrupted global environment. With America  its overwhelming nuclear power and Israel its I  Middle East ally,  the Bush administration obviously apparently works  to accomplish its goals that apparently include controlling oil-rich Middle East and central Asian countries; weaponizing space for an eventual world war; and preparing NATO to be its world police force with increased power of nuclear preemptive strikes  all the while denying resistant countries from developing nuclear power.  .

Yellow Cake and the Italian Connection
On May 4, 2007 Bill Moyers on his PBS Journal interviewed Carlo Bonini, an Italian investigative journalist, about his new book Collusion in which he describes how SISME, the Italian secret service, forged the Yellowcake story that Bush came to relate in his State of the Union speech to persuade the country to invade Iraq.  Mr. Bonini explains that the documents that claimed to prove Saddam Hussein purchased uranium cakes from Niger were falsified and classified by Italian intelligence. Five months before Prime Minister Berlusconi won the general election,  he was eager to have relationships with Bush. Knowing   how it would please Mr. Berlusconi to have something to take to Bush and in that way be a great opportunity for SISME, agents cooked up the story about Saddam being in Niger looking for yellowcakes. Mr. Berlusconi went to the White House with his story and Bush put it into his State of the State message as evidence Saddam was looking to restart his nuclear program

Berlusconi owns among other things the largest Italian  company operating in media and finance which includes three national TV channels accounting for nearly half of the Italian TV market. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlusconi   In the spring of 2008 Berlusconi was re-elected Italy’s prime minister. Previously in the 2001 elections in which he and his allies won every seat in parliament, his opponents accused him and them of buying their seats and Berlusconi of being part of Italy’s mafia.  In 2001 elections he and his allie who won every parliamentary seat in Sicily were accused of vote-buying. Two of Mr. Berlusconi’s closest allies were subsequently found guilty of dealing with the Mafia. Salvatore Cuffaro, the island’s former governor,   given a five-year sentence,   is running for a seat in the senate, Italy’s upper house, in the election on April 12.. . Rumours about Mr. Berlusconi’s links to the Mafia have circled since the beginning of his business career.  He faced considerable embarrassment in the 1980s when it became public that the “gardener” at his Arcore estate in Milan was Vittorio Mangano, a powerful mafioso from Porta Nuova.   Mangano was described by anti-mafia investigators as “one of those personalities who acted as a bridgehead for the Mafia in northern Italy”. He was later tried and convicted of murder and died in prison in 2000.

In 1998, Mr. Berlusconi was formally investigated on suspicion of commissioning the murders of two anti-Mafia judges, based on the testimony of a Mafia informant. However, no case was brought. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/

France and Sarkozy


In May 2007 France elected Nicolas Sarkozy, a professed admirer of the U.S. and close friend of Israel’s Netanyahu. Unlike Chirac his predecessor who opposed Bush and the Iraq war, Sarkozy boasts of his admiration for the U.S. and his intention to move his country forward to compete with other global powers. On May 11, 2007 The New York Times reported on his post election vacation when he and his then wife and their son were guests aboard the 190 foot yacht of billionaire Vincent Bollore, a personal friend, corporate raider and media tycoon.  
The French press likened Mr. Sarkozy’s appetite for the fine life to that of Silvio Berlusconi, the much-maligned former Italian prime minister. Libération, a left-leaning daily in Paris, ran a front-page picture of the Sarkozys on the yacht with the headline “Boat People.” Unlike other French leaders, Mr. Sarkozy flaunts his connections with the moneyed class and has criticized France’s penchant for hiding wealth and ambition. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/11/world/europe/11france.html

As in the US, media around the world is more and more conglomerated and controlled. Sarkozy gets more than his share of coverage and as we all know has come to have a public divorce and a public remarriage to a hot Italian movie star. While he seems a most unlikely man to have become president of a country like France with its Catholic tradition and socialized history, in the new world of media technology, conglomeration and celebrity news traditions can be easily dismissed

Syriana, a movie
Syriana is about the oil game of world oil companies struggling to get their share and control of final supplies. American and Chinese traders along with others are all corrupt committing any crime to reach their goals in a world where supplies are less than the world believes. It is a have and have not story in which the more ruthless survive. Among its many lines of action, an oil company merges, an American financial analyst becomes an expatriate and adviser to an Arab prince who wants to succeed his father as ruler of an oil-rich emirate, and a Pakistani laborer turns radical Islamist. Themes of greed, ambition, idealism and self interest emerge to intertwine in an incomprehensible swirl to make money, commit terror and gain power. All seekers are confused as are those watching them, the point being that no one can have a handle on the whole picture just their small part in it. The chaotic oil race is uncontrollable. In the end an ideal uncompromised Arab prince, unlike his compromised brother, is blown to bits evidently by the CIA.

The film is based on a novel See No Evil by Robert Baer who was or maybe still is a CIA agent operating in hot spots like Beirut and Tehran. In a PBS Charlie Rose Show interview, Stephan Gagon, the director of the film, comes nearly to plead with Americans to somehow or other kick the oil habit that is providing so many opportunities for so many corrupt players.

http://movies.nytimes.com/2005/11/23/movies/23 syrihtml? r=1&oref=slogin
http://www.charlierose.com/guests/stephen-gaghan

Mexico


This country on our borders that is now one of our major global partners in new global trading alliances is drowning in corruption and violence related mostly to illegal drugs in which the US is evidently playing a major role. The following was published in the Houston Chronicle in May 2008.    . . . .   As many as 200 U.S.-trained Mexican security personnel have defected to drug cartels to carry out killings on both sides of the border and as far north as Dallas, Rep. Ted Poe, R- Humble, told Congress on Wednesday.   The renegade members of Mexico’s elite counter-narcotics teams trained at Fort Benning, Ga., have switched sides, contributing to a wave of violence that has claimed some 6,000 victims over the past 30 months, including prominent law enforcement leaders, the Houston-area Republican told the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
The slaughter has gained urgency amid high-profile assassinations of law officers in Mexico since May 1, claiming six senior officers, five of them with the federal police.   Poe held aloft a dramatic, poster-board-size photograph that he said showed guerrilla- style commandos crossing into the United States.   He said the Department of Homeland Security had documented “over 250 incursions by suspected military forces” into the United States over the past decade.
http://newsfromthe border.blogspot.com/2008/01/us-trained-forces-reportedly- helping.html

Global Crime


. . . . In June 2008 PBS’s Charlie Rose Show presented his interview of Misha Glenny author of a new book McMafia which attempts to summarize global crime throughout the world. The discussion and evidently the book based on it has special emphases that include among others falling Soviets states with their economies tanked turning to organized crime. For example, in Bulgaria many of the 14,000 police officers sacked who had been trained to kill became members of organized gangs developing a global market economy in illegal drugs and prostitution with human bondage. Further, in 1999 when Russia was in dire straight from rampant corruption, Putin took control by reasserting state police power to consequently earn support of his people Both Glenny and Rose expressed surprise that nuclear weapons as of this time have not been stolen from Russia as had been so widely expected. . . . .

 

Other emphasis concerned China which Mr. Glenny believes is the breeding grounds of tomorrow’s criminality as well as be a large source of it today. As he explained, China with its vast population must continuously create jobs and export products to the west, a major consequence of which is their copying or reproducing just about everything to become a monumental problem for the US whose service industry is now its dominant industry. At the heart of it are intellectual property rights. Then there is Italy whose famous Cosa Nostra   badly beaten after the fall of communism making the Camorra of Naples the country’s most lethal organization. As Glenny informs, Italy is a deeply corrupted country whose institutions are being destroyed and whose leaders do not know what to do about their problems.

 

Misha Glennary is a former BBC reporter who spent years in the Balkans covering the war. As he learned the Balkans has a huge transit zone for illicit goods and services from all over the world and desperately wants to get into the European Union. There picking up threads, he followed leads to other places in the world to investigate organized crime and interview its masters. The thesis of his book seems to be that we all live in a global world riddled with mafias especially those developing and growing in leaps and bounds from the Soviet collapse. Unlike older mafias the new organizations are not geographically defined and are independent of clans or families with unhealthy loyalties and consequent vendettas.  Mr. Glenny, as he said, found many of their masters mysterious and interesting such as the electrical engineer he met in Rambai, Indonesia who spoke to him about Indian politics and also how he carries out executions .   The author estimates that mafia crime represents around 15 to 20 % of total crime which includes tax evasion, corruption and corporate fraud. Then,  while admittedly these organizations are under the control of some very nasty people, without them the free market in Eastern bloc countries would not have emerged for it was their groups that gave people jobs and moved goods and services around.   In conclusion Mr. Glenny explained that if drugs were legalized the rug would be pulled from under the vast number of criminal organizations trading them, pointing to Afghanistan to show how bad guys like the Taliban prosper from opium production whose profits are dedicated to killing NATO soldiers.

 

Emphasis in this shot uncritical interview tended to create the impression, at least in this viewer, that an out-of-control mafia ridden world emerging especially from fallen Soviet countries and China needs some means of control of what he calls its shadow government. In May Peter Robb had reviewed Mr. Glenny’s book for The New York Times. Mr. Robb is an Australian who also knows a few things about crime having also lived in many places two of which, Brazil and Italy, he wrote about in books. He describes Glenny’s book as a “dizzy tour of the forms of global crime born in the late ‘80’s when finance capital shook off restraints and the Soviet Union collapsed.

 

While Glenny implies the criminality he describes is new, the reviewer in contrast says the countries described have had long criminal histories of their own with international trading links. Skirting from one country to another, Glenny overstretches his view and in fragmenting that view obscures important patterns. . . . . Glenny looks at prostitution rackets out of Eastern Europe, indentured labor in the Gulf states and migration rackets out of China — where he sees “the future of organized crime” — but hardly suggests how far people themselves have become merchandise, as indentured laborers, domestic slaves, child thieves, child soldiers, child prostitutes, babies for sale and children for adoption, pharmaceutical guinea pigs or organ suppliers. All move around the world with the collusion of customs, immigration, police, social services, charities and aid agencies.   Traveling through the global underworld and . . . flying high over points where the licit and illicit economies meet, Glenny tends to forget that one man’s crime is another man’s legitimate business opportuny. . . .

Further, while Glenny describes the criminality in oil and gas industries in the former Soviet Union,  he skirts them in Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria or Angola. More importantly Glenny does not consider how the horrific crimes of the third world countries link to the financial systems of the first world.  . . . “McMafia” ignores a dense network of complicity in the institutions of the West. Neither, after some vague talk at the outset of “global reach as criminal corporations aspire to penetrate markets the world over,” does it identify a global crime corporation, or explain how its activities might be “mirroring the global goals of legal entities such as McDonald’s    A model for all this remains the Sicilian Mafia, which is ignored here. Mafia is about control on the ground. It maintains order locally, and its reward is a free hand in business. Mafia is government and crime intertwined, and so, below the surface, are most of the instances Glenny describes.. . . .

There’s no big picture here, no corporate brand, no franchise. In global crime, the structures, the methods, the personnel, the channels, the merchandise, the alliances change even faster than they do in the world of legal business. There are patterns of complicity, however, and closer to home than Glenny’s nightmare settings.  http://www.charlierose.com/shows/2008/06/10/2/a-conversation-with-author-misha-glenny           http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/25/books/review/Robbt.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&ref=books&pagewanted=print

SECTION II: The Candidates 2008

Three major party presidential candidates reduced to two all ran with the backing of the moneyed class of Wall Street. Ralph Nader, who sometimes seems the only public democrat left on the scene, is out of sync with the imperial government to have no significant big donors, no media presence,  and certainly never to be included in “staged” presidential debates.

Hillary and Obama  

 Parading in a charade that, if elected, she would be the first “woman” president and that mean democratic progress, Hillary, that other half of the imperial Clinton administration, now stands ready to serve as vice president which could lead her to another presidential try in our future.  If president, she would surely be ready to bring back her husband and most of their neo-liberal friends like Rubin, Cohen and Summers who all did their best to put more power into the hands of the Superclass extending Reagan’s agenda and beginning George W.’s.   It was she and her husband and their friends who promoted and delivered the greatest conglomeration of the telecommunications world in their telecommunications act to make our inaccessible media more inaccessible;  it was she and was husband and friends who promoted the global agenda with Nafta and Cafta legislation sending our jobs and companies to Mexico and other places and bringing us the poorest of the poor to compete for the crumbs left;  and it was she and her husband and friends that were the first to organize NATO allies for the U.S. to first strike preemptively a sovereign nation, Serbia, that was in a civil war like many other countries and not in any way a threat to the US.   Serbia’s misfortune was to be located in a strategic area important to the agenda of the Superclass where they built their infamous Bondsteel military base.

While it is true that Obama’s election as the nation’s first black president would be a new experience in the States, he like Hillary would not change or alter our military empire and its imperial government that Wall Street and their friends firmly control.   Pam Martens who now writes from New Hampshire after having worked on Wall Street for 21 years knows the Street’s ins and outs.  In May 2008 her Internet article Obama’s Money Cartel explains how our first black presidential candidate in spite of claims not to take lobbyists’ contributions takes lobbyists’ contributions from

. . . . .a Wall Street cartel of financial firms, their registered lobbyists, and go-to law             firms that have a death grip on our federal government. . . .    Seven of the Obama      campaign’s top 14 donors consisted of officers and employees of the same Wall Street            firms charged time and again with looting the public and newly implicated in originating           and/or bundling fraudulently made mortgages.. . . .

These seven Wall Street firms are (in order of money given): Goldman Sachs, UBS AG,        Lehman Brothers, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley and Credit Suisse.      There is also a large hedge fund, Citadel Investment Group, which is a major source of             fee income to Wall Street. There are five large corporate law firms that are also             registered lobbyists; and one is a corporate law firm that is no longer a registered        lobbyist but does legal work for Wall Street. . . . .

Ms. Martens sees that Obama, a lawyer, distances himself from lobbyists but not from law firms registered as lobbyists to make monies coming from such firms or even from the employees of such firms no different.   Further several of Obama’s salaried aides are registered lobbyists for dozen of corporations.  Ms Martens suspects his efforts to distance himself from lobbyists hark back to his vote in February 2005 supporting the Class Action Fairness Act that many of his prominent Democratic colleagues voted against such as Senators Boxer, Byrd, Clinton, Corzine, Durbin, Feingold, Kerry, Leahy, Reid and 16 others as well as 14 state attorney generals including that of his own state Illinois and more than 40 civil rights and labor organizations including the NAACP.

In contrast to this major opposition Senator Obama, a member of the black community, supported and praised the passage of this bill for which Congress had been under pressure to support for five long years from

. . . . .. 100 corporations, 475 lobbyists, tens of millions of corporate dollars buying influence in our government and the active participation of the Wall Street firms now             funding the Obama campaign.

Passing the Senate 72-26, the bill was signed into law impairing, even more than the rest of us our poorest citizens, dramatically limiting the rights of labor, consumers and others to seek redress for wrongs inflicted upon them by the powerful. These rights that should have been strengthened not weakened are

. . . .one of the few weapons left to seek justice against giant corporations and their legions of giant law firms.  The class-action vehicle confers upon each citizen one of the             most powerful rights in our society: the ability to function as a private attorney general          and seek redress for wrongs inflicted on ourselves as well as for those similarly injured   that might not otherwise have a voice.  . . . . .    According to federal data, people of color            are more than three times more likely to have subprime loans:  high-cost loans account             for 55 per cent of loans to blacks, but only 17 per cent of loans to whites..

Ms. Martens sees a direct connection to Wall Street in the strange sudden emergence of a black presidential candidate in a country still bitterly racist that has had only five black senators and on Wall Street, after 30 years, a mere 3.5% at best of black stockbrokers. The Obama Mania is just another bubble brought to us by the makers of Nasdq/tech and sub prime-mortgage-in-every-pot bubbles.   As a former Wall Streeter, Ms Martens knows the inside details:

In March of 2000, the Nasdaq stock market, hyped with spurious claims for startup tech      and dot.com companies, reached a peak of over 5,000. Eight years later, it’s trading in    the 2,300 range and most of those companies no longer exist. From peak to trough,        Nasdaq transferred over $4 trillion from the pockets of small mania-gripped investors to         the wealthy and elite market manipulators.

The highest monetary authority during those bubble days, Alan Greenspan, chairman of      the Federal Reserve, consistently told us that the market was efficient and stock prices     were being set by the judgment of millions of “highly knowledgeable” investors.

Mr. Greenspan was the wind beneath the wings of a carefully orchestrated wealth    transfer system known as “pump and dump” on Wall Street.  As hundreds of court cases,         internal emails, and insider testimony now confirm, this bubble was no naturally occurring phenomenon any more than the Obama bubble is.

First, Wall Street firms issued knowingly false research reports to trumpet the growtprospects for the company and stock price; second, they lined up big institutional clients            who were instructed how and when to buy at escalating prices to make the stock price     skyrocket (laddering); third, the firms instructed the hundreds of thousands of    stockbrokers serving the mom-and-pop market to advise their clients to sit still as the             stock price flew to the moon or else the broker would have his commissions taken away        (penalty bid). While the little folks’ money served as a prop under prices, the wealthy             elite on Wall Street and corporate insiders were allowed to sell at the top of the market          (pump-and-dump wealth transfer).

Asking and answering her own question about why people bought into these schemes, she tells us what we know that common sense fails when massive hype spewed out by big media and big public relations are

. . . . .shielded from regulation by big law firms, all eager to collect their share of Wall Street’s rigged cash cow. The current housing bubble bust is just a freshly minted version of Wall            Street’s real estate limited partnership frauds of the ‘80s, but on a grander scale. In the             1980s version, the firms packaged real estate into limited partnerships and peddled it as secure investments to moms and pops. The major underpinning of this wealth transfer    mechanism was that regulators turned a blind eye to the fact that the investments were          listed at the original face amount on the clients’ brokerage statements long after they had lost most of their value. 

Today’s real estate related securities (CDOs and SIVs) that are blowing up around the         globe are simply the above scheme with more billable hours for corporate law firms.

While this research in total gives many accurate takes on Wall Street corruption, Ms. Marten expands that understanding by connecting Wall Street, their law firms and Washington lobbying.  Lobbyists and lawyers in Washington had worked furiously to pave the way for Wall Street scams that bundled mortgages into packages to sell to yield-hungry hedge funds and institutions.  Underpinning and securing Wall Street schemes were

. . . . . artificial rating of AAA from rating agencies that were paid by Wall Street to provide the rating. When demand from institutions was saturated, Wall Street kept the scheme going by hiding           the debt off its balance sheets and stuffed this long-term product       into mom-and-pop money markets, notwithstanding that money markets are      required by law to hold only short-term investments. To further perpetuate the bubble             as long as possible, Wall Street prevented pricing transparency by keeping the trading off    regulated exchanges and used unregulated over-the-counter contracts instead. (All of this required lots of lobbyist hours in Washington.)

Ms Marten suspects that the now concocted Obama bubble has much to do with Obama being a Harvard lawyer and his number one industry supporter lawyers/law firms most of which are on Wall Street’s payroll, a story which big media should cover but seems to show no interest.

Yes, the other leading presidential candidates are taking money from lawyers/law firms/lobbyists, but Senator Obama is the only one rallying with the populist cry that he   isn’t.  That makes it not only a legitimate but a necessary line of inquiry. 

The Obama campaign’s populist bubble is underpinned by what, on the surface, seems to    be a real snoozer of a story. It all centers around business classification codes developed         by the U.S. government and used by the Center for Responsive Politics to classify          contributions.

In other words Obama’s campaign, hinged to his not taking lobbyists’ money, is enabled by a system of business classification or CODE gamed for political advantage.

The Akin Gump law firm is a prime example of how something as mundane as a business classification code can be gamed for political advantage. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Akin Gump (law firm) ranks third among all Federal lobbyists,         raking in $205,225,000 to lobby our elected officials in Washington from 1998 through           2007. The firm is listed as a registered federal lobbyist with the House of Representatives            and the Senate; the firm held lobbying retainer contracts for more than 100 corporate             clients in 2007. But when its non-registered law partners, the people who own this    business and profit from its lobbying operations, give to the Obama campaign, the          contribution is classified as coming from a law firm, not a lobbyist. . . . . 

Senator Obama’s premise and credibility of not taking money from federal lobbyists             hangs on a carefully crafted distinction: he is taking money, lots of it, from owners and   employees of firms registered as federal lobbyists but not the actual individual lobbyists.

Wearing the sheep’s clothing of a black populist, Obama’s campaign rakes in corporate monies just as the other major campaigns. Looking at the Obama bubble, the Black Agenda Report for the Journal of African American Political Thought and Action says

The 2008 Obama presidential run may be the most slickly orchestrated marketing    machine in memory. That’s not a good thing. Marketing is not even distantly related to    democracy or civic empowerment. Marketing is about creating emotional, even irrational     bonds between your product and your target audience.

And slick it is. According to the Obama campaign’s financial filings with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and aggregated at the Center for Responsive Politics, the        Obama campaign has spent over $52 million on media, strategy consultants, image             building, marketing research and telemarketing.

Ms Martens explains the motivation behind Obama Mania:

The Wall Street plan for the Obama-bubble presidency is that of the cleanup crew for the     housing bubble: sweep all the corruption and losses, would-be indictments, perp walks           and prosecutions under the rug and get on with an unprecedented taxpayer bailout of            Wall Street. (The corporate law firms have piled on to funding the plan because most   were up to their eyeballs in writing prospectuses or providing legal opinions for what        has turned out to be bogus AAA securities. Lawsuits naming the Wall Street firms will,             no doubt, shortly begin adding the law firms that rendered the legal guidance to issue         the securities.)

  Who better to sell this agenda to the millions of duped mortgage holders       and foreclosed             homeowners in minority communities across America than our first, beloved, black president of hope and change? 

Why do Wall Street and the corporate law firms think they will find a President Obama         to be accommodating? As the Black Agenda Report notes, “Evidently, the giant insurance companies, the airlines, oil companies, Wall Street, military contractors and        others had closely examined and vetted Barack Obama and found him pleasing.”   That vetting included his remarkable “yes” vote on the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, a            five-year effort by 475 lobbyists, despite appeals from the NAACP and every other major      civil rights group. Thanks to the passage of that legislation, when defrauded homeowners of the housing bubble and defrauded investors of the bundled mortgages try       to fight back through the class-action vehicle, they will find a new layer of corporate- friendly hurdle.http://www.inteldaily.com/?c=173&a=6447

If Obama becomes president, how things go after might be seen in an appearance he made just after his nomination.   Uri Avnery in No, I Can’t! Obbama, Israel and AIPAC refers firs to the miracle of a black candidate running for president in the world’s mot powerful country and then describes Obama rushing to AIPAC, the American Israel Political Action Committee, to give a speech that “broke all records for obsequiousness and fawning”. WAS a triumphalist  conference Even this powerful organization had never seen anything like it.  lihe it 7000 Jewish Functionaries  from sll over the United States came together  to accept the obeisance of the entire Washington  elite. which came to kowtow at their feet.  All the three presidential hopefuls made speeches trying to undo such other in flattery. 300 Senators and Members of ‘Congress crowded the hallways. Everybody who wants to be elected or reelected to office  indeed everybody who  has any political ambitions at all, came to see and be seen  The Washington  AIPAC is like the Constantinople of the Byzantine emperors in its heyday. 

About Obama the news gets worse. From Chicago he has the support of the Crown familrassociated with the aerospace firm General Dynamics .  Alexander Cockburn gives some history.

.           . . . . a notorious scandal of the Kennedy years  was JFK’s defense secretary, RobertMcNamara. overruling all expert review and procurement recommendations and insisting that General Dynamics rather than Boeing make the disastrous F-l I l. at that time one of the e largest procurement contracts in the Pentagon’s history. The suspicion was that Henry Crown  of Chicago was calling in some chits for his role in  fixing the 1960 JFK vote in Cook County. Illinois. to the impotent fury of the teenage Hillary Clinton, who was a poll watcher for Nixon. Crown of Chicago Sand and Gravel had $300 million of the mob’s money in General Dynamics’ debentures and after the disaster of the Corvair, General Dynamics needed the F 111 to avoid going belly-up, taking the mob’s $300 million with it.

 

While Henry Crown is long gone, his descendants support the candidate with  tens of thousands of dollars as can be verified on the website of the Center for Responsible Politics. Further two Crowns sit on the board of General  Dynamics that has formed a €  strategic alliance with  an Israeli firm, Aeronautics DefenseLtd which developed the Unmanned Multi Appliation System (UMAS), an aerial surveillance tool of the Israeli military.   Prime Minister Olmert said  the agreement between   the companies bring to both companies’ state-of-the art   technologies in defense and homeland security. . . additional proof of the technological and commercial benefits that alliances between  industries from the U.S. and Israel can produce.”

 John McCain  

The Republican nominee, unlike the shorter-lived Obama but like Hillary Clinton, comes with a lot of baggage from a biography full of liabilities. John McCain graduated from Annapolis in 1958, he was sixth from the bottom of his class of 899.  Nicknamed “Punk” and “McNasty” he would not be known for his academics but rather earn a reputation for truculence, partying, driving a Corvette and while training in Pensacola dating an exotic dancer, Marie the Flame of Florida.  McCain would come to admit that he generally abused his health and youth in these years.  In 1965 he married Carol Shepp, a model who had divorced one of his classmates the year before, adopting her two children. Together they had a daughter Sidney in 1966.

John McCain was the son and grandson of Navy brass. His grandfather was a four star admiral as was his father who in 1967 became Commander-in-Chief of U.S. Naval Forces in Europe stationed in London.   McCain went on to receive unearned rewards but not follow in their footsteps.  Becoming a navy pilot his skills were described below par but did improve after several crashes and close calls.  During the Vietnam War, flying missions on an A4 attached to the aircraft carrier USS Forrestal , in the very year his father was promoted, 1967, he was shot down by an enemy missile.  Parachuting out, he landed in a lake and would have drowned if not saved by the enemy.   Desperately ill with many broken bones, he was taken to an infamous prison, Hanoi Hilton, where he begged for medical treatment.  When the enemy came to learn about his father, he received the treatment he needed and came to be moved to one of their better prison camps.  His military heroism relates to these years and is conflicted.

In his account of his years as a POW McCain received marginal care, lost 50 pounds, and, at the camp on the outskirts of Hanoi, was put into solitary confinement for two years. There he is said to have turned down preferential treatment and offers of repatriation unless and until every man taken in before him was released with him.  However, McCain came to confess that he had also bargained with his captors for which he felt shame but could explain.

In August of 1968, a program of severe torture began on McCain, at the same time as          he was suffering from dysentery, and McCain made an anti-American propaganda     “confession”. He has always felt that his statement was dishonorable, but as he would later write, “I had learned what we all learn over there.  Every man has his     breaking point. I had reached mine.” His injuries left him permanently incapable of raising his arms above his head. He subsequently received two to three beatings per      week because of his continued refusal to sign additional statements. Other     American POWs were similarly tortured and maltreated in order to extract         “confessions” and propaganda statements, with many enduring even worse treatment than McCain

While a POW, McCain refused to meet with various anti-war groups that traveled to Hanoi to seek peace claiming he did not want to give the enemy a propaganda victory.   From late 1969 his treatment and that of other POW’s was said to become more tolerable.   McCain was a prisoner for five and a half years, returning to the states in 1973 and later in 1999 wrote a book about his life in which he described his POW experience as life transforming.  http://www.usvetdsp.com/jan08/mccain_military_record.htm

At home united with his wife, not long after they were estranged. Carol had also undergone an ordeal.  Having had a car accident in 1969, she had needed several operations that left her crippled, heavy and several inches shorter while McCain had to undergo demanding physical therapy before he could return to navy service.  Then and until 1979 he held a number of positions, the last of which was navy liaison for the U.S. Senate.  That same year he met his present wife, Cindy Lou Hensley, heiress to Hensley & Co., one of the largest Anehuser-Busch distributors in the nation.  Carol divorced McCain in February 1980 and that May he and Cindy were married and, after, McCain retired from the Navy and moved to Arizona to work for Cindy’s father.  Two years later in 1982,  with the help of his wealthy wife,  in-laws and their friends, who included Charles Keating of Lincoln Savings and Loan and Duke Tully, editor-in-chief of the Arizona Republic, McCain was elected to Congress where he aligned with Ronald Reagan.   In 1986 when Barry Goldwater retired from the Senate, McCain won his seat and not long after became enmeshed in the “Keating scandal” becoming one of the now famous “Keating Five” senators accused of aiding and abetting the shady Charles Keating and his associates at the Lincoln Savings and Loan Association.

Between 1982 and 1987, McCain had received $112,000 in legal political    contributions from Charles Keating Jr. and his associates at Lincoln Savings and Loan   Association, along with trips on Keating’s jets that McCain failed to repay until two         years later. In 1987, McCain was one of the five Senators whom Keating contacted in     order to prevent the government’s seizure of Lincoln, which was by then insolvent and     being investigated for making questionable efforts to regain solvency.  McCain met twice     with federal regulators to discuss the government’s investigation of Lincoln.. . . .

Federal regulators ultimately filed a civil suit against Keating. The five senators       came    under investigation for attempting to influence the regulators.  In the end, none of           the senators were charged with any crime. .  . . .    Keating was later convicted of fraud, racketeering, and conspiracy and (Duke)  Tully (publisher of Arizona’s largest          newspaper, The Arizona Republic) was disgraced for concocting a phony military record of combat in Korea and Vietnam including medals for heroism.            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain#cite_note-vf0207-48

In 2008, for the second time, John McCain attempted to garner the Republican presidential nomination. With his heroic reputation firmly in place was another he long cultivated as an honest maverick critical of right wing religious influence on his Republican party and the misadventures of George W. Bush.   Also, and  in spite of  inherent contradictions, McCain was known as a strong advocate of the military and a scourge railing against government waste, fraud and especially  “earmarks” those attachments to major legislation whose sponsors, never identified, reap billions of dollars in boondoggles like an Alaskan bridge that goes nowhere special.

In his new campaign no sooner had McCain jumped again onto his famous “Straight Talk Express” then he turned on a dime. Opposing his Democratic opponents who wanted to end the Iraqi war, McCain embraced George W., supported and approved our ever growing billions of dollars in debt for our Middle East adventures, declared Israel our greatest ally, and doing one better admitted our troops could spend “maybe 100” years in Iraq as they now serve in South Korea, Japan and Germany.  It was our social programs not our wars that caused our dreadful economic malaise.  Topping off all this, McCain stood  shoulder to shoulder in support of former much maligned and most radical of right wing religious fanatics, Reverend Hagee, whose crazed constituency responds to their leader’s maddened cries to support Israel by raising and waving frantically hand-held Israeli flags.  As journalist Justin Raimonda writes, Reverend Hagee is

. . . . .a vicious Catholic-hater and all-around nut-job who looks forward to a nuclear          war in  Middle East as the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy. Hagee has lately taken up       with AIPAC, appearing at their last national confab in a starring role.       www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12755    

During the presidential campaign when Reverend Hagee took a wrong turn suggesting that Adolf Hitler had been fulfilling God’s will by hastening Jews’ desire to return to Israel, the controversy billowing up especially in the Jewish community forced McCain to publicly reject Hagee’s support.

While in the beginning of his 2008 presidential campaign, media generally portrayed McCain a loser and underdog, it too turned on a dime, claiming the “underdog” miraculously won the nomination. It was then, after the fact, in February 2008 that The New York Times published their major story The Long Run recalling some unpleasant facts about McCain’s political history which concerned among other things his long record of support for media conglomeration connected to his 2000 campaign and forty year old female lobbyist, Viki Iseman, with whom he might have been having a romantic liaison.    

As the story goes, during the earlier campaign McCain’s aides grew anxious over his relationship with Ms. Iseman and started working

behind the scenes to keep Iseman away from McCain, and confronted McCain over the relationship. . . because McCain, who had a history of corruption, most notably his card-carrying membership in the Keating Five savings and loan scandal, couldn’t afford to appear to be backsliding. . .      . .

The lobbyist, a partner at the firm Alcalde & Fay, represented telecommunications companies for whom Mr. McCain’s commerce committee was pivotal. Her clients contributed tens of thousands of dollars to his campaigns. . . ..       In 1999 she began           showing up so frequently in his offices and at campaign events that staff members took            notice. One recalled asking, “Why is she always around?

That February, Mr. McCain and Ms. Iseman attended a small fund-raising dinner with        several clients at the Miami-area home of a cruise-line executive and then flew back to            Washington along with a campaign aide on the corporate jet of one of her clients, Paxson Communications. By then, according to two former McCain associates, some of the senator’s advisers had grown so concerned that the relationship had become romantic         that they took steps to intervene.  A former campaign adviser described being instructed             to keep Ms. Iseman away from the senator at public events, while a Senate aide recalled      plans to limit Ms. Iseman’s access to his offices.

Adhering to the advice of his aides, McCain stayed away from the lobbyist for the rest of his 2000 campaign. Now in 2008 with The Times recalling the matter, he told the press The Times was using gutter politics to conduct a smear campaign, swearing he had never violated the principles that always guided his career.

Among many things in The Times article that riled the Senator was his description as

A champion of deregulation, Mr. McCain wrote letters in 1998 and 1999 to the Federal Communications Commission urging it to uphold marketing agreements allowing a television company to control two stations in the same city, a crucial issue for Glencairn     Ltd., one of Ms. Iseman’s clients. He introduced a bill to create tax incentives for         minority ownership of stations; Ms. Iseman represented several businesses seeking such             a program. And he twice tried to advance legislation that would permit a company to  control television stations in overlapping markets, an important issue for Paxson.

In late 1999, Ms. Iseman asked Mr. McCain’s staff to send a letter to the commission to        help Paxson, now Ion Media Networks, on another matter. Mr. Paxson was impatient for F.C.C. approval of a television deal and Ms. Iseman acknowledged in an e-mail message  to The Times that she had sent to Mr. McCain’s staff information for drafting a letter           urging a swift decision.

Mr. McCain complied. He sent two letters to the commission, drawing a rare rebuke for interference from its chairman. In an embarrassing turn for the campaign, news reports   invoked the Keating scandal, once again raising questions about intervening for a patron. . . . .

One might agree that suggesting McCain and the female lobbyist were having a romantic relationship could be a cheap shot but only if it had not connected to some political consequence resonating to his past.             www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21mccain.html

Obviously information in The Times’ story was important for voters to know.  The real problem with the story, as Dave Lindorff points out in Vicki’s John, was its timing.

For over two months the paper held a significant political story during a critical       election campaign. How different might             the presidential campaign look now if the Times had run its story in December, when it was ready to go, well ahead of the Iowa caucus and the         New Hampshire primary, instead of now when McCain has the Republican nomination          all but sewn up?             http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff02222008.html 

Another problem with the story was of even greater concern as Liliana Segura writes in her article McCain’s Blonde Diversion.  Just hours before The Times broke the Long Run story, McCain had told reporters that President Bush should veto the Senate’s anti-torture bill.

In some ways, McCain is right: The media should be blamed — but not just for shoddy reporting of a rather sexless scandal. They should be castigated for ignoring a much more important and damning story about the so-called principled maverick — one that has actual implications for American democracy.

. . . . .. He talked in support of “additional techniques” for interrogation, sounding ever        more in line with the White House’s official stance. McCain, the “war hero” who has been an outspoken opponent of torture, voted against the bill, which would restrict the CIA to some 19 interrogation techniques listed in the Army field manual.

Now, having passed the Senate, the bill is headed for a veto at the hands of President Bush. For a man who would be president — and who is practically giddy at the prospect of being Commander in Chief — McCain’s push for a veto is ominous.

His evolving position on torture should be deeply troubling — much moreso than      the current scandal. Yet it has received a fraction of the media attention that has already been devoted to whatever he did or did not do with a blonde lobbyist eight years ago..          http://www.counterpunch.org/segura02222008.html

While McCain’s political history is significant, his military history can be seen of more significance. Was McCain a hero as he and some others have written or said?  Or was he a collaborator as others believe including Douglas Valentine writing in the April 1-15 Counterpunch Hardcopy. Editor Alexander Cockburn previewed and summarized the Valentine article on the magazine’s free Internet site.

Cockburn believes McCain gets the “kid-glove” treatment from the press and nothing shows that more than how the press avoids questions about the Senator’s collaboration with his Vietnamese captors. Along with his positive reputations, McCain is also well-known for erratic and explosive behavior in tirades where he spontaneously and wildly berates and verbally abuses others.

McCain is probably the most unstable man ever to have got this close to the White    House. He’s one election away from it. Republican senator Thad Cochrane has openly             saidhe trembles at the thought of an unstable McCain in the Oval Office with his finger      on the nuclear trigger.

Cockburn speculates that a kind of madness driving McCain may come from a conflict between a crafted heroic story and a real one about major collaboration, referring to Doug Valentine’s article and wondering if perhaps some private memory causes McCain’s uncontrollable furies and ranting about “gooks” and hundred years of war in Iraq. As Cockburn explains, Valentine is not the first to comment on such possibilities as rumors and charges have long been swirling around McCain’s POW experiences.

Fellow prisoners have given the lie to McCain’s claims. But Valentine has assembled the      dossier. It’s devastating.

Excerpts from Valentine’s Hardcopy article follows: War Hero? Meet the Real John McCain: North Vietnam’s Go-To Collaborator

McCain had a unique POW experience. Initially, he was taken to the infamous Hanoi           Hilton prison camp, where he was interrogated. By McCain’s own account, after three or four days he cracked. He promised his Vietnamese captors, “I’ll give you military            information if you will take me to the hospital …

His Vietnamese captors soon realized their POW, John Sidney McCain III, came from a       well-bred line in the American military elite. . .    The Vietnamese realized, this poor    stooge has propaganda value.  The admiral’s boy was used to special treatment, and his captors            knew that.   They were working him.”

.. . .two weeks into his stay at the Vietnamese hospital, the Hanoi press began quoting          him. It was not ‘name rank and serial number, or kill me’ as specified by the military            code of conduct.  McCain divulged specific military information: he gave the name of the             aircraft carrier on which he was based, the number of U.S. pilots that had been lost, the   number of aircraft in his flight formation, as well as information about the location of    rescue ships.”

.…McCain was held for five and half years. The first two weeks’ behavior might have           been pragmatism, but McCain soon became North Vietnam’s go-to collaborator. . .   .   McCain cooperated with the North Vietnamese for a period of three years. . .. .   McCain             was repaying his captors for their kindness and mercy..  (Hardcopy April 1-15 2008 vol. 15, no. 7) http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn04192008.html

Whoever the next president is, Obama or McCain, he will be the choice not “of the people” but of the “manipulators” of the people.  In the case of Obama while we will have a president like none before, as Ms Marten believes, his election will please his special supporters looking for release from responsibility of their role in the up and coming economic fallout.  It will also help keep alive the deception that America is a true democracy.   On the other hand, McCain, the trumped up military hero, has done all he can to satisfy the money crowd.  Either way the House wins.

 

 

Mainline History

As we have  come to see from those we read,  mainline history in our country and the world at large follows the trail of money men who,  long before the US became a nation,  had   Europe  by the throat  and  here,  from the beginning of our nation,  such  people,  who were the  sponsors of   colonial  empire in the first place,  fought against our independence.    Wanting a national bank with foreign investors, Hamilton worked to establish  one,  while Jefferson and   other patriots,   fought successfully to close the first of them, a battle that continued through the administration of   Andrew Jackson, our first common man   as well as   first Democratic president,   who closed their  second national bank.     Hamilton,  Jefferson’s arch rival,   is believed by many to have  been one of the money  men’s  first US agents  and,   in  addition   to supporting a  national  bank,    preferred the nation have a president for life.     Still, in   the end,    Hamilton  seems more  a hybrid character, coming to support   American capitalism   over that of Europe and,  curiously,  dying    in a duel with Jefferson’s vice president,  Burr, a would-be king who Hamilton  thought more dangerous than Jefferson to have used  all his influence to assure Jefferson won the presidency.    Overall, in these  times, while our  nation was seeking independence,  European international bankers   constantly  attempted    to dominate us while,  in Europe, they  were   financing tyrants who followed their dictates and    opposing those who did not.    Napoleon, a common   but  military  man, usurped   the power of the French government following its  disastrous revolution   until his downfall was arranged,  while here  in the  U.S.  money men set  their sights on  a great  new  empire.    One  European who understood their ambitions  was German Chancellor Otto   von Bismarck  who said,  as Ellen Brown for one reports,  Europe’s  bankers worked to  divide the nation  to more easily  dominate it,  having  during the  Civil War financially  supported  the South.    Immediately upon winning the war,  Lincoln,  our first Republican president and   perhaps  greatest and most noble,   was assassinated.   The nation has not  since  had a president  to express  clearly the  humanitarian  values of  Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence,   that no matter race or creed  all humanity  has inalienable rights to freedom and happiness.     Having the  greatest political acumen,  Lincoln then  negotiated   his difficult times of slavery and division,  acknowledging  a difference in civil rights—that communities had the right to make laws whether  they believed slavery right or, as he did, wrong.   Upon his death, Andrew Johnson, his vice president who was  a self-made man  from  the state of Tennessee,  served   the rest of Lincoln’s  term  becoming the first president   to be   impeached, acquitted  by   a single vote having engaged in a    . . . . lengthy political battle . . .   over how to best deal with the defeated Southern states  . . . .  .    The evils of reconstruction and Jim Crowe were upon us.      Ulysses S Grant, the Civil War hero,  became   our  next president  to be also one of our  most naïve,   surrounded by the unscrupulous.     This was the   Gilded Age produced out of the  monumental Industrial Revolution   in which  states like New Jersey turned from agriculture to industry  and  industrialists and  bankers came  to be the real rulers of the nation,   such as the  Morgan’s   whose activities were largely financed through their connections to the City of London and its   international banking cartel.  Most of our   now   dominant and conglomerated  international corporate monopolies  came  into existence at this time.

 Presidents, following Grant,   were mostly Republican,  two of whom were  assassinated,   Garfield and McKinley.   Suspicions abounded because both had threatened   to raise the tariff on imported goods to protect American capitalism from that of Europe.   On the  death of  McKinley, Teddy Roosevelt, his vice  president, came  into office.     Like his equally famous cousin to come, FDR,    he would fight the trusts but in the end not materially stem their growth while  coming to    serve the money men  well.    Symbolizing the major change in our nation,  Teddy  pursued passionately a new US navy to exercise,  like McKinley before him,  imperial ambitions.  Imperialism was now  in the air.  With McKinley,  we had taken on the Spanish to secure influence over Cuba, the Philippines and Puerto Rico.    With Teddy, we would build a Panama Canal that would increase our influence over  Latin and South America.   An empire we had become,   destined  to  grow ever more large and far from our roots.

In 1913, a Democrat, Woodrow Wilson, was finally elected for Grover Cleveland,  the only Democrat preceding  him after the Civil War,   had been in spirit a Republican.   Coming into office with the noblest of intentions, Wilson had  been president of Princeton and Governor of New Jersey,  helping to  clean up its rampant corruption, and come  to win the presidency in a  three man  race  in which  Republicans split between Teddy and Taft      Of all presidents, there is a case to say he was not only among the best intentioned but the  most naïve.     In 1913,  his very first year in  office,  he signed the Federal Reserve Act  to belatedly realize  its   real intent to come to say he had  ruined his country having turned  the nation’s currency over to private rather than public bankers.  In truth,  he had  ruined more,  the world’s.  countries.     Central banks would proliferate and like the US,  with  their   stock markets,  continue   to conglomerate   power.     As Ms. Brown also informs us,  with their vast resources, they also  acquired control over   media companies  in which they could intimidate and mislead, explaining   financing in   inscrutable   language to hide  a simple truth  about their vast  profits leading to  their accumulating power and dominance.  This reality was   best expressed    in the 18th Century by Amschel Rothschild  having  famously said      “Give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes it’s laws.”    Amschel’s five sons,  establishing  banks in Europe’s  most important cities,  especially  London and Paris,  became the leaders of the international banking cartel. 

Wilson, desiring   to stem the series of economic depressions that were throwing the country into periodic chaos,  along with  his   famous Secretary of State,  William Jennings Bryan,   had spurned the advice of   political realists,  especially those in  Congress,   to  support the Federal Reserve  legislation,  believing a Fed would help  end the series of   chaotic depressions plaguing the nation that in reality were  due to the money men periodically hoarding or floating their monopoly of gold.  Instead   of    Fed’s  power    centered  in its Washington office,  as they had thought,  it would be centered in the big    powerful New York banks connected to the international cartel in the City of London.    Interesting,    this  very same year  saw    the  ratification of the 16th Amendment for  a federal income tax that our founders  had deliberately kept out of the Constitution,  deferring such taxes to the states.     Many critics believed   that  some states of the three quarters needed  had not legally ratified the  amendment  and  most others  that it was put in place to  serve the  money men to assure their government notes and loans  would be repaid.   No doubt as well,   it  assured  funding for future  profitable wars, putting   the lie to conservative’s claim that big government is evil government.   In truth,  while  big government is evil, it is  of their making as it concentrates power rather than fragments  it within state governments.      Wilson, a good man,  wanting  to keep our country safe for democracy,  came to drag  us into the First World War,   in spite of the fact   a powerful Populist movement had developed  at   the end of the 19th Century to move on into the next.        William Jennings Bryan,  in its  free silver  development,    hoped  to add   silver to gold currency to   help desperate farmers more easily pay off their mortgages.    A  pacifist, Bryan  resigned after the  sinking of the Lusitania   convinced   Wilson to enter the   war in spite of the reluctance of Americans  to get involved in  the  usual frantic convolutions in Europe.

A note here is that the current exhibit at the Ocean Historical Museum is about  seven  Gilded Age presidents who came to visit the Jersey Shore,  among whom,  Wilson had been the last. and   include  two who were assassinated,  Garfield and McKinley.      Summer  White House visits had begun  with President Grant    after Mrs. Lincoln had visited Long Branch in 1861, four years before her husband  was  assassinated.    Grant would occupy his summer White House in Long Branch, then part of the greater Township of Ocean,  from 1869 through 1876.     At the time Long Branch was the country’s most popular seaside resort  having many rich New York  financiers  among those  building palatial homes.   In the main presidents  were   seeking relief  from Washington’s  unhealthy swampy environment.

After World War I, along with the  flappers,   the money men’s Wall Street  went stark raving mad  selling on margin and indebting investors  with  the Fed,  encouraging the disaster,   allowing  banks to loan money for wild stock purchases with  only a small cash investment.       Republicans had  returned to office with Harding who died in office    for his vice president,  Coolidge, to complete his term.     Herbert Hoover, another Republican,  followed   to be in office in  1929   when the banks failed and the country sunk into its deepest economic depression.     In 1932    another Democrat  won election,   FDR , and while he is  generally and rightfully   credited with producing creative programs that helped the nation through its  crisis,  there is in fact a justified case to be made   that in the end  he had  participated in the further globalization of the nation, not only by dragging  us into another world war whose Pearl Harbor may not have been the surprise it was promoted to be, as the sinking of the Lusitania before  it may not have been.    Also  of great geopolitical importance  would be his energy deals,   especially with Saudi Arabia,  on which we would grow greatly dependent.  .     Then perhaps his  worse action was a non action.   A true elitist,  FDR  refused to put his confidence in the man who would follow  him.  Having taken the most  true blue American vice president  off   his ticket,  Henry Wallace,  with Eleanor among others in opposition,  he conceded to party bosses to make Harry S. Truman his vice president,  who was  indeed a common and humble man but one hoisted up by a  Missouri Democratic political boss, Prendergast, for the country to have,  once again  in a most critical time,  another terribly  naïve and this time unprepared president,  deeply  lacking in  self confidence.   Led  by the nose by big shots surrounding him,  the president  nuked Japan that  World War II  seasoned veteran, Eisenhower, came to say had been unnecessary as they had lost the war.  Another critical issue had been the creation of Israel that another seasoned veteran,    General Marshall, advised against,  believing our   nation should not get involved  in the Holy land mess  that had been ongoing for decades.      Truman supported Israel that was    perhaps the right political decision for him..    Around   the world,  Jews were garnering  great sympathy   as holocaust victims.  But, while certainly their suffering had been horrible and even unique,   it had not been singular for all wars have generated similar  monumental holocausts and genocides no matter the race or creed of the  suffering,  as we are witnessing today   in the  Middle East   In   spite of such obvious failings,  Truman  has come down to us through media  as one of our most loved  and best presidents.  As so many of our presidents,  he  deserves our love  if for nothing more than suffering monumental  stress,   trapped in our presidential office.  But clearly he needs to be seen for what he was.   Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznick in their excellent book,   The Untold History of the United States, reports on this  story,  regretting particularly the loss of the   sterling American,  Henry Wallace, removed from that critical vice presidency.  We highly recommend this book having  reviewed it and posted the review    to our blog in  September 2015     waysidebfh    You can find information on Henry Wallace here: http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/14297-henry-wallace-americas-forgotten-visionary

Following World War II,   with Europe in ruins,   US    imperialism grew  rapidly  with us  the only  Western country unscathed and  having developed along the way,  with much help,  nuclear power.   Immediately we were  engaged  in a new  Cold War with the Soviets.  With  a military industrial complex grown huge,  obviously  war was never to end.   In the   50’s  with   President Eisenhower in office, in  a more or less quiet time,  critical events had obviously and not so obviously  taken  place.  Ready  to leave  after eight years,  he   warned Americans  to beware of  our   Industrial Military Establishment      In the meantime we had  battled in Korea and would  soon engage  in another in Vietnam,  all supposedly to  contain communism.    Following Eisenhower,  in the   60’s,   JFK defeated Richard Nixon, a California congressman, senator and   seemingly Eisenhower’s  resented vice president.    Allegations of rigging the election  were charged on both sides and no sooner in office  than   JFK  was   confronted with a CIA arranged Bay of Pigs debacle and,  not   long after,  a scary Russian confrontation   over  Cuban missiles.     Coming through  these crises,    the president seemed   aware  of    sinister motivations to feel betrayed and resist further involvement in Vietnam that had seen exploratory steps taken in both his and the Eisenhower’s administrations.    Stewing over the imbroglio the CIA had created,  he  vowed  to break it up into  pieces.   Only  two years into the office,  he was assassinated.  Among those seeing a conspiracy  was  Jim  Garrison, a New Orleans District Attorney,  whose research  indicated it had been the work,  not of    lone wolf  Oswald,  but   several groups of   unnatural creatures inhabiting the  CIA  and the  mafia as well as the  Cuban émigré  and homosexual communities.    Garrison lost his case in a New Orleans courtroom but, for sure,  America was growing more and more unnatural and bizarre.   Among others,  JFK  had been  at odds with   warring  masters  especially in  the CIA and Military  Industrial Complex,  mafia characters who had helped  elect him whom Robert, his Attorney General brother, investigated,  and the FBI’s  J Edgar Hoover who had a habit of keeping records on all  presidents.    Lyndon Johnson, the seasoned politician and JFK ‘ s vice president,  coming into   office,      immediately  arranged , or perhaps  had  arranged,  the Tonkin Bay incident now generally recognized a false flag to establish   the so-called  need   to war in Vietnam.     At this  time servicemen  were still drafted and the draft play  a large  role in the  enormous  resistance to the war  that developed, coming to incorporate  the  monumental   Martin Luther King’s   civil rights movement  as well as the Women’s movement    A note here is that U.S. now has a volunteer and mercenary service  that,  for one thing,   helps warmongers avoid community reactions such as those they experienced in the  Vietnam Protest.     Tom Hayden summarizes the times and protest in     The Forgotten Power of the Vietnam Protest, 1965-1975    seeing it       . . .  unique as the emergence of a nationwide peace movement on a scale not seen before in American history  In   1968    RFK and Martin Luther King were also  assassinated.  If      with JFK, they   had lived they    might have  brought real reform to our government  while  in reverse  their assassinations  came  to dampen   the spirit and the  progress of the peace movement  that would die completely.   http://tomhayden.com/home/the-forgotten-power-of-the-vietnam-protest-1965-1975.html

Onto   the 70’s described in Panic at the Pump when our energy crisis came to one of its heads with a shortage of gasoline producing rationing and lines at service stations,   putting  our car dependent nation  in a state of deep confusion. http://www.washingtonindependentreviewofbooks.com/bookreview/panic-at-the-pump-the-energy-crisis-and-the-transformation-of-american-poli   We add also that this was a time of our  growing consciousness of environmental and   interrelated energy problems when we became active   both  at home in Ocean and at the Trenton Statehouse.    In hindsight,  it now  seems but  a  brief and shinning moment to have begun with Rachel Carlson’s book Silent Spring and media’s then and often  intense coverage of events like Love Canal.   As to our presidents,   it was also the time  of a  remarkable and paranoid Nixon administration in which   critical events would bring,   as well,  political awareness  about   an ever increasing executive power unbalancing our system.    With   a volunteer and mercenary  army  replacing, for the first time,  a citizen army,  a War Powers Act  would pass to  permit,  also for the first time,  a  president to  take military action on his own before needing to ask Congress’ permission to continue it.    As many   observed, Nixon was a newer version of an imperial presidency exceeding the limits of the constitution   growing at least  since the FDR administration.    The president, proceeding with  his European-born  Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger at his side, the so called super realist but definitely super  imperialist,   concluded the Vietnam War   but not before secretly bombing  Cambodia. Laos and Vietnam.    Not   to be ignored  was the  deep chagrin  of  conservatives at the outcome of this war.   On that note it is interesting to observe that both Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, who would come into great power  during the Bush Jr.  administration,  had some of their first major political experiences  with this Nixon Administration that was to increase substantially  in the  short Ford administration to follow:   . . .   As deputy assistant, Cheney suggested several options in a memo to Rumsfeld, including use of the US Justice Department, that the Ford administration could use to limit damage from an article, published by The New York Times, in which investigative reporter Seymour Hersh reported that Navy submarines had tapped into Soviet undersea communications as part of a highly classified program . . . .   Cheney was Assistant to the President and White House Deputy Chief of Staff under Gerald Ford.   When Rumsfeld was named Secretary of Defense, Cheney became White House Chief of Staff, succeeding Rumsfeld.  He later was campaign manager for Ford’s 1976 presidential campaign. . . . . .  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Rumsfeld  

 

Among other critical   events  in these years  was   our   CIA  continuing to meddle  in   Latin and South America.     While such operations began back  in the  50’s  and would always relate  to American businesses wanting to acquire  resources,  a  climax of sorts  was  reached in 1973 when  we   backed    Chile’s  fierce   fascist Pinochet   in a coup  to replace  Salvador  Allende, the democratically elected president.    According to   Greg Grandin, a notable author, in  the years following,    hundreds of thousands of Latin and South  Americans  would be tortured,  killed,  disappeared, or imprisoned without trial  thanks in significant part to  U.S.  organizational skills and support.    Three of the region’s   presidents—Uruguay’s José Mujica, Brazil’s Dilma Rousseff, and Nicaragua’s Daniel Ortega—were victims of this reign of terror https://www.guernicamag.com/daily/greg-grandin-the-latin-american-exception/      Another such critical action to affect  greatly our economic future was Nixon  taking  the dollar off the gold standard evidently on the advice of  a future  Fed chairman,  Paul Volcker,  who was  at this time   under-secretary of the Treasury for international monetary affairs.     Yanis Faroufakis, for one  in his book Global Minotaur,  explains  the under currents of this event.   Our   golden age following WWII  was ending   with  countries like Germany and Japan   not only recovering    but   booming causing our    trade  surpluses  to turn  negative  and   our gold supply  to dwindle.     Off  the gold standard,  the dollar became  the international standard of exchange and,  as  Yanis further explains,    excess dollars of world   traders began to pour into  Wall Street  to purchase  our nation’s  notes and bonds,  producing,  for one thing,  our humongous deficit and, another, the eventual   corruption of  Wall Street,   having  too many dollars with no place to go.     We should note also  how our humongous   deficit  in the main developed to put the lie to the propaganda claiming it  was due to our  Social Security, Medicare and other  domestic programs.   In fact,  our   government,  now  clearly opposed to our people,     stole the surpluses of working people saved in a Social Security Trust Fund by including that fund in the general budget that,  in the main,  went to the Pentagon for its warring.    As to our  paranoid president, his climax came in his   infamous Watergate,  when  tapes were released to show that   more  than anything he had covered up.     Facing impeachment, Nixon  resigned  for  his honest and common  man   vice president, Gerald Ford, a former  Michigan congressman and loyal   Republican, to  immediately  pardon   the president  to come   to lose the election to another common man, a former one term democratic governor of Georgia, and once again perhaps one of our most naive presidents.

 Jimmy Carter was evidently ready to help reform our government in its troubled times of inflation,  recession and energy crisis.      In his  first major address,  he encouraged Americans to become energy independent, setting an example by turning down the heat in the White House and wearing a heavy sweater .  Just three years later,   in 1980   in another address,   he laid out  his new Carter Doctrine:    . . . . . America could stand no interference with our supply of oil from the Middle East   . . . .          Like his predecessor Nixon,  Carter had another   European-born    at his side,  this time, Zbigniew Brzezinski,  his National Security Adviser,  who happens to be the father of Mika,  hostess of  MSNBC’s Morning Joe,  as well as a descendent of  Polish nobility with obviously an axe to grind.    Brzeninski   is reported to have put these words in Carter’s mouth:      . .  Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force     Twenty years   before  Bush Jr.  would take  us   on a   wild goose chase   war in Afghanistan,  hunting down Osama bin Laden, supposedly responsible for 9/11,    Americans had been   in the country,   mucking around  trying to interfere  in a  Soviet war with its  Afghan neighbor.       Robert Gates, former CIA Director and Secretary of Defense, in his book From the Shadow,  writes about his interview with Brzezinski with the former National Security Advisor  telling him . . . .that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention… . . . Brzezinski  also said that he and Carter   had  both played secret  roles in aiding and abetting the Mujahadeen  and that he, Brzezinski,  thought that had been an excellent idea since    , , ,     It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap . . .          Brzezinski went on to  explain  that he had written to Carter to tell him   . . . ..  We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war.   Gates came to ask    if he  might regret    having given arms and advice to future terrorists,.  He  answered:    What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?. . . .   http://www.counterpunch.org/1998/01/15/how-jimmy-carter-and-i-started-the-mujahideen/

Another issue to greatly affect our future was deregulation, perhaps better described as  “no regulation”   that was to become  the   hallmark of   our dominating conservative government.  In fact,  and although in a more benign form, deregulation began in the Carter administration.   But in  spite of all and especially Carter’s final nightmarish year,  the president had  some successes among which  were   Camp David Accords;  returning the Panama Canal to Panama although this still remains controversial;   and  nuclear arms reduction in a Salt II treaty with the Soviets.  But finally, capping all his experiences,  was an Iranian Hostage Crisis that in his last year took a tragic turn when eight servicemen were killed in a failed attempt to rescue Americans.   Ronald Reagan,  his  conservative opponent,    stepped in to play a role in settling the affair with some analysts seeing  the crisis  the deciding factor in Carter’s losing reelection.  Now,   perhaps   trying to  redeem his presidency, he  has become  out of office our  most active and well intentioned ex president.

The  inevitable path on which we apparently were traveling  came to another  of its major truing points with the  election  of Ronald Reagan   in the early   80’s,    during which  conservative dominance would begin to take shape.    Another personal note  is that with this election we ended our activism,  convinced   citizen efforts  in which we had participated   at both the state and local levels,  that had often been  successful,  would  no  longer  be  viable.   Elections like that of Reagan,   glowing in its Hollywood spotlight,  were the future,  controlled at the top  by money, celebrity  and media that in contrast made     citizen action appear  small and irrelevant.  As far as we were concerned,  there was no doubt  about it, we   lived in a topsy turvy world.    At home,  waiting for some kind of crisis to develop to prove  the need of democratic action,  while we understood  it would take a long time, we never imagined how long it was to be.   In the meantime we sadly watched citizens who knew better become more cynical  and passive  and the  great masses, tied to busy lives, if for nothing more than   to earn  a living to survive,   become  ever  more victims of   propaganda from a media ever  more conglomerated.    Not long after we felt  outrage  as electronic voting machines with no paper trails proliferated.    Another   interesting article in the review  is  about the Brexit vote conducted with paper ballots   Honest Election System Needed to Defeat Ruling Elite  http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/06/27/honest-election-system-needed-to-defeat-ruling-elite/

In these years when Margaret Thatcher was also reigning in Britain,  Ronald Reagan, smooth and polished,  was  in his way, and in contrast,  a comforting president  but  one to say one thing and perhaps  mean another that was sometimes bad but not always.    In retrospect,  he certainly seems to us another front man doing what he did best, acting  a role written by others and  in fact were surprised when we came to learn he had  a reputation of corruption  from his Hollywood experience  as  Actor’s Guild activist and  president.  http://moldea.com/ReaganRedux.html     Relating to his  political career  more directly was, after his acting career went into decline,   his  becoming a lavishly paid TV pitchman  for American corporations, particularly General Electric,    From California governor   to President of the US,  the once Democrat became a conservative champion.  In   office, while  having   very little  to say about   warring and  the reality of  how government   gets  big and corrupted,  he pushed the conservative agenda about  how bad was big government supporting   welfare moms and domestic programs that   the nation could not afford.     But still,  and at least to us,  Reagan was a mixed bag.  Eight years in office  saw only  one little invasion of the island of Grenada  which was  of course  to assure it  remain democratic  but  who knows perhaps  to placate and give a little practice in quiet times to a Pentagon  that was in fact    onto bigger events.  In 1986   Oliver North’s Iran Contra  scandal   revealed  his arrangement  to secretly sell weapons to Iran in order to fund,   what  Congress would not,  anti-Sandinista and anti communists rebels in Niagara  while other mysterious and corrupted events we now know were happening elsewhere.

By this time,  Reagan was  often seeming  to be sleeping on the job,  making us  guess he probably hadn’t  been totally aware what was happening beneath him.      At any rate, and  in the years before that  scandal, Reagan had   concentrated on domestic life, appointing Alan Greenspan, who was to become famous as the Fed Chairman  much responsible for the 2008 economic crisis, but then  to head a Social Security Commission that accomplished raising the rates of workers’ contributions  to their trust found that since 1968 had been part of the general  budget. https://www.ssa.gov/history/BudgetTreatment.html      As it turned out,   Reagan was the first president to put our national budget into   extreme straights causing David Stockman, his budget officer, to foam at the mouth warning about the  irresponsibility of raising both the  Pentagon and domestic budgets for Reagan had not, as his masters might have wished,  adequately reduced   domestic spending to compensate.

In spite of all,  Reagan seemed a  genuinely likable person   who might have wanted to produce some genuine achievement with that becoming more    evident in his  Reykjavik  Salt negations in 1986 with Gorbachev, the Russian president.  Both Nancy,   his clearly  devoted  wife and often  political protector, as well as George Shultz,  his Secretary of State, urged  him to come to agreement conceding to Gorbachev’s demands to curtail  his Hollywood Star War program.  Instead  Reagan   took the advice of his conservative advisers not to agree,   one of whom was the  potent neocon   Richard Perle whom many writers refer to as The Dark Prince.     Through  the years,  and  as far as we know,  Perle   has never held an official office while apparently always seemingly    behind the scenes  as some kind of advisor  and member of  conservative think tanks,  such as the most important Project for a New American Century that called  for regime change and a New Pearl Harbor.   (See blog entry 9/11 waysidebfh)    We are particularly intrigued by his biography.  Having grown up in New York, he spent his formative teens in Hollywood    http://inthesetimes.com/article/273/richard_perle_it_pays_to_be_the_prince_of_darkness  

It might seem Reagan was in the end another very naive president occupying an office that evidently has always been  surrounded by  manipulators with agendas, especially geopolitical agendas.     As to these later Reagan years,  and in light of his   future Alzheimer, it also  might seem  that rather   than   sleeping on the job, Reagan  may have been slipping into his disease.     Edmund Morris who was hired by Nancy to write her husband’s biography  came  to be at great odds with her for in the end producing a  unique rendering although Reagan’s   three children came  to admit that  Morris  had captured their father’s essence for they too were never able to reach him.     Generally the President had been    widely known as a man who mingled fantasy and reality.   The question becomes to our mind if he had always  been  a person living  in a  fantasy world escaping reality not only as an actor whose business was fantasy but   early on perhaps in  a wounded  and painful childhood.     His always sunny disposition adds to such suspicions   Morris explained in many interviews that his book’s unique narrative   . .   was a literary device reflecting the essentially thespian nature of his subject. Reagan, he said, was an enigma to anyone who sought to explain him by orthodox means. Widely beloved, the man had no close friends; seemingly passive and gentle, he yet exerted unstoppable force; although his id was formidable, he had no personal vanity. On CBS’s 60 Minutes, Morris told Lesley Stahl:  He was truly one of the strangest men who’s ever lived. Nobody around him understood him. I, every person I interviewed, almost without exception, eventually would say, “You know, I could never really figure him out.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Morris_(writer)    

Paul Craig Roberts, a former Assistant of the Treasury in the Reagan administration, often exclaims there were no  neocons in the Reagan administration.  That may be so but surely   internationalists   like Perle were lurking in the  underbrush evidently of all administrations.  .   George Herbert Walker Bush,  Reagan’s  vice president  and now as we know Saudi Arabia’s great friend,    won the next presidency,   defeating Democrat Michael Dukakis that in hindsight,  and  having not  so long ago seen on CSpan a discussion he had had with  journalists,   should  have been the next   Democrat   the country needed to help right its course in its more and more  difficult times.      Evidently it was not to be.   With  ever more  power accumulating in a controlled mainstream media,  it  had more and more influence  over    political events.     While we cannot remember for whom we voted,  we think that it must have been  Bush since all we remember  about Dukakis  was relentless television pictures  of  his riding in a tank with his helmeted head sticking out of its hole looking extremely silly.    No   sooner than Bush Sr. won the election,  the Soviets gave up the ghost for  the world to wait   for a peace dividend never to come.    George H W  proceeded  to take us to our first    Iraq war in Kuwait where Saddam Hussein,  our former ally,   threatened  to invade and it be   the real  beginning of   endless Middle Eastern wars.   With all the hype media could  bring to the so-called war,  General Norman Schwarzkopf, Jr.,   turned into a national hero,  conducting  Operation Desert Storm,  an  extended air campaign followed by a  100-hour ground offensive to defeat  Iraq to   liberate  Kuwait.  An unscathed Saddam returned to his country to await events.

While there might be a case that in the 90’s the next Clinton presidency,   elites out of  Yale law school,   may have  begun  with some noble intentions, in our opinion and more importantly that of many political experts, it was nearly from its beginning  one of the worse and most consequentially  negative  administrations in our history.     The Clintons, “knowing” rather than “naïve” , at least in our opinion,  are  akin  to Shakespeare’s Lord and Lady Macbeth.    They won the office  in a three way race in which Ross Perot, a rich and talented  business leader, described  a  giant sucking sound   referring to loss of jobs and companies  flying to places around the world with lower taxes and wages.         Thomas Frank, a Democrat and critic, in   Listen, Liberal: Or, What Ever Happened to the Party of the People?   sees  them  turning their historical working man’s party into  second tier Republicans, that  Ralph Nader came to describe   not worth a dime’s difference from one to the other. http://www.c-span.org/video/?409990-2/thomas-frank-discusses-listen-liberal       Early in their first term, having difficulties  that seriously threatened their future,  they  wasted  not a minute  shucking out   their progressive advisers and appointees to bring in  their former  Arkansas advisor,  Dick Morris,  a Republican operative.  Soon  NAFTA was passed,   Republican  legislation produced in George W H Bush’s  administration needing  democratic votes.    Perot’s sucking sound  would grow louder and if  that wasn’t bad  enough,   in 1996  they aided and abetted the passage of  a powerful  telecommunication bill,  also needing democratic votes, to    conglomerate  more   our already  conglomerated telecommunications  and  now,  for the  first time,  include the Internet   in its  broadcasting and spectrum allotments.    But much worse, if not the worse to come,  they and their Secretary of Treasury, neoliberal Robert Rubin, along with his too big to fail banking friends,  oversaw the repeal of the Glass-Seagull Act that had been put in place during the depression to assure Wall Street   not speculate with  citizens’ savings,   stored in the nation’s  banks .  Now  banks  were allowed    to “financialize ” ,    in other words,   bundle their mortgages  into packages  to sell to Wall Street houses who in turn “financilized”, in other   words,   created     humongous investment  packages to sell   around the world,  stuffed   with   junk mortgages never to be repaid.  To boot these crooked financial Wall Street houses would have their crooked mortgage rating agencies stamp these worthless investments Triple A.    As we learn in movies and else where,   many Wall Street insiders,  realizing a future Armageddon,    took out bets with insurance companies like AIG,  called  Credit Default Swaps or,  as Warrent Buffet described them,  weapons of financial destruction.    No matter.  All would be saved not by one dollar of the gamblers’  monies but by the American taxpayers  when the actions taken in this Clinton administration inevitably came  home to roost in the 2008 economic crisis during the last year of the Bush Jr.  administration.  But then to their even greater   discredit was a critically important geopolitical  feat  when during this administration    Europe’s  NATO,  hitherto a defense organization,  was converted into an  offensive organization, set  up   to become  the military arm of  a US NATO alliance. Its  first military adventures came   in the  Balkans with the bombings in Yugoslavia, first in   Hersovnia Bosnia and then  Kosovo where  it just happened    Halliburton with Dick Cheney at its helm was building  a monumental  US base called Bondsteel:  . . . . Nato embarks on its first-ever military operation by launching a campaign of air strikes against Bosnian Serb positions to force the Bosnian Serbs to negotiate a peace settlement;   Nato deploys thousands of troops – the Implementation Force (Ifor) – to monitor and enforce a ceasefire in Bosnia.    1999 – Nato begins an 11-week campaign of air strikes against Yugoslavia over Kosovo without UN approval: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/country_profiles/1543000.stm.   Diane Johnstone, referred to previously,   details the   real purpose and real consequences of these adventures  in an article from her book   Fool’s Crusade Yugoslavia, NATO and Western Delusion http://www.swans.com/library/art9/dianaj01.html

From Bush Sr.   to Clinton and on to Bush Jr.,  in the 2000’s  each step of the way deepening our geopolitical destiny,    planned it seemed  from our beginning and now reaching another   peak,  getting  ready for us  to deliver to the masters their  world empire.   In 2000  Bush Jr.,  a born again Christian conservative,     emerged triumphant from a close and deeply contested election with Al Gore,  decided by a conservative Supreme Court  in spite   of,  among other things,    the  popular vote appeared  won by Gore;   questionable hanging chads occurred in  Florida   where  Jeb,  the    brother,  was governor;  and   questionable   results from   Diebold electronic machine with  no paper trail  were dismissed in Republican controlled Ohio.   Not surprisingly,   John Kerry,  now Secretary of State,  running   against Bush   in 2004,  would see his  sterling  World War II reputation  torn to pieces with a  media swamped   by   a well financed propagandizing  Swift Boat  Vets campaign.  At any rate,  Bush Jr.  was another  compromised rather than naïve  president following the previous  two in lockstep,  although a man overtly much less  up to the task.    While also a Yalie, Bush Jr.  was a party animal loving to drink rather than study,    probably like many rich boys,  attracting “buddies”    to do his  work.     In various deals in and out of office,   his modus operandi was apparently  “back scratching”   In  office   one of his buddies ran the Education Department initiating   No Child Left Behind,  now a proven failure about testing rather than education .  Not interested in correcting abuses and corruptions,   leaving schools  to rot helped them advance    privatizing our public school system with charter schools for  entrepreneurial to rake in profits.       Privatizing, much like exploiting,  was to  be another mantra of such conservatives like deregulation that was no regulation and  free  trade that was  dominated  trade.   As it had been now for   centuries,   a colluding media enabled such people to use  semantics to propagate lies to cleverly  cover  over truths for no  one to much know the difference.     But of course these were minor events of an eight year reign that had begun with the   big one, 9/11,  in an administration  run by neocons of whom Cheney and Rumsfeld held the most important official   positions while  others were strategically placed within,  most of whom,  or at least  a great many,   joined at the hip  with  Israel’s Netanyahu,  well  known  to desire to dominate his Middle East region and  each year turning evermore to the right.    We also guess none of these chiefs were likely to take into their confidence their empty-headed president, no doubt okay with him as long as they got the job done  and,  for another reason, those chiefs were    too busy  plotting the  next dramatic steps in their War on Terror. Needing to keep control  of the nation on which they were piggybacking,  a series of new laws curtailing our freedoms were  quickly generated beginning  with the  now infamous  Patriot Act in which  . . . .   law enforcement sweeping authority to monitor electronic communications with little oversight. . . . .  engage in the use of roving wiretaps, sneak and peek warrants and other provisions . . . .  spying on any US citizen without that citizen even knowing, if the government decides that the citizen is a “suspected terrorist”. http://www.patriotact.com/overview-of-the-patriot-act/     

With our troops off to find Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan,  our fearless leaders soon found the need to invade Iraq  whose former ally,  Saddam,  was now propagated to   be  hoarding weapons of mass destruction  and   Professor Gerges, for one, sees our  opening  the gates of Hell.   All the while  these warmongers  were clamoring   for an invasion of    Iran,  the region’s most powerful opposition, which still has not materialized.  However,  during   this Bush Jr.  administration, with 9/11 establishing our new Arab enemies,  neocons, long in the dark,   were out in the open with their names and intention of regime change exposed,  indicating to us at least a supreme confidence in  their ability to stay in control of their deep state government.  As we and those we read see it, one way or another, with their media   covering terrifying events,  whether staged or real, Americans  and now others people,    especially in  our Western world,  are  kept  frozen in place with each such happening   immediately providing  excuses for warriors to increase their warring.  Is it not preposterous,  that  the world’s  ever most vast  powerful government is somehow   unable to defeat   a relatively small, poor Middle Eastern enemy?   The   most astute journalists and observers see that,  they, the masters, create chaos to  defeat their own populations,   keeping them in fear and at bay as  they continue their journey to  world governance.      .         .

The charade of democracy has continued with   Obama, the first  although mulatto,   black man  to reach the oval office,  making it move obvious that    presidential candidates do not occur naturally rather   depend on huge amounts of money   as well as   media  propaganda.       As  might have been expected,   Obama stayed the  financial course  with   money men responsible for our 2008 disaster.   We note here  that  apparently   money men divide in two as does all other aspects of  life,  not that their goals are different but  how strong or not  they might pursue them.     That they are in general triumphant is shown also by the total lack of significant opposition to   their dominant  mantras.     One  then can see the problem for any   president who might want to differ from  dictates.  Interestingly,  while    important   financial things stayed in place,  Obama changed some things, unlike his two predecessors Clinton and Bush,   following   orders but not exactly.     For instance,  instead of delivering his masters a war in Iran, he delivered a treaty of sorts although the issue  remains unsettled for just such differences.  Then, wanting to take down second best  Assad in Syria,  Obama,  according to his critics,  produced a non-policy while other critics maintain  the US  was  through other channels    arming   Al Queda and ISIS,  supposedly our enemies, to fight as rebels in  Syria.  At any rate,  Obama seemed concentrated   on  drone warfare  that was in fact killing more civilians than terrorists  to let  his Secretary of State Hillary handle  the destruction of Libya,   another disaster  to add to  those  in Afghanistan and Iraq.     As  we know from his own statements, Obama wanted to withdraw forces and get out of the Middle East mess which  seems now no longer on the table.     Paul Craig Roberts, a Republican from the Reagan years,  who   has come to  detest neocon  dominance,    comments on what Obama surprisingly  has   come to say in this his  last year in office.          . . . . .    the neocon program has turned out not to be in America’s national interest.. . . .     If in fact the only measure [of US strength] is for us to send another 100,000 or 200,000 troops into Syria or back into Iraq or perhaps into Libya, or perhaps into Yemen, and our goal somehow is that we are now going to be, not just the police, but the governors of this region, that would be a bad strategy. If we make that mistake again, then shame on us . . . . .  This is a very lonely and dangerous position for Obama to take in Washington. http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2015/10/12/obama-shows-strength-by-recognizing-the-failure-of-the-neoconservative-policy-paul-craig-roberts/

From our research, in part presented in these highlights,  we clearly see  the danger of the president’s remark but since it  is his  last year,   with his power on the wane,  see and hope also  he may escape   harm.     And  those who may be wondering if Roberts would consider voting for Hillary,  another  of his articles should dispel that notion:     If Americans elect Hillary president, the One Percent’s control will be complete http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/04/12/if-americans-elect-hillary-president-the-one-percents-control-will-be-complete-paul-craig-roberts/      Further, all  of the above   reminds us of another article,  put in one of our  reviews,  suggesting   Obama may be the best president we can hope to have.  Looking  at  Hillary   and Donald  we do not  doubt that may be true  but also wonder about  other possibilities.    Are  the Clintons  our   Benedict Arnolds,    living now within the 1% that is not American but an  International unnatural and perverted crowd of  foreigners,   in spirit if not all in birth,  who have stolen our government and its resources to win world governance?    Then, could the Donald  be perhaps the  last and  least of   American capitalists, obviously with limited intellectual insight to be   thoroughly confused  about who are the  enemies,  while ready to wage a final battle to keep the foreigners  at bay, looking like a tyrant he might become that would be an  old story in history coming at the ends of all  powerful empires?.   In any case it is a sad ending to a noble beginning especially having just watched  Michael Moore’s clever  new film Where to Invade Next .    Disturbed by the nation we have become,   Michael invades,  or visits, other countries having  humane governments.  With an American flag draped over his shoulder,  he ask their citizens how they might help  restore our country.    In  Portugal,   chatting with two police officers,   he and we learn Portugal has never had a war on drugs  and  their prisons, which the filmmaker also visits,  are  more retention centers seeking to  rehabilitate   than  punish    In  Finland,  that has the   highest  success rate of any country  in education,   children have as much playtime as school time with no or very little homework assignments   In Iceland,  that had the worse economic experience in 2008,  having all but one of its  banks fail,     is now  healthy and thriving having  put their crooked bankers in far away jails for long terms.     All these countries,  like others he visits, had once been    kingdoms to come to be  inspired by the  once American experience.     The last scene of the film takes  place  walking along the former  Berlin  Wall whose fall  began with individuals,  chisels in hand,  chipping holes in the wall  to peep through  to see  the land of freedom and liberty on the other side.     We  add how   curious it  is that  our  land of   Jefferson and Lincoln  has become   the vehicle of modern financial  monsters,   akin to the worse of the others, having accumulated the greatest power ever,   killing and destroying creative life  in wars around the world,  especially in the Middle East,   putting  all of  humanity on the brink of  survival.

In summing up and looking back,   it is evident our country   since its inception,  in spite of its noble attempts to create some form of real democracy, has been  redirected to become instead  the world’s  greatest and most dangerous empire.  In the   last 36 years or so, since the Reagan administration, that imperial  course has  been culminating   with the dominance of conservatives,  spreading through their control of mainstream media,  three major  themes or mantras:  first and foremost the mantra of lowering taxes and, connected to it,   deregulation and privatization.   In this summer of 2016,  the mantras remain dominant in spite of  their  failings      Lowering taxation that has  come   in many forms, like the  theories about supply side economics,  was  claimed able to increase  wealth and that at least in part  trickle down to the masses.       Reality shows  it has in fact  tricked up to   increase   the  wealth of the 1 % with inequality reaching   some kind of zenith.  .   As  the 1%   gobbled  up the riches,  the rest of us   grew   poorer,  not only from their  monopolization of commerce but  also from  shouldering the burden of bailing them out, saving what  essentially has become  a rigged and fraudulent economic system.     Then, among  massive deregulations of our government,    what   likely  its  most lethal  was achieved     during  the Clinton administration in the 90’s   with the repeal of the  Glass-Stegall Act,  explained     above in  the section on the    Clinton administration  and likewise its culmination  during the Bush Jr years  with our bailout.      So much for lowering taxes and  deregulation!   But now,   in  spite of all  and  hard to believe,  the mantras,  like the  criminals,   stay in place with privatization  apparently invigorated.     Public schools   left to rot  see their monies  shifted off   more and more to private charter schools run for profit.   Can it be long before we see as well   Social Security monies routed to those same   crooked Wall Street financial houses  for us to guess how that  might end.    In the meantime Social Security  like Medicare,  programs for the lesser among us,   are consistently diminished with Medicare given a phony and expensive drug  program  that in reality increases the profits of pharmaceutical companies as Congress forbade   government from negotiating   the prices of drugs.   Then,  taking  these three dominant mantras together, tax reduction, deregulation, and privatization, does not a clear   overall objective   become  apparent?    Government is to be completely subordinated to  eventually a new world order having first come under the command of those who lower taxes, deregulate  and privatize.    As for the rest of us,  no matter  whether government be good or bad,  or we use it creatively or not,  it is  and has always been  our only  means  to check the avaricious among us.    Without it serving us,  we are doomed–suckers at the mercy of the few robbers.  Can this election make any difference, left   with Trump, a nationalist rather than globalist  as well as potential tyrant,  and  Clinton, a neocon/neoliberal globalist following a course that inevitably,  as history shows, leads to tyrants?     In one way or another they will both follow the course in progress and looking  at each of the conservative   mantras and their failings   is to see how we Americans have lost our way.    Especially in view of the fallen Bernie, who may not have been perfect,  they have no real challenge as he was the only      competitive candidate  exhibiting traces of real reform, having  raised substantial money in small donations and speaking boldly and clearly, unlike the two-faced Trump, about  the corruption of Wall Street.    In addition,  in  the article   below,  we see Sanders had another suggestion that the author explains was   . . . .   a return to a 90% marginal tax rate. . noting that Sanders said that  it was obscene that  the top one-tenth of one percent owns  almost as much as the bottom 90:   The author goes on to say

Sanders is right that the top marginal tax rate, that paid by the wealthiest Americans, was around 90 percent under Eisenhower — it was actually 92 percent in the 1950s. Today, the top marginal tax rate is 39.6 percent, although the richest 1 percent end up paying less than that on average and the average rate actually fell for many years. . . . . When the top rate was more than 90 percent in the 50s, economic growth averaged more than 4 percent a year. But recently when the top rate has been closer to 35 percent, growth has been less than 2 percent a year on average.. . . . For Sanders, that’s combating income inequality:“If you have seen a massive transfer of wealth from the middle class to the top tenth of one percent, you’ve got to transfer that back,”  . .    .  So far, many Republican presidential candidates have proposed a radically different approach: a flat tax. Sen. Ted Cruz (TX), Sen. Rand Paul (KY), and Ben Carson have all backed this idea. The details of each proposal differs, but the basic premise is an attempt to simplify the tax code by only having one rate that everyone pays, rather than the current system in which rates increase as income increases. An analysis of one flat tax plan put forward by Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) found that it would raise taxes for those at the bottom of the income scale by between $102 and $462, while the tax bill for those making more than $1 million a year would decrease by about a half million dollars.   It would also lower government revenue by between $500 billion and $1 trillion a year. If a candidate wanted to maintain the current level of revenue, it would require taxing everyone, rich or poor, by at least 25 percent.   http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/05/26/3662773/sanders-90-percent-tax/

While there is no doubt our tax codes need to be radically overhauled to simplify them,  there is much doubt about why and how and for whom  taxes need  reducing.  But certainly continuously reduced marginal rates on high incomes has greatly contributed to the now  extreme  inequality.  However, we should not fail to note that  also contributing to this inequality  is a  plethora of loopholes not to mention the privileges of off shoring profits to remote islands  to avoid  taxes, all of which is nicely arranged by fancy accountants and lawyers without effective  interference from the government.      Still,  some of the record remains clear.  We had a more equitable country during the  administrations of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower  when the highest  marginal tax rate on income  was around 93% and even during the Kennedy  administration when it was first lowered  to the 70’s  percent.      Now in this summer of 2016,   with the   rate  around 35%,   inequality rages and,  as mentioned above, in contradiction,  growth  is reduced to  less than 2 percent.  This article also explains the complicated structure of the marginal tax rate.      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/22/economists-tax-rich_n_6024430.html   For those who may be interested in exactly how the marginal income rate and  the rate of capital gain taxes were decreased through the administrations,  see  here:    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/eisenhower-obama-wealthy-americans-mitt-romney-pay-taxes/story?id=15387862#1

But lest we forget,  with the exception of  a few  crooks during Bush Jr. administration sent  to jail along with  Bernie Madoff during the Obama administration,  most Wall Street crooks and especially the “big ones”  not only   remained  free  but were  financially rewarded and,   more importantly,  allowed to continue to operate as if nothing had happened or all had been corrected.    It does seem  we need to get a handle on just   how much power  elites  have accumulated  for,   in  spite of all,  they and  their lying  mainstream  media, amazingly  in light of their  record,  can  still claim they will restore our wealth with more   NAFTA’s,   CAFTA’s,   and TPP’s,  transnational trade bills,  that have   and  no doubt will continue to  result in more of our   jobs and companies flying off to other places.  But,  now at least,  it seems a   large number of us  are in touch with   reality  even though we   have  at this point  no control over candidates or their elections.   No dubt salt will continue  pouring   into our wounds,  with abuses destined to grow,  to come to make us feel   more compelled to act  especially in light of our warmongers and interventionists continuing to engage   in endless conflicts  to keep  us in endless fear of enemies  they might very well have created for such purposes.    More aware we are more free to be less manipulated by phony  mantras   often verging on the ridiculous.    For instance,  tuning into Fox News,  one can be sure to find  all conversations circling back to the plight of businesses suffering from taxation and regulation   while never mentioning the  dominating   monopolies that have come to run our country and be  responsible with their government   for the loss of our jobs, companies and wealth.     If  in fact small and medium size businesses are suffering,  it makes  more sense, at least to us,  to see their  problems rooted to  gigantism of the dominant monopolies    swallowing up markets,  as Wall Street  takes over Main Street.    Imagine, if you can,  a Mom and Pop store competing with Amazon.    But in  addition,  there is the question posed by Ellen Brown  and her kind of  honest reporters.  Should we have or ever  have had a federal income tax that our founders kept out of the Constitution, leaving such  taxes to the states and in such way preventing power from accumulating at the center?    In reality,  is it  not the  99% paying the taxes that the   1% cheaters studiously avoid and to boot having us the victims  bail   the cheaters out?  Are  we the suckers  to which crooks so often refer?    If the answers are yes, wouldn’t  it  be best then   to advocate income taxes be the province of the states?     Certainly,  if we are as creative as we have seemed  in our freer times,  a small federal government would   negotiate  issues one at a time  to find  a way to make a decentralized democratic government work for all.  It could hardly be worse than that  we have but in fact be enormously better under most any condition.

Now, with  events turning and twisting in the wind,  it does seem that we Americans can alas  realize the top  is no longer available to us, that  a Bernie,  or any other,  would be like  the fabled Icarus  flying toward the sun, only to be  evaporated.   It is not a “ he” or a “she” that will make a difference but a “we”, the answer to how we can survive .  In  Political Revolution: Think National, Act Local   Peter Kolozi and James E. Freeman, professors of Political Science at the City University of New York,  advise  that we need to see     . . . , ,  the Sander’s campaign   continuing   in all its successful ways that  it could be the    the beginning of something . . . .   Political revolutions are years in the making and painstakingly, methodically built at the local and state level.  Sanders and the thousands of people who have supported his campaign must not squander the opportunity to lay the foundation, in every district, town, city, state and national election for a real political revolution. In the oft repeated words of the candidate himself, that would be “Huge”.  http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/04/19/bernie-sanders-political-revolution-think-national-act-local/       Then there is the veteran activist through thick and think never giving up.   Ralph Nader on Campaign 2016   talking  about his new book   Breaking Through Power tells us it’s easier than we think:      . . .. it all comes down to citizens mobilizing. If 1% of the citizenry mobilizes in each congressional district, two and a half  million people and have  public opinion behind them and set up full-time  offices, they could bring change.   . . .    .http://www.c-span.org/video/?408671-4/washington-journal-ralph-nader

A final personal note is about our now long experience having made us aware that our dream of democracy can only be realized   at the local grass roots   and state levels where our activism originated.   Democracy in the stable form of  representative government  is  there to be recovered.       What is keeping that recovery from happening is mainly the deep divisions among our people  now perhaps reaching  a peak  with vividly raging police  battles delivered nightly  on TV.    A  divided people as history has shown is a conquered people.  We must become aware of   manipulation  by  our deep state foreign government continuing to work to divide us, reaching an ultimate point with our citizens turned against  our police that could become evermore  militarized.     Ocean is fortunate to have a force  at its best and as  we know  essentially police  are  members of our families like our fire fighters and EM’s growing up most inclined to help others.  We must stay aware to see that the police remain so.   A militarized police would destroy our hope of ever organizing our communities   to restore our democracy and that be likely part of the plan of those controlling us.      W must know  what is happening around the country if not in Ocean.   Paul Craig Roberts writes:       . . .   the police have been, or are being, militarized. They are armed with weapons of war that hitherto have been used only on battlefields. We don’t know why police are armed in this way, as such weapons are not necessary for policing the American public and are not used in police work anywhere except in Israeli-occupied Palestine.  There is an undeclared agenda behind these weapons, and neither Congress nor the presstitute media have any apparent interest in discovering the hidden agenda.   Nevertheless, the militarization of the police fits in with what we know about police training.  There are sourced reports that US police are receiving training from Israel, both from traveling to Israel and in the US from Israeli training firms or from US firms using Israeli methods. . . . .   http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/07/11/police-murder-because-they-are-trained-to-murder-paul-craig-roberts/

We cannot unite if we are not conscious of the reality around us,  remembering the  Greeks who started it all coming  to their  own empire with  Socrates deciding to take the hemlock rather than live an unexamined life.      With such understanding,  especially in small communities like Ocean,    we could   begin to  join with others who also seem ready to act, organizing in ways suggested by Nader and the others above.     We add to this that  we need   in spite of   our many  critical issues to unite around the most important   about our endless warring and nuclear arsenals,   pointed out in Why the Sanders ‘Revolution’ Must Take on the Permanent War State   .   http://original.antiwar.com/porter/2016/07/03/sanders-revolution-must-take-permanent-war-state/

Our task then is to advise and command,   as well as our local officials,  our congress and legislatures, our closet federal and state representatives,  to have them advise and command our government  and its branches, especially that of  our imperial presidency.      This is the way the system is designed to work and as  Nader says it is easier then we think and as Michael Moore suggests events can turn on a dime as happened with the Berlin Wall and the Soviet fall.    Achieving   peace and returning to our treaties to dismantle   nuclear armaments, we would be ready  to  find ways to address our other critical issues.     Without doubt we would have tremendous power for  change,  if we were en masse  united  and   organized.    We are in essence the 99%.  Then with  our natural morality restored,  we could come to express our Christian heritage of forgiveness and rehabilitation that is in fact the base of all religions no matter they corrupt or not    Power and its accumulation are the root to evil, now a tired and old cliché but nonetheless,  the deepest of our realities from  which none of us  are immune.    We  are in the end one, coming to know that we the people,   God’s  “uglies”, who suffer to survive,  are  to save  His and Her  world from the masters’  manufactured and robotic  “beauties”  destroying it.

SECTION 4 MEDIA

 
Excerpts begin with Ben Bagdikian’s The Media Monopoly written in 1983 warning the country about the conglomeration of media companies into then fifty giant media companies. Through the years Mr. Bagdikian revised the book seven times and in his latest 2004 The New Media Monopoly fifty giant media companies have been reduced to five mega giant media companies. As one reviewer noted, writing his first book Mr. Bagdikian was called an alarmist but now some thirty years later he has become a “seer”. The five mega giants identified by the author are: Disney, Murdoch’s News Corp, Time Warner, Viacom (formerly CBS) and Bertelsmann. All are U.S. companies except Bertelsmann, a German company. Later in this section each company is described

Among many important concerns about these five giants, with General Electric’s NBC a close sixth, are the facts that they manufacture, not automobiles or other material products, but politics and social values; that they have been the major force bringing to power the conservative right; and that they are primarily responsible for our coarse and vulgar radio and television culture. Most importantly, media power has led to deregulation and disregard of anti-trust action in the public interest. At stake, Mr. Bagdikian says, is American democracy itself for we cannot have a democracy without informed voters and the American public is in fact the most uninformed of any democratic society on earth.

While main tools of media in the 19th Century were sensationalist headlines and language, today media create its imbalances mainly by what they do or do not cover and by their selection of commentators and talk show hosts. Their environment serves media, its rich and corporate financiers and its oligarchy government. The general public who is in fact the real owners of airwaves is inconsequential and before any significant change can occur in this bleak picture, politics must change its format of elections in which candidates purchase expensive media ads with monies donated by corporations and rich individuals that add to the bottom line of media companies. It is a vicious circle of an enabled few having the means to control and manipulate the majority.

During the Clinton administration, in 1996, the Telecommunications Act was passed which eased the rules of broadcasting more drastically in favor of the giants. Discarded anti-trust laws were explained away by arguments that in the age of globalization they made life harder for American corporations to compete. The FCC that had required stations to give some citizen access to serve community needs would now give licenses to whichever corporation had the most money without any obligation to serve the public since the phrase “in the public interest” on its own is meaningless. The Fairness Doctrine that had required stations to devote time to pro and con discussions of serious issues was discounted and dismissed without penalty after newspaper became part of conglomerated companies and editorialized against it.
If the Fairness Doctrine were reinstated now, there would be no inhibition of the Rush Limbaughs and other wild talk shows, but individuals now unfairly accused of being insane or “Nazis” -in this case, the kind of rhetoric used to characterize equal rights for women-would have a chance to reply.. . . . . In the past, the Fairness requirement was an incentive for stations to offer air time to local groups to avoid a battle when their licenses came up for renewal.

One outcome of the easing up on media conglomerates, or put another way, the absence of law, has been an increase in the lawlessness of citizens resulting . . . . .

 


. .in illegal protests, like pirate, or unlicensed, broadcasts that are transmitted by individually assembled, portable, low-powered stations that reach a particular community, now without news about their cities. The most publicized was “Radio Free Berkeley,” based in a van that moved to different locations in the hills about that city and broadcast news of interest and notice of educational events to the community and its minority groups. Because unlicensed broadcasting is a federal crime punishable by fines and imprisonment, one of the earliest pirates, Stephen Dunifer, was eventually located by the FCC, convicted in court, fined, and placed on probation
.

The hope that new technologies appearing in the 60’s would come to serve the public good rapidly evaporated as they quickly became incorporated in the commercial network of the growing political power of conglomerated giants while our Public Broadcasting System PBS is more and more starved to become a national spectacle reduced to begging for contributions standing in sharp contrast to tax-supported public systems like those in the United Kingdom, Japan and other western democracies.
Excerpts continue with two articles of Mark Crispin Miller, a professor of culture and communications at New York University. In January 2002 The Nation published What’s Wrong with this Picture? In it Miller takes on the media cartel and what seemed at that time its greatest advocate, FCC chairman Michael Powell, son of Colon. In spite of the many beneficial changes for big media, Powell found regulations of the mega giants oppressive. However, Miller’s main concern then was the possibility of the media cartel swallowing up independent newspapers in market areas where they owned TV stations and what that might mean to the existence and quality of journalism especially investigative journalism. Four years and some months later in July 2006 The Nation published Mr. Miller’s The Death of News in which he wrote how all problems had worsened to the point that real news had been obliterated and the Press never so bad. Having dedicated itself to screaming loudly and endlessly about Monica Lewinsky’s dress during the Clinton administration, the Press was now mute on Bush and his subversion of the Constitution ignoring myriad important events such as the administration’s general violations of US laws; the military’s use of torture; the government’s surveillance programs; its propaganda; its cronyism; and its irrational economic and environmental policies. In contrast to what our democracy needs, we have a commercial media dependent upon a celebrity star system.

In January 2007 the starved but still functioning Public Broadcasting System aired a Frontline report News War about some of the effects of conglomeration of newspapers. The Chicago Tribune Corporation, finding its $200 million or more annual profit not enough to satisfy the demands of Wall Street, cut the paper’s staff and coverage. Consequently, longtime veteran editor, John Carroll, retired and when the new editor, another worthy and longtime journalist, bulked at further cutbacks, he was fired. As Mr. John Carroll remarks on News War, while various sources can copy and spread news as on the Internet which some have described as a giant copying machine, something must be produced to copy. Investigative journalism of newspaper has traditionally been the original sources for which newspaper organizations now concentrated on maximum profits are no longer inclined to support.

Excerpts following the above give a brief survey of the negative influences on our society from our ever-growing commercial dominance of our media. For instance, in some public schools children are being forced to watch commercials on Channel One; our weak public television system more and more runs ads as “underwriter announcements”; drug companies more and more push pervasive ads in deceptive ways; violence linked to heavy viewing of television grows with the average child watching 8000 murders before finishing elementary school; and in general television violence appears to be a causal factor in real-life mayhem and has mental health effects especially on children. Autism whose origin is largely unknown and now affects about one in every 150 children at a ratio of four boys to one girl, has among its suspected environmental causes a high level of television viewing by very young children.

With such huge impacts on our personal lives, we obviously need a government to regulate technology and those who are in charge of it. In fact and in contrast we have a government growing more and more opposed to citizen interests no matter what they are. The next excerpt is from BBC News about a declassified Pentagon document of the US military’s plans to fight the Internet by attacking hostile computer networks and in such a way learn to fight an electronic war. During the previous year the Pentagon had paid a private company to plant hundreds of stories in Iraqi newspapers in support of US policy. Apparently our military is intent on viewing the Internet an equivalent to an enemy weapons system to gain total control of the electromagnetic spectrum which would eventually enable them to disable every telephone, network, computer and radar system on earth

Bringing our media problems back from the frightening possibility of an Orwellian future to the frightening reality of our present living is an excerpt about Minot, North Dakota reported by Eric Klinenberg in his book Fighting for Air. On January 18, 2002 a train derailment caused poisonous gas to drift toward Minot. To warn residents of the pending threat, emergency workers attempted to reach Clear Channel, the media conglomerate that now owned six local commercial radio stations. There was no one to take their call. Stations, maximizing their company’s profit potential, used canned music and virtual DJ’S and because the people of Minot could not be warned, one died and thousands more were injured.

As media conglomeration and its undemocratic consequences move full speed ahead, there seems little hope to stop it with its sights set on control of the Internet, the last remaining frontier of media democracy. Bill Moyers, a longtime political journalist who presently hosts PBS Bill Moyers Journal, began his speech on such a note in January 2007 at the National Conference on Media Reform in Memphis. Explaining how he changed from hopelessness to hopeful, he told his audience their actions can make a difference and that the big battle now is over net neutrality to prevent giant telecommunication companies from gate keeping or deciding which Internet sites could be on the fast or the slow track that in effect would permit them to enable or disable sites. In the recent past FCC hearings have been swamped with citizen activists and their actions likely caused Chairman Michael Powell to back off and down and then leave the FCC. Taking a plush job with a company with major ties to media giants, he would of course not suffer personal consequences like so many other government officials in high places who move into businesses they had benefited while in government.

In his speech Moyers refers to Don Hazen’s (Alternet.org) review of Jeff Chesters’ new “terrifying” book Digital Destiny which describes among other things how a slew of “software digital gumshoes” working for Madison Avenue track and analyze interactive advertising. Mr. Chester sees Internet media becoming an all pervasive marketing machine and, while the public may be aware of many actions; most are behind closed doors. As Mr. Chesters sees it, American citizens have two not just one major media struggle on their hands. First they must keep the Internet free and also create more and more alternative media.

Two of the final excerpts concern the devastating cozy relationships existing between mainstream media’s star reporters and their government sources well demonstrated in the Scooter Libby trial. In 2006 journalist Eric Boehlert wrote Lapdogs. In a discussion about his book with Amy Goodman of DemocracyNow, when asked to name names to illustrate his contention that the Press rolls over for Bush, he referred first to the past relationship between Ben Bradley and JFK then continued with present ones such as Ted Koppel and Colin Powell; Bob Schieffer and President Bush; Tim Russert and the Rumsfelds and Cheneys; and Gwen Ifill and Condoleezza Rice. Such powerful connections might also help explain media superstar Bob Woodward sitting on his scoop about Scooter Libby until Libby was indicted.

Another relevant conversation on DemocracyNow concerning the Libby trial came from Marcy Wheeler author of Anatomy of Deceit and Murray Waas, a veteran investigative journalist of The Nation Journal and also editor of The United States v. I. Lewis Libby. The gist of this conversation was government using media to out their sides of stories such as the Press leaks of Karl Rove and the off-the-record access Scooter Libby gave to Judith Miller of The New York Times, Matt Cooper of Time, and Robert Novak, a syndicated columnist about Valerie Plame and her identity as a CIA agent. Libby was indicted for his part in this action. The outcome of his trial is related in an excerpt from The New York Times.

Finally, the saga of Rosie O’Donnell on mainstream media ABC’s The View is described in which a courageous Rosie dared to discuss her doubts about 9/11 events. Not long after she would be fired and banished, as it seems, from television forever. Between the time she made her “outrageous statements” and the time she was fired, cable news program hosts especially those at Fox News were ballistic demanding ABC boot her immediately. Bill O’Reilly for one expressed dismay at someone as eminent as Barbara Walters, a co-producer of The View, not firing Rosie on the spot. Looking at some of Rosie’s media sins illustrates how rigged is our media against us:

Americans are fed up with propaganda and if they want to know what was really happening they had to go outside of the US media

Democracy is threatened and if Americans don’t stand up to the threat we’re in big trouble

The collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 was likely due to explosives because steel is not melted by fire and those who doubt that should bring in physics experts from Yale or Harvard to discuss it.
Rosie had to go!

 

Media Update

Wikileaks

Near the end of 2006 Wikileaks.org was created where secret documents leaked from the U.S. and other countries around the world could be posted. One example was the The Secret Rules of Engagement in Iraq about behavior of US. Soldiers. Another concerned a major bank fraud in Kenya. In response some countries, corporations and individuals took action: the Chinese government attempted to censor Wikileaks and the US government worked its magic beginning in February 2008 when citizens trying to access the site received the message: “Server not found”. In a February Counterpunch article Wikileaks Under Attack Stephen Soldz writes that in spite of its troubles Wikileaks stays alive as it has an extensive network of different names.

Wikipedia.org‘s database had grown to more than l.2 million documents; its software is hosted by PRQ, a Swedish internet service provider; and the site is in part being developed with the help of Chinese dissidents. All of its participants are supposedly undisclosed and the site functions much like Wikipedia. Anybody can post, edit and comment upon documents and leakers are anonymous and untraceable. In Wikipedia’s opinion, the best correction measures are those of a worldwide community of informed readers scrutinizing and discussing documents along with the sites’ editors.

A note about Wikileaks’ trials and tribulations is that in February a Swiss banker obtained an injunction ordering the site shutdown after allegations of illegal activities at the bank’s Cayman Island branch were posted. While District Court Judge Jeffrey White ordered the site to be shutdown on February 29, he came to have a change of heart allowing it to retain its domain name because of concerns about First Amendment and legal jurisdiction rights. On March 5 the Swiss banker dropped the case.
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Wikileaks
http://www.counterpunch.org/soldz02182008.html http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/02/post.html

FCC Easement of Media Ownership Rules, etc
In spite of citizen protests, the FCC eased the ban on media companies owning a newspaper and a TV station in the same city in its top 20 markets and also made it easier for cross-ownership in smaller markets. In March 2008 one of Congress’s leading FCC critics, Bryon Dorgan, Democrat from North Dakota, began his fight to have the easing rescinded, announcing he had the support of key members of his committee to get his measure out of committee for a floor vote in April. The resolution needed to be approved by the Senate within 60 work days. One activist group Free Press felt Dorgan would be successful in the Senate but unsure about the House and in any event expected a Bush veto; Free Press felt there was some good in the action in that it would in the least send the administration a strong message.

Another citizen group Media Access Project has sued FCC arguing it violated 2003 instructions of the 3rd Circuit Court in Philadelphia which had remanded a rewrite. Also available on this website identified below are findings of a new Harris Interactive poll in March 2008 showing 41 % of those polled trust Internet news more than mainstream media news and correspondingly another finding was that nearly two-thirds of Americans do not trust campaign coverage by the mainstream news media.
http://www.freepress.net/news/31081
http://www.freepress.net/news/31047
http://www.freepress.net/news/31135

Net Neutrality

Robert McChesney explains net neutrality is the Internet as we know it, free and open without any gate keepers to sites and how our large telecommunications and cable companies want to change all that. A 2005 FCC decision endangered this net neutrality with legislation that would establish a three tier Internet of fast and slow tracks. If these companies that now dominate 98 percent of the broadband market succeed consumers will have no choice but to accept the outcome so that in the future we will assuredly pay more for much less.

What’s happening in Congress?

The SavetheInternet.com Coalition applauds the recent introduction of the bipartisa Internet Freedom Preservation Act 2008” (HR 5353). Introduced on Feb. 12, 2008 by Reps. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Chip Pickering (R-Miss.), this landmark bill would protect Net Neutrality and spark a much-needed public conversation about the future of the Internet.

The new bill would enshrine Net Neutrality — the longstanding principle that Internet service providers cannot discriminate against Web sites or services based on their source, ownership or destination — into the Communications Act. It also requires the Federal Communications Commission to convene at least eight “broadband summits” to collect public input on policies to “promote openness, competition, innovation, and affordable, ubiquitous broadband service for all individuals in the United States.”
Big phone and cable companies like AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner have been lobbying furiously to kill Net Neutrality. . . . .

 

SavetheInternet.com is a coalition of interest groups around the nation working for a free and open internet coordinated by Free Press, a national group focused on media reform. Their efforts are not only supported by citizens but also by Internet companies that would be segregated into tiers to pay high fees if they want access to the faster tracks. Among others, companies fighting for net neutrality are: EarthLink, EBay, Google, Intel, Microsoft, Facebook, Skype and Yahoo.
http://www.savetheinternet.com/=threat#abuse http://www.freepress.net/search.php?template_demo=&query_string=net+neutrality

Comcast Blocking: First the Internet — Now the Public:
On February 25th, 2008 many interested citizen received emails from savetheinternet.com informing them about what happened in Boston when hundreds of concerned citizens arrived at a FCC hearing to speak in favor of an open Internet, having taken off from work or made other special arrangement in order to exercise their civic responsibility. After waiting for long out in the cold, when they finally reached the door they were told there was no room inside. About 90 minutes before the meeting, a crowd had been bused in which Comcast came to admit had supplied the transportation. One of the fake attendees admitted he was just getting paid to hold someone’s seat and had no idea what the meeting was about. http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2008/02/25/comcast-blocking-first-the-internet-now-the-public/

<strong>PBS:
If enacted, President Bush’s budget proposal to Congress would reduce public broadcasting’s funding for 2009 and 2010 by 56%. Adding insult to injury, the New York Times took its own swipe a few weeks back, arguing in a Sunday arts piece that PBS has grown tired and frayed and obsolete in a television universe that now includes hundreds and hundreds of choices.
http://www.freepress.net/news/31081

Senate’s new twisted threat!
To see just how close we are to having the Internet become as controlled as mainstream media is to read an article in Counterpunch on May 30, 2008 by Harvey Wasserman Another Bad Idea from Joe Lieberman and John McCain, Linking Internet Censorship and Atomic Reactor Terror.

Legislation sponsored by Lieberman-Warner under the guise of helping to prevent further global warming, and with John McCain the real power behind it, pushes for massive subsidies to build more atomic reactors. So-called free marketers want a half-trillion taxpayer dollars in place of the private money they cannot find for this failed technology. Relatedly, Lieberman of Connecticut in a recent floor speech demanded YouTube remove postings that he claimed promoted terorism. The New York Times called Leiberman’s attack on the Internet an attack on free speech and disturbing that an influential senator would tell a media company to shut down. The Times scoffs at the senator’s claims

. . . . .that the internet is “one of the primary drivers” of terrorism. The charge comes in Lieberman’s report on “Violent Islamist Extremism, the Internet, and the Homegrown Terrorist Threat.”


. . . . .The ACLU has warned that similar efforts “could be a precursor to proposals to censor and regulate speech on the internet.” In a dangerous capitulation, YouTube then did pull down some 80 videos. What makes this attack on free speech doubly disturbing is that it accompanies the promotion of the very the technology that gives potential terrorists the easiest route to creating a nuclear holocaust—commercial atomic power plants.

Mr. Waserman notes ironically that the real threat of terrorism is the proposal of Leiberman/Warner/McCain to build more atomic reactors that terrorists could use as machines of radioactive mass destruction. Leiberman’s bill is likely to be voted on in the Senate as early as June, 2008. http://www.counterpunch.org/wasserman05302008.html

Lieberman’s bill did not pass but he and its other sponsors vow to bring it back.