STANDOFF IN NEVADA: ANOTHER FEDERAL SIEGE AGAINST THE INNOCENT

By Chuck Baldwin
April 10, 2014
NewsWithViews.com

With the memory of Ruby Ridge, Idaho, and Waco, Texas, still very vivid in the collective memory of the American people comes another example of a federal government run amuck. A rancher in Nevada is watching the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) seize his cattle and arrest his son for simply taking pictures of the events. BLM has also placed several federal snipers around his home with their high-powered rifles trained on his family. The last report I read said more than 200 federal agents are now surrounding the homestead complete with attack helicopters. All that seems to be missing are tanks.

Did the family do anything violent? No. Did they do anything immoral? No. Did they even do anything wrong? No. Did they do anything illegal? Well, that’s where the story gets interesting.

Cliven Bundy’s family has been grazing cattle on their ranchland since the 1880s. But in 1993, the federal government reclassified 600,000 acres of land, including the land that the Bundy cattle have been grazing on forever. The pretext used by the feds for seizing the land was to protect some “endangered” tortoise. However, the feds would allow Cliven to continue to graze his cattle on the land--if he pays the federal government for the privilege. The rancher refuses to pay.

Here is one report of the story:

“Federal snipers with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) trained guns on members of a family yesterday after they dared to stop and take video footage of cattle outside the bounds of a designated ‘First Amendment Area,’ before arresting one of the men for non-compliance.

“The cattle were being rounded up by BLM officers as part of a crackdown on Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, who has refused to pay ‘grazing fees’ demanded by the feds as a result of a re-classification of 600,000 acres of federal land in northeastern Clark County which Bundy claims has been in his family for generations.”

The report continues: “The feds have now started rounding up Bundy’s cattle in the name of protecting a supposedly endangered species, the desert tortoise, forbidding Bundy from interfering or even entering the vast area. The case is quickly turning into another iconic battle between big government and a besieged family.

“Fears that the confrontation may turn violent and concerns that Bundy is drawing increased support from liberty activists and the local community prompted the feds to tape off two ridiculous ‘First Amendment Areas,’ outside of which free speech in support of Bundy is banned. A sign placed inside the area reads ‘Welcome to Amerika--Wake Up’ alongside a hammer and sickle logo.

“When Bundy’s family members violated that rule yesterday in an attempt to peacefully document the cattle roundup, they were met with a barrage of loudspeaker warnings and four BLM snipers with their guns trained on the dissenters.”

The report goes on saying, “None of the family members were armed, but as soon as Dave Bundy began filming the cattle in the distance, 11 BLM vehicles each with two agents arrived and surrounded him.

“‘They also had four snipers on the hill above us all trained on us. We were doing nothing besides filming the area,’ said Ryan Bundy.

“The family were told to leave the area via loudspeaker because they had violated the crudely established ‘First Amendment Area’.

“‘They said that we had no first amendment rights except for up by the bridge where they had established an area for that,’ Bundy said.

“When Dave Bundy didn’t immediately heed the warning and return to his vehicle, a dog was set on him and he was subsequently arrested.”

See the report here.

BLM hired independent contractor-cowboys from Utah to confiscate Mr. Bundy’s cows. Nevada State troopers and local law enforcement personnel have also either assisted, or refused to interfere with, BLM’s actions. And, as one would expect, a federal court has also backed BLM’s activities. Some estimate the cost to the taxpayers for BLM’s siege will amount to more than $3 million.

But as news of the siege spreads, people all over the country are taking note. Hundreds of people have come from all around Clark County, Nevada, in support of the Bundy family. Personally, I hope tens of thousands of people show up.

Before the feds began laying claim to privately-owned ranch property back in the early 1990s, there were dozens of ranchers in the area. Mr. Bundy is the last one left. All of the others have been forced off of their land by the excessive restrictions and rules from BLM. And it looks like the feds intend to do whatever they feel is necessary to remove the Bundy family from their land, as well.

An out-of-control federal government was the primary catalyst for the “conservative revolution” in 1994 when the GOP historically took control of both houses of Congress. After egregious betrayals by then House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott in 1996, a conservative revival continued from 2000-2006 when G. W. Bush and the Republican Party controlled the entire federal government. Disgustingly, neither Bush nor the Republican leaders in Congress did one darn thing to undo the power grab of the federal government that took place under Bill Clinton. If anything, the GOP-led government in Washington, D.C., further expanded federal power across the board.



During those turbulent years of the 1990s, the late-great Congresswoman, Helen Chenoweth, in an interview with Michael Reagan, spoke these words:

“BLM is taking onto themselves law enforcement that is normally saved for the State, law enforcement over motor vehicles. They've written into the regulation without authority from Congress, the ability to stop vehicles or to search people, to search a place or a vehicle without warrant or process; to be able to seize without warrant or process any piece of evidence and to test people for potential DUI (driving under the influence). They have redefined a parachute into a mechanized piece of equipment, so if you parachute into any of their areas you can be fined $20,000 or more.

“It is amazing. Our founders, when establishing our system of government wanted to make sure that law enforcement was closest to the people. You and I have talked before about how important it is to make sure that you elect the very best local county sheriff because he should be regarded as the highest law enforcement officer in the area because he is accountable to the voters. They really worried about a national, a federal, law enforcement. To federalize our law enforcement is to create a situation that the pilgrims were trying to escape.

“We are moving quickly to that. The Bureau of land Management is taking onto themselves law enforcement authority that Congress never gave them. In the Federal Land Policy and Management Act that was passed in the early 1970's it made it clear that Congress said that, ‘first, you must go to your local county sheriff for law enforcement activities.’”

See Reagan’s interview with Helen.

Helen knew what she was talking about. The BLM controls over 60% of all of the land within her home State of Idaho. The BLM controls over 70% of all land in Utah; and in the State of Nevada, the BLM controls over 76% of all land.

Chenoweth was as much of a prophetess as she was an observer when she added, “Whatever [land] we have left. Right now in Idaho and I am sure all over the West, they are moving people and human activities off the land.”

Helen was also correct when she noted that the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), which was adopted in 1976, stipulated that BLM had to go through the county sheriff for any action that required law enforcement. Nearly four decades later, the BLM (and virtually every other federal agency) totally and thoroughly ignores this requirement.

For those of us who still labor under the conviction that the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, it must be observed that the only crimes assigned to the federal government in the Constitution for law enforcement purposes are Treason, Piracy, Counterfeiting, and International law violations. That’s it! All other law enforcement matters are the purview of the individual states, according to the Tenth Amendment.

Unfortunately, for most of the Twentieth Century, and especially since the George Herbert Walker Bush administration, the federal government has demanded more and more power and authority that it does not constitutionally possess. And, for the most part, the individual states have sheepishly done little to resist. All of which has led to the events that are now playing out in Clark County, Nevada.

Here are some of my questions: why are the local and State law enforcement officers in Nevada assisting the BLM with this egregious act of tyranny? Beyond that, why are they not standing up to the BLM and telling them to go to Hades? Do the lives and liberties and property of the citizens of their State mean nothing? And, another thing: who are these independent contractor-cowboys in Utah who are willing to help trample a fellow citizen’s constitutional rights? How much does 30 pieces of silver equate to today? And what about those BLM snipers? Who are these men who would willingly turn their guns against innocent, hard-working Americans for the sake of a paycheck? I guess the only reason that the members of Mr. Bundy’s family are not six-feet under already is simply because those “brave” and “patriotic” snipers were not given the order to shoot. They sure had the family members in the crosshairs of their scopes; all that was missing was the pull of the index finger. Wow! That’s comforting. I wonder how many of us are in the crosshairs of federal snipers and don’t even know it?

I hope the people of the western states will arise in support of the Bundy family in such numbers that the BLM thugs will be forced to withdraw and leave this dear family alone. If we are not careful, the feds could do to this family what they did to those poor Branch Davidians outside Waco, Texas, and to the Weaver family near Ruby Ridge, Idaho. This should be a wake-up call for all of us out west to let our elected officials know under no uncertain terms that we will not tolerate such conduct in our backyards.


The citizens of Connecticut are resisting their own tyrannical State as it attempts to deny them their Second Amendment rights; now it’s time for the citizens of the western states to resist the tyrannical Bureau of Land Management (and any other federal agency) that attempts to usurp the Tenth Amendment and private property rights of their fellow citizens.


I realize that there are several legislative and judicial efforts underway around the country to push back against this runaway federal government. All of this takes time. In the meantime, a family in Clark County, Nevada, is fighting RIGHT NOW for all of us. This dear man is putting everything he owns, as well as the very safety of his family, on the line. To coin a maxim from the German pastor, Martin Neimoller: “First, they came for the Randy Weaver family in Idaho, and I did not speak out; next, they came for the Branch Davidians in Texas, and I did not speak out; then, they came for the Cliven Bundy family in Nevada, and I did not speak out; then, they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out.”

But, God willing, there are still millions of us left who will speak out. Will you be one of them?

FT. HOOD: OFFICIAL RESPONSE MORE MEANINGLESS RHETORIC

By: Devvy
April 6, 2014
NewsWithViews.com

While millions were shocked there was another slaughter at Ft. Hood, Texas, April 2, 2014, I wasn't. Following the blood bath, November 5, 2009, by another America hating muslim active duty murderer, the impostor in the White House and his minions declared it to be 'work place violence'. That was all the discredited "mainstream" media needed to jump back on the gun control band wagon. The response from some pompous jackasses in the Outlaw Congress was the same vomit coming out of the sissy males on CNN, MSNBC and print media who constantly carp it's the guns.

Immediately following the 2009 rampage, America was fed the usual by Army spokes persons: Army is family. We are strong. We will come together. Did all that warm, fuzzy rhetoric stop last week's killing spree? No.

Back then a few Republicans in the Outlaw Congress tried to get legislation passed that would lift the ban on soldiers carrying a concealed weapon on base. Naturally, it failed and we now have round two at Ft. Hood. The same empty words from members of the Outlaw Congress last week was the same as we heard in 2009: Our soldiers are fighting for our freedom, they deserve the best. We we must protect our soldiers, blah, blah, blah. Did all those words back then stop last week's killing spree? No.

I happened to catch a segment from gas bag, Bill O'Reilly, the other night. His guests make frequent appearances, Ltc. Ralph Peters (Ret) and Col. David Hunt (Ret.). All three agreed soldiers who are highly trained in firearms should not be allowed concealed weapons on base. Instead, just like the pilots on 9/11, they should simply be easy, soft targets for terrorists or an individual who goes off the deep end.

Many American don't know it, but two months before 9/11 and without any explanation, a 40 year old FAA rule that allowed commercial air line pilots (many battle hardened military veterans) to be armed was rescinded. That's right. Oh, I suppose it's just another one of those coincidences about 9/11. Why wasn't that rule rescinded two years before 9/11 instead of two months before the slaughter?

The litany of reasons given by O'Reilly and his experts can be read here. All three of them act like all soldiers are a bunch of wack jobs who can't control their emotions and therefore, cannot be trusted with a concealed weapon on a military base. It's okay for them to carry off the base, but on the base? Oh, no, they're just too emotionally driven to be trusted. This from someone who has never served a day in uniform.

The first massacre in 2009 was without doubt an act of terrorism by another individual in support of the fake religion called Islam. Nidal Malik Hasan should have been booted out of the military long before he killed 13 Americans, but since he is a muslim, political correctness prevailed. The end result was unimaginable horror that families and survivors will live with the rest of their lives. To add injury to insult, that waste of human skin managed to keep from going to trial for almost five years. Hasan was rightfully given the sentence of death:

"When Hasan began shooting, the troops were standing in long lines to receive immunizations and doctors' clearance. Thirteen people were killed and more than were 30 wounded. All but one of the dead were soldiers, including a pregnant private who curled on the floor and pleaded for her baby's life."

There is no question as to his guilt. Any appeal will result in the same outcome. There hasn't been a military execution since 1961. Hasan is the poster boy for his own actions<>. He doesn't deserve to take one more breath on this earth. I hope his judgment day comes soon instead of 10,15, 20 years down the road.

In the case of Spc. Ivan Lopez, the now dead shooter in last week's slaughter, we know he was being evaluated for post-traumatic stress disorder, a very real mental condition experienced by thousands of fine soldiers in our military. We know he was given pills including Ambien. Allegedly, Lopez ask for some type of leave right before the shooting, but was denied. Did that set him off? I doubt we'll ever know.

What we do know is that once again, another human being went off the deep end while taking those evil SSRI anti-depressant drugs like Ambien with endless side effects. I can't think of one school shooting where the child killer wasn't on Ritalin, Prozac or in the case of Columbine shooter, Eric Harris, he was on Luvox. I know because of obtained a copy of his autopsy from the coroner's office. Dylan Klebold's is still sealed to my knowledge. While the big pharmaceutical houses claim those drugs are perfectly safe, nothing could be further from the truth:

"Just a year after fluoxetine was introduced, Bill Forsyth of Maui, Hawaii, had taken it for only 12 days when he committed one of the first murder/suicides attributed to any SSRI.

"In the same year Joseph Wesbecker killed eight others and himself in a Louisville, Ky., printing plant where he worked, after 4 weeks on fluoxetine. Yet as early as 1986, clinical trials showed a rate of 12.5 suicides per 1,000 subjects on fluoxetine vs. 3.8 on older non-SSRIs vs. 2.5 on placebo! An internal 1985 Lilly document found even worse results and said that benefits were less than risks. Such documents were released into the public domain by Lilly as part of the settlement in the Wesbecker case. Fifteen more “anecdotes” of murder/suicide, three with sertraline, were listed by DeGrandpre."

All the hand wringing and scripted statements from military brass and members of the Outlaw Congress will not stop another base shooting. Soldiers in the military are not being given the treatment they need. Some wait months before even getting in the door. Shoving dangerous pills down their throats, patting them on the head and sending them along the way only treats the symptoms, not the underlying mental health issues. Our returning soldiers from foreign countries and their internal squabbles continue to get less than what they need in a timely fashion.

Americans cheer on our military to fight and occupy countries like Iraq and Afghanistan. Endless unconstitutional, un-delcared wars and when tens of thousands of soldiers come home broken and in need of real help, they get dangerous drugs. They quietly suffer while Americans reelect the same rotten, corrupt SOBs back to the Outlaw Congress who have not fixed the problem of getting them much needed treatment other than prescriptions for mind altering drugs.

I have criticized the VA forever because nothing ever changes. Career politicians in the Outlaw Congress stand in front of cameras looking serious and spout off how our veterans deserve the best, blah, blah, blah. Do they get it? No. Why? Unqualified political appointees always end up as chief honcho of the VA and there's never enough money. After all, we must give counties like Israel $3 BILLION borrowed dollars a year to build up their military and Egypt BILLIONS of borrowed dollars with the debt slapped on our backs to build up their military to fight the CIAs Al Quaeda.

Of course, there isn't a scintilla of constitutional authority to give ANY foreign country the fruits of your labor for any reason. Think that matters to the Republican controlled U.S. House? The Republicans controlled the house and senate for almost 14 years; eight years under Bush, Jr. Did they get rid of unconstitutional foreign aid? Hell, no. We're still being raped while our soldiers are denied real mental health treatment when they desperately need it. Is anyone surprised we have another shooting?



As for weapons on military bases and contrary to what Bill O'Reilly proclaimed last week to be true - soldiers don't want armed soldiers on base (and he knows this how?) - a number of soldiers interviewed do want concealed weapons on base. They are very angry and upset they're denied the right to defend their own life and their fellow soldiers.

Bill O'Reilly and his experts seem to believe that every soldier on every base if armed are going to have a fight with their wife and turn right around and shoot as many fellow soldiers as they can fifteen minutes later. They slide over the fact that soldiers, Army and Marines especially, are highly trained in the use of firearms. Not that the Air Force and Coast Guard aren't, but Army and Marines are the ones usually on the ground. They are conditioned to not react by emotion, but training. I know because I'm married to a retired U.S. Army Colonel who spent 27 years in service.

First responders to the second shooting last week took about 15 minutes. A lot of dead bodies pile up in 15 minutes. If soldiers were allowed concealed weapons and pulled them on Lopez, how many dead and wounded do you think there would have been last week? The same applies to the cold-blooded killer, Nidal Hasan. If only one soldier within his area pulled a gun and shot Hasan, we might not have had 13 slaughtered and so many injured. Instead, our soldiers on every base in this country are little more than sitting ducks. Armed military police and contract police can't be everywhere at once. Military bases are filled with soldiers all over the place. If a would be shooter knows that any soldier walking past him is armed, it would be a deterrent even if that person intends to commit suicide.

Should soldiers being treated for mental health issues be denied the right to carry a concealed weapon on base? That is a very tough question even for a strong Second Amendment supporter like me. Those psycho tropic drugs being fed to our soldiers are beyond dangerous. Too many deaths have come from individuals on them from school shooters, killings in the private sector (oh yeah, there have been Prozac defenses) and now the second killing spree at Ft. Hood. I do believe there should be screening on a case by case basis if the soldier is receiving mental health treatment. Not that a soldier genuinely suffering from PTSD should be denied the right to carry. Evaluate one at a time.

Will our soldiers get better mental health treatment instead of just shoving pills down their throats because the number of soldiers needing treatment is so huge the system within the military can't handle all of them? Not if people reelect the same incumbents back to Congress starting with those upcoming primaries. If incumbents in the Outlaw Congress haven't fixed the problem for active duty soldiers with mental health issues and the VA in all the years they've been in Congress, what makes you think they will do it if people vote to reelect them in the primaries? Why do Americans keep expecting things to change by voting for the same failures in the Outlaw Congress who didn't get the job done?

Will the Outlaw Congress, the house and senate, pass a law that allows soldiers on base to carry concealed weapons? Not if people reelect the same incumbents back to the Outlaw Congress starting with those upcoming primaries. It's too late here in Texas. On March 4, 2014, ignorant voters in this state went to the primary polls and voted to reelect every single incumbent in the U.S. House of Representatives who have destroyed this country.

Even if somehow a bill does get passed, what about the impostor in the White House? Would that unlawfully seated "president" sign it? My guess is absolutely not. Barry hates our military as much as the Clinton's did while in office. Constitutionally, Congress has the power to over ride a presidential veto, but then there is no legitimate president. No legitimate Commander-in-Chief. Just a fraud who jived his way into the Oval Office while your incumbent and mine did nothing to stop him from usurping the office of president.



We can only pray another mass killing doesn't happen on a U.S. military base. But, if you don't go after the cure instead of more drugs for our soldiers who desperately need mental health treatment and continue to allow our soldiers to be nothing more than easy targets, it likely is just a matter of time before it happens again.



There is help from the private sector. If you know an active duty member of the military or a veteran who needs help, please pass this along:

"Since 2001 alone, we have received over 19,000 letters of appreciation, recommendations from doctors and chaplains, and a positive opinion from the Chief of Psychiatry at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Experienced by more than 400,000 grateful veterans."

THE HISTORY OF MONEY PART 3

WORLD WAR I (1914-1918)

The Germans borrowed money from the German Rothschilds bank, the British from the British Rothschilds bank, and the French from the French Rothschilds.

American super banker J.P. Morgan was amongst other things also a sales agent for war materials. Six months into the war his spending of $10 million a day made him the largest consumer on the planet.

The Rockefeller's and the head of president Willson's War Industries Board, Bernard Baruch each made some 200 million dollars while families contributed their sons to the bloody front lines, but profit was not the only motive for involvement.

Russia had spoiled the money changers plan to split America in two, and remained the last major country not to have its own central bank.

However, three years after the start of the war the entire Russian Royal Family was killed and Communism began.

You might find it strange to learn that the Russian Revolution was also fuelled with British money. Capitalist businessmen financing Communism?

Author Gary Allen gives his explanation:

"If one understands that socialism is not a share-the-wealth programme, 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 of power-seeking megalomaniacs.

Communism or more accurately, socialism, is not a movement of the downtrodden masses, but of the economic elite."
Gary Allen, Author

W.Cleon Skousen wrote in his 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 establishments of a central world-wide dictatorship."
W.Cleon Skousen

Extreme revolutionary groups were controlled by being financed when they complied and cut off, with money sometimes being given to their opposition, when they didn't.

If you find this hard to believe, listen to what the so called dictator of the new Soviet Union had to say.

"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."
Vladimir Lenin 1

Rep. Louis T. McFadden, chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee throughout the 1920-30s 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 Dnieperstory 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." Rep. Louis T.McFadden (D-PA) 2

Even when Communism collapsed in the Soviet Union, Boris Yeltsin revealed that most of the foreign aid was ending up, we quote. "straight back into the coffers of western banks in debt service."


1. Wurmbrand, "Marx and Satan," p. 49
2.United States Congressional Record, June 15, 1934


WORLD DOMINATION


With Russia down the money changers now had control of every major national economy. Like a steam roller moving and a wolf gathering its pack, there was only one thing left to do and that was to go global. The first attempt was the proposal at the Paris Peace Conference after WWI to set up the League of Nations. Old habits die hard, and even what they called 'the war to end all wars' was not enough to convince nations to dissolve their boundaries. The League died.

If politicians really were being controlled, you would think at least one would break ranks and cry out against it. Many did. One was no less than former New York City Mayor John Haylan

"These international bankers and Rockefeller-Standard Oil interests control the majority of the newspapers and magazines in this country. They use the columns of these papers to club into submission or drive out of office public officials who refuse to do the bidding of the powerful corrupt cliques which compose the invisible government....

The warning of Theodore Roosevelt has much timeliness today, for the real menace of our republic is this invisible government which like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy length over City, State, and nation... It seizes in its long and powerful tentacles our executive officers, our legislative bodies, our schools, our courts, our newspapers, and every agency created for the public protection...

To depart from mere generalisations, let me say that at the head of this octopus are the Rockefeller-Standard Oil interest and a small group of powerful banking houses generally referred to as the international bankers. The little coterie of powerful international bankers virtually run the United States government for their own selfish purposes.

They practically control both parties, write political platforms, make catspaws of party leaders, use the leading men of private organisations, and resort to every device to place in nomination for high public office only such candidates as will be amenable to the dictates of corrupt big business...

These international bankers and Rockefeller-Standard Oil interests control the majority of newspapers and magazines in this country."
John Hylan, Mayor of New York 1927, 1

These warnings fell on deaf ears, drowned out by the music and excitement of the roaring 20's. People don't tend to complain much in times of prosperity, so the money changers used this boom time they had created to defuse any complaints about their growing control.


1. (Former New York City Mayor John Haylan speaking in Chicago and quoted in the March 27, 1927, New York Times)


DEPRESSION IN 1929


Stack in front of you the biographies of all the Wall Street giants, J.P. Morgan, Joe F. Kennedy, J.D Rockefeller, Bernard Baruch, and you'll find they all marvel at how they got out of the stock market and put their assets in gold just before the crash.

Non mention a secret directive, since revealed, sent by the father of the Federal Reserve, Paul Warburg, warning of the coming collapse and depression.

With control of the press and the education system, few Americans are aware that the Fed caused the depression. It is however a well known fact among leading top economists.

"The Federal Reserve definitely caused the Great depression by contracting the amount of currency in circulation by one-third from 1929 to 1933."
Milton Friedman, Nobel Prize winning economist

"It was not accidental. It was a carefully contrived occurrence... The international bankers sought to bring about a condition of despair here so that they might emerge as rulers of us all."
Rep. Louis T.McFadden (D-PA)

"I think it can hardly be disputed that the statesmen and financiers of Europe are ready to take almost any means to re-acquire rapidly the gold stock which Europe lost to America as the result of World War I."
Rep. Louis T.McFadden (D-PA)

40 billion dollars somehow vanished in the crash.

It didn't really vanish, it simply shifted into the hands of the money changers. This is how Joe Kennedy went from having 4 million dollars in 1929 to having over 100 million in 1935.

During this time the Fed caused a 33% reduction of the money supply, causing deeper depression.


HOW THE FED CREATES MONEY


We've been talking about how the privately owned Federal Reserve can produce money from thin air. Here's how it's done.

1. The purchase of bonds is approved by the Federal Open Market Committee.

2. The Fed buys the bonds which it pays for with electronic credits made to the sellers bank. These credits are based on nothing.

3. The receiving banks then use these credits as reserves from which they can loan out ten times the amount.

To reduce the amount of money in the economy they simply reverse the process.

The Fed sells bonds to the public and money is drawn from the purchasers bank to pay for them.

Each million withdrawn lowers the banks ability to loan by 10 million.

The Federal bank in this way has overall control of the US money supply, as each country's central bank does in the same way. The bankers, through the magic of fractional reserve banking have been delegated the right to create 90% of the money supply. This control makes a mockery of any elected government. It places so called leaders behind a toy steering wheel, like the plastic ones, set up to amuse small children.

Or as Rep.Charles Lindbergh father of famous aviator Lucky Lindy puts it when commenting on the Federal Reserve Act:

"This act establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President signs this bill, the invisible government by the Monetary Power will be legalised.

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."
Rep. Charles Lindbergh (R-MN)

Or as Woodrow Wilson put it:

"We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled governments in the civilised 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 organised, 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."
Woodrow Wilson

In order to clearly establish that this is not a conspiracy theory, but is actually how things are controlled, we further quote Charles Lindbergh. From the house of representatives, Lindbergh was well placed to see exactly what was happening back then and continues to happen today.

"To cause high prices all the federal reserve board will do will be to lower the re-discount 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 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.

The system is private, conducted for the sole purpose of obtaining the greatest possible profits from the use of other people's money.

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..."
Rep. Charles Lindbergh (R-MN)


ADOLF'S BANKERS


Most all will be aware of Hitler's rise to power. What they probably don't know is that he was almost completely financed by money drawn from the privately owned American Federal Reserve.

"After WWI, Germany fell into the hands of the international bankers. Those bankers bought her and they now own her, lock, stock, and barrel. They have purchased her industries, they have mortgages on her soil, they control her production, they control all her public utilities.

The international German bankers have subsidised the present Government of Germany and they have also supplied every dollar of the money Adolph Hitler has used in his lavish campaign to build up threat to the government of Bruening.

When Bruening fails to obey the orders of the German International Bankers, Hitler is brought forth to scare the Germans into submission...

Through the Federal Reserve Board over $30 billion of American money has been pumped into Germany. You have all heard of the spending that has taken place in Germany...

Modernistic dwellings, her great planetariums, her gymnasiums, her swimming pools, her fine public highways, her perfect factories. All this was done on our money. All this was given to Germany through the Federal Reserve Board. The Federal Reserve Board has pumped so many billions of dollars into Germany that they dare not name the total."
Congressman Louis T.McFadden (D-PA) who served twelve years as Chairman of the Committee on Banking and Currency.


FORT KNOX


In 1933 new President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed a bill forcing all the American people, to hand over all their gold at base rate. With the exception of rare coins. He disowned himself from the bill claiming to not have read it and his secretary of the treasury claimed this was "what the experts wanted".

Bought at bargain basement price with money produced from nothing by the Federal Reserve, the gold was melted down and stacked in the newly built bullion depository called Fort Knox. Once collected in 1935 the price of gold was raised from $20.66 up to $35 per ounce, but only non American gold qualified to be sold. This meant those who had avoided the crash by investing in gold they had shipped to London could now nearly double their money while the rest of America starved.

But that's not all folks. By the end of WWII Fort Knox did hold 70% of the world's gold, but over the years it was sold off to the European money changers while a public audit of Fort Knox reserves was repeatedly denied.

Rumours spread about missing gold.

"Allegations of missing gold from our Fort Knox vaults are being widely discussed in European circles. But what is puzzling is that the Administration is not hastening to demonstrate conclusively that there is no cause for concern over our gold treasure - if indeed it is in a position to do so."
Edith Roosevelt

Finally in 1981 President Ronald Reagan was convinced to have a look into Fort Knox with a view to re-introducing the Gold Standard. He appointed a group called The Gold Commission. They found that the US Treasury owned no gold at all.

All the Fort Knox gold remaining is now being held as collateral by the Federal Reserve against the national debt. Using credits made from nothing. The Fed had robbed the largest treasure of gold on earth.


WORLD WAR II (1939-1945)


World War II saw the US debt increased by 598%, while Japan's debt went up by 1,348%, with France up by 583% and Canada up by 417%.

When you hear this, what is your first impression? Do you automatically think this is bad or this is good? Most of us feel a well programmed sense of desperation when we hear figures like this, but remember, to the money changers, this is music to their ears.

With the hot war over, the cold war began, the arms race causing more and more borrowing. Now the money changers could really concentrate on global domination.

Step one, the European Monetary Union and NAFTA.

Step two, centralise the global economy via the World Bank, the IMF and GATT (now the WTO).


THE WORLD CENTRAL BANK (1948 - Present)


In Washington, the headquarters of both the World Bank and the IMF (International Monetary Fund) face each other on the same street. What are these organisations, and who controls them?

To find out we need to look back to just after WWI. At this point the money changers were attempting to consolidate the central banks under the guise of peacemaking. To stop future wars they put forward the formation of a world central bank named the Bank of International Settlements, a world court called the World Court in the Hague, and a world executive for legislation called the League of Nations.

In his 1966 book entitled Tragedy and Hope, president Clinton's mentor Carroll Quigley writes about this.

"The powers of financial capitalism had [a] far-reaching [plan], nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole.

This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences.

The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations.

Each central bank... Sought to dominate its government by its ability to control treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."
Carroll Quigley, Professor, Georgetown University

They got 2 out of 3. The league of nations failed largely owing to the suspicions of the people and while opposition concentrated on this, the other two proposals snuck their way through.

It would take another war to wear the public resistance down. Wall street invested heavily to rebuild Germany, as the Chase bank had propped up the Russian revolution.

Now the Chase merged with the Warburg's Manhattan Bank to form the Chase Manhattan which would later merge with the Chemical Bank to become the largest bank on Wall Street.

In 1944 the US approved its full participation in the IMF and the World Bank. By 1945 the second League of Nations was approved under the new name 'The United Nations'. The war had dissolved all opposition. The methods used in the National Banking Act of 1864 and the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 were now simply used on a Global scale.

The Federal Reserve Act allowing the creation of Federal Reserve notes is mirrored by the IMF's authority to produce money called Special Drawing Rights (SDR's). It is estimated the IMF has produced $30 billion dollars worth of SDR's so far. In the United States SDR's are already accepted as legal money, and all other member nations are being pressured to follow suit. With SDR's being partially backed by gold, a world gold standard is sneaking its way in through the back door, which comes with no objection from the money changers who now hold two-thirds of the worlds gold and can use this to structure the worlds economy to their further advantage.

We have gone from the goldsmith's fraud being reproduced on a national scale through the Bank of England and the Federal Reserve, to a Global level with the IMF and the World Bank. Unless we together stop giving these exchange units their power by our collective faith in them, the future will probably see the Intergalactic Bank and the Federation of Planets Reserve set up in much the same way.

This radical transfer of power has taken place with absolutely no mandate from the people.

Nations borrow Special Drawing Right from the International Monetary Fund in order to pay interest on their mounting debts. With these SDR's produced at no cost, the IMF charges more interest. This contrary to bold claims does not alleviate poverty or further any development. It just creates a steady flow of wealth from borrowing nations to the money changers who now control the IMF and the World Bank.

The permanent debt of Third World Countries is constantly being increased to provide temporary relief from the poverty being caused by previous borrowing.

These repayments already exceed the amount of new loans. By 1992 Africa's debt had reached $290 billion dollars, which is two and a half times greater than it was in 1980. A noble attempt to repay it has caused increased infant mortality and unemployment, plus deteriorating schools, and general health and welfare problems.

As world resources continue to be sucked into this insatiable black hole of greed, if allowed to continue the entire world will face a simular fate.

As one prominent Brazilian politician, Luis Ignacio Silva,ðput it.

"Without being radical or overly bold, I will tell you that the Third World War has already started - a silent war, not for that reason any the less sinister. This war is tearing down Brazil, Latin America and practically all the Third World. Instead of soldiers dying there are children, instead of millions of wounded there are millions of unemployed; instead of destruction of bridges there is the tearing down of factories, schools, hospitals, and entire economies . . . It is a war by the United States against the Latin American continent and the Third World. It is a war over the foreign debt, one which has as its main weapon interest, a weapon more deadly than the atom bomb, more shattering than a laser beam . ."1

If a group or organisation had used its hard earned money to help these developing nations, then we might sympathise that there should be a real effort to repay these loans. But the money used was created from fractional reserve banking. The money loaned to the Third World came from the 90% the banks allow themselves to loan on the 10% they actually held. It didn't exist, it was created from nothing, and now people are suffering and dying in an effort to pay it back.

This has gone beyond clever financing, it's whole sale murder and it's time we stopped it. We can!

1. Luis Ignacio Silva, at the Havana Debt Conference in August 1985, quoted by Susan George, A Fate Worse Than Death p 238

THE HISTORY OF MONEY PART 2

The 19th century became known as the age of the Rothschild's when it was estimated they controlled half of the world's wealth. While their wealth continues to increase today, they have managed to blend into the background, giving an impression that their power has waned. They only apply the Rothschild name to a small fraction of the companies they actually control. Some authors claim that the Rothschild's had not only taken over the Bank of England but they had also in 1816 backed a new privately owned Central Bank in America called The Second Bank of The United States, causing huge problems to the American president.


ANDREW JACKSON (1828 - 1836)


When the American congress voted to renew the charter of The Second Bank of The United States, Jackson responded by using his veto to prevent the renewal bill from passing. His response gives us an interesting insight. "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... 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. If government would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favour 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."


Andrew Jackson 1 In 1832 Jackson ordered the withdrawal of government deposits from the Second bank and instead had them put into safe banks. The Second Banks head, Nicholas Biddle was quite candid about the power and intention of the bank when he openly threatened to cause a depression if the bank was not re-chartered, we quote. "Nothing but widespread suffering will produce any effect on Congress... Our only safety is in pursuing a steady course of firm restriction - and I have no doubt that such a course will ultimately lead to restoration of the currency and the re-charter of the bank."


Nicholas Biddle 1836 By calling in existing loans and refusing to issue new loans he did cause a massive depression, but in 1836 when the charter ran out, the Second Bank ceased to function. It was then he made these two famous statements: "The Bank is trying to kill me - but I will kill it!" and later "If the American people only understood the rank injustice of our money and banking system - there would be a revolution before morning..."


Andrew Jackson When asked what he felt was the greatest achievement of his career Andrew Jackson replied without hesitation "I killed the bank!" However we will see this was not the end of private financial influence passing itself off as official when we look at...


1. Andrew Jackson, Veto of the Bank Bill, to the Senate, (1832)


ABRAHAM LINCOLN AND THE CIVIL WAR (1861 - 1865)


With the Central Bank killed off, fractional reserve banking moved like a virus through numerous state chartered banks instead causing the instability this form of economics thrives on. When people lose their homes someone else wins them for a fraction of their worth. Depression is good news to the lender; but war causes even more debt and dependency than anything else, so if the money changers couldn't have their Central Bank with a license to print money, a war it would have to be. We can see from this quote of the then chancellor of Germany that slavery was not the only cause for the American Civil War. "The division of the United States into federations of equal force was decided long before the Civil War by the high financial powers of Europe. These bankers were afraid that the US, if they remained as one block, and as one nation, would attain economic and financial independence, which would upset their financial domination over the world."


Otto von Bismark chancellor of Germany 1876 On the 12th of April 1861 this economic war began. Predictably Lincoln, needing money to finance his war effort, went with his secretary of the treasury to New York to apply for the necessary loans. The money changers wishing the Union to fail offered loans at 24% to 36%. Lincoln declined the offer. An old friend of Lincoln's, Colonel Dick Taylor of Chicago was put in charge of solving the problem of how to finance the war. His solution is recorded as this. "Just get Congress to pass a bill authorising the printing of full legal tender treasury notes... and pay your soldiers with them and go ahead and win your war with them also."


Colonel Dick Taylor When Lincoln asked if the people of America 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; as Congress is given that express right by the Constitution."


Colonel Dick Taylor 1 Lincoln agreed to try this solution and printed 450 million dollars worth of the new bills using green ink on the back to distinguish them from other notes. "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, discounts and exchanges. The financing of all public enterprises, the maintenance of stable government and ordered progress, and the conduct of the Treasury will become matters of practical administration. The people can and will be furnished with a currency as safe as their own government. Money will cease to be the master and become the servant of humanity. Democracy will rise superior to the money power."


Abraham Lincoln 2 From this we see that the solution worked so well Lincoln was seriously considering adopting this emergency measure as a permanent policy. This would have been great for everyone except the money changers who quickly realised how dangerous this policy would be for them. They wasted no time in expressing their view in the London Times. Oddly enough, while the article seems to have been designed to discourage this creative financial policy, in its put down we're clearly able to see the policies goodness. "If this mischievous financial policy, which has its origin in North America, shall become endurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off debts and be without debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous without precedent in the history of the world. The brains, and wealth of all countries will go to North America. That country must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe."


Hazard Circular - London Times 1865 From this extract its plan to see that it is the advantage provided by the adopting of this policy which poses a threat to those not using it. 1863, nearly there, Lincoln needed just a bit more money to win the war, and seeing him in this vulnerable state, and knowing that the president could not get the congressional authority to issue more greenbacks, the money changers proposed the passing of the National Bank Act. The act went through. From this point on the entire US money supply would be created out of debt by bankers buying US government bonds and issuing them from reserves for bank notes. The greenbacks continued to be in circulation until 1994, their numbers were not increased but in fact decreased. "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."


John Kenneth Galbrath The American economy has been based on government debt since 1864 and it is locked into this system. Talk of paying off the debt without first reforming the banking system is just talk and a complete impossibility. That same year Lincoln had a pleasant surprise. Turns out the Tsar of Russia, Alexander II, was well aware of the money changers scam. The Tsar was refusing to allow them to set up a central bank in Russia. If Lincoln could limit the power of the money changers and win the war, the bankers would not be able to split America and hand it back to Britain and France as planned. The Tsar knew that this handing back would come at a cost which would eventually need to be paid back by attacking Russia, it being clearly in the money changers sights. The Tsar declared that if France or Britain gave help to the South, Russia would consider this an act of war. Britain and France would instead wait in vain to have the wealth of the colonies returned to them, and while they waited Lincoln won the civil war. With an election coming up the next year, Lincoln himself would wait for renewed public support before reversing the National Bank Act he had been pressured into approving during the war. Lincoln's opposition to the central banks financial control and a proposed return to the gold standard is well documented. He would certainly have killed off the national banks monopoly had he not been killed himself only 41 days after being re-elected. The money changers were pressing for a gold standard because gold was scarce and easier to have a monopoly over. Much of this was already waiting in their hands and each gold merchant was well aware that what they really had could be easily made to seem like much much more. Silver would only widen the field and lower the share so they pressed for...


1. Lincoln By Emil Ludwig 1930, containing a letter from Lincoln, also reprinted in Glory to God and the Sucker Democracy A Manuscript Collection of the Letters of Charles H. Lanphier compiled by Charles C. Patton.
2. Abraham Lincoln. Senate document 23, Page 91. 1865.


THE RETURN OF THE GOLD STANDARD (1866 - 1881)


"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."


W.Cleon Skousen. Even after his death, the idea that America might print its own debt free money set off warning bells throughout the entire European banking community. On April 12th in 1866, the American congress passed the Contraction Act, allowing the treasury to call in and retire some of Lincoln's greenbacks, With only the banks standing to gain from this, it's not hard to work out the source of this action. To give the American public the false impression that they would be better off under the gold standard, the money changers used the control they had to cause economic instability and panic the people. This was fairly easy to do by calling in existing loans and refusing to issue new ones, a tried and proven method of causing depression. They would then spread the word through the media they largely controlled that the lack of a single gold standard was the cause of the hardship which ensued, while all this time using the Contraction Act to lower the amount of money in circulation.

It went from $1.8 billion in circulation in 1866 allowing $50.46 per person, to $1.3 billion in 1867 allowing $44.00 per person, to $0.6 billion in 1876 making only $14.60 per person and down to $0.4 billion only ten years later leaving only $6.67 per person and a continually growing population.

Most people believe the economists when they tell us that recessions and depressions are part of the natural flow, but in truth the money supply is controlled by a small minority who have always done so and will continue to do so if we let them. By 1872 the American public was beginning to feel the squeeze, so the Bank of England, scheming in the back rooms, sent Ernest Seyd, with lots of money to bribe congress into demonetising silver. Ernest drafted the legislation himself, which came into law with the passing of the Coinage Act, effectively stopping the minting of silver that year. Here's what he said about his trip, obviously pleased with himself. "I went to America in the winter of 1872-73, authorised to secure, if I could, the passage of a bill demonetising silver. It was in the interest of those I represented - the governors of the Bank of England - to have it done. By 1873, gold coins were the only form of coin money."


Ernest Seyd Or as explained by Senator Daniel of Virginia "In 1872 silver being demonetized in Germany, England, and Holland, a capital of 100,000 pounds ($500,000.00) was raised, Ernest Seyd was sent to this country with this fund as agent for foreign bond holders to effect the same object (demonetization of silver)". 1

Within three years, with 30% of the work force unemployed, the American people began to harken back to the days of silver backed money and the greenbacks. The US Silver Commission was set up to study the problem and responded with telling history: "The disaster of the Dark Ages was caused by decreasing money and falling prices... Without money, civilisation could not have had a beginning, and with a diminishing supply, it must languish and unless relieved, finally perish. At the Christian era the metallic money of the Roman Empire amounted to $1,800,million. By the end of the fifteenth century it had shrunk to less than $200,million. History records no other such disastrous transition as that from the Roman Empire to the Dark Ages..."


United States Silver Commission While they obviously could see the problems being caused by the restricted money supply, this declaration did little to help the problem, and in 1877 riots broke out all over the country. The bank's response was to do nothing except to campaign against the idea that greenbacks should be reissued. The American Bankers Association secretary James Buel expressed the bankers attitude well in a letter to fellow members of the association.

He wrote: "It is advisable to do all in your power to sustain such prominent daily and weekly newspapers, especially the Agricultural and Religious Press, as will oppose the greenback issue of paper money and that you will also withhold patronage from all applicants who are not willing to oppose the government issue of money. To repeal the Act creating bank notes, or to restore to circulation the government issue of money will be to provide the people with money and will therefore seriously affect our individual profits as bankers and lenders. See your congressman at once and engage him to support our interest that we may control legislation."
James Buel American Bankers Association 2 What this statement exposes is the difference in mentality between your average person and a banker. With a banker 'less really is more' and every need an opportunity to exploit. James Garfield became President in 1881 with a firm grasp of where the problem lay. "Whosoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce... And when you realise 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."


James Garfield 1881 Within weeks of releasing this statement President Garfield was assassinated. The cry from the streets was to...


1. Senator Daniel of Virginia, May 22, 1890, from a speech in Congress, to be found in the Congressional Record, page 5128, quoting from the Bankers Magazine of August, 1873
2. from a circular issued by authority of the Associated Bankers of New York, Philadelphia, and Boston signed by one James Buel, secretary, sent out from 247 Broadway, New York in 1877, to the bankers in all of the States


FREE SILVER (1891 - 1912)


Fleecing of the flock is the term the money changers use for the process of booms and depressions which make it possible for them to repossess property at a fraction of its worth. In 1891 a major fleece was being planned. "On Sept 1st, 1894, we will not renew our loans under any consideration. On Sept 1st we will demand our money. We will foreclose and become mortgagees in possession. We can take two-thirds of the farms west of the Mississippi, and thousands of them east of the Mississippi as well, at our own price... Then the farmers will become tenants as in England..."


1891 American Bankers Association as printed in the Congressional Record of April 29, 1913 The continued gold standard made this possible. William Jennings Bryan was the Democratic candidate for president in 1896, campaigning to bring silver back as a money standard. (free Silver) "We will answer their demand for a gold standard by saying to them: You shall not press down upon the brow of labour this crown of thorns, you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold."
William Jennings Bryan Of course the money changers supported his opposition on the Republican side so long as he wanted the gold standard maintained. The factory bosses were somehow convinced to tell their work force that business would close down if Bryan was elected, and everyone would lose their jobs. The Republicans won by a small margin. Bryan tried again in 1900 and in 1908 but lost both times. He became secretary of state under Wilson in 1912 but became disenchanted and resigned in 1915 under suspicious circumstances connected with the sinking of the Lusitania which drove America into the First World War.


J.P.MORGAN AND THE CRASH OF 1907


If you want to work out the cause of the crash of 1907, checking who benefited is where you might like to look first. With the stock market slump causing most of the over extended banks to falter, in steps J.P. Morgan offering to save the day. People will do strange things when in a panic, and this might explain why Morgan was authorised to print $200 million from nothing, which he then used to prop things up. Some of the troubled banks with less than 1% in reserve had no choice. It was accept this solution or go under. Even if they had worked out that their problems had been caused by the same people now offering the solution, there is not a lot they could have done about it. J.P.Morgan was hailed a hero. "All this trouble could be averted if we appointed a committee of six or seven men like J.P.Morgan to handle the affairs of our country."


Woodrow Wilson But not everyone was fooled. "Those not favourable 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."


Rep. Charles A. Lindbergh (R-MN) Apart from making a small number rich at the expense of the many, in this case the instability also served the second purpose of encouraging the public to believe that they would be better off living under a Central Bank and a Gold Standard. Desperate people have little time for logic.


LINCOLN WATCHES


In Washington the statue of Lincoln sitting in his chair is facing a building called the Federal Reserve Headquarters. This institution would not be there if Lincoln's monetary policy had been adopted by the USA. It is not Federal and it has doubtful reserves. The name is an open deception designed to give this private bank the appearance that it is operating in the public's interest, when in fact it is run solely to gain private profit for its select stock holders. It came into being as the result of one of the slickest moves in financial history. On 23rd December 1913 the house of representatives had past the Federal Reserve Act, but it was still having difficulty getting it out of the senate. Most members of congress had gone home for the holidays, but unfortunately the senate had not adjourned sene die (without day) so they were technically still in session. There were only three members still present. On a unanimous consent voice vote the 1913 Federal Reserve Act was passed. No objection was made, possibly because there was no one there to object. Charles Lindbergh would have objected. "The financial system has been turned over to... the federal reserve board. That board administers the finance system by authority of... a purely profiteering group. The system is private, conducted for the sole purpose of obtaining the greatest possible profits from the use of other peoples money."


Rep Charles A, Lindbergh (R-MN) Louis T. McFadden would have objected. "We have in this country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board... This evil institution has impoverished... the people of the United States... and has practically bankrupted our Government. It has done this through... the corrupt practice of the moneyed vultures who control it."


Rep. Louis T, McFadden (R-PA) Barry Goldwater would also have objected. "Most Americans have no real understanding of the operation of the international money lenders... The accounts of the Federal Reserve System have never been audited. It operates outside the control of Congress and... manipulates the credit of the United States."


Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-AZ) Most Americans would object if they knew. The Federal Reserve is the largest single creditor of the United States Government, and they are also the people who decide how much the average persons car payments are going to be, what their house payments are going to be, and whether they have a job or not. The three people who passed the Federal Reserve Act in 1913, knew exactly what they were doing when they set up this private bank, modelled on the Bank of England and the fact that THE BANK OF ENGLAND had been operating independently unopposed since 1694 must have given them a great deal of confidence.


WHERE THERE'S WAR THERE'S MONEY


War uses up more materials more quickly than most anything else on earth. In war expensive equipment doesn't wear out slowly, it gets blown up. (It's interesting to note that during the 119 year period from the founding of the Bank of England to Napoleon's defeat at Waterloo, England had been at war for 56 years, while the rest of the time preparing for it. In the process the money changers had been getting rich.) So there it was, the newly formed Federal Reserve poised to produce any money the U.S. Government might need from thin air with each dollar standing to make a healthy interest. Nine days after its formation the Federal Reserve founders were wishing each other a Happy New Year. What good fortune might 1914 bring?

THE HISTORY OF MONEY PART 1 of 4

Let's Go FORWARD

Tell someone you are going to a convention of accountants and you might get a few yawns, yet money and how it works is probably one of the most interesting things on earth.

It is fascinating and almost magical how money appeared on our planet. Unlike most developments we enjoy, which can be traced back to a source, civilisation or inventor, money appeared in places then unconnected all over the world in a remarkably simular way.

Consider the American Indians using Wampum, West Africans trading in decorative metallic objects called Manillas and the Fijians economy based on whales teeth, some of which are still legal tender; add to that shells, amber, ivory, decorative feathers, cattle including oxen & pigs, a large number of stones including jade and quartz which have all been used for trade across the world, and we get a taste of the variety of accepted currency.

There is something charming and childlike imagining primitive societies, our ancestors, using all these colourful forms of money. As long as everyone concerned can agree on a value, this is a sensible thing for a community to do.

After all, the person who has what you need might not need what you have to trade. Money solves that problem neatly. Real value with each exchange, and everyone gaining from the convenience. The idea is really inspired which might explain why so many diverse minds came up with it.


BUT ALL IS NOT WELL


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

Money, money, money, it's always just been there, right? Wrong.

Obviously it's issued by the government to make it easy for us to exchange things. Wrong again!

Truth is most people don't realise that the issuing of money is essentially a private business, and that the privilege of issuing money has been a major bone of contention throughout history.

Wars have been fought and depressions have been caused in the battle over who issues the money; however the majority of us are not aware of this, and this is largely due to the fact that the winning side became and increasingly continues to be a vital and respected member of our global society, having an influence over large aspects of our lives including our education, our media and our governments.

While we might feel powerless in trying to stop the manipulation of money for private profit at our expense, it is easy to forget that we collectively give money its value. We have been taught to believe printed pieces of paper have special value, and because we know others believe this too, we are willing to work all our lives to get what we are convinced others will want.

An honest look at history will show us how our innocent trust has been misused.

Let's start our exploration of money with:


JESUS FLIPS (many coins) 33 A.D.


Jesus was so upset by the sight of the money changers in the temple, he waded in and started to tip over the tables and drive them out with a whip, this being the one and only time we ever hear of him using force during his entire ministry.

So what caused the ultimate pacifist to become so aggressive?

For a long time the Jews had been called upon to pay their temple tax with a special coin called the half shekelshekel. It was a measured half ounce of pure silver with no image of a pagan emperor on it.

It was to them the only coin acceptable to God.

But because there was only a limited number of these coins in circulation, the money changers were in a buyers market and like with anything else in short supply, they were able to raise the price to what the market would bear.

They made huge profits with their monopoly on these coins and turned this time of devotion into a mockery for profit. Jesus saw this as stealing from the people and proclaimed the whole setup to be. "A den of thieves". 1

Once money is accepted as a form of exchange, those who produce, loan out and manipulate the quantity of money are obviously in a very strong position. They are the "Money Changers".


1. King James NT, Mt 21:13, Mr 11:17, Lu 19:46


MEDIEVAL ENGLAND (1000 - 1100 A.D.)


Here we find goldsmith's offering to keep other people's gold and silver safe in their vaults, and in return people walking away with a receipt for what they have left there.

These paper receipts soon became popular for trade as they were less heavy to carry around than gold and silver coins.

After a while, the goldsmith's must have noticed that only a small percentage of their depositor's ever came in to demand their gold at any one time. So cleverly the goldsmith's made out some receipts for gold which didn't even exist, and then they loaned it out to earn interest.

A nod and a wink amongst themselves, they incorporated this practice into the banking system. They even gave it a name to make it seem more acceptable, christening the practice 'Fractional Reserve Banking' which translates to mean, lending out many times more money than you have assets on deposit.

Today banks are allowed to loan out at least ten times the amount they actually are holding, so while you wonder how they get rich charging you 11% interest, it's not 11% a year they make on that amount but actually 110%.


THE TALLY STICKS (1100 - 1854)


King Henry the First produced sticks of polished wood, with notches cut along one edge to signify the denominations. The stick was then split full length so each piece still had a record of the notches.

The King kept one half for proof against counterfeiting, and then spent the other half into the market place where it would continue to circulate as money.

Because only Tally Sticks were accepted by Henry for payment of taxes, there was a built in demand for them, which gave people confidence to accept these as money.

He could have used anything really, so long as the people agreed it had value, and his willingness to accept these sticks as legal tender made it easy for the people to agree. Money is only as valuable as peoples faith in it, and without that faith even today's money is just paper.

The tally stick system worked really well for 726 years. It was the most successful form of currency in recent history and the British Empire was actually built under the Tally Stick system, but how is it that most of us are not aware of its existence?

Perhaps the fact that in 1694 the Bank of England at its formation attacked the Tally Stick System gives us a clue as to why most of us have never heard of them. They realised it was money outside the power of the money changers, (the very thing King Henry had intended).

What better way to eliminate the vital faith people had in this rival currency than to pretend it simply never existed and not discuss it. That seems to be what happened when the first shareholder's in the Bank of England bought their original shares with notched pieces of wood and retired the system. You heard correctly, they bought shares. The Bank of England was set up as a privately owned bank through investors buying shares. Even the Banks resent nationalisation is not what it at first may appear, as its independent resources unceasingly multiply and dividends continue to be produced for its shareholder's.

These investors, who's names were kept secret, were meant to invest one and a quarter million pounds, but only three quarters of a million was received when it was chartered in 1694.

It then began to lend out many times more than it had in reserve, collecting interest on the lot.

This is not something you could just impose on people without preparation. The money changers needed to created the climate to make the formation of this private concern seem acceptable.

Here's how they did it.

With King Henry VIII relaxing the Usury Laws in the 1500's, the money changers flooded the market with their gold and silver coins becoming richer by the minute.

The English Revolution of 1642 was financed by the money changers backing Oliver Cromwell's successful attempt to purge the parliament and kill King Charles. What followed was 50 years of costly wars. Costly to those fighting them and profitable to those financing them.

So profitable that it allowed the money changers to take over a square mile of property still known as the City of London, which remains one of the three main financial centres in the world today.

The 50 years of war left England in financial ruin. The government officials went begging for loans from guess who, and the deal proposed resulted in a government sanctioned, privately owned bank which could produce money from nothing, essentially legally counterfeiting a national currency for private gain.

Now the politicians had a source from which to borrow all the money they wanted to borrow, and the debt created was secured against public taxes.

You would think someone would have seen through this, and realised they could produce their own money and owe no interest, but instead the Bank of England has been used as a model and now nearly every nation has a Central Bank with fractional reserve banking at its core.

These central banks have the power to take over a nations economy and become that nations real governing force. What we have here is a scam of mammoth proportions covering what is actually a hidden tax, being collected by private concerns.

The country sells bonds to the bank in return for money it cannot raise in taxes. The bonds are paid for by money produced from thin air. The government pays interest on the money it borrowed by borrowing more money in the same way. There is no way this debt can ever be paid, it has and will continue to increase.

If the government did find a way to pay off the debt, the result would be that there would be no bonds to back the currency, so to pay the debt would be to kill the currency.

With its formation the Bank of England soon flooded Britain with money. With no quality control and no insistence on value for money, prices doubled with money being thrown in every direction.

One company was even offering to drain the Red Sea to find Egyptian gold lost when the sea closed in on their pursuit of Moses.

By1698 the national debt expanded from £1,250,000 to £16,000,000 and up went the taxes the debt was secured on.

As hard as it might be to believe, in times of economic upheaval, wealth is rarely destroyed and instead is often only transferred. And who benefits the most when money is scarce? You may have guessed. It's those controlling what everyone else wants, the money changer's.

When the majority of people are suffering through economic depression, you can be sure that a minority of people are continuing to get rich.

Even today the Bank of England expresses its determination to prevent the ups and downs of booms and depressions, yet there have been nothing but ups and downs since its formation with the British pound rarely being stable.

One thing however has been stable and that is the growing fortune of:


THE ROTHSCHILDS (1743)


A goldsmith named Amshall Moses Bower opened a counting house in Frankfurt Germany in 1743. He placed a Roman eagle on a red shield over the door prompting people to call his shop the Red Shield Firm pronounced in German as "Rothschild".

His son later changed his name to Rothschild when he inherited the business. Loaning money to individuals was all well and good but he soon found it much more profitable loaning money to governments and Kings. It always involved much bigger amounts, always secured from public taxes.

Once he got the hang of things he set his sights on the world by training his five sons in the art of money creation, before sending them out to the major financial centres of the world to create and dominate the central banking systems.

J.P. Morgan was thought by many to be the richest man in the world during the second world war, but upon his death it was discovered he was merely a lieutenant within the Rothschild empire owning only 19% of the J.P. Morgan Companies.

"There is but one power in Europe and that is Rothschild."
19th century French commentator 1

We will explore a little more about the richest family a little later, after we've had a look at:


1. Niall Ferguson, THE HOUSE OF ROTHSCHILD, Money's Prophets, 1798-1848


THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION (1764 - 1781)


By the mid 1700's Britain was at its height of power, but was also heavily in debt.

Since the creation of the Bank of England, they had suffered four costly wars and the total debt now stood at £140,000,000, (which in those days was a lot of money).

In order to make their interest payments to the bank, the British government set about a programme to try to raise revenues from their American colonies, largely through an extensive programme of taxation.

There was a shortage of material for minting coins in the colonies, so they began to print their own paper money, which they called Colonial Script. This provided a very successful means of exchange and also gave the colonies a sense of identity. Colonial Script was money provided to help the exchange of goods. It was debt free paper money not backed by gold or silver.

During a visit to Britain in 1763, The Bank of England asked Benjamin Franklin how he would account for the new found prosperity in the colonies. Franklin replied.

"That is simple. In the colonies we issue our own money. It is called Colonial Script. 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."
Benjamin Franklin 1

America had learned that the people's confidence in the currency was all they needed, and they could be free of borrowing debts. That would mean being free of the Bank of England.

In Response the world's most powerful independent bank used its influence on the British parliament to press for the passing of the Currency Act of 1764.

This act made it illegal for the colonies to print their own money, and forced them to pay all future taxes to Britain in silver or gold.

Here is what Franklin said after that.

"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."
Benjamin Franklin

"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. The inability of the colonists to get power to issue their own money permanently out of the hands of George III and the international bankers was the PRIME reason for the Revolutionary War."
Benjamin Franklin's autobiography

By the time the war began on 19th April 1775 much of the gold and silver had been taken by British taxation. They were left with no other choice but to print money to finance the war.

What is interesting here is that Colonial Script was actually working so well, it became a threat to the established economic system of the time.

The idea of issuing money as Franklin put it "in proper proportion to the demands of trade and industry" and not charging any interest, was not causing any problems or inflation. This unfortunately was alien to the Bank of England which only issued money for the sake of making a profit for its shareholder's.


1. Congressman Charles G. Binderup of Nebraska, Unrobing the Ghosts of Wall Street


THE BANK OF NORTH AMERICA (1781-1785)


If you can't beat them, join them, might well have been his argument when arms dealer, Robert Morris suggested he be allowed to set up a Bank of England style central bank in the USA in 1781.

Desperate for money, the $400,000 he proposed to deposit, to allow him to loan out many times that through fractional reserve banking, must have looked really attractive to the impoverished American Government.

Already spending the money they would be loaned, no one made a fuss when Robert Morris couldn't raise the deposit, and instead suggested he might use some gold, which had been loaned to America from France.

Once in, he simply used fractional reserve banking, and with the banks growing fortune he loaned to himself, and his friends the money to buy up all the remaining shares. The bank then began to loan out money multiplied by this new amount to eager politicians, who were probably too drunk with the new 'power cash' to notice or care how it was done.

The scam lasted five years until in 1785, with the value of American money dropping like a lead balloon. The banks charter didn't get renewed.

The shareholder's walking off with the interest did not go unnoticed by the governor.

"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."
Governor Morris 1


1. THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF 1787, 7/2


FIRST BANK OF THE UNITED STATES (1791-1811)


It worked once, it will work again. It's been six years. There are a lot of new hungry politicians. Let's give it a try. And so there it was, in 1791, the First Bank of the United States (BUS). Not only deceptively named to sound official, but also to take attention away from the real first bank which had been shut down.

Its initials however gave a clear indication that Americans were once again being taken for a ride. And true to its British model, the name of the investors was never revealed.

Having gotten away with it a second time, some of them probably wished Amshall Rothschild had picked a different time to make his pronouncement from his private central bank in Frankfurt.

"Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws."
Mayer Amschel Rothschild, 1790

Not to worry, no one was listening, the American government borrowed 8.2 million dollars from the bank in the first 5 years and prices rose by 72%. This time round the money changer's had learned their lesson, they had guaranteed a twenty year charter.

The president, who could see an ever increasing debt, with no chance of ever paying back, had this to say.

"I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution - taking from the federal government their power of borrowing."
Thomas Jefferson, 1798

While the independent press, who had not been bought off yet, called the scam "a great swindle, a vulture, a viper, and a cobra."

As with the real first bank, the government had been the only depositor to put up any real money, with the remainder being raised from loans the investors made to each other, using the magic of fractional reserve banking. When time came for renewal of the charter, the bankers were warning of bad times ahead if they didn't get what they wanted. The charter was not renewed.

Five month later Britain had attacked America and started the war of 1812.

Meanwhile a short time earlier, an independent Rothschild business, the Bank of France, was being looked upon with suspicion by none other than:


NAPOLEON (1803 - 1825)


He didn't trust the bank saying:

"When a government is dependent upon bankers for money, they and not the leaders of the government control the situation, since 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."
Napoleon Bonaparte, 1815

For both sides of a war to be loaned money from the same privately owned Central Bank is not unusual. Nothing generates debt like war. A Nation will borrow any amount to win. So naturally if the loser is kept going to the last straw in a vain hope of winning, then the more resources will be used up by the winning side before their victory is obtained more resources used, more loans taken out, more money made by the bankers; and even more amazing, the loans are usually given on condition that the victor pays the debts left by the loser.

In 1803, instead of borrowing from the bank, Napoleon sold territory west of the Mississippi to the 3rd President of the United States, Thomas Jefferson for 3 million dollars in gold; a deal known as the Louisiana Purchase.

Three million dollars richer, Napoleon quickly gathered together an army and set about conquering much of Europe.

Each place he went to, Napoleon found his opposition being financed by the Bank of England, making huge profits as Prussia, Austria and finally Russia all went heavily into debt trying to stop him.

Four years later, with the main French army in Russia, Nathan Rothschild took charge of a bold plan to smuggle a shipment of gold through France to finance an attack from Spain by the Duke of Wellington.

Wellington's attack from the south and other defeats eventually forced Napoleon into exile. However in 1815 he escaped from his banishment in Elba, an Island off the coast of Italy, and returned to Paris.

By March of that year Napoleon had equipped an army with the help of borrowed money from the Eubard Banking House of Paris.

With 74,000 French troops led by Napoleon, sizing up to meet 67,000 British and other European Troops 200 miles NE of Paris on June 18th 1815, it was a difficult one to call. Back in London, the real potential winner, Nathan Rothschild, was poised to strike in a bold plan to take control of the British stock market, the bond market, and possibly even the Bank of England.

Nathan, knowing that information is power, stationed his trusted agent named Rothworth near the battle field.

As soon as the battle was over Rothworth quickly returned to London, delivering the news to Rothschild 24 hours ahead of Wellington's courier.

A victory by Napoleon would have devastated Britain's financial system. Nathan stationed himself in his usual place next to an ancient pillar in the stock market.

This powerful man was not without observers as he hung his head, and began openly to sell huge numbers of British Government Bonds.

Reading this to mean that Napoleon must have won, everyone started to sell their British Bonds as well.

The bottom fell out of the market until you couldn't hardly give them away. Meanwhile Rothschild began to secretly buy up all the hugely devalued bonds at a fraction of what they were worth a few hours before.

In this way Nathan Rothschild captured more in one afternoon than the combined forces of Napoleon and Wellington had captured in their entire lifetime.