Search Blog Posts

Tuesday, September 30, 2014

Free E-Book: None Dare Call It Conspiracy, Guidebook Primer to the CFR by Gary Allen

(This is the book that got my butt in gear. I've been a steadfast kook ever since!)

Posted on July 17, 2011 by

Title:  None Dare Call It Conspiracy
Author:  Gary Allen
Date:  1971
LINKS:  Read in PDF  or  Read Online 

Buy a hard copy of “None Dare Call It Conspiracy”


Excerpt:  “When you think about it, there are really only two theories of history.  Either things happen by accident neither planned nor caused by anybody, or they happen because they are planned and somebody causes them to happen . . . Why does every recent Administration make the same mistakes as the previous ones?  Why do they repeat the errors of the past which produce inflation, depressions and war?  Why does our State Department ‘stumble’ from one Communist-aiding ‘blunder’ to another?  If you believe it is all an accident or the result of mysterious and unexplainable tides of history, you will be regarded as an ‘intellectual’ who understands that we live in a complex world.  If you believe that something like 32,496 consecutive coincidences over the past forty years stretches the law of averages a bit, you are a kook!”


WHAT THOSE “IN THE KNOW” SAY


I wish that every citizen of every country in the free world and every slave behind the Iron Curtain might read this book.  –Ezra Taft Benson — Former Secretary of Agriculture


NDCC is an admirable job of amassing information to prove that communism is socialism and socialism (a plot to enslave the world) is not a movement of the downtrodden but a scheme supported and directed by the wealthiest of people.  If enough Americans read and act upon NDCC, they really can save the Republic from the conspirators — whose plans for the destruction of our country are galloping fast toward completion.  –Dan Smoot — Former Assistant to J. Edgar Hoover


Now that NDCC is available, I no longer need to answer “no” to the question which is often put to me, namely: “Mr. Dodd, is there a book which I can read so I can know what you know?” No higher praise is possible for this book.  –Norman Dodd — Chief Investigator Reece Committee to Investigate Foundations


This book concerns the way in which our nation and other nations are actually governed. As Benjamin Disaeli said, this is not the way in which most people think nations are governed. The whole subject of the Insiders who so largely control our political and economic lives is a fascinating mystery.  For the reader who is intelligent but uninitiated in the literature of superpolitics, I can think of no better introduction to the field than NDCC.  –Dr. Medford Evans — Former Chief of Security for the Atom Bomb Project


Since people of the Jewish faith have been the number one historical victims of the Communist Conspiracy, we wish every member of our faith would carefully read this book so they will become aware of the forces which often attempt to manipulate them.  –Dr. Barney Finkel — President, The Jewish Right


Whatever one dares to call the apparatus described and documented in this book, he will ignore it at his peril. 1972 may well be our last chance to defuse this destructive device. This book tells you how you can expose and demolish it.  –Dean Clarence E. Manion — Former Dean Notre Dame law School 


What they were saying about “None Dare Call It Conspiracy in 1972…


Note:  By 1972, the press was already quite controlled, which is obvious by the following newspaper articles.  The only people who had anything good to say about Gary Allen’s book were readers of the newspapers, in the ‘Letters to the Editor’ columns.  Of the free-access newspapers I have located in the archives, I haven’t found a single “Book Review” from the country’s newspaper book reviewers.  Instead, the book is reviewed by opinion columnists, who — much like today’s mainstream reporters — treat all conspiracies as fantasies to be laughed at instead of studied.  “None Dare Call It Conspiracy” was quite an appropriate title, as is evident by its response in the mainstream papers of the day.  –Vicki Robison 
 

Veterans: LISTEN-UP!: VA Doctor Exposes National Gun Confiscation Program



Published on Apr 12, 2013
 
In an hour long interview with George Hemminger, and a NY psychiatrist reveals shocking and detailed information of a seemingly insidious, deliberate and concerted effort by governmental auspices to confiscate firearms from veterans via psychiatric evaluations.

(Update Note: April 13, 2013 - We just enabled likes, dislikes and other settings on this video. Apologies as we're technically working out the details. Also, we may have inadvertently left out or inserted repeated video and audio, that would be our technical mistake if there's any looping.)

The psychiatrist's voice has been altered to protect his anonymity. We apologize if you experience any difficulties hearing individual words or understanding all context.

It is up to each individual to listen carefully, believe or not believe and to draw their own conclusions.

PLEASE NOTE: Under no circumstances should anyone avoid seeking proper medical and psychiatric care from their personal physicians. Seek proper medical care from licensed medical care professionals for any and all health issues and concerns. Any and all content presented herein is strictly for educational, entertainment and/or informational purposes and is provided as a courtesy, only.

Government's "legitimizing" statute referred to in video: 
Section 5210 of HR 3590 the Obamacare Healthcare Reform Law: Establishing a Ready Reserve Corps




Rothschilds Want Iran’s Banks - one of the Last Central Banks in the World to Loot of its Gold

It's been over three years since the US Fed and its bankster affiliates have been warring on other nations for their gold. From what we know, these assaults have been successful in looting the gold reserves of numerous otherwise friendly nations. Boots on the ground were necessary. Bankers in sneakers pushing wheelbarrows will take it from here. Thank you very much.

Now, the Conspiracy can leave those souls to rot in what the US/UN has wrought. It was under instructions from the Zionist state of Israel these attacks were precipitated.

It remains to be seen how the Conspiracy can wrest India's gold reserves. One option is to foment a conflict between India and Red China.



1st Posted by Charleston Voice on Aug. 5, 2012


Refreshing to see someone is connecting the dots we have been posting now for several months:

By Pete Papaherakles - AFP
Could gaining control of the Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran (CBI) be one of the main reasons that Iran is being targeted by Western and Israeli powers? As tensions are building up for an unthinkable war with Iran, it is worth exploring Iran’s banking system compared to its U.S., British and Israeli counterparts.

Some researchers are pointing out that Iran is one of only three countries left in the world whose central bank is not under Rothschild control. Before 9-11 there were reportedly seven: Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, Libya, Cuba, North Korea and Iran. By 2003, however, Afghanistan and Iraq were swallowed up by the Rothschild octopus, and by 2011 Sudan and Libya were also gone. In Libya, a Rothschild bank was established in Benghazi while the country was still at war.

Islam forbids the charging of usury, the practice of charging excessive, unreasonably high, and often illegal interest rates on loans,and that is a major problem for the Rothschild banking system. Until a few hundred years ago usury was also forbidden in the Christian world and was even punishable by death. It was considered exploitation and enslavement.

Since the Rothschilds took over the Bank of England they have been expanding their banking control over all the countries of the world. Their method has been to get a country’s corrupt politicians to accept massive loans, which they can never repay, and thus go into debt to the Rothschild banking powers. If a leader refuses to accept the loan, he is oftentimes either ousted or assassinated. And if that fails, invasions can follow, and a Rothschild usury-based bank is established.

The Rothschilds exert powerful influence over the world’s major news agencies. By repetition, the masses are duped into believing horror stories about evil villains. The Rothschilds control the Bank of England, the Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank, the IMF, the World Bank and the Bank of International Settlements. Also they own most of the gold in the world as well as the London Gold Exchange, which sets the price of gold every day. It is said the family owns over half the wealth of the planet—estimated by Credit Suisse to be $231 trillion—and is controlled by Evelyn Rothschild, the current head of the family.

Objective researchers contend that Iran is not being demonized because they are a nuclear threat, just as the Taliban, Iraq’s Saddam Hussein and Libya’s Muammar Qadaffi were not a threat.

What then is the real reason? Is it the trillions to be made in oil profits, or the trillions in war profits? Is it to bankrupt the U.S. economy, or is it to start World War III? Is it to destroy Israel’s enemies, or to destroy the Iranian central bank so that no one is left to defy Rothschild’s money racket?

It might be any one of those reasons or, worse—it might be all of them.
——
Pete Papaherakles, a U.S. citizen for more than 40 years, was born in Greece. He is AFP’s outreach director. If you would like to see AFP speakers at your rally, contact Pete at 202-544-5977. Source @AFP

Rothschilds Want Iran’s Banks - one of the Last Central Banks in the World to Loot of its Gold

It's been over three years since the US Fed and its bankster affiliates have been warring on other nations for their gold. From what we know, these assaults have been successful in looting the gold reserves of numerous otherwise friendly nations. Boots on the ground were necessary. Bankers in sneakers pushing wheelbarrows will take it from here. Thank you very much.

Now, the Conspiracy can leave those souls to rot in what the US/UN has wrought. It was under instructions from the Zionist state of Israel these attacks were precipitated.

It remains to be seen how the Conspiracy can wrest India's gold reserves. One option is to foment a conflict between India and Red China.



1st Posted by Charleston Voice on Aug. 5, 2012


Refreshing to see someone is connecting the dots we have been posting now for several months:

By Pete Papaherakles - AFP
Could gaining control of the Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran (CBI) be one of the main reasons that Iran is being targeted by Western and Israeli powers? As tensions are building up for an unthinkable war with Iran, it is worth exploring Iran’s banking system compared to its U.S., British and Israeli counterparts.

Some researchers are pointing out that Iran is one of only three countries left in the world whose central bank is not under Rothschild control. Before 9-11 there were reportedly seven: Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, Libya, Cuba, North Korea and Iran. By 2003, however, Afghanistan and Iraq were swallowed up by the Rothschild octopus, and by 2011 Sudan and Libya were also gone. In Libya, a Rothschild bank was established in Benghazi while the country was still at war.

Islam forbids the charging of usury, the practice of charging excessive, unreasonably high, and often illegal interest rates on loans,and that is a major problem for the Rothschild banking system. Until a few hundred years ago usury was also forbidden in the Christian world and was even punishable by death. It was considered exploitation and enslavement.

Since the Rothschilds took over the Bank of England they have been expanding their banking control over all the countries of the world. Their method has been to get a country’s corrupt politicians to accept massive loans, which they can never repay, and thus go into debt to the Rothschild banking powers. If a leader refuses to accept the loan, he is oftentimes either ousted or assassinated. And if that fails, invasions can follow, and a Rothschild usury-based bank is established.

The Rothschilds exert powerful influence over the world’s major news agencies. By repetition, the masses are duped into believing horror stories about evil villains. The Rothschilds control the Bank of England, the Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank, the IMF, the World Bank and the Bank of International Settlements. Also they own most of the gold in the world as well as the London Gold Exchange, which sets the price of gold every day. It is said the family owns over half the wealth of the planet—estimated by Credit Suisse to be $231 trillion—and is controlled by Evelyn Rothschild, the current head of the family.

Objective researchers contend that Iran is not being demonized because they are a nuclear threat, just as the Taliban, Iraq’s Saddam Hussein and Libya’s Muammar Qadaffi were not a threat.

What then is the real reason? Is it the trillions to be made in oil profits, or the trillions in war profits? Is it to bankrupt the U.S. economy, or is it to start World War III? Is it to destroy Israel’s enemies, or to destroy the Iranian central bank so that no one is left to defy Rothschild’s money racket?

It might be any one of those reasons or, worse—it might be all of them.
——
Pete Papaherakles, a U.S. citizen for more than 40 years, was born in Greece. He is AFP’s outreach director. If you would like to see AFP speakers at your rally, contact Pete at 202-544-5977. Source @AFP

China Accuses U.S. of Fomenting Hong Kong Unrest

No surprises here...this is necessary for the US to build its empire. Expanding democracy to the world. It'll pass.



Has the U.S. Egged On the Protests?

The mass demonstrations in Hong Kong are dramatic, indeed. And given that Hong Kong has long enjoyed a more liberal existence under British rule, protests against a more authoritarian Chinese government (or at least it used to be more authoritarian) are not entirely surprising.

But Chinese officials accuse the U.S. of egging on the protests.  As the Wall Street Journal’s China Real Time blog reports:

On Thursday, Wen Wei Po published an “expose” into what it described as the U.S. connections of Joshua Wong, the 17 year-old leader of student group Scholarism.

The story asserts that “U.S. forces” identified Mr. Wong’s potential three years ago, and have worked since then to cultivate him as a “political superstar.”

Evidence for Mr. Wong’s close ties to the U.S. that the paper cited included what the report described as frequent meetings with U.S. consulate personnel in Hong Kong and covert donations from Americans to Mr. Wong. As evidence, the paper cited photographs leaked by “netizens.” The story also said Mr. Wong’s family visited Macau in 2011 at the invitation of the American Chamber of Commerce, where they stayed at the “U.S.-owned” Venetian Macao, which is owned by Las Vegas Sands Corp.
***
This isn’t the first time that Beijing-friendly media have accused foreign countries of covert meddling in the former British colony. China’s government has long been concerned that Western intelligence agencies might try to exploit the city’s relatively more open political environment to push democracy in the rest of the country. The various “color revolutions” that ushered in democratic governments across the former Soviet Union in the early 2000s, and which were partly organized by foreign-funded NGOs, heightened those concerns.

Allegations of foreign intervention in Hong Kong have become particularly intense in the run-up to 2017, the earliest that Beijing has said Hong Kong residents can begin to directly elect their leaders. Wen Wei Po and another Beijing-leaning Hong Kong newspaper Ta Kung Pao, for example, have accused the U.K. of stationing British spies across Hong Kong institutions.

Pro-Beijing publications have also accused Hong Kong media mogul and staunch Beijing critic Jimmy Lai of having connections with the CIA. Mr. Lai is the founder of Next Media Ltd., which owns the Apple Daily newspapers in Taiwan and Hong Kong, and is a major donor to pro-democracy groups in Hong Kong.

In its report on Mr. Wang, Wen Wei Po said that the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency is making a pointed effort to infiltrate Hong Kong schools, for example through the Hong Kong-America Center, a group headed by former U.S. diplomat Morton Holbrook that promotes H.K.-U.S. ties. It also alleged that the CIA is actively training a new generation of protest leaders in Hong Kong through sponsoring students to study in the U.S., with an aim of stoking future “color revolutions” in the city.
The U.S. has certainly promoted regime change worldwide, often by using non-governmental organizations as front groups to funnel money to dissidents who will overthrow the government.
For example, USAID has been called the “new CIA”, and FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds told Washington’s Blog that the U.S. State Department is involved in many “hard power” operations, often coordinating through well-known “Non-Governmental Organizations” (NGOs).    Specifically, Edmonds explained that numerous well-known NGOs – which claim to focus on development, birth control, women’s rights, fighting oppression and other “magnificent sounding” purposes or seemingly benign issues – act as covers for State Department operations. She said that the State Department directly places operatives inside the NGOs.
Edmonds also told us that – during the late 90s and early 2000s – perhaps 30-40% of the people working for NGOs operated by George Soros were actually working for the U.S. State Department.
If this all sounds too nutty, remember that historians say that declining empires tend to attack their rising rivals … so the risk of world war is rising because the U.S. feels threatened by the rising empire of China.
The U.S. government considers economic rivalry to be a basis for war. And the U.S. is systematically using the military to contain China’s growing economic influence.
And U.S. sanctions against Russia are not having the desired effect … largely because China is picking up the slack by trading with Russia and even loaning it money.
Indeed, China, Russia, India and Brazil have formed what some top economists say is an alternative to the Western financial institutions, the World Bank and IMF. And China is challenging the petrodollar.
So it’s not beyond the realm of possibility that the U.S. (and the former owner of Hong Kong, Britain) egged on democracy protesters in Hong Kong in order to try to shake up the Chinese regime.
via Washingtonsblog
 

Most Americans Say US Gives Too Much Aid to Israel by Grant Smith



Surveys are more accurate with the inclusion of key facts

by Grant Smith, September 30, 2014 

Most Americans believe the United States is giving too much foreign aid to Israel according to an online survey. The American Public Opinion on U.S. Aid to Israel (PDF) survey was fielded via Google Consumer Surveys between September 26-29, 2014 as a necessary follow-up to the release of the influential Chicago Council on Global Affairs 2014 report. Middle East analysts eagerly await the biennial Chicago Council survey results and its frank reflections of American views about foreign policy toward the region. Many are surprised by Chicago Council’s conclusions that 64 percent of Americans prefer not to take sides in the Israel-Palestine conflict and that 55 percent would oppose sending U.S. troops to protect Israel if it struck Iran.

However, this year the Chicago Council also concludes that the majority of Americans would keep economic and military aid to Israel, Mexico, Taiwan, Afghanistan Iraq, Egypt and Pakistan “about the same.” Only a small percentage would increase aid, while most of the rest would prefer to decrease or stop aid altogether. One problem identified by the Chicago Council is that most Americans believe such aid to most countries is far more than it actually is. A second issue is that “this question was asked before August violence between Israel and Palestinians…” Despite these factors, the Council confidently concludes “Americans tend to support maintaining or increasing military aid to Israel, Taiwan and Mexico. In a pattern similar to preferences for economic aid, the public tends to favor decreasing or stopping military aid to Egypt, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq.”

The Chicago Council survey suffers a fatal third flaw in its approach to the foreign aid question – lack of relevant comparative data given to respondents. The 2014 U.S. foreign aid budget (PDF) for Mexico is $206 million; Afghanistan is $749 million while Pakistan is $881 million with Iraq getting $73 million. Meanwhile Egypt and Israel receive lion’s shares with $1.6 billion to Egypt and a whopping $3.1 billion for Israel. 

Furthermore, aid to Israel has increased on average 30 percent annually since 1970. Israel now receives 9 percent of the entire U.S. foreign aid budget while benefiting from Egypt’s 5 percent share which is justified as maintaining the 1979 Egypt-Israel peace agreement. In Israel’s case, the figure understates actual aid levels since Congress is regularly tapped by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and its donor network for additional military aid and joint program funding. Official figures also omit the value of intelligence sharing, such as the massive flows of raw intelligence on Americans approved by President Obama in 2009 and revealed by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden.

How do Americans really feel about aid to Israel when it is put in perspective? To find out, IRmep surveyed the same statistically significant number of American adults as the Chicago Council (around 2,108). Obviously, the IRmep Google Consumer Survey was fielded after the brutal Israeli invasion of Gaza – a significant difference. The survey question, however, included the necessary context that the Chicago Council left out, asking, “The U.S. gives Israel over $3 billion annually (9% of the foreign aid budget and more than any other country). The amount is.” Respondents could choose between “much too much, too much, about right, too little, and much too little.” The order of choices were randomly reversed to avoid bias.

Almost 61 percent of Americans say the U.S. is giving too much aid to Israel. 33.9 percent said the U.S. gives “much too much” while 26.8 percent said it is “too much.” Some 25.9 percent felt aid to Israel was “about right” but only 6.1 percent said it was “too little” and 7.3 percent is “much too little.”

That such an overwhelming majority of Americans believe the U.S. is giving too much aid to Israel may surprise many who are accustomed to seeing polls and surveys (including Chicago’s) incorrectly claiming overwhelming U.S. support for Israel. It should not be this way. The fault lies in flawed questions and lack of relevant context. Comparing American opinion between Israel, Hamas and Iran is about as useful as comparing U.S. aid to Mexico and Israel, though the former may comfort Israel affinity groups (which do a lot of their own proprietary polling) and congress members. Many important questions about Israel are never asked in U.S. surveys. Where results would likely produce a bad outcome, entire categories of polls – such as the World Values Survey in Israel – are almost never fielded.

Chicago Council also confidently notes that Americans uniformly despise Iran, citing the 1979 hostage crisis and Iran’s nuclear program as the core reasons. According to the Chicago Council survey analysis, “They are also prepared to use force if necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.” Chicago claims that the third highest perceived threat to U.S. vital interests is “the possibility of unfriendly countries becoming nuclear powers” followed by the even more specific number four, “Iran’s nuclear program.”

Before making such broad claims it would again be useful to insert the type of control questions that would not only improve survey quality (which Chicago Council does at a basic level) but also ascertain whether respondents have been subjected to a propaganda or scare campaign that explains their most elevated but unfounded worries. In the case of Iran, the Israel lobby has been relentless in its campaign to pit Americans against Iran – and it has really paid off. 

Although no credible Western intelligence agency believes Iran currently has nuclear weapons – a majority – 58.5 percent of Americans now do according to IRmep’s Google Consumer Survey.

Most polls dealing with Middle East policy would produce better results by giving American respondents some key facts and relevant data before asking hard questions. What many such polls most reveal is the sorry state of American news reporting and stunning success of Israel lobby propaganda campaigns.

Read more by Grant Smith
via Anti-War

Confused History-Fascism and Secession


As Mr. Benson underscores below, it’s the Quantity of government that the people will tolerate which determines individual liberties. The amount of freedom is bound by the people in a Form of government. Let’s not put our cart before our mule.

In essence, the message sent out by the southern states secession was to establish the same form of government, but separate from the usurpers of their liberties.

From all American historical perspectives Americans were happy under their Constitution. Thus, it will be determined by the people the method used to return to it. 

Posted on September 30, 2014
by Al Benson Jr.

The other night I ran across some sort of forum on the Internet, and one of the contributors to it asked the question: What if? Abraham Lincoln goes Fascist instead of socialist. At this point, I can’t recall what the entire forum was all about and I only printed off the one page that had that comment on it. The person who asked the question seemed willing to acknowledge that Mr. Lincoln could fall into the socialist camp, which is more than many are willing to do. 

But they also considered the possibility that he might end up in the Fascist camp. This might seem an interesting argument to some folks, and I don’t doubt the sincerity of those debating this possibility, but I do have a problem with their conclusions, in that, from my understanding of the political spectrum Fascism is not a rightist, but rather a leftist position–therefore it belongs over there on the left next to socialism and communism.

Fascism, like communism and/or socialism, is a system of collectivism and government control, thus it belongs on the left side of the political spectrum, not on the right. If you are going to view the entire political spectrum from left to right, then you need to place all political systems with total government on the left, and on the right are systems with no government–anarchy–where everyone does that which is right in his own eyes, and that, in a sense, is almost as bad as the leftist position, due to the fact that man is a sinner and, if left to his own devices, he will trample the rights of others for his own personal benefit. And so there needs to be some government, but again, because man is a sinner, the amount of government needs to be limited and defined as to exactly what government can and should do (protection of life and property) and what it is not permitted to do.

So, in a sense, wondering if Lincoln would have ended up as a socialist or a Fascist is almost like saying “Would Lincoln have ended up in socialist party A or socialist party B?” Many forget that the term Nazi stood for “National Socialist.” The main difference between fascists and socialists or communists was that the Fascists were more concerned (at least theoretically) with practicing their total control in a nationalist venue, whereas the communist/socialist had bigger plans and he wanted (and still wants) to do it all on an international scale. Had Lincoln chosen Fascism he would still have been a socialist, just a little different kind than those friends of his that Donnie Kennedy and I wrote about in our book Lincoln’s Marxists.

The same night, I also came across an informative article by Tom DiLorenzo, originally published on LewRockwell.com back in July of 2013. For those who may not know, Tom DiLorenzo is an economics professor at Loyola College in Maryland and is the author of several books, among which are The Real Lincoln and Lincoln Unmasked. 

In this article Professor DiLorenzo made several comments pertaining to the Declaration of Independence. He stated: “The first several generations of Americans understood that the Declaration of Independence was the ultimate states’ rights document. The citizens of the states would delegate certain powers to a central government in their Constitution and these powers (mostly for national defense and foreign policy purposes) would hopefully be exercised for the benefit of the citizens of the ‘free and independent’ states, as they are called in the Declaration…If the day ever came that the national government became the sole arbiter of the limits of its own powers, then Americans would live under a tyranny as bad or worse than the one the colonists fought a revolution against.” 

Folks, I hate to have to say it, but that day has arrived, if only we will take our heads out of the sand and confront the sad fact. Ahhh, but it’s so much easier to just watch the Reality shows and tune all that nasty stuff out. And the Christians will agree and say “Well, we don’t need to worry about all that. The Lord will return anytime now (momentarily if not sooner) and rapture us all out of this mess so we don’t have to deal with it. We don’t have to get involved. After all, politics is a dirty business anyway.” The fact that it might be a little less dirty if Christians had stayed involved instead of tucking tail and running, is a concept that totally eludes them. But I’m getting carried away here with one of my main concerns–Christian couch potatoes.

Professor DiLorenzo continued: “This was the fundamental understanding of the Declaration of Independence–that it was a Declaration of Secession from the British Empire-…” We seem to have lost that concept today. People don’t even want to think about it. I’ve been taken to task for even saying it in some quarters.
Interestingly enough, Professor DiLorenzo quotes the Kenosha, Wisconsin Democrat
 

for January 11, 1861, where it said: “The founders of our government were constant secessionists. They not only claimed the right for themselves, but conceded it to others. They were not only secessionists in theory, but in practice.” Such an editorial would never make it into a newspaper today–it would be considered “politically incorrect” and the vast majority of newspapers in our day strictly adhere to political correctness (Cultural Marxism).

Also quoted by Professor DiLorenzo was an editorial from the Washington, D.C. States and Union newspaper for March 21, 1861, which said: “The people are the ruling judges, the States independent sovereigns. Where the people chose to change their political condition, as our own Declaration of Independence first promulgated, they have a right to do so. If the doctrine was good then, it is good now. Call that by whatever name you please, secession or revolution, it makes no sort of difference.”

And then DiLorenzo carefully noted: “This last sentence was in response to the Republican Party propaganda machine of the day that invented the theory that the Declaration allows for a ‘right of revoluton’ but not a right of ‘secession.’ The States and Union recognized immediately that this non-distinction was nothing more than a rhetorical flimflam designed to deceive the public about the meaning of their own Declaration of Independence. It is a piece of lying propaganda that is repeated to this day by apologists for the American welfare/’warfare’police state, especially the Lincoln-worshipping neocons at National Revue, the Claremont Institute, and other appendages of the Republican Party.”

That’s a pretty telling analysis of something that has been used since the days of “Father Abraham” right up to and including our day, when we are informed that we have a “right to revolution” but no right to secession. I’m sorry, but I have to consider that rationale to be a pile of high-grade cow chips.
Source revisedhistory

Monday, September 29, 2014

Smoking Gun Evidence That The New York Fed Serves The Interests Of Goldman Sachs

Goldman Sachs And The New York Fed - Public DomainFor years, many people have suspected that the New York Fed is more or less controlled by the "too big to fail" banks.  

way.  As a recent Bloomberg article explained, it has become "common practice" for regulators to leave "their government jobs for much higher paying jobs at the very banks they were once meant to regulate."  If you think that there is going to be a cushy, high paying banking job for you at the end of the rainbow, you are unlikely to do anything that will mess that up.Well, now we have smoking gun evidence that this is indeed the case.  A very brave lawyer named Carmen Segarra made a series of audio recordings while she was working for the New York Fed.  The 46 hours of meetings and conversations that she recorded are being called "the Ray Rice video for the financial sector" because of the explosive content that they contain.  What these recordings reveal are regulators that are deeply afraid to do anything that may harm or embarrass Goldman Sachs.  And it is quite understandable why Segarra's colleagues at the New York Fed would feel this
To say that the culture at the New York Fed is "deferential" to big banks such as Goldman Sachs would be a massive understatement.

When Carmen Segarra was first embedded at Goldman Sachs, she was absolutely horrified by what she was seeing and hearing.  But her superiors were so obsessed with covering up for Goldman that they actually pressured her to alter the notes that she took during meetings...

The job right from the start seems to have been different from what she had imagined: In meetings, Fed employees would defer to the Goldman people; if one of the Goldman people said something revealing or even alarming, the other Fed employees in the meeting would either ignore or downplay it. For instance, in one meeting a Goldman employee expressed the view that "once clients are wealthy enough certain consumer laws don't apply to them." After that meeting, Segarra turned to a fellow Fed regulator and said how surprised she was by that statement -- to which the regulator replied, "You didn't hear that."
This sort of thing occurred often enough -- Fed regulators denying what had been said in meetings, Fed managers asking her to alter minutes of meetings after the fact -- that Segarra decided she needed to record what actually had been said.
Needless to say, someone like Segarra that did not "go along with the program" was not going to last long at the New York Fed.
 
After only seven months, she was fired...

In 2012, Goldman was rebuked by a Delaware judge for its behaviour during a corporate acquisition. Goldman had advised one energy company, El Paso Corp., as it sold itself to another energy company, Kinder Morgan, in which Goldman actually owned a $4-billion stake. Segarrra asked questions and was told by a Goldman executive that the bank did not have a conflict of interest policy. The Fed found some divisions of the bank did have a policy, though not a comprehensive one. The Fed pressured Segarra not to mention the inadequate conflict of interest policy at Goldman in her reports and, she alleges, fired her after she refused to recant.
If Segarra had not made the recordings that she did, we would have probably never heard much from her ever again.
After all, who is going to believe her over Goldman Sachs and the New York Fed?  A minority would, of course, but the general public would have probably dismissed her accusations as the bitter ramblings of an ex-employee.
 
But she did make those recordings, and they are causing chaos on Wall Street right now.
 
The following is how Michael Lewis summarized the importance of this audio...

But once you have listened to it -- as when you were faced with the newly unignorable truth of what actually happened to that NFL running back's fiancee in that elevator -- consider the following:

1. You sort of knew that the regulators were more or less controlled by the banks. Now you know.

2. The only reason you know is that one woman, Carmen Segarra, has been brave enough to fight the system. She has paid a great price to inform us all of the obvious. She has lost her job, undermined her career, and will no doubt also endure a lifetime of lawsuits and slander.
The New York Fed says that it "categorically rejects" all of the allegations made by Carmen Segarra.
 
Of course they do.
 
But what is there to deny?  The evidence is right there in the audio recordings.
 
The New York Fed has been caught red-handed serving the interests of Goldman Sachs, and no number of strongly-worded denials is going to change that.
 
Sadly, this is not likely to change any time soon.  Employees of the New York Fed are going to continue to want to get hired by the big banks, and the big banks are going to continue to hire them.  So the incestuous relationship between the New York Fed and Goldman Sachs is probably not going to change in any meaningful way despite this bad publicity.
 
What this means is that Goldman Sachs is going to continue to do pretty much whatever it wants to do, and nobody is going to stop them.
 
But someone should be doing something.
 
As I wrote about the other day, Goldman Sachs has less than a trillion dollars in total assets, but it has more than 54 trillion dollars in exposure to derivatives.
 
When the derivatives crisis strikes, some of these "too big to fail" banks are going to go down very hard.
Goldman might be one of them.
 
And when Wall Street starts collapsing, it is going to plunge the entire U.S. economy into a complete and utter nightmare.
Much of this could have been avoided if we had good rules in place and we had regulators that were honestly trying to enforce those good rules.
 
But instead, the wolves are guarding the hen house and the big banks are going absolutely wild.
 
Ultimately, this is all going to end very, very badly.

Source Economic Collapse