Showing posts with label Washington-DC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Washington-DC. Show all posts

Thursday, June 19, 2014

Another Meaningless Gesture: House Has Enough Votes to Impeach Obama…AND?

Critical thinkers and those people who don’t get the majority of their news from the mainstream media are well aware by now that Obama’s actions up to this point in America’s history have been worthy of impeachment for years now.
Yet he continues to completely ignore the US Constitution. Of course, Washington D.C. is an independent State. And he continues to do so right in Congress’ collective face — as if even the ones who will openly admit Obama’s actions are in contempt of this country are all hostages in some backwoods basement somewhere tied to chairs without the ability to do anything about it but watch in horror as each new day passes.
The most recent Congressperson to come forward is Representative Lou Barletta (R-Pa.), who recently announced on News Radio 910 WSBA that there are likely enough votes in the House to impeach Obama according to The Washington Post:
“We have a president that’s taken this to a new level. And it’s put us in a real position where he’s just absolutely ignoring the Constitution and ignoring the laws and ignoring the checks and balances. You know, the problem is, you know, what do you do for those that say impeach him for breaking the laws or bypassing the laws? You know, could that pass in the House? It probably could,” Barletta said on the Gary Sutton radio show. “Is the majority of the American people in favor of impeaching the president? I’m not sure.”
Buzzfeed posted audio of the exchange online Monday. Just before Barletta’s remark, Sutton was talking about immigration.
This sort of thing has been popping up like clockwork every few months for years now as well. While headlines about Obama’s impeachment sound just swell — after all, anyone paying the attention who knows even a little bit about the Constitution could easily rattle off multiple instances that have made Obama worthy of impeachment proceedings at this point — the truth is, there will be no impeachment.
Not even when The Washington Post also tells you that if the Democrats lose the Senate, Obama will be impeached.
That’s right. No impeachment. No one is going to impeach Obama. Not today. Not tomorrow. Not ever.
You heard me. It’s just not going to happen.
The system of checks and balances — an integral part of the Constitution of the United States of America (not the Constitution for the United States of America) that allows each of the three branches of government (The US Corporations, the Empire) to limit the powers of the others (thus keeping them “in check”) — can no longer possibly be applied in Obama’s case, and thus, it simply no longer exists in this country. Obama is not the President of the Sovereign United States of America, Obama is the President of the UNITED CORPORATION of America, big difference. 
Worse, Obama knows it. (Obviously.)
How can I so easily say that? Trust me, it isn’t easy, but it is the truth.
Communities Digital News sums up this sad day in American history very well:
President Obama will not be impeached.
Is President Obama a failed leader? Absolutely.
Is he lazy? Of course.
Is he corrupt? Brazenly.
Is he a bully who abuses his power? Most definitely.
Has he lied about everything from the effects of his signature policies to scandals more serious than those of Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon combined? With zero doubt.
Should he be impeached?
Absolutely not.
For those screaming about impeachment, ask a simple question.
What prosecutor in their right mind brings a proceeding against a defendant when the chance of acquittal is 100% and the chance of conviction is zero percent?
Try convicting President Obama. It requires 67 Senate votes. Republicans hold 45 Senate seats. Even a wave 2014 election will get the GOP between 50 and 55 seats, not 67. Even if every Republican stood on principle (which they did not during the Clinton impeachment trial of 1998), try finding 12 Senate Democrats willing to put their country above their party and racial politics.)[emphasis added]
And there you have it.
Even if every Republican Senator we have stood on principle (because, as we all know, if there’s anything all of our Senators are just bursting at the seams with, it’s principles), we would still need 12 Democrats willing to do it, too.
…Yeah. Good luck with that.
Go ahead and look out your window. Do you see any pigs flying out there? Has Hell frozen over yet? Because it would take at least that much for anyone keeping score to even waste their time getting their hopes up that Obama will be ousted from the Oval Office.
In essence, President Obama can continue to sign executive orders until he gets a hand cramp, feign ignorance scandal after scandal, arm terrorists in other nations while actively campaigning to disarm American citizens at home, continue to “inform” Congress about his decisions to free Taliban terrorists from Guantanamo Bay after the fact and then “inform” Congress when he decides to send more troops to Iraq, continue to hand over more and more power to the international community (thus setting the precedent for all future presidents), all while he continues to use the Constitution as toilet paper, and in the meantime our borders can just get overrun with illegal immigrants with the ultimate goal of overwhelming the system…and our president will just faithfully continue his duties as puppet for the shareholders of The United States of America, Inc., business as usual.
Because you can be sure, no matter what President Obama does at this point, no matter what new unconstitutional horror he unleashes upon America’s tomorrow, it can not and will not possibly effect him either way.
It’s official. The system is completely broken. President Obama is above the law.
Melissa Melton is a writer, researcher, and analyst for The Daily Sheeple and a co-creator of Truthstream Media. Wake the flock up!

Monday, June 16, 2014

Meet The “Minerva Research Initiative” – The Pentagon’s Preparation For “Mass Civil Breakdown”

riot-control-training
(Pictured: U.S. Soldiers, with Bravo Company, 1st Combined Arms Battalion, 194th Armored Regiment, 34th Infantry Divison, Minnesota Army National Guard, train in crowd riot control at Fort McCoy. Image Credit U.S. Military)

About a month ago we showed photos of the Chinese police engaged in a drill designed to crush a “working class insurrection”, in which the police did precisely what would be required to end a middle class rebellion. It made us wonder: what does China know that the US doesn’t. As it turns out, nothing.
Because long before China was practicing counter-riot ops using rubber bullets, all the way back in 2008 the US Department of Defense was conducting studies on the dynamics of civil unrest, and how the US military might best respond. The name of the project: “Minerva Research Initiative” and its role is to ” “improve DoD’s basic understanding of the social, cultural, behavioral and political forces that shape regions of the world of strategic importance to the U.S.”
The Guardian which first revealed the details, reports that, “The multi-million dollar programme is designed to develop immediate and long-term “warfighter-relevant insights” for senior officials and decision makers in “the defense policy community,” and to inform policy implemented by “combatant commands.”
The premise behind Minerva is simple: study how violent political overthrow, aka mass civil breakdown, happens in the day and age of social networks, and be prepared to counteract it – by “targeting peaceful activities and protest movements” – when it finally reaches US shores.
Among the projects awarded for the period 2014-2017 is a Cornell University-led study managed by the US Air Force Office of Scientific Research which aims to develop an empirical model “of the dynamics of social movement mobilisation and contagions.” The project will determine “the critical mass (tipping point)” of social contagions by studying their “digital traces” in the cases of “the 2011 Egyptian revolution, the 2011 Russian Duma elections, the 2012 Nigerian fuel subsidy crisis and the 2013 Gazi park protests in Turkey.”
Twitter posts and conversations will be examined “to identify individuals mobilised in a social contagion and when they become mobilised.”
Another project awarded this year to the University of Washington “seeks to uncover the conditions under which political movements aimed at large-scale political and economic change originate,” along with their “characteristics and consequences.” The project, managed by the US Army Research Office, focuses on “large-scale movements involving more than 1,000 participants in enduring activity,” and will cover 58 countries in total.
Minerva is well funded: From the outset, the Minerva programme was slated to provide over $75 million over five years for social and behavioural science research. This year alone it has been allocated a total budget of $17.8 million by US Congress.
Among the purely “theoretical” recent studies Minerva is funding is a University of Maryland project in collaboration with the US Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory to gauge the risk of civil unrest due to climate change. The three-year $1.9 million project is developing models to anticipate what could happen to societies under a range of potential climate change scenarios.
But what is most disturbing is that since the pretext for Minerva is simply to conduct theoretical social science experiments, there should be zero practical uses of the knowledge gleaned. Well, no.
Although Office of Naval Research supervisor Dr Harold Hawkins had assured the university researchers at the outset that the project was merely “a basic research effort, so we shouldn’t be concerned about doing applied stuff”, the meeting in fact showed that DoD is looking to “feed results” into “applications,” Corman said in the email. He advised his researchers to “think about shaping results, reports, etc., so they [DoD] can clearly see their application for tools that can be taken to the field.”
Many independent scholars are critical of what they see as the US government’s efforts to militarise social science in the service of war. In May 2008, the American Anthropological Association (AAA) wrote to the US government noting that the Pentagon lacks “the kind of infrastructure for evaluating anthropological [and other social science] research” in a way that involves “rigorous, balanced and objective peer review”, calling for such research to be managed instead by civilian agencies like the National Science Foundation (NSF).
And tying it all together, is – who else – the NSA.
One war-game, said Price, involved environmental activists protesting pollution from a coal-fired plant near Missouri, some of whom were members of the well-known environmental NGO Sierra Club. Participants were tasked to “identify those who were ‘problem-solvers’ and those who were ‘problem-causers,’ and the rest of the population whom would be the target of the information operations to move their Center of Gravity toward that set of viewpoints and values which was the ‘desired end-state’ of the military’s strategy.”
Such war-games are consistent with a raft of Pentagon planning documents which suggest that National Security Agency (NSA) mass surveillance is partially motivated to prepare for the destabilising impact of coming environmental, energy and economic shocks.
As the Guardian’s Nafeez Ahmed concludes, “Minerva is a prime example of the deeply narrow-minded and self-defeating nature of military ideology. Worse still, the unwillingness of DoD officials to answer the most basic questions is symptomatic of a simple fact – in their unswerving mission to defend an increasingly unpopular global system serving the interests of a tiny minority, security agencies have no qualms about painting the rest of us as potential terrorists.”
We wonder: why is that surprising – by the time the “mass civil breakdown” is set to take place (and grand central-planning experiments by the Fed and its peers will merely accelerate said T-zero Day), virtually everyone who poses even the tiniest threat to the collapsing regime will be branded a terrorist.
Since as we reported previously, yet another current version of what previously was merely science fiction, namely the arrival of pre-crime, or where a big data NSA “pre-cog” computer will determine who is a future terrorist threat merely based on behavioral signals, is just around the corner too, it is simply a matter of time before men in gray suits or better yet – drones – quietly arrest any and all potentially threatening social network “nodes” of future terrorist behavior on the simple grounds that their mere presence threatens the status quo with an even faster collapse.
And now, just ignore all of the above, and keep buying stocks, because all is well: these most certainly aren’t the Droids you are looking for.
- See more at: http://www.thedailysheeple.com/meet-the-minerva-research-initiative-the-pentagons-preparation-for-mass-civil-breakdown_062014#sthash.U8fjzVpF.dpuf

Sandy Hook Redux: ‘Obama officials confirm that it was a drill and no children died’



By Jim Fetzer (with Sofia Smallstorm and Paul Preston)
“I have a lot of sources in regards to as to what’s going on with the president and the administration and so on, and every one of my sources said it was a false flag”--Paul Preston
Sofia Smallstorm, who produced and directed the documentary, “Unraveling Sandy Hook”, which many regard as the best video study of the Sandy Hook event, recently interviewed a Los Angeles school expert, Paul Preston, about Sandy Hook and his knowledge of what had transpired.
Governor Malloy had held a press conference that day, explaining that he and the Lt. Governor had been “spoken to” that something like this might happen, which raised the question, what “something like this”? Did he mean he had been told a school shooting massacre would take place? or a drill that would be presented as a real event?
Remarkably, we now have confirmation from an unexpected source. Paul Preston had obtained information from officials in the U.S. Department of Education of the Barack Obama administration, who confirmed to him on the basis of their own personal knowledge that:
(1) it had been a drill;
(2) no children had been killed; and,
(3) it had been done to promote an anti-gun agenda.
Given his background of 41 years in the California public school system (from custodian to district superintendent) and having served as a teacher, coach, vice-principal and principal before retiring in 2012 as the superintendent of two charter schools, I thought what he had to say about Sandy Hook deserved widespread dissemination.
So when did a two-hour show on Revolution Radio, “False Flags (9/11, Sandy Hook and the Boston bombing)” on 30 May 2014, as the third segment, I included the second 30-minutes of Sofia’s interview with Paul Preston, which is archived on “The Real Deal” and can be heard here.
Because Preston is also highly trained in school safety issues and had himself organized drills of many kinds, including active-shooter drills, what he has to say is especially telling. He has a website of his own at www.Agenda21Radio.com, which he created to alert listeners to the perils of Agenda 21.

Transcript of 30-minute clip of Sofia Smallstorm interviewing Paul Preston
Transcription by Jeannon
S  =  Sofia Smallstrom
P = Paul Preston
S – Welcome back everyone to the Speed of Light on the Pure Momentum Network. This is Sofia Smallstorm and we’re listening to a very interesting discussion – Paul Preston, school principal, school safety consultant, teacher, coach, and superintendent. He has been in the California system for 41 years.  He is now retired.
So Paul, let’s continue. Can we get a little bit into Sandy Hook now and what set off your antenna about it?
P – Well, you know I’ve been involved in many many situations at schools that have been, you know, emergency type situations and was involved even to some degree with the Columbine situation in that we had an individual who as trying to blow up the school, our school, at the time. In a similar fashion to what was a predicted bomb threat that occurred at Columbine thee days before the Columbine shooting, and that’s how we kind of got in touch with the Columbine people. They got in touch with us because it turned out to be a similar neo-Nazi group that was related to the Trench Coat Mafia, of all people.
And so learning and watching ad seeing all these incidences play out, all these school shootings, I took an enormous interest in because we were doing a study trying to determine because the neo-Nazis we had been working with in our school along the same time of the Columbine incident were telling us that there was going to be some big event take place. And so our staff, myself, we all wanted to sit down and figure where this was all going to and we studied a lot of the Nazi websites and so on, and we figured out that yes, something big was going to happen.
Well then Columbine happened. So we watched with a lot of intensity and under with my own circumstances and also with watching the videos and replays of the other active shooter situations, I became sort of a specialist in that and applied it to my own active-shooter training that I was doing and conducting with my own people.
S – Right. And now can we get in to Sandy Hook?
P – Well yes. Of all the hundreds of hours that I spent watching these scenarios and investigating and reporting on them on my radio show, the first thing I noticed when I heard about Sandy Hook when I turned on the TV like everybody else …now I have always told everybody when you’re seeing these things play out in real time, the best news reporting is what’s happening in real time – that day of, you know, the moments that are around the incident. But document for yourself what’s going on because you’ll never see it again.
And the first thing that caught my eye as I was watching everything play out was the lack of intensity with which people were moving and that really disturbed me. It hit me within the first few minutes, watching the video, the helicopters flying around and so on. Things just didn’t seem to be right, like I would always understand in an incident command system. People weren’t rushing around.  People weren’t panicking.  They ran that one guy off into the woods and then they arrested him. They took him away and there was no connectedness to that.
I was also wondering why all the emergency equipment wasn’t around the school. And I didn’t see any students either and that really bothered me.
S – So, it was almost like too slow motion for a real event. Not enough panic. Not enough chaos. You had mentioned chaos earlier being a part of these real situations. And a lot of support people rushing around like press and police but not running fast enough, not running with intensity and alarm and panic and concern, I think.
P – None of that was there.
S – Yes.  So all right, and then what did you start thinking?
P – Well, just within the first 10 or 15 minutes, it just all looked too staged to me, and I know about staging these things since I’ve staged a number of them. And, like I said, then you stage something there’s a complete lack of intensity as you would have in a real scenario when there’s panic really taking hold of people and they’re really afraid and they’re screaming and yelling and so on.

But the one thing that really bothered me was where were the kids. You know they had how many hundreds of kids there at the school. I didn’t see them.
S – Right.
P – And there was lack of accounting for them.
And right away – and I’ll juxtaposition this with the situation that happened in Pennsylvania. You saw the kids right away. I know it’s a high school, but you know, you saw the kids right away and you saw their plan of evacuation of the school unfolding.
Now this is where it really falls apart with Sandy Hook for me.  saw…I saw no evidence of a real plan of student evacuation taking place. And that stuck to my head like crazy when I was in the moments watching this whole thing play out in real time.
S – That’s very interesting. No evidence of a real plan. Because only someone…I mean everybody had their own response to it. Some of us were already clued in from previous kinds of situations. All this has got to be not what they’re telling us it is. But you come from the industry, the business, and you felt that there is… I would say you knew … It probably was not even a feeling. It was like, you know, set in stone in your head. Where’s the plan?  I don’t see the plan playing itself out.  Right?
P – I saw same of your evacuation centers and I saw some of your colored tarps on the ground, the colored taps and so on, but even that pretty odd because normally if you have the tarps out there…in every active shooter situation you have ever see, there’s somebody on the tarp or there’s been some help that’s been given to somebody when somebody has been wounded, but none of that was even evident. And I don’t see anybody trying to rush to anybody’s help at all in a mass casualty situation.
See, when you don’t see that…I mean…I’ll go back to the example that I have before about the 13 who overdosed. We had people everywhere, and we had people everywhere until everybody was safe, which was 35, 40 minutes, almost an hour. And that was never happening there at Sandy Hook. You didn’t see the mass of people doing that.
S – Yes, it’s more like the press filled in for that missing element. The press sounded more concerned and panicked on TV as they reported but the actual participants were not so …And got, you know, long after the fact we got the supposed 911 calls, we got various people giving their versions of it on television as they got interviewed. But we didn’t see it on the ground. And so how long did you watch it for? Over a period of days, weeks? And what were your thoughts?

P – You know, I make it a study. I study these things intensely, and what really, what really put me over the top was the next morning with Robbie Parker going out there, and I saw that clip as it happened. And I said there’s something really wrong here.
And that’s when I started thinking about the …the actors. You can actually rent these actors out. In fact that put these things up for training all the time.
And I just said ‘this is not…first of all, his demeanor was terrible. I would never go out…and I know sometimes this happens but…to send a parent out to talk to the press in that fashion about the daughter that he just lost. None of that seemed to be appropriate.  None of it seemed to fit. And his behavior with the smiling laughing thing and getting into character that you could see. I said ‘ hmmm, I’m not buying this. I’m just not buying it.’
S – Yes, I know. Very few other people did.  So, did you contact anyone? Did you speak to anyone? I don’t mean officially but in your own network of friends.
P – Yes.
S – And what were their thoughts.
P – Almost everybody was unanimous that it was a false flag.
S – And when did you start looking it up on the Internet because I think people started posting immediately. You know, they were making YouTubes. The community began to express online. So when did you start looking into all of that?
P – We–a side note to this is that I have a lot of sources in and around and in that area. I have a lot of sources in regards to as to what’s going on with the president and the administration and so on, and every one of my sources said it was a false flag.
S – Now these are quasi-official… what kind of sources are these?
P – Let me say that there are the sources that are very close to this administration who knows what’s going on.
S – Really. So they are really like almost insiders then?
P – Oh yes.
S – And they all….they say it was a false flag because they figured it out like you did, or they had actually factual knowledge of such..
P – They had factual knowledge of such. That’s part of the plan.
S – I see. And so how much were they willing to tell you, and what else were they willing to tell you? Anything?
P – Oh, they told me quite a bit, and some of it I can’t reveal to you, but it fits the narrative of the anti-gun movement and the disarmament of America and that’s what the focus was.
S – And you realized that that’s part of the broader picture? That’s the Agenda 21 society?
P – Absolutely.
S – So do you want to tell us a little but about that or do you want to stick with the Sandy Hook material? I’ll let you decide.
P – Well, let’s go ahead with the Sandy Hook material and then we can jump into that.
S – OK, so we’re past Robbie Parker now, and what about the funerals? You must have known then that …Did you have any concept about victims or no victims, et cetera?
P – Well, that whole thing was pretty shaky. What was really starting to filter in in the system and was just confirming what I was already being told about these charity sites that had been developed. By the way, they were put up the day before the shooting. And I had gotten some screen shots, and I had confirmed with my sources. Some of them were thinking that it was a very sloppy operation actually.
But there were reassurances to me that there really were no victims and that everything’s being staged.

And of course the funerals to me…you go and look at the whole funeral process. It looked like they were all staged, from the Robbie Parker one in Utah, or the Sarah Parker one with the Parker family.
And then I started getting information from people that actually had attended that funeral who lived in Utah and said that was something very funny about it.
S – Now I would like to ask you whether your sense is that these are real families even, or are they patched together?
P – Well, you know, that’s a good question because, you know, the thing that rolls around in my head, you know, the actors type of thing, you know. You know because you can put families together and these acting programs will do that under certain training scenarios.  And so, it’s a good question. It really is a fair question to ask whether or not they were real families.
S – And then of course because they continue to speak and organize and be called upon to comment, they have to be formed into these family groupings over time. And remain grouped like that whether they are truly married or not.
You know, here’s one thing that I noticed. When you see a couple, if they seem really like an odd couple, then that kind of strikes you as weird.  And I saw that. I saw a very odd coupled-ness with lots of these Sandy Hook families. It seemed to me, why would this person marry this person and live with them?  They’re so totally different. That happens sometimes but in this content it really jumped out at me…myself anyway. I didn’t know if you noticed that…
P – It’ different to say, you know, when you saw them together whether they are natural families or not. That’s…I’m suspicious of that. And like I say, I’m suspicious because I know that you can put these families together, you know, with some of these acting companies out there. And that just kind of blends in with what I was already being suspicious about.
And so, there’s a lot of things that would go into the details of examining this. And I’ve see a lot of the pictures and so on, and some of the pictures don’t match up, especially the one of the Parkers in the White House. And it looks like to me that’s Sarah Parker sitting there that’s, you know, supposed to be a victim.
S – There’s no Sarah Parker…
P – Which one is it…maybe it’s not the Parker…
S – Oh, you mean with Obama…
P – Yes, right.
S – Emily or Madeline …those are the two order sisters, and a lot of people felt that that was Emily Parker leaning on Obama.
P – Yes, that was Emily Parker…

S – Have you seen the Super Bowl video?
P – Yes, I have seen that.
S – Well, there is a girl who looks a lot like an older Emily Parker in that video. So if that was Emily at the White House, or actually  I think…I don’t know if it was at the White House…but with Obama, she couldn’t be six in one picture and then just a month or two later, twelve or thirteen.
P -  Right.
S – That’s where we have to make a decision.
But what did you think of all the photographs of the children? Did you notice anything – the portraits that we were shown that these were  the victims? Did you notice anything about those portraits?
P – No, other than some of the malformations of different parts of their bodies – seemed to be a pretty obvious thing.
The whole thing …when you take a look at the totality of this, in my opinion, it’s very sloppily done.
S – Why would it have been sloppily done though?
P – Well, you know, when …and again, it’s kind of like sometimes there’s order that comes out of chaos. And when you have these chaotic situations, people want to put things back together as best they possibly can to feel more comfortable or to recover from it. And I didn’t see any of that. I don’t know if that makes any sense to anybody.  People don’t want to have that chaos. They want to heal. They want to come back together. They want to solve a problem so that they can move forward.
And that’s part of what happens when you do these drills is that you take a day or so and you talk about what happened so that you can improve upon and make it better. People do that naturally even when there’s chaos and there’s an emergency situation because they want to seek normalcy again.
I didn’t see the same kind of emotions, if you will, or the same kind of communications between parents, kids, that you would normally see in these situations. It just didn’t look…it looked phony to me.
S – So you mean the community itself, they did not try to repair in the organic way…?
P – I would say that is true, from the parents to the kids, to the entire community.
S – What do you think of this privacy issue that has been bandied about by the authorities, that all the privacy needs to be respected, and you can’t reveal this or that…?
P – That to me just adds more fuel to the fire because that’s not what you do in the normal situation of an incident command system. You get the facts out because you know oftentimes when you get the facts out, you’re also looking for criminal behavior, and the more information that you can get out that that’s way, the better.
And I’m certainly not buying the notion that the parents weren’t allowed to see the kids.
S – The bodies, identifying the…
P – I just…that to me…that should be a red flag to anybody who has looked in to Sandy Hook. The parents weren’t allowed to do that. What’s up with that?

S – And what did you think of the coroner’s behavior at his press conference?
P – Well there’s many things about him. I just …I …first of all, I didn’t understand why all of a sudden there’s 26 bodies and then there’s no coroner or doctor who’s looked at the bodies and they’re declared dead. And then all of a sudden the coroner comes out and everybody says that there was an automatic gun or a handgun that was used, and the coroner, on his own, comes out and says ‘oh no, that was an AR15 that was used.’
So there’s a lot of confusion, you know, about that coroner, his report, his reporting out.  Nothing seems very clear and concise to me. And you know I would argue that, you know, as I looked at him and watched what was going on, he seemed to be just answering question on the fly without a lot of knowledge behind the questions.
S – And this suggested to you that this was a sloppily created event?
P – Absolutely.
S – And would you say that that was because of the portent of the whole thing that they…there were people involved in this…let’s say Dr. Carver, the coroner, who had some idea, if it was a scripted event, it was going to go big, and really big? So do you think that the sloppiness of it was because in being organized, it’s very difficult to juggle how people are going to perform given that they know how big this thing could get?
P – Well, you know, what happens is that you…if you’re going to do these things and carry it through with the lie, everybody’s got to be telling the same lie at the same time all the time.
And I think with my judgments about the parents and the kids, and seeing them lie, I was seeing a big lie being perpetrated right in front of me because nothing seemed to be consistent. And like you said, which I thought was interesting, is that oftentimes the media would fill in a lot of the blanks for you.
A classic example of the blanks comes up when you talk about where are the kids that are evacuating the school. There were helicopters that were circling overhead. They certainly would have been able to show, you know, hundreds of kids exiting the school.
Teacher leading students away from Sandy Hook
That was never shown. But you did see a picture out in a parking lot, which by the way if you take a long look at this picture of all these kids being led out, about 15 or 20 kids being led out by teachers and adults from this parking lot, if you take a look at the parking lot from the aerial views, you can see that there are different cars in the parking lot in that area. So obviously that was done during some sort of drill. That’s my opinion. And it didn’t match with what was going on at the time. So nothing is matching in real time for me.  That’s just another thing.
But where are the kids? Where were the kids? They weren’t present. They just weren’t there. So that’s the kind of stuff that wasn’t worked out and, you know, they were doing things on the fly. That’s why I say…I would say it was very amateur, very amateurish as to what was going on.
S – Which is surprising because in the powers that would have designed this thing – that it would be so amateur – but…
You are familiar with the character, Gene Rosen?
P – Gene Rosen – which one was …?

S – Gene Rosen was the man who was very close to the school and he took the kids in and offered them juice and cookies, and he gave many different…he recounted  his rescuing or fielding these kids differently in many interviews. So can you comment on that?
P – I can comment on this because this points to this proves my point that these kids …did they get off a bus? Where did they go? OK, I think that one of the stories was that the kids got off the bus and they made their way to his house, and there was all this panic or whatever was going on. OK, there’s something really wrong with that picture to begin with.
First of all, when you’re doing these scenarios and this school had to have been trained for this because FEMA requires these trainings, and if you’re getting safety monies from the federal government, which every school does, they have to follow the proper protocols and that’s the proper release of the students to their parents.
S – Right. He said, that children showed up on his lawn and they were with a bus driver, in one story. In another story, they were just there by themselves and they were repeating babbling that there teacher was dead. So what…would the protocol be that the children…the children, according to the story, left the school on their own.
P – Well, that to me, that’s very suspicious in and of itself.
S – Right, I mean the cops had not gotten there in the first five minutes. Apparently some of them could still hear shooting going on, and how did the kids get out and just run down the road, you know?
P – All that seems to be …and again, I want to go into the thing about the incident command system, evacuation, walk-outs and so on. None of that fits that protocol. None of it.
The story of Gene Rosen or any of that stuff — None of that fits. That to me is just more evidence that there were no students other than the actor students that were there.
S – Then what was the purpose of having the Gene Rosen player?
P – Diversion.
S – From what?
P – A diversion from the other realities going on and to add more hype about the story.  It’s the same thing about the guy that was chased through the woods. You know, they had a couple of guys that were chased through the woods. What were they all about?

And there were no answers about any of that, about where they came from and even my people couldn’t come up with an answer about that. Some of my people say it was very sloppily done.
S – These are your insider people, right?
P – Right.
S – Now did you see any of the videos of the people circling through the firehouse?
P – Yes.
S – And did that strike you …what did you think of that?
P – Well, I had already come to my conclusion that this was a drill, and again, being very suspicious of the Obama administration, Diane Feinstein, Second Amendment issues, using Agenda 21 in particular, I had not see that for quite some time afterwards, maybe a couple of weeks after.
We were engaged in our own things that we were doing in terms of investigations and stuff like that. We’re pretty intense about what we’re doing here on Agenda 21 Radio, and we have some very highly placed sources of information that comes to us and which we’re very grateful for.
I, for one reason or another, hadn’t seen that video maybe two or three weeks until after the incident.
There’s more evidence right there because what in the world were all those people doing there to begin with? You see, if you’re doing an incident command situation, there’s a place for those people and those people can be moved on rather than seeing that circus that was going on, which is what that was. That was all staged.
S – Right.  And these were far too many adults, no children whatsoever, no panic. And to me the people that were there-–they weren’t dressed for December. So some people have suggested that that particular drill, the circling in and out of the firehouse, took place a lot earlier, and it matches the time frame and the clothing of the children evacuated from the school. They did not have their coats.
And I was going to ask you, is it normal when there’s an emergency for the teacher to evacuate the children without letting them get their coats, or would they take the extra time and say ‘children go put your goats on as fast as you can.’ How does that work?
P – Well no. If there’s a signal to get them out of the building, and there’s always a signal of some sort to get them out of the building safely, they go directly out. Period. End of subject.
And if they can get their coat, that’s great, but the safety thing is to get them away from where there potentially is a threat and that would be the key thing. And again, you pointed to something else and I brought this up earlier about the drill that we used to run and people would always, you know, screw up the drill because they would knock on the door in an active shooter situation and the teacher would open the door.
Well, you know, how does that all play out? I was looking at things pretty much in real time within minutes of news being broadcast as it was happening from a helicopter. Now I am a real-time kind of guy. So I’m looking at maybe 15 minutes into the shooter, maybe 20 minutes into the shooter situation. I’m looking at clear video of the campus and so on.  I’m not seeing anything happening.
Where are the kids? The kids aren’t there.
S – Right.
P – And they should be released or what’s going on with them?
S – And there were some people said that they were in closets for up to four hours. That doesn’t make any sense either.
P – That does not many any sense to me because what happens, and again it goes back to the police, and back to Columbine, they will go in and check every nook and cranny. And quite frankly, I know how that’s done. We used to do that. We always used to look and check to see where people were.
S – Right. And you would not miss large adults hiding in small closets.
And the idea of Katelyn Boyd and some of these teachers bundling up all their kids into the bathroom and having a few sit on the toilet…I even heard the toilet roll holder, my God, that’s pretty tough to do even for a six year old. But what do you think of that?  That doesn’t make sense to me.

Sofia Smallstorm, “Unraveling Sandy Hook in 2, 3, 4 and 5 dimensions”
P – Well, you know, we tell people in an active shooter situation to seek…to hide or …if there is a shooter there to take the challenge. We used to do these things where we had these dummy books and we’d bring in an active shooter as the stage person and throw books at them, you know, because that really throws them off. You’re taught those kinds of little techniques to throw the active shooter off.
But I can imagine some people getting holed up in a closet or something like that if they haven’t been able to lock the door. And that’s one of the things we tell our people all of the time. Lock the door. And we made sure in all schools, and all schools should have the, the doors should have the inside key on them, you know, so you can use an inside key on them also as we could on the outside.
S – So we have a couple of minutes left at this first hour.  Do you have anything to say about Adam Lanza – fiction, non-fiction, real?
P – Well, just on the surface of it, and again I would throw out I’m highly specialized trained in drugs and alcohol recognition, obviously looks like he has some meds onboard just by the look. But you know if you couch that along the same lines that that this may be a fictional event, that he’s a fictional character, which fits his description of what I see there.
And of course if you’re doing a fictionalized event like this, you want to have the most crazed individual that you can have looking at you through the picture there, and that’s exactly what you have. That’s my speculation. I think that’s what they wanted. That’s what they did.
And he has a history and what is the history? We’re not real clear on the history. You know, first of all, they found out that he’s got his brother’s driver’s license. Then there’s some confusion. And you know it one of these kind of scenarios that just didn’t quite fit.
And as a school person that to me was one of the big pieces of evidence. Why does he have his brother’s license? And then they made contact his brother that I guess was in Jersey some place, wherever he was, and there was an investigation. That all seemed to be tracking with me as a distraction about what was really happening at the school.
See, the more they under this situation… this is just my speculation – the more they could distract from the actual Sandy Hook school site itself and stage things away from there, the more they could sell the story of Sandy Hook on the whole.
S – That’s a very very good point, Paul. Excellent. And we should add that the mug shot that they gave us of Adam Lanza was very painterly. It wasn’t even a photo, and it did have that, you know, ghoulish expression on it to make us think this is a real lunatic.
But we are now at the end of our first hour and I really really thank you, Paul Preston, for being with us. And we will take up a second hour discussion in the Members Section. So this is Sofia Smallstorm thanking everyone for listening to this first hour and please do come to PureMomemtum.net and join us for the second hour in the Members Section with Paul Preston, 41 years in the public schools and someone who has been through a lot of staging of drills and has a lot of drill understanding and experience.

Friday, March 21, 2014

Federal Reserve Bank (Inc.) A Murderous History. Banksters, the Worlds Worst Gangsters



May 1, 1776 Jesuit Professor Adam Weishaupt who was retained by Rothschild's completes world dominance plan for the Jesuits International.
  • 1776-1790: U.S. Independence - Free Banking -no formal central bank.
  • 1791-1811: First Bank of the United States, Jesuit controlled.
  • 1816-1836: Second Bank of the United States Jesuit controlled.
  • 1837-1862: Free Banking Era -no formal central bank.
  • 1862-1913: System of National Banks, Consequence of Lincoln's War,  Jesuit controlled.
  • 1914-current: A consortium of 12 privately held banks called the Federal Reserve Bank. The largest shareholders of the bank are the Jesuit Knights Rothschild's of London and Frankfurt, the Jesuits Treasure Guardian.
The accomplishments of the Rothschild's and fellow banksters is nothing short of astonishing.  They have literally got the world to hand them the right to manufacture money out of nothing and then to turn around and lend the mammon back to the world plus usurious interest!  Almost single handedly, this small group of men have dominated the world.  However, in their efforts to dominate the world they have caused extraordinary pain and agony and even potentially the complete destruction of life on earth.

The Federal Reserve Bank is a consortium of twelve private banks which are not part of the United States Government. These private banks purchase paper notes from the U.S. mint for printing cost or simply enter digital money into their computer then lend back the money plus interest to the people through member banks.  The profits go into the shareholders of the bank's pocket's, the U.S. public receives no benefit.

The Primary Owners of the Federal Reserve Bank Are:
1. Rothschild's of London and Berlin, the Jesuits Treasure Guandian
2. Lazard Brothers of Paris
3. Israel Moses Seaf of Italy
4. Kuhn, Loeb & Co. of Germany and New York
5. Warburg & Company of Hamburg, Germany
6. Lehman Brothers of New York
7. Goldman, Sachs of New York
8. Rockefeller Brothers of New York



All the primary owners are branches of European establishments.  Foreigners, almost entirely Jewish, control the United States Money supply.  They literally own exclusive rights to the dollar and simply enter dollars into their banks books to make money which they then lend back to us at a profit.  For them money does not grow on trees, it is simply a data entry into their account.  Clearly the private ownership of the U.S. Dollar is by far The Greatest Crime of the Century.  The owners of this bank have been responsible for instigating all the major wars and depressions in the last 100 years.  They own the bank, they own the dollar and they own all the major media channels, the military industrial complex and most politicians, judges and cops.


Video: Jesuit agent Edward Griffin blaming the bankers
Sometimes the bank pays an arbitrary 'franchise fee' to the U.S. government to keep the politicians paid off.
The first two private National Banking Systems lasted about 20 years before being eliminated.  The current Federal Reserve Bank private National Bank has lasted nearly 100 years.
In Producer Aaron Russo's must see Movie "AMERICA: Freedom to Fascism", when interviewing Congressman Ron Paul, Aaron asks: "So the Federal Reserve is actually an illegal entity functioning within the Federal Government?"  Ron Paul's response: "It's illegal.  And what we have given to this so-called agency is the authority to counterfeit money."
The cost of this system to the U.S. public is hundreds of billions of dollars every year while holding the nation and people in a constant state of debt slave.
There have been assassination attempts on every President who attempted to eliminate these private National Banks.   The privately held Federal Reserve Bank has not once been audited and never pays any income tax on their astonishing income.
The bank is supposed to bring stability to the economy, however, almost every major market crash and war can be attributed to the Federal Reserve Bank, including the Great Depression, WWI, WWII, Cold War, Korean War, Vietnam War, the Gulf War etc (click)  as highlighted in our section of the Empire Endless Wars system.

In 1913 in exchange for paying for his Presidential campaign, President Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act handing over the U.S. currency to twelve regional private banks.  In 1933 Roosevelt confiscated citizens gold and handed it to these private banks.    

The Rise of the Petrodollar System: “Dollars for Oil”

In the late 1960's, the "dollars for gold" system had become unsustainable as Washington insisted upon the adoption of a "welfare state" that relied upon massive entitlements and a "warfare state" that required perpetual wars.
In the second installment of this article series, I will further explain the circumstances surrounding the demise of this failed "dollars for gold" arrangement, with a particular emphasis on how its demise dealt a major blow to global dollar demand.
Their solution would come in the form of something known as the Petrodollar system. The three primary benefits that the Petrodollar system provides to America will be explained.
And finally, the article will conclude with an brief examination of how the Petrodollar system has influenced U.S.-Middle East relations with a specific focus on Israel.

The Same Game with a New Name: "Dollars for Oil" Replaces "Dollars for Gold"

In the early 1970s, the final vestiges of the international gold-backed dollar standard , known as the Bretton Woods arrangement, had collapsed. Many foreign nations, who had previously agreed to a gold-backed dollar as the global reserve currency, were now having serious mixed feelings toward the arrangement. Nations like Britain, France, and Germany determined that a cash-strapped and debt-crazed United States was in no financial shape to be leading the global economy. They were just a few of the many nations who began demanding gold in exchange for their dollars.
Despite pressure from foreign nations to protect the dollar's value by reining in excessive government spending, Washington displayed little fiscal constraint and continued to live far beyond its means. It had become obvious to all that America lacked the basic fiscal discipline which could prevent a destruction of its own currency.
Like previous governments before it, America had figured out how to "game" the global reserve currency system for its own benefit, leaving foreign nations in an economically vulnerable position. After America, and its citizens, had tasted the sweet fruit of excessive living at the expense of other nations, the party was over.
It is unfair, however, to say that the Washington elites were blind to the deep economic issues confronting it in the late 1960's and early 1970's. Washington knew that the "dollars for gold" had become completely unsustainable. But instead of seeking solutions to the global economic imbalances that had been created by America's excessive deficits, Washington's primary concern was how to gain an even greater stranglehold on the global economy.
After America, and its citizens, had tasted the sweet fruit of excessive living at the expense of other nations, there was no turning back.
In order to ensure their economic hegemony, and thereby preserve an increasing demand for the dollar, the Washington elites needed a plan. In order for this plan to succeed, it would require that the artificial dollar demand that had been lost in the wake of the Bretton-Woods collapse be replaced through some other mechanism.
Russia can collapse the West economy without nuclear bomb

Commodity-backed reserve currency is the post trans-Atlantic Petrodollar bust ->Read more


Meyer Amchel Rothschild said:
"Let me issue and control a nation's money, and I care not who writes its laws"

(1743-1812) In 1773, Rothschild, formerly Bauer, pulled together 12 other investors to join in his plan to dominate the world.  On May 1, 1776 Adam Weishaupt retained by Rothschild's completed their world dominance plan.
After the battle of Waterloo, his son Nathan Mayer in England deceptively crashed the stock exchange and made a fortune.  He sponsored George Peabody who's business JP Morgan took over.

The Rothschild's funded Woodrow Wilson's Presidential campaign on condition Wilson pass the Federal Reserve Banking Act.  Today the Rothschild's are the primary owners of the Federal Reserve Bank.  They control most of the world and through the control of central banks have instigated more wars and horror than any other family throughout history.
Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson was adamantly opposed to the idea of a privately owned federal bank and said:  "I sincerely believe the banking institutions having the issuing power of money are more dangerous to liberty than standing armies" "the principle of spending money to be paid by prosperity under the name of funding is but swindling futurity on a large scale              

"If the American people ever allow the banks to control the issuance of their currency.. the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property, until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”




Thomas Jefferson believed the National Bank was unconstitutional because it was an unauthorized extension of federal power. Congress, Jefferson argued, possessed only delegated powers which were specifically enumerated in the constitution.






James Madison said the Bank was "condemned by the silence of the constitution".
Alexander Hamilton however lobbied for the first privately owned Federal Bank.  Hamilton conceded that the constitution was silent on banking, however, he asserted, that Congress had the power to tax, to borrow money, and to regulate interstate and foreign commerce and suggested that Congress could charter a private corporation to assist in carrying out these powers. In 1790 Hamilton persuaded Congress to pass the Assumption Act where the Federal Government assumed States debts.

In 1791 Congress chartered the Bank of The United States.  Congress passes the Coinage Act in 1792 which establishes a U.S. mint.  Hamilton resigned as Secretary of the Treasury in 1793.   It is reported that Hamilton was paid by the Rothschild family for this service.
In 1811 Congress Refused to renew the charter for the Bank of the United States & the bank is closed. 1812-1815 War breaks out with Britain.
1815 President James Madison proposed a second privately owned Bank of the United States which was chartered in 1816 and opened in 1817.
President Andrew Jackson said regarding bankers: "The bank, is  trying to kill me, but I will kill it!" "You are a den of vipers and thieves.  I intend to rout you out, and by the eternal God I will rout you out." “I sincerely believe the banking institutions having the issuing power of money, are more dangerous to liberty than standing armies.”
“Paper is poverty… it is only the ghost of money, and not money itself.”
In December of 1834, President Jackson declared that the national debt will be paid off.  The next month there was an assassination attempt on Jackson.
In 1836 overriding Congress, Jackson closed the Bank of the United States commenting: "The bold effort the present bank had made to control the government are but premonitions of the fate that await the American people should they be deluded into a perpetuation of this institution or the establishment of another like it." 
In 1836 The Bank of the United States charter expired.  Congressional Bills to establish a new national bank were twice vetoed by President Tyler in 1841.  In 1846 The Independent Treasury Act is approved.
Following Lincoln's threat of invasion if States refused to pay the 52% Morrill tax, ten southern States lawfully secede from the Union between December 1860 and February 1861:
"The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere." - Abraham Lincoln in his Inaugural Address Monday, March 4, 1861
Against the advice of his generals and congress, Lincoln initiated the so-called "Civil War" in April of 1861, one month after Abraham Lincoln was inaugurated.  In his inaugural speech Lincoln promised to do nothing about slavery: "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."  It was only when Lincoln was loosing the war that he issued the emancipation proclamation where he proclaimed that slaves in the Nations of the Confederate States were free.
To pay for the 'civil war, on the 5th of August 1861, Congress passes the first National income tax and by the 21st of that month the first paper currency was issued.
Lincoln said, "The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. The banking powers are more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. They denounce as public enemies all who question their methods or throw light upon their crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe. Corporations have been enthroned, and an era of corruption in high places will follow. The money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in the hands of a few, and the Republic is destroyed."
In February 1863, Congress established another National Banking system. The bankers were intending to charge between 24% and 36% interest rates for money to finance the war. To avoid the interest, Lincoln ordered the printing of $450 million in bank notes guaranteed by the U.S. government.  "The government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency. Creating and issuing money is the supreme prerogative of government and is its greatest creative opportunity.  Adopting these principles will save the taxpayers immense sums of interest and money will cease to be the master and become the servant of humanity."  The notes were called "Greenbacks" and effectively eliminated the interest the private banks charged on notes they issued.
On April 9, 1865 following Lincoln's brutal, immoral and cruel scorched earth war policy, Lee surrendered at Appomattox. Johnston's army surrendered on April 26, 1865.
On Apr 14, 1865, Lincoln was assassinated and Congress revoked the Greenback Law and enacted, in its place, the National Banking Act supporting privately owned national banks.  The associates of the President Lincoln's assassin were according to many, on the payroll of the Rothschild's.  The Nation was thrown into a state of constant debt, paying interest to bankers who created cash.
More U.S. citizens died from Lincoln's war than all the wars combined up to, but not including the Bush's wars.

Lincoln was arguably one of the most dishonest and disastrous Presidents this Nation has seen, running tie perhaps with Franklin Delaware Roosevelt and George W. Bush.  The Federal government naturally gives Lincoln great importance because it was Lincoln who established large central federal government positions paid for by taxing the people.  State run schools go as far as to teach students that Abraham Lincoln was a honest hero.
Portrait of Andrew JohnsonFollowing Lincoln's assassin-nation, Andrew Johnson, whom many have shown was involved in the assassination, became President.  On December 18, 1865, a new Thirteenth Amendment was ratified ignoring the existing properly ratified 13th Amendment which eliminated citizenship of persons who swore allegiance to other Nations or secret societies.  (On July 27, 1866, the Second Atlantic cable was completed).
 
On February 24, 1868 President Johnson was impeached by the House however his trial in the Senate failed.
On July 21, 1868 the Fourteenth Amend-ment was questionably adopted (In 1969 the  Pacific Railroad was completed)
Portrait of Ulysses Grant Ulysses S. Grant, the barbarous Union general was elected President in 1869 he served till 1877 and was the subject of many government scandals.
The Black Friday financial crisis in 1869 was caused by Wall Street scam artists Jay Gould and James Fisk when they attempted to corner the gold market, Grant's government sat idly by.

On March 30, 1870, the Fifteenth Amendment was ratified.
In February of 1873 Congress demonetized silver (i.e. refused silver as payment) resulting in Financial panic.
Jay Cooke's bank who helped fund the Civil War went bankrupt on September 18, 1873.  The depression lasted till 1877.
January 1875, Congress passed the Specie Resumption Act which stipulated that beginning in January 1879 the federal government would redeem (legally exchange) greenbacks with gold.
Under President Portrait of Rutherford HayesRutherford B. Hayes, in 1878, Congress enacted the Bland-Allison Act, a compromise bill which specified limited amount of silver to be coined annually.
President James A. Garfield was inaugu-rated in 1881, he said "Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce".  On July 2, 1881 Garfield was shot, he dies on September 19.
On September 6, 1901 President McKinley is shot by an assassin, he dies on September 14. Theodore Roosevelt becomes President.
In exchange for financial support for his presidential campaign, Woodrow Wilson's agreed that if elected, he would sign the Federal Reserve Act. In December 1913, while many members of Congress were home for Christmas, the Federal Reserve Act was rammed through Congress and signed by President Wilson. Regarding his actions Wilson later admitted. "I have unwittingly ruined my country". The Fed became law the day before Christmas Eve, in the year 1913, and shortly afterwards, the German International bankers, Kuhn, Loeb and Co. sent one of their partners here to run it. 

PRESIDENT WOODROW WILSON: "A great industrial Nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is privately concentrated. The growth of the Nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men... who necessarily, by very reasons of their own limitations, chill and check and destroy genuine economic freedom."  "We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the world - no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of small groups of dominant men". (Just before he died, Wilson is reported to have stated to friends that he had been "deceived" and that "I have betrayed my Country". He referred to the Federal Reserve Act passed during his Presidency.)
The un-ratified 16th Amendment The Constitution only allowed direct apportioned taxation amongst the States, so indirect Income Tax was initiated through the 16th Amendment so as to allow Congress to pay the bankers interest on our money and for any other whim.  The 16th Amendment was pushed through without proper ratification in February of 1913.
According to the two volume work by Bill Benson and Red Beckman , "The Law That Never Was" the 16th amendment, which created the IRS, was never properly ratified, not even by one state! These gentlemen traveled the then 48 states to verify that fact. So in a very real sense the income tax isn't legal, as many have proclaimed, but try not paying it and see how far you get before the Feds come after you and confiscate everything you own.

World War I Started on June 28, 1914 as a direct consequence of the Formation of the Federal Reserve Bank.  It would not have been possible to start World War I without the formation of the Federal Reserve Bank.  The primary beneficiaries of WWI were the owners of the Federal Reserve Bank.

After World War I had turned the United States from a debtor nation into a creditor nation. In the aftermath of the war, both the victorious Allies and the defeated Central Powers owed the United States more money than it owed to foreign nations.  The Republican administrations of the 1920s insisted on payments in gold bullion, but the world's gold supply was limited and by the end of the 1920s, the United States, itself, controlled much of the world's gold supply. Besides gold, which was increasingly in short supply, countries could pay their debts in goods and services. However, protectionism and high tariffs kept foreign goods out of the United States. The Hawley-Smoot Act (1930) set the highest schedule of tariffs to date.

In the January 13, 1918 issue of New York World William Boyce Thompson, Federal Reserve Bank director and founding member of the Council on Foreign Relations applauded Russia for their "sweeping world changes.".  The primary shareholders of the Federal Reserve Bank, the Rothschild's, funded the Bolshevik revolution.  They literally sent a train with 50 million dollars worth of gold and fifty or so trained Jewish insurgents to instigate the communist revolution.

The Great Federal Depression.  Within 15 years of the creation of the Federal Reserve Bank the U.S. experienced it's worst depression. The depression was initiated when the Federal Reserve Bank changed the valuation of the dollar then refused to provide banks with dollar bills causing a panic and a run on the banks.  The primary beneficiaries of the depression were the owners of the bank and their colleagues.  In the ensuing panic, the bankers brought one of their own out of retirement from the Morgan/Rothschild banking cartel and made him president.  FDR has arguably, along with GWB and Lincoln have been the nations worst presidents.
Franklin D. Roosevelt
April 5th 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued a treasonous Executive Order ordering citizens to hand their gold and gold certificates to the private Federal Reserve Bank: Executive Order 6102:  "Section 2. All persons are hereby required to deliver on or before May 1, 1933, to a Federal Reserve Bank or a branch or agency thereof or to any member bank of the Federal Reserve System all gold coin, gold bullion and gold certificates now owned by them or coming into their ownership on or before April 28, 1933"

"Section 9. Whoever willfully violates any provision of this Executive Order or of these regulations or of any rule, regulation or license issued thereunder may be fined not more than $10,000, or, if a natural person, may be imprisoned for not more than ten years, or both"


FDR proceeded to implement the "New Deal" which converted the United States of America to the United Socialist States of America.  Instituting pure socialism in Social Security, the FCC to control the airwaves, the SEC to control banking and eliminate any potential competitors to the private Federal Reserve Bank.

We are still suffering the consequences of FDR's criminal "New Deal", a central government based on Fascist Socialism.  Does F.D. Roosevelt earn the title of the worst president ever?  Read the revealing article exposing the real deal by Robert Higgs
World War II
The war-driven economic expansion increased demand for credit: earnings from rediscounts in the Atlanta Federal Reserve Bank alone rose from $141,774 in 1916 to $1,758,000 in 1918, for example.
The Atlanta Fed saw its government securities portfolio burgeon from nothing in 1915 to $19.5 million by 1918. Earnings, fed by the securities, were strong enough in 1917 for the Bank to pay all dividends due and still have $80,000 left, of which $40,000 was used to start a surplus account and $40,000 paid to the Treasury as a "franchise tax", the Bank’s first transfer of earnings to the federal Treasury. From 1919 earnings the Bank was able to put $3 million in its surplus.
By instigating WWII, the Banksters were able to destroy eight monarchies throughout Europe while at the same time making extraordinary profits from their armaments companies.  U.S. bombing runs on Germany were often specifically targeted at factories of competitors to the Banksters while carefully not bombing factories owned by the Banksters.
On June 4, 1963, President Kennedy signed a Presidential decree, Executive Order 11110.  This order virtually stripped the Federal Reserve Bank of its power to loan money to the United States Government at interest.  President Kennedy declared the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank would soon be out of business.  This order gave the Treasury Department the authority to issue silver certificates against any silver in the treasury.  This executive order still stands today. In less than five months after signing that executive order President Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963.   
 
The United States Notes (silver certificates) he had issued were taken out of circulation immediately. Federal Reserve Notes continued to serve as the legal currency of this nation. It is estimated that 99% of all U.S. paper currency circulating in 1999 are Federal Reserve Notes.
Who Shot Ronald Reagan?
When Ronald Reagan attempted to address the problem with the Federal Reserve Bank another mysterious gunman attempted to assassinate him.
Nine American Presidents have been the targets of assassination:- Andrew Jackson in 1835 (opposed a private national bank), Abraham Lincoln in 1865 (opposed a private national bank), James Garfield in 1881  (opposed a private national bank), William McKinley in 1901, Harry S. Truman in 1950, John F. Kennedy in 1963 (opposed a private national bank), Richard Nixon in 1974, Gerald Ford twice in 1975, and Ronald Reagan in 1981 (opposed a private national bank):
.
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/historyonline/assassinations.cfm
"Whether money is metal, paper or digital, is not the issue, the issue is interest.  The function of currency is to provide a trading mechanism for the barter of real assets and services.  There can be no interest charged for the mere provision of a mechanism to barter.  A service fee, yes, but interest, absolutely not." - Clive Boustred, Founder, Chairman & CEO InfoTelesys & Chairman of Liberty For Life Association
InfoTelesys was building a next generation Internet that would incorporate interest free currency accessible anywhere in the world through the satellite network the company was building. The InfoTelesys team consisted of numerous extraordinarily qualified individuals including many top banking technology and satellite experts.  While working for Sun Microsystems, Clive provided the systems architecture for one of the worlds largest banking systems and consulted to many of the top banks around the world.

After returning home from the Courthouse, while waiting for his home garage door to open, on March 10, 2003 a shooting instructor for the Santa Cruz Sheriffs ran up to Clive's car and shot at Clive from a point blank range of two meters. The shot missed Clive and his children who were also in the car.  The government followed up with a massive malicious prosecution campaign against Clive, filing seven false cases against him and repeatedly throwing him in jail without any right to bail, thereby eliminating InfoTelesys and potential competition to the Federal Reserve Bank.
 "Our misunderstanding is the belief that money is a real asset, to the extent where we have allowed this deception to become reality.  Money, cash, currency is only a tool, a Note that represents real assets or services in a transaction.
The ability to manufacture money, whether the note is printed on metal, paper or digitally is something that must be in the free domain.  Just as corporations are free to offer notes representing the ownership or stock of a corporation.

If we give any person or entity the exclusive right to control the representation or production of notes representing assets and services, we give that person complete control of everything, unless we specifically dictate that the note may bear no interest and the valuation of assets and services remain free and dynamic.

Our lack of understanding of money has resulted in centuries of servitude and the last hundred years of violent wars." - CLive.

At first notes were printed on paper or wood, then kings realized they could dominate their subjects by forcing them to only use their notes exclusively.  To make it more difficult to counterfeit their notes, kings started printing their notes on meta instead of wood - hence the introduction of the "Gold Standard".  Gold and silver certainly have intrinsic value, just as paper does.  When it comes to monetary notes, the issue is not the intrinsic value of the material on which the money is representedThe real issue is the acceptance of the note as a form of barter, the stability of the note, and the national and international consequences of employing that specific note.

One can just as easily use stock certificates in a respectable company to purchase a house, so long as the seller is able to exchange those stock certificates for other assets.  This is why the banksters key player, FDR, instituted the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC).  There really is no need for the SEC.  Fraud has always been on the law books.  Buyers of a corporate stock have to evaluate the value and integrity of the corporation themselves.  Any company wanting to attract buyers to their stock will readily provide all the information the SEC supposedly dictates.  In all reality the SEC is merely a mechanism to eliminate competitors to the privately held Federal Reserve Bank's notes.  For the same reason, FDR committed treason when he ordered citizens to hand their gold to that private bank.

According to Congressional record the U.S. Government can buy back the FED at any time for $450 million.  That's about half the amount of money we pay them daily.

As of March 6, 2006, the national debt stands at 8.2 trillion dollars. The American taxpayers have paid the FED banking system $173,875,979,369.66 in interest on that debt in just five short months, from October, 2005, through February, 2006.  No con artist or group of con artists in history has ever perpetrated a scam that even approaches the scope of this one. 


The Fed allows Congress to spend all they want that's why your Congressperson does nothing. "Mr. Chairman, we have in this Country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks, hereinafter called the Fed. The Fed has cheated the Government of these United States and the people of the United States out of enough money to pay the Nation's debt. The depredations and iniquities of the Fed has cost enough money to pay the National debt several times over. .... This evil institution has impoverished and ruined the people of these United States, has bankrupted itself, and has practically bankrupted our Government. It has done this through the defects of the law under which it operates, through the maladministration of that law by the Fed and through the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it. " - Congressman McFadden on the Federal Reserve Corporation Remarks in Congress, 1934  Floor of the House of Representatives by the Honorable Louis T. McFadden of Pennsylvania. Mr. McFadden served as Chairman of the Banking and Currency Committee for more than 10 years.  There were two assassination attempts against McFadden.

"Why did we give a monopoly of creating money out of thin air to a private corporation?  The result is exactly the same as if someone was picking your pocket every year, because that is exactly what they [the Federal Reserve Bank] are doing." Franklin Sunders, Author, Tax Honesty.
"We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it.  The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent." - Paul Warburg, Council on Foreign Relations and Architect of the Federal Reserve System: Feb 17, 1950 in an address to the U.S. Senate.  See also US World Dominance Plan
"Who controls money controls the word”. – Henry Kissinger Counsel on Foreign Relations Ron Paul introduces bill to eliminate Federal Reserve Bank: see GovTrack.us. H.R. 2755--110th Congress (2007): To abolish the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal reserve.
Nazi SS Ring; Federal Reserve Note Eagle: A coincidence or not?:       Who funded Hitler?   On Oct 24, 1942 The U.S. Gov seized Nazi Assets Belonging to Prescott Bush, grandfather of President G.W.B. Jr. In a March 7, 2011 article in The Independent of London titled “America’s Secret Plan to Arm Libya’s Rebels”, journalist Robert Fisk reported that the Obama Administration had asked Saudi Arabia to arm the Libyan rebels.  The Saudis complied and later backed the same al Qaeda rebels in Syria.  The Saudis also invaded Bahrain to save the al-Khalifa monarchy. The Saudis have played this role for the City of London banker cabal for nearly a century – part of a quid pro quo which involves oil, arms, drugs and covert operations.  (See my post, The Saudi Paymaster, or Chapter 3 of my book, Big Oil & Their Bankers…)
The Saudi throne has long served as anti-democratic bulwark in the region for the London/Wall Street bankers and their inbred royal European shareholder brethren.  It was all part of a plan hatched by the Rothschild-controlled Business Roundtable a century ago to seize control of Middle East oil.
The Rothschilds are majority owners of BP and Royal Dutch/Shell, as well as the Bank of England, the Federal Reserve and the Saudi central bank – Saudi Arabian Monetary Agency (SAMA).
In 1917 the British made a client of Ibn Saud, who was told to encourage Arab tribesman to repel the Ottoman Turks from the Persian Gulf Region.  That same year the British House of Rothschild pushed through the Balfour Declaration, lending Crown support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine.  A year later the Ottomans were defeated.
Iraq, Jordan and Saudi Arabia were carved out of the Ottoman Empire and fell under British rule, with Ibn Saud taking control of his namesake – Saudi Arabia.  In 1922 the Treaty of Jeddah gave Saudi Arabia independence from Britain, though the Crown still exerted considerable influence.  To this day British mercenaries serve as bodyguards for the House of Saud.
During the 1920’s – with help from British troops – Ibn Saud grabbed more territory from the Ottomans.  He annexed Riyadh and seized the holy cities of Mecca and Medina from the Hashemites.
Standard Oil of California (now Chevron Texaco) found oil in Saudi Arabia in 1938.  The company formed ARAMCO with its Four Horsemen cartel buddies Exxon Mobil, Royal Dutch/Shell and BP.  The US and Britain signed security agreements with the House of Saud and Bechtel busied itself building ARAMCO’s oil infrastructure.
In 1952, on the heels of the US/Saudi Security Agreement, SAMA was created as the Saudi Central Bank.  By 1958 SAMA was run by Pakistani native Anwar Ali, later adviser to King Faisal.  Anwar had been Chief of the International Monetary Fund’s Middle East Department.
Ali recruited three Western bankers to serve as SAMA advisers.  Known as the Three Wise Men or White Fathers, these Western bankers called the shots at SAMA, with Ali serving as figurehead.  The most powerful of the three was John Meyer, Jr., chairman of Morgan Guaranty’s (now JP Morgan Chase) International Division and later chairman of the entire Morgan mother ship.
The White Fathers funneled SAMA petrodollar royalties into Morgan Guaranty accounts.  In turn Morgan served as well-paid investment counselor to SAMA.  Anwar Ali’s son even landed a job at Morgan Guaranty.  With billions in petrodollars flowing, the oil for arms quid pro quo was established.
Ibn Saud’s progeny form the modern-day House of Saud monarchy, which rules Saudi Arabia.  Less than twenty families connected to the throne control the Saudi economy.  The House of Saud spreads its influence through money and reproduction.  Male members of the Saud family now number over 5,000.
Crown Prince Abdullah – half-brother of King Fahd – runs the Saudi National Guard and has assumed day to day control of the Kingdom since King Fahd suffered a serious stroke in 1995.  Prince Sultan, Prince Nayef and Prince Salman are full brothers of King Fahd and serve as Ministers of Defense and Interior and Governor of Riyadh, respectively.  Prince Sultan’s son is Prince Bandar bin Sultan, long-time Saudi Ambassador to the US.  Prince Bandar’s cousin, Prince Saud al-Faisal is the Saudi Foreign Minister.
These Saudi princes use the government agencies they run as personal piggy banks and represent foreign companies bidding for contracts in the Kingdom.  They handle trillions in overseas investments.  King Fahd is the second richest man in the world with a personal fortune of over $20 billion.
Prince Bandar is part of the Sudeiri clan which is comprised of the offspring of the late King Adbul Aziz and his favorite wife.  The Sudeiris are the most powerful and most Westernized family in the kingdom.  The House of Saud encourages a fundamentalist Wahhabist interpretation of Islam, but practitioners of Wahhabism in the Kingdom consider the Sudeiris munafaqeen (hypocrites).
While the Sudeiri clan lives in opulence, most Saudis struggle to put food on their tables.  The increasingly unpopular Sudeiris rule with an iron fist and are constantly cited by international human rights organizations for their brutality and opposition to democratic freedoms.
The Saudi monarchy rules by decree.  Women are not allowed to drive cars and are banned from many restaurants.  The Kingdom has no democratic institutions.  Opposition to the House of Saud is criminalized, driving political opponents underground.  In 1990 the Saudis beheaded 111 dissidents.
US corporations acquiesce in the Saudi oppression of women.  At Pizza Hut, McDonalds and Starbucks establishments in Saudi Arabia, there are segregated sections for men and women.  The women’s sections are run down.  Starbucks has no seating at all for women.  Women who show up at other Western restaurants without their husbands are turned away.
In January 2002 the US-based Freedom House released a survey which ranks countries in accordance with the freedoms they allow.  Saudi Arabia was ranked as one of the ten least free countries in the world.
Human Rights Watch recently accused the United States of ignoring Saudi human rights violations to ensure a continuous oil supply.
The US/NATO intervention in Libya is not about “freedom”.  It is about snuffing out a long-time nemesis of the House of Saud, the London & Paris-based Rothschilds and the neo-colonial international economic system which these financial parasites lord over at the expense of developing and resource-rich nations.