Monday, October 31, 2011

16 Reasons Why Mitt Romney Would Be A Really, Really Bad President

Mitt Romney is already bought and paid for by the big banks, so guess who he's already working for? If elected, Romney will be just another in a long line of gatekeepers and puppet distractions designed to facilitate the banksters ongoing looting operation against the American people.

The American Dream
October 31, 2011
http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/16-reasons-why-mitt-romney-would-be-a-really-really-bad-president

At this point, it appears very likely that Mitt Romney is going to be the Republican nominee for president in 2012. He has raised far more money than any of the other candidates, he is leading or is near the lead in all of the early states, the mainstream media have anointed him as the frontrunner and a number of recent polls show that most Republicans fully expect Romney to win the nomination. So will Mitt Romney be the next president of the United States? Well, he certainly fits the part. He looks like a president and he speaks very well. But when you look at what he really stands for that is where things become very troubling. The truth is that Mitt Romney is either very wrong or very “soft” on every single major issue. It would be a huge understatement to refer to Mitt Romney as a RINO (“Republican in name only”). When you closely examine their positions, there is very, very little difference between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. Sure, Romney and Obama will say the “right things” to the voters during election season, but the reality is that a Romney administration would be so similar to an Obama administration that you would hardly know that a change has taken place. What you are about to read about Mitt Romney should alarm you very much. Mitt Romney would be a an absolute disaster for this country, and America cannot afford another disastrous presidency.

The fact that Barack Obama looked sharp and could give inspiring speeches helped him go a long way back in 2008. Well, it is the same thing with Romney. The guy looks very presidential and he sounds very presidential. When backed into a corner, he is extremely slick. He rarely makes mistakes and he is very polished.

Mitt Romney is a “politician” in the worst sense of the word. As his past has demonstrated, he will do and say just about anything in order to get elected. The positions he has taken during this campaign season have been carefully calculated to help him win both the Republican nomination and the general election.

That is why so many call Mitt Romney a “flip-flopper”. Romney will take just about any political position if he thinks that it will help him. Mitt Romney’s wife, Ann Romney, once made the following statement about her husband….

“He can argue any side of a question. And sometimes you think he’s really believing his argument, but he’s not.”

So keep that in mind while reading the following information. Mitt Romney is trying to claim that he is a “conservative” and that he is looking out for the American people, but those claims simply are not true.

The following are 16 reasons why Mitt Romney would be a really, really bad president….

#1 Obamacare was one of the worst pieces of legislation ever passed by the U.S. Congress. Mitt Romney says that he would repeal Obamacare, but the reality is that Romneycare was what Obamacare was based on. In fact, a recent MSNBC article brought to light some new information about the relationship between Romneycare and Obamacare….

Newly obtained White House records provide fresh details on how senior Obama administration officials used Mitt Romney’s landmark health-care law in Massachusetts as a model for the new federal law, including recruiting some of Romney’s own health care advisers and experts to help craft the act now derided by Republicans as “Obamacare.”

The records, gleaned from White House visitor logs reviewed by NBC News, show that senior White House officials had a dozen meetings in 2009 with three health-care advisers and experts who helped shape the health care reform law signed by Romney in 2006, when the Republican presidential candidate was governor of Massachusetts.

Mitt Romney continues to defend Romneycare, but the reality is that it really is a total nightmare for Massachusetts. The following is how one bloggersummarized some of the key points of Romneycare….

• Punitive To Individuals. Everyone must buy health insurance or face tax penalties equal to 50% of cost of standard policy.
• Hundreds of millions of dollars being spent on free hospital care were converted into subsidies to help the needy buy insurance.
• A health insurance “exchange” was established to help connect the uninsured with private health plans at more affordable rates.
• Health plans can offer consumers higher deductibles and more restrictive physician and hospital networks in order to lower costs.
• Punitive to Businesses with 11 or more workers that do not offer insurance must pay a $295 per employee fee.
• Established payment policy advisory board; one Board member must be from Planned Parenthood. No pro-life organization represented.
• Provides Taxpayer-Funded Abortions for copay of $50.

So what have been the results of Romneycare in Massachusetts? According to the Daily Caller, health care costs and health insurance premiums have gone up dramatically in Massachusetts….

Since the bill became law, the state’s total direct health-care spending has increased by a remarkable 52 percent. Medicaid spending has gone from less than $6 billion a year to more the $9 billion. Many consumers have seen double-digit percentage increases in their premiums.

All of that certainly sounds a whole lot like Obamacare.

Unfortunately, the other Republican candidates have not taken advantage of this weakness. According to one brand new poll, 6 times as many Republicans view Romneycare unfavorably as view it favorably. This is something that the other candidates should be jumping on big time.

#2 During his time as governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney significantly raised taxes. The following is an excerpt from a CBS News article….

Mitt Romney’s Harvard MBA and gold-plated resume convinced many business leaders he would follow in the tradition of corporate-friendly Republicans when he was elected governor of Massachusetts in 2002.

Within three years, some had a vastly different opinion, after Romney’s efforts raised the tax bill on businesses by $300 million

The same article also notes that Romney jacked up “fees and fines” on Massachusetts taxpayers substantially….

Romney and lawmakers also approved hundreds of millions in higher fees and fines during his four years in office.

Many in the Massachusetts business community were quite disgusted with Romney by the end of his tenure. Peter Nicholas, the chairman of Boston Science Corporation, says that “tax rates on many corporations almost doubled because of legislation supported by Romney.”

#3 Government spending in Massachusetts increased significantly under Mitt Romney. An advocate of smaller government he most definitely is not.

This was especially true for the last two budgets passed under Romney. In fiscal year 2006, government spending in Massachusetts increased by 7.6 percent. In fiscal year 2007, government spending in Massachusetts increased by a whopping10.2 percent.

#4 It turns out that Mitt Romney is a believer in the theory of man-made global warming. In fact, Al Gore recently praised on Mitt Romney on his blog. In a post entitled “Good for Mitt Romney — though we’ve long passed the point where weak lip-service is enough on the Climate Crisis“, Al Gore lavished the following praise on the former Massachusetts governor….

“While other Republicans are running from the truth, he is sticking to his guns in the face of the anti-science wing of the Republican Party”

Not only that, it is also very important to remember that while Mitt Romney was governor, Massachusetts became the very first state to pass a law to regulate carbon emissions.

#5 If Mitt Romney becomes president, we may actually have “cap and trade” shoved down our throats. While campaigning for president in 2007, Mitt Romney said that he would support a “cap and trade” carbon tax scheme for the entire world….

“I support Cap-and-Trade on a global basis but not the USA going alone. I want to do it with other nations involved and on a global scale.”

#6 Mitt Romney had a horrible record of creating jobs while governor of Massachusetts. According to Boston Herald business reporter Bret Arends, only one state in the entire country was worse at creating jobs while Romney was in office….

“During the four years Mitt Romney was governor of Massachusetts, it had the second worst jobs record of any state in America…it wasn’t a regional issue. The rest of New England created nearly 200,000 jobs.”

#7 Mitt Romney was a very enthusiastic supporter of the Wall Street bailouts. When the time comes for more Wall Street bailouts it seems almost certain that Mitt Romney will bail them out again.

#8 If Romney becomes president, get ready for a flood of liberal judges. While he was governor of Massachusetts, there were actually significantly more Democrats among his judicial appointments than there were Republicans.

#9 Mitt Romney is incredibly soft on illegal immigration. Back in 2007, Mitt Romney made the following statement….

“But my view is that those 12 million who’ve come here illegally should be given the opportunity to sign up to stay here”

#10 While he was governor, Mitt Romney received advice on global warming and carbon emissions from the man who is now the top science adviser to Barack Obama. His name is John P. Holdren, and he has some very, very disturbing ideas. For example, he once wrote the following….

“A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.

The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.”

Holdren also believes that compulsory abortion would be perfectly legal under the U.S. Constitution….

“Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.”

So if this is the kind of person that Mitt Romney relied on for “scientific advice” while he was governor, what kind of people would Romney bring in to his administration once he is president?

#11 Mitt Romney has been a huge supporter of gun control laws. When he was running for governor in Massachusetts, he made the following statement….

“We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts- I support them…I believe they help protect us, and provide for our safety.”

#12 Mitt Romney once claimed that he was more “pro-choice” than Ted Kennedy, but now he claims that he is pro-life. In a recent article for WorldNetDaily, Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt explained why so many voters are still skeptical….

This year he’s the only major Republican presidential candidate who has yet to sign the Susan B. Anthony List pledge to defend life and defund Planned Parenthood nationwide. Candidates Bachmann, Perry, Gingrich, Paul, Pawlenty and Santorum all signed the pledge, although it should be noted Herman Cain supports everything in the pledge except the Fetal Pain Act. (Cain is not fully pro-life, either.) And who can forget Mitt’s famous 2002 campaign debate bragging repeatedly that he’s more pro-choice than Ted Kennedy?

#13 During this campaign season, Mitt Romney has stated that he only supportspartnership agreements for gay couples and not gay marriage, but what Romney actually did while governor of Massachusetts suggests otherwise. In the WorldNetDaily article referenced above, Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt detailed how Mitt Romney aggressively implemented gay marriage in the state of Massachusetts….

When the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decided in 2003 to recognize homosexual “marriage,” ignoring the voters and the Constitution, the court admitted it did not have power to issue licenses or force participation by justices of the peace to solemnize the weddings. But as governor, Romney didn’t wait for the legislature to act, he just ordered the marriage licenses and weddings to go forward, all by himself. Earlier this month, Romney said in New Hampshire, “What I would support [nationwide] is letting people who are of the same gender form – if you will – partnership agreements.”

#14 As late as 2007, Mitt Romney was a member of the Republican Main Street Partnership. The following is what romneyexposed.com says about this organization….

They often work in conjunction with the pro-abortion group, Republicans for Choice, and the Republican homosexual group, the Log Cabin Club. They also opposed the nomination of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito and set up a 527 campaign committee that received funding from far left funder George Soros.

#15 According to the Huffington Post, Mitt Romney has raised more money from lobbyists than all of the other Republican candidates combined.

So if Mitt Romney becomes president, who do you think he is going to listen to – the American people or the lobbyists?

#16 Mitt Romney is a big time Wall Street insider. It is estimated that Romney has a personal fortune of approximately a quarter of a billion dollars, and Wall Street money is being absolutely showered on his campaign.

In a recent article entitled “The Big Wall Street Banks Are Already Trying To Buy The 2012 Election“, I detailed how numbers compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics show that Mitt Romney is getting far more money from the “too big to fail” Wall Street banks than all of the other Republican candidates combined. The following is an excerpt from that article that shows how much money employees of those banks (and their wives) have been giving to Romney so far this year….

*****

Goldman Sachs

Mitt Romney: $352,200
Barack Obama: $49,124
Tim Pawlenty: $25,000
Jon Huntsman: $6,750
Rick Perry: $5,500
Ron Paul: $2,500

Morgan Stanley

Mitt Romney: $184,800
Tim Pawlenty: $41,715
Barack Obama: $28,225
Rick Perry: $20,750
Jon Huntsman: $9,750
Newt Gingrich: $1,000
Ron Paul: $1,000
Herman Cain: $500

Bank of America

Mitt Romney: $112,500
Barack Obama: $46,699
Tim Pawlenty: $12,750
Jon Huntsman: $4,250
Ron Paul: $3,451
Rick Perry: $2,600
Thad McCotter: $2,000
Herman Cain: $750
Michele Bachmann: $500
Newt Gingrich: $250

JPMorgan Chase

Mitt Romney: $107,250
Barack Obama: $38,039
Rick Perry: $27,050
Tim Pawlenty: $16,750
Jon Huntsman: $7,500
Ron Paul: $5,451

Citigroup

Mitt Romney: $56,550
Barack Obama: $36,887
Tim Pawlenty: $5,300
Rick Perry: $3,000
Herman Cain: $1,465
Michele Bachmann: $1,000
Ron Paul: $702

As you can see, no other Republican candidate even comes close to Romney at any of these big Wall Street banks.

In fact, of the candidates that are left in the Republican race, Mitt Romney has raised 13 times as much Wall Street money as anyone else has.

The following are the overall donation numbers from employees of the big Wall Street banks and their wives….

Mitt Romney: $813,300
Barack Obama: $198,874
Tim Pawlenty: $101,515
Rick Perry: $58,900
Jon Huntsman: $28,250
Ron Paul: $13,104
Herman Cain: $2,715
Michelle Bachmann: $1,500
Newt Gingrich: $1,250

These numbers paint a very disturbing picture. Even though Romney’s poll numbers are in the mid to low 20s most of the time, employees of the big Wall Street banks gave him $813,300 during the first 9 months of this year and they only gave $105,719 to the rest of the Republican candidates combined.

*****

It is quite obvious that the “establishment” is in love with Mitt Romney.

But if the American people elect Mitt Romney, they will get someone who believes in big spending, big government, bank bailouts, health care mandates, climate change legislation, liberal judges, gun control laws, amnesty for illegal aliens and making things as comfortable for the fatcats on Wall Street as possible.

Yes, Barack Obama has been absolutely horrible, but the answer is most definitely not Mitt Romney.

Look, the truth is that another four years of Barack Obama would be a complete and total nightmare.

But so would four years of Mitt Romney.

America deserves better than the “lesser of two evils”.

Unfortunately, the American people have been dead asleep and have been sending incompetents, con men and charlatans to Washington D.C. for decades.

Right now it looks like the Republican Party is going to nominate yet another establishment “politician” in 2012.

Hopefully people will wake up to the truth about Mitt Romney while there is still time.

VIDEO: Unbelievable, Must-See Video!!! Heroic Navy Sailor Stands Tall In the Middle of Oakland Tear Gas Firestorm … Holding Up the Constitution.



And here's a clip of the Scott Olson shooting:

VIDEO: Ron Paul's New Hampshire Interview 10/28/11

UN Warns Of Sharp Increase In Social Unrest

World ‘On Verge Of New Recession’

Steve Watson
Prisonplanet.com
October 31, 2011
http://www.prisonplanet.com/un-warns-of-sharp-increase-in-social-unrest.html

A prominent UN agency has issued a warning that the globe is hurtling toward a long recession, a 40 million worldwide job shortage and an increase in large scale social unrest.

In a report published today, the International Labour Organisation (ILO) warns that the world faces an imminent “dramatic downturn” in employment and urges the G20 to act to “soften the impact”.

Outlining that the globe faces a “new and deeper jobs recession”, the report, titled World of Work Report 2011: Making Markets Work for Jobs, warns that job creation is slowing and worldwide unemployment stands at a record of more than 200m.

“We estimate that for the next two years, the world economy would need 80 million jobs to bring the unemployment rate down to what it was before the crisis” in 2007, said Raymond Torres, who heads the ILO’s research institute.

Adding that the “world economy would create just 40 million jobs,” in that time, the report estimates that at current trend levels it will take at least five years to return employment in advanced economies to pre-crisis levels.

Of those 40 million newly created jobs, the ILO states that just 2.5 million will be created in advanced economies, leaving a shortage of 24.7 million jobs in industrialised states during 2012 and 2013.

The ILO also warned that the number of people out of work in the euro zone rose to 16.2 million in September, the highest level since records began in 1998.

The upshot of such massive shortages in employment will, according to the ILO, result in greater social unrest in 45 different countries.

“This is especially the case in advanced economies, notably the EU, the Arab region and to a lesser extent, Asia,” it said.

The report pinpoints the greatest risk of social unrest to Greece, Portugal, Spain, Estonia, France, Slovenia and Ireland.

Without counter-measures, the crisis will likely unleash a recession that could last a decade or more, the report adds.

Increasing labour market spending by half a% of gross domestic product would increase employment by between 0.4% and 0.8%, depending on the country, the ILO said.

“We have reached the moment of truth. We have a brief window of opportunity to avoid a major double-dip in employment,” said Torres.

——————————————————————

Steve Watson is the London based writer and editor for Alex Jones’ Infowars.net, and Prisonplanet.com. He has a Masters Degree in International Relations from the School of Politics at The University of Nottingham in England.

VIDEO: The Max Keiser Financial Terrorism Report 10/31/11. The Collapse Of The Debt Bubble

VIDEO: Ron Paul's Plan For The Economy

VIDEO: Alex Jones - Crazy News Of The Week Sunday 10/30/11









Sunday, October 30, 2011

VIDEO: An Open Message to the 99% (Occupy Wall Street)

Saving The Eurozone. Will it Work?

Bob Chapman
International Forecaster
October 30, 2011
http://theinternationalforecaster.com/

It is now clear to the most casual observer that the world’s monetary and financial system cannot function without massive amounts of additional money and credit. That means the system no longer functions the way it should. Europe really doesn’t know what to do and neither does the Fed and the Bank of England. The exception is throwing more money at the problem and keeping interest rates near zero indefinitely. Many US, UK and European banks are insolvent. The real estate market continues to deflate throughout Europe with the exception of Germany, which never really rose in price. Again, there are no solutions offered to solve this problem. Just as there are no solutions elsewhere. These conditions tell us the euro has serious problems to face as does the pound and the US dollar. You have to then say to yourself against what. Each currency has its own problems, thus, the only alterative is to measure each currency versus gold and silver. These are the true benchmarks, and when compared over the last 11-1/2 years, versus nine major currencies gold and silver on average annually have appreciated more than 20%. That tells you anyone holding currencies has been a major loser.

In the US and the UK banks are insolvent as well, because books are market-to-model, not to market and many carry two sets of books. Without a total audit one does not know the actual condition of these financial institutions. Market players and investors do not want to know the truth, because they cannot handle it. It means it is the end of the game – it’s over. That is why Wall Street and the City of London casts a blind eye at all the government manipulation going on. They go with the flow hoping the system will keep functioning.

Americans and others have been sold a bill of goods concerning US supremacy in the business and financial worlds, which means they have been propagandized since WWII. It is beyond the capability of most Americans to understand that they have been sold one lie after another and they bought it hook, line and sinker. Even if they discover the truth making seminal changes is very difficult. Thus, you can have 70% of people over 65 years old that have discovered the truth that are generally incapable of acting on it. The 25% of these retirees that have investable funds are frozen in the headlights and few make the necessary changes to hold on to their assets. If their assets remained static inflation is destroying their purchasing power year after year. Some will switch into gold and silver related assets, but very few. Good people who have led exemplary lives could lose most of their assets if they do not make changes. Once the system goes down there will be no way back. Ask the people who didn’t listen in 1929.

Now that Europe has a new formula to ostensibly save the euro zone and the EU we can for the time being take a look at other problems. We find many smaller and medium sized banks cannot payback TARP funds. That means some of them may be approaching insolvency. We also notice that the FDIC for some time no longer issue late Friday updates on bank failures. Municipalities are having major trouble and that will continue. It is taking a little longer than expected for these entities to head into bankruptcy. Many know the government is broke, so it is no longer a secret. Those who feel safe in an FDIC bank account had best think again. The FDIC is broke and if they had to pay off billions they could not, unless Congress gave them more money to do so, which the Fed would create out of thin air, and cause more inflation. The public’s shocked and in denial and that state will only change gradually and eventually these Americans will pull their funds out of the system and put the proceeds into gold and silver coins, bullion and shares.

That means they will be able to function when checks, debit and credit cards no longer work.

We are entering a time of falling currencies, as more and more money and credit are created to save the system and the power centers of the Illuminists. Now that for now Europe has been saved, al the elitists have to deal with is the fallout from QE 3. That should occur soon. That is why the PPT is still trying to keep gold and silver down. It won’t matter, because gold and silver will still go higher.

After 5-months of dithering, Europe has finally put together a temporary deal to save Greece, the euro zone and perhaps the EU.

Bondholders, mostly banks, accepted a 50% write down on Greece debt. This deal was offered two years ago, but the banks and Germany refused the offer.

The funds available are $517 billion, which will be elevated by use of derivatives to $1.4 trillion. That should last a year dependent on how much money insolvent members will need. We call this temporary, because of a fast slowing economy and the needs for new lower interest loans by Ireland and Portugal. If our original estimate for the six countries is correct this exercise will have to be done three more times over the next two years. Not one of these bankers and politicians dare look down the road at the future. The problem has not been solved; it has just been extended.

The deal includes recapitalization of Europe’s banks and a larger role for the IMF.

This comes on the heals of the realization that if the banks did not write off 50% of Greek debt, Greece then face total insolvency, as did the banks. This shows you the tremendous grip the bankers have on European politicians. This also sets the stage for Greek bailout two. The first was for $154 billion; the second will be for $182 billion for a total of $336 billion. Of the second tranche the IMF will supply $3.8 billion. It should be noted that recently the ECB, European Central Bank, bought $237.3 billion in Greek, Irish, Portuguese, Spanish and Italian bonds to keep the bond market from collapsing. In addition outside money will be pursued. France’s Sarkozy is talking with Chinese leader Hu Jintao for assistance. In addition banks will have to raise $150 billion by June 30, 2012 to reach core capital reserves of 9%, after writing off sovereign debt holdings. In the interim no dividends or no bonuses. Incidentally, of that $150 billion, $36.7 billion must be raised by Spanish banks and $20.7 billion by Italian banks.

What is of great interest in this deal is that German politicians have sold out 65% or more of the voters and the High Court has said nothing about the extension of the new legislation that includes the German gold reserve being used as collateral in case Germany cannot fulfill its obligations. That won’t go over well in Germany. Many House members will not be returning after the next election.

Another factor is will Ireland and Portugal ask for a 50% reduction in debt, not just lower rates? We guess some are more equal than others.

We might also ask, what happens if the derivative market comes unglued? In the case of Greece its debt is projected to reduce Greece’s debt to GDP to 120% by 2020. You can’t make up stuff like this. This projection is worthless.

Mr. Sarkozy of France is seeking funding from China. Europe is China’s biggest export market. It will be interesting to see if they participate and on what terms.
Greek PM George Papandreou said the government will buy shares in some Greek banks in a nationalization process. After restructuring the shares would be sold on the open market.

The bank write downs of 50% on their Greek holdings means $3.7 billion debt insurance contracts won’t be triggered according to the International Swaps and Derivatives Association. The amount is interesting. The street said the number was $75 billion; we say $150 billion. As we said long ago, a deal had to be made to save the NYC legacy banks.

As we mentioned Ireland and Portugal may want the same deal Greece received. The bankers took a 50% loss. Why shouldn’t Ireland and Portugal expect the same? At the least they should receive cheaper interest payments on aid, and longer to repay it. Why is it acceptable to write down Greek debt, when the Irish pay private bankers’ debt? The IMF says Ireland’s debt will be 18% more than GDP in 2013 or $280 billion. The bottom line is that the ECB had best deal with these problems quickly, or they may have a couple of tigers on their hands.

As Europe’s problems and another downgrade of US credit looms, even though in a manipulated market, the issue of unpaybable debt doesn’t go away. Almost everywhere we look problems are being extended and thrown into the future. How long it will take for the world monetary system to collapse no one knows, but it is inevitable.
Various solutions have been offered and even if some were adopted this past week they are never going to be enough to change the course of the future. Creating more debt cannot solve debt problems and Europe’s bankers know that. All their moves are to save the financial system and nothing is done to save the economic system. The elitist Illuminists are only interested in saving their power base from which they control the world.

As we pointed out in the last issue chances are very good, that interest rates will be lowered by the ECB now that Mr. Trichet is gone.

The failure of Dexia two weeks ago should strike the beginning of a long line of new formations of good bank bad bank creations. In this case all the good assets stay in Dexia and the bad assets are shunted into a companion bank run by the government, so that Dexia can survive and that the public is allowed to take the losses. There will be scores of banks, not only in Europe, but in the UK and US; that will follow this template until they are all merged, eliminated or nationalized. Ring fencing or circling the wagons won’t work. It only puts the unpayble debt burden into the future, so that citizens can pay for the excesses of the bankers.

No one has as yet told us where the latest $500 billion swap by the Fed went. We did see the ECB wildly buying Italian and Spanish bonds and somehow found funds to start another round of bank loans. During that time frame miraculously Wall Street banks made bail out loans to EU banks. These are the same NYC legacy banks that control 70% of US banking, that would not lend to small and medium sized US businesses that create 70% of new jobs. Interesting observation we’d say. That is further proof that these mega money center banks have had little inclination to help the economy recover. All they are interested in is profits and how big a share of the banking market they can capture.

If Greece defaults a number of banks will follow it into bankruptcy not only in Europe and England, but in the US as well. The only thing that can save the EU is a compromise by Germany, and if its politicians sell out to the New World Order banks then the CDU will be out of office for the next 12 years. As this conflict goes on the euro rises in value in anticipation of a deal, if only temporary. This is similar to the Dow, which just rose from 10,500 to almost 12,000 on the inside information that there soon would be QE 3.

Currency debasement is the name of the game worldwide. That tact showed up in England and in the ECB, as they poured funds into their economies two weeks ago.

The key to Germany’s monetary ascendancy, which has gone somewhat unnoticed by the media and western politicians over the years, has proven the power of the German people and their economy. We saw first hand the progress through the 1950s and 60s, which was based on sound monetary and fiscal principals. Even though Keynesianism and Socialism was stuffed down Germany’s throat they eventually took another path laid out by Ludwig Erhard and Wilhelm Rapke, which produced a sound currency and they cast aside all of the financial demands of their occupiers, who still happen to be in Germany. These events set the stage for the success we have seen over the past 50 years. The allies were outraged that Germany could and would do something so successful. By 1955-60 they were leading Europe again and it has been so ever since. The entire West was incredulous, as Germany became the leading European economy, as it emerged from the rubble. Now Germany is the nation that must save Europe from collapsing. The formula being demanded by the US and their mouthpieces is more leveraged debt, which the Germans know won’t solve the problem. Germany’s Merkel as you have seen, has gone along with the program. We’ll see what the voters think after the next election.

Rep. Lofgren: Copyright bill is the ‘end of the Internet’

Declan McCullagh
CNET
October 30, 2011

Rep. Zoe Lofgren, the California Democrat whose district includes the heart of Silicon Valley, is preparing to lead congressional opposition to the new Stop Online Piracy Act.

The antipiracy legislation, introduced yesterday in the House of Representatives to the applause of lobbyists for Hollywood and other large content holders, is designed to make allegedly copyright-infringing Web sites, sometimes called “rogue” Web sites, virtually disappear from the Internet.

“I’m still reviewing the legislation, but from what I’ve already read, this would mean the end of the Internet as we know it,” Lofgren told CNET.

Lofgren, whose congressional district includes the high-tech center of San Jose, will be a key ally for Google, Yahoo, and other tech companies who are already working with advocacy groups through trade associations to figure out how to defeat SOPA (PDF), also known as the E-Parasite Act.

Read Full Article: http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20126590-281/rep-lofgren-copyright-bill-is-the-end-of-the-internet/

VIDEO: Peter Schiff Defends The 1% At OWS Manhattan

Saturday, October 29, 2011

Eric Janszen: We Are Witnessing The Death Of The Dollar

Submitted by Adam Taggart of Chris Martenson.com
October 29, 2011
http://www.chrismartenson.com/blog/eric-janszen-we-are-witnessing-death-dollar/64317

Eric Janszen: We Are Witnessing The Death Of The Dollar

What do you get when the producer of the world’s reserve currency takes on too much debt? Nothing less than the end of the US Treasury-based monetary system.

So says Eric Jansen, economic and financial market analyst and proprietor of iTulip.com. In chronicling the decline of the global economy over the past decade, Eric has formulated a framework called the “Ka-POOM” theory, which endeavors to understand how the immense run-up in global debt will be resolved.

In short, it looks at the at the credit bubble that began in the early 1980′s, started accelerating in 1995, and has now reached epic proportions. The amounts are so staggering at this stage that Eric believes it is too politically undesirable to let natural market adjustments clear them away – the magnitude of the deflationary pain this would create is simply unacceptable for politicians looking to get re-elected. The only other available option left is to service these debts via a dramatically devalued currency. Hence the key role the Fed is playing today.

The Fed is at the epicenter of this process, intervening heavily to keep the natural corrective market forces at bay. In this, it has a dual strategy. The first is to keep asset prices high (i.e., fight asset deflation), which it is doing by keeping interest rates historically low. The second is to keep wage and commodity costs under control, which it primarily does via devaluing the currency (maintaining a “weak dollar”).

And, of course, through its intervention, the Fed is doing all it can to keep the current financial system in place to perpetuate the process for as long as possible. The end result is a fundamental shift in risk from Wall Street to the taxpayer.

So the big question is: how long can this last? Is there a point at which confidence in the system breaks and market forces finally overwhelm the intervention?

Eric’s answers: “Much longer than most people expect.” And “Yes.”

First off, as the most important central bank in the world, the Fed has supernormal powers. In theory, it can expand its balance sheet infinitely. It’s ability to absorb massive amounts of new liabilities is theoretically limitless – much of which can be easily concealed from an accounting standpoint.

And since the US is both the world’s largest economy as well as the provider of its reserve currency, other countries are compelled to support the current regime. A mortal crack-up in the US economy would deliver undue pain to all its trading partners, so they continue to buy Treasuries in sufficient amount to fund US economic activity.

But that’s not to say they’re happy about it. And here’s where attention should be paid (and where the importance of gold comes in).

For much of the past century, the United States comprised approximately 54-58% of the global economy. Today, it’s share has shrunk down to about 18%. Meaning: it’s relative importance to the global system has diminished.

Issuing the world’s reserve currency is a privilege that must be continually earned through transparency and sound stewardship – qualities the US has been in flagrant lack of in the past several decades as it has been blowing asset bubbles and running trillion-dollar deficits via incurring massive debts and increasing its money supply tremendously. So, even as they continue to support the current Treasury-backed monetary regime, the world’s central banks have begun hedging their exposure.

After several decades of being net sellers, the world’s central banks became net buyers of gold in the second quarter of 2009. As Eric puts it:

There was no plan B in the global monetary system when it switched over to the US Dollar reserve basis for global monetary reserves. The only fallback is gold. Gold is the only reserve asset that central banks hold other than dollars and to some extent euros – but it is mostly gold. So gold is the fallback. What I thought was going to happen is that, over time gradually, that there would be an increase at some point in gold holdings by central banks as they hedged the marginal increase and the number of Treasury bonds that they needed to hold as a result of conducting trade with the US and also simply maintaining the US economy through low interest rates and providing sufficient investment to continue to offer the US government.

What is very interesting to me is starting in the second quarter of 2009, right after the financial crisis is when global central banks became net buyers of gold which to me indicated that they had as a group, determined that it was time to more seriously hedge their dollar assets, even as they continue to buy Treasury bonds to increase their hedging.

Before that there were effectively two teams, there were the buyers who were countries like India and Russia and China, and the sellers which are most of your European countries and that structure of the gold market occurred and was maintained until the second quarter of 2009 and it shifted to a much broader base increase in the number of governments participating in the gold market including Saudi Arabia, Mexico and other allies of the United States.

Eric sees this move by central banks of positioning themselves closer to the door as a natural step to the inevitable endgame here, which is the dissolution of the US Treasury dollar-based monetary system. Due to entrenched special interests, politics, escalating commodity scarcity, and other factors – he does not see the US taking necessary corrective action before confidence in the solvency of the US and its currency collapses.

As such, Eric advises investors position themselves into gold and assets that take advantage of rising rents and energy prices.

Click the play button below to listen to Chris’ interview with Eric Janszen (runtime 43m:46s):

iTunes: Play/Download/Subscribe to the Podcast
Download/Play the Podcast
Report a Problem Playing the Podcast

Americans: Awash In Spin

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts
Prisonplanet.com
October 29, 2011
http://www.prisonplanet.com/americans-awash-in-spin.html

I have come to the conclusion that Big Brother’s subjects in George Orwell’s 1984 are better informed than Americans.

Americans have no idea why they have been at war in the Middle East, Asia and Africa for a decade. They don’t realize that their liberties have been supplanted by a Gestapo Police State. Few understand that hard economic times are here to stay.

On October 27, 2011, the US government announced some routine economic statistics, and the president of the European Council announced a new approach to the Greek sovereign debt crisis. The result of these funny numbers and mere words sent the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index to its largest monthly rally since 1974, erasing its 2011 yearly loss. The euro rose, putting the European currency again 40% above its initial parity with the US dollar when the euro was introduced.

On National Public Radio a half-wit analyst declared, emphatically, that the latest US government statistics proved that the recovery was in place and that there was no danger whatsoever of a double-dip recession. And half-brain economists predicted a better tomorrow.

Europe is happy because the European private banks, the creditors of the European governments, have agreed to eat 50% of Greece’s sovereign debt and to be recapitalized by public money handed to them by the European Financial Stability Facility rescue fund. The President of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy, thinks that Greece’s debt is the only sovereign debt to be written down and that the debt of Italy, Spain, and Portugal will somehow be bailed out through other means, including a Chinese contribution to the EFSF rescue fund. Obviously, if all EU sovereign debt has to be cut by 50% as well, the rescue fund would not be up to the job.

For our corrupt financial markets, any news that can be spun as good news can send stocks up. But what are the facts?

For facts one has to turn to serious people, not to the presstitute media. Among those who give us real facts is John Williams of shadowstats.com. In his October 27 report, Williams exposes the happy second quarter 2011 economic growth figure of 2.5% as nonsense. Every other economic indicator contradicts the spin.

For example, personal consumption is reported to have increased 1.7%, but this surge in consumption took place despite a 1.7% collapse in consumer disposable income! In other words, if there was an increase in personal consumption, it come from drawing down savings or from incurring higher consumer debt.

A country’s consumers cannot forever draw down savings or go deeper into debt. For an economy to recover, there must be growth in consumer income. That growth is nowhere to be seen in the US. A large percentage of the goods and services sold to Americans by American corporations are now produced abroad by foreign labor. Thus, Americans no longer received incomes from the production of the goods and services that they consume. The American consumer market is on its way out.

The Dow Jones rose 339.51 points on the phony good news, but consumer sentiment is in the basement. John Williams reports that “consumer confidence hit the lowest levels ever recorded in 2008 and 2009” and that consumer confidence has now “fallen back to that 2008 level.” But the stock market boomed. Somehow a population 23% unemployed with debt up to its eyeballs is going to spark an economic recovery.

Recovery can only happen in the delusional world created for us by the concentrated media. No longer permitted to utter one world of truth, the presstitutes proclaim non-existent recoveries and weapons of mass destruction and demonize Washington’s chosen opponents.

The sovereign debt crisis in Europe has distracted Americans from the much worst crisis in their country. After two decades of exporting US manufacturing and middle class jobs, and after a decade of consumer debt growth that has resulted in millions of foreclosed homeowners and massive credit card and student loan debt that cannot be paid, consumers have no income growth or borrowing capacity with which to fuel an economy based on consumer demand.

European banks, already ruined by purchases of Standard & Poor’s and Moody’s AAA ratings of junk derivatives, now find themselves threatened by sovereign debt. Greece’s debt crisis, caused with Goldman Sachs’ help in hiding the true debt of the country as was done for Enron, has brought to light that Portugal, Ireland, Italy, and Spain, in addition to Greece, have more debt than the governments can service.

In the EU, unlike the US and UK which have their own central banks that can create new money to bail out the over-indebted governments, the EU central bank is prohibited by treaty from printing money in order to purchase bonds from member states that cannot be redeemed.

Regardless of the treaty prohibition, the EU central bank has been lending Greece the money to pay its bond holders. The imposed austerity that is part of the deal created political instability in Greece.

Now that European Council President Herman Van Rompuy has announced a 50% write-off by private banks of Greek sovereign debt, can the same treatment be denied Portugal, Italy, and Spain?

The European Central Bank is following the lead of the Federal Reserve and creating new money to bail out debt. The cost will be paid in inflation and flight from the euro and the dollar. As an indication of the future, despite the positive spin on the news and the rise in US stocks, on October 27 the Japanese yen rose to a new high against the US dollar.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts is the father of Reaganomics and the former head of policy at the Department of Treasury. He is a columnist and was previously an editor for the Wall Street Journal. His latest book, “How the Economy Was Lost: The War of the Worlds,” details why America is disintegrating.

VIDEO: War News. We Pay And Pay For The War Machine And The Globalist Take The Plunder Spoils





VIDEO: Lifting The Veil of Evil. Don't Worry Cops, The Banksters Will Steal Your Pensions and Devalue Your Dollar Along With The Rest Of Us!





VIDEO: The Bob Chapman Friday Report 10/28/11. EU Collapsing Into Financial Dictatorship





Friday, October 28, 2011

Boehner Won’t Rule Out ‘Balanced Budget Amendment’ That Permits Unlimited Federal Spending

Matt Cover
CNS News
October 28, 2011

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) indicated at a press briefing Thursday that the House Republican leadership is not ruling out the possibility that it will support a balanced budget amendment that does not cap federal spending as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product or require a supermajority in Congress to increase taxes.

The legislation to increase the federal debt limit–that Boehner negotiated with President Barack Obama in August–requires both houses of Congress to vote on a balanced budget amendment before the end of the year. However, the legislation does not specify what type of balanced budget amendment must be considered in that vote.

Conservative analysts have argued that an amendment to the Constitution that requires Congress to balance the federal budget but does not require Congress to limit federal spending to a set percentage of GDP or to muster supermajorities to raise taxes would be a formula for bigger government and higher taxes.

At Boehner’s briefing today, CNSNews.com asked the speaker: “There are two versions of a Balanced Budget Amendment, one that caps spending as a percentage of GDP and requires a supermajority to raise taxes, and one that doesn’t have the spending cap and the supermajority requirement. Many conservatives oppose the version that does not cap spending and does not require a supermajority. Has the House Republican leadership ruled out supporting the version that does not [cap spending]?”

Full article here: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/boehner-wont-rule-out-balanced-budget-amendment-permits-unlimited-federal-spending

VIDEO: EU Slavery - Nigel Farage on BBC Question Time – 27 Oct 2011

VIDEO: A Revolution Rising with Occupy Toronto



Foreigners Sell Second Largest Amount Of US Bonds Ever In Past Week, Record $93 Billion In US Paper Sold In Past 2 Months

Zero Hedge
October 28, 2011

Two weeks ago when we reported that there had been a record consecutive week dump of US Treasury paper in the Fed’s custodial account, as reported by the weekly H.4.1, we made the assumption that this was China preemptively selling US paper.

Well, that may or may not have been the case, but it was only part of the full story.

We have now learned that Europe, and especially Germany has been just an active seller of sovereign bonds, most certainly including US paper, in recent weeks.

As FAZ reports, the head of Commerzbank Martin Blessing has been dumping all bonds in his possession, primarily PIIGS paper, but also US and German ones. He does add the clarification that this has been a complicated project as there has been a buyer’s strike (and with the CDS extinction it will only get more difficult as there is no natural hedge remaining), and his dumping has certainly not made things easier.

Now as we all know by now, when starting a panic exodus, one has to be first, be smarter, or cheat. Here we will add a fourth one: or sell US paper.

After all the demand for this is nearly insatiable, or so the neo-Keynesians out there will have us believe. Well, in the last week, someone used our definition. According to today’s update in the H.4.1, the total amount of securities held in the custodial account for foreign official and international accounts just plunged by $20 billion, of which $19 billion was attributable solely to Treasurys: the second largest weekly dumb ever.

And since this total number includes both Treasurys, which are used for political purposes, as well as Agency securities, which don’t really serve much in terms of a diplomatic statement but are great at shoring up liquidity, one can assume that the relentless selling in all types of US paper has had one purpose only: to generate capital.

As the third chart shows, that amount is substantial: in the last 8 weeks foreigners have sold a unprecedented $93 billion across the custodial account bringing it to $3.392 trillion, the lowest since March 2011!

So the next time someone asks where European banks are finding emergency liquidity now that commercial paper, money market and Libor Markets are all dead, you will have the answer.

Continue reading here: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/foreigners-sell-second-largest-amount-us-bonds-ever-past-week-record-93bn-us-paper-sale-past-2-

Greek Bondholders at a Loss

Michael Finger
Euro Pacific Capital
October 28, 2011
http://www.europac.net/commentaries/greek_bondholders_loss

In an agreement announced overnight, the European Union offered $100 billion to stem an imminent Greek debt default in exchange for a 50% haircut to Greek bondholders. This is a bittersweet victory for those of us who believe in the power of the free market.

When the US government undertook its largest round of bailouts in 2008, it bought nearly worthless assets at 100¢ on the dollar. At the very least, European authorities have recognized that taxpayers shouldn’t be responsible for shouldering the entire burden of bondholders’ investments. However, Brussels is still committed to making taxpayers bear some of the losses – and this is still fraught with moral hazard.

In the absence of continued EU bailouts, Greece would have been shut out of international credit markets years ago. The purpose of European “assistance” has been to keep the Greek debt market liquid enough for Greece to continue borrowing a little bit longer. In theory, this was supposed to buy the Greek authorities time to get their house in order – but in actuality, it has removed the very incentives necessary to make them reform.

Take Ireland as a counterpoint: they’re undergoing a true, painful, and arduous austerity program, and as a reward, they still have to pay back their bondholders at par and are receiving only a fraction of the EFSF bailout funds that are being offered to Greece. It’s no wonder that, in the wake of today’s news, Ireland has called for another round of EU subsidies and permission to impose haircuts on its bondholders.

German Chancellor Merkel stated that the goal of the latest accord is to help Greece achieve a debt-to-GDP ratio of 120% by 2020. In essence, they’re trying to take the patient from death’s door back to a coma. Does this really solve the problem? Who is going to lend to Greece now, in the wake of a 50% haircut and with a target debt-to-GDP that would make most countries blush? None of the underlying spending problems have been resolved by this deal, and Greece is still by any measure a basket-case.

Of course, the euro is rallying on this news, with investors grateful that some discipline was imposed and a total Greek collapse was put off to another day. But this can’t possibly be celebrated as a successful solution. Italy’s debt-to-GDP is not far behind Greece, at 119%. If the same solution were to be offered when Italy faces default, the EU itself estimates that the required bailout would have to be 28 times larger than what is being offered to Greece today. While Northern European taxpayers may be bearing the brunt of today’s $100 billion bailout, they can ill afford $2.8 trillion. Instead, the responsibility would fall on the ECB to print the funds, and thereby devalue the euro.

Fortunately for Europe, the US is well ahead of them on the quantitative easing front. That is why some of the euro rally we’re seeing may be deserved. The euro has taken a pounding relative to the US dollar because of the prevailing sentiment that its problems are worse than America’s; however, no one would ever expect the US government to allow state and municipal creditors to pay 50¢ on the dollar. No, the US government’s position has been that it will be the lender of last resort to all large market actors, and it will make them whole. The US has already bled its taxpayers dry and resorted to furious money-printing to forestall a Treasury rate spike. Europe’s fractured political landscape is actually providing a check on its profligacy that the politically consolidated United States doesn’t have.

Still, it should be clear to all observers now that the Keynesian prescription has not worked, and therefore both continental federations are facing a grim future. It may be that this Greek settlement marks the dawn of a new era of sovereign collapse. Today, for the first time since World War II, a first-world country has outright defaulted on its general debt. Mainstream analysts had said that a day like this would never come. And yet, here we are.

In a best case scenario, Western governments increasingly accept that creative destruction is a part of capitalism – that bad debts must be liquidated fully, honestly, and quickly to make room for new growth. In the more likely scenario, the EU’s structural divide keeps it walking a middle road between bailouts and default of its weaker members, while the US refuses to accept reality until it risks becoming the largest sovereign collapse in history. Let’s hope laissez-faire prevails, but invest like we know better.

VIDEO: New World Order War Crimes - YouTube Covers Up NATO Bombing of Children In Libya!



VIDEO: Greeks abandon cash resort to bartering

VIDEO: Financial Terrorism Is Real!! More Toxic Assets = More Financial Plutonium! Max Keiser On The Alex Jones Show




VIDEO: New Greek Bailout Plan Designed To Fail / Fast And Furious News



VIDEO: Corrupt Empire 10/28/11







Thursday, October 27, 2011

The One Percent: Gigantic Government + Gigantic Corporations = Massive Wealth Inequality

The Economic Collapse
October 27, 2011
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/the-one-percent-gigantic-government-gigantic-corporations-massive-wealth-inequality-in-america

Today, there are protests all over America that are targeting “the one percent” and all of the wealth and power that they have accumulated. Unfortunately, many of the solutions that these protesters are advocating simply will not work and will not lead to less wealth inequality. To understand this, you have to understand how we got to this point.

Over the past several decades, our federal government has exploded in size and our large corporations have exploded in size. In fact, we have seen this pattern happen pretty much all over the world. Governments and corporations all over the globe are getting much bigger. Whenever you have very, very large concentrations of money and power like that, it is going to lead to massive wealth inequality.

The Occupy Wall Street protesters would like to frame this debate as “socialism vs. capitalism”, but the truth is that wherever you find big government you will almost always find big corporations, and wherever you find big corporations you will almost always find big government. Sure, they spar once in a while, but the reality is that big government and big corporations work in tandem most of the time.

Sometimes big government has the upper hand and sometimes big corporations have the upper hand, but they are both collectivist institutions. Wherever you find collectivism in the world, you will find an elite that receives most of the benefits while the rest of the population suffers. In the United States today, our gigantic government is thriving and our gigantic corporations are thriving and the middle class is rapidly shrinking.

The solution to this is not to replace one form of collectivism with another form of collectivism. Rather, what we need is to go back to what our founding fathers intended. They were extremely suspicious of large concentrations of wealth and power, and they intended for us to live in a capitalist system where individuals and small businesses had the freedom to compete and thrive.

Today, Democrats tell us that we need an even bigger government and that we need to redistribute even more wealth to the poor. But the bigger the government gets, the more poor people we seem to have. As you will see below, the only people that seem to be thriving from big government are the bureaucrats.

Republicans tell us that we need to make life better for the big corporations. But the reality is that the bigger our giant corporations get, the faster the middle class shrinks. The big corporations are shipping millions of our jobs out of the country, and they are magnets for wealth and power. If you are not aware of how overwhelmingly dominant corporations have become in our society, just read this article.

Democrats should not be defending big government, and Republicans should not be defending the abuses of the big corporations.

Whenever big government and big corporations work together there is going to be massive income inequality, and massive income inequality is not a good thing.

Yes, there are always going to be some people that do much better than others (and there is nothing wrong with that), but we should not have a system which is designed to funnel almost all of the wealth and almost all of the power to a very small minority.

In essence, this article is arguing the following….

Gigantic government = bad.

Gigantic corporations = bad.

This was the view of our founding fathers, and this is what we need to get back to.

Let’s take a look at some of the results of our current system. Let’s start with income inequality caused by big government.

Today, the Washington D.C. region has the highest median household income in the entire nation. According to the most recent numbers, median household income in the D.C. area is $84,523.

So what is the cause of this?

Well, it is not because Washington D.C. is a great center of industry or finance. Rather, it is because the federal government is spending over 3 trillion dollars a year and is showering huge piles of cash on hordes of bureaucrats.

In a recent article, I noted some of the mind blowing statistics that show how bureaucrats in Washington D.C. are living the high life at our expense….

*When you total up all compensation (including health care and benefits), the average income for a federal worker in the Washington D.C. area last year was $126,369.

*In 2005, 7420 federal workers were making $150,000 or more per year. In 2010, a whopping 82,034 federal workers were making $150,000 or more per year. That is more than a tenfold increase in just five years.

*In 2005, the U.S. Department of Defense had just nine civilians earning $170,000 or more. When Barack Obama took office, the U.S. Department of Defense had 214 civilians earning $170,000 or more. In June 2010, the U.S. Department of Defense had 994 civilians earning $170,000 or more.

*Last year, federal employees “earned” approximately 447 billion dollars in total compensation.

As I have written about previously, our gigantic federal government also empowers the big corporations to continue to accumulate staggering amounts of wealth and power. This is one reason why the big corporations contribute so much money to political campaigns. The big corporations (and the elite that own and run them) have much more influence over the political process than we do. They have spent decades buying politicians and getting laws passed that tilt the rules of the game radically in their favor.

This is something that our founding fathers did not want to happen. In a 2010 article, Rick Ungar noted that there were very significant restrictions on corporations in the early days of America….

After the nation’s founding, corporations were, as they are today, the result of charters granted by the state. However, unlike today, they were limited in how long they were permitted to exist (typically 20 or 30 years), only permitted to deal in one commodity, they could not own shares in other corporations, and their property holdings were expressly limited to what they needed to accomplish their corporate business goals.

There was a lot of wisdom to that approach. Our founding fathers knew that corporations would become giant magnets for wealth and power if they were allowed to grow unchecked.

Today, multinational corporations completely and totally dominate the global economy. The following comes from a recent article I posted on The American Dream….

Corporations not only completely dominate the U.S. economy, they also completely dominate the global economy as well. A newly released University of Zurich study examined more than 43,000 major multinational corporations. The study discovered a vast web of interlocking ownerships that is controlled by a “core” of 1,318 giant corporations. But that “core” itself is controlled by a “super-entity” of 147 monolithic corporations that are very, very tightly knit. As a recent article in NewScientist noted, these 147 corporations control approximately 40 percent of all the wealth in the entire network

These giant corporations are so dominant that it is nearly impossible to compete with them. The number of small businesses in America is shrinking fast.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 16.6 million Americans were self-employed back in December 2006. Today, that number has shrunk to 14.5 million.

This is exactly what we would expect to see under “corporatism“, but under true capitalism we would expect to see the exact opposite.

As the federal government and the big corporations continue to grow, the middle class is being wiped out. If you doubt that the middle class is shrinking, just read this article.

Yes, there is a limited role for the federal government to play and there is a limited role for corporations to play. But right now things are radically, radically out of balance.

This is creating a tremendous amount of income inequality in the United States. The middle class is being systematically destroyed, and the growth of the gap between the one percent and the rest of us just continues to accelerate.

This was certainly illustrated by numbers that were recently released by the Congressional Budget Office. The very wealthy have done extremely well over the last 30 years. For the rest of us, things have not been so great. The following figures come from a recent blog post by the director of the Congressional Budget Office….

CBO finds that between 1979 and 2007:

For the 1 percent of the population with the highest income, average real after-tax household income grew by 275 percent (see figure below).
For others in the 20 percent of the population with the highest income, average real after-tax household income grew by 65 percent.
For the 60 percent of the population in the middle of the income scale, the growth in average real after-tax household income was just under 40 percent.
For the 20 percent of the population with the lowest income, the growth in average real after-tax household income was about 18 percent.

Meanwhile, as a recent USA Today article noted, the middle class continues to falter in the majority of the communities around the United States….

A USA TODAY analysis of Census data found the Reno area was among 150 nationwide where the share of income going to the middle class — generally made up of households that make $20,700 to $99,900 a year — shrank from 2006 to 2010. Metro areas where the middle class’ share of income dropped outnumbered those where it grew by more than 2-to-1.

So just how well is the top one percent doing compared to the rest of us?

The following statistics should be a wake up call for all of us….

*According to the Congressional Budget Office, the top one percent is the only group that saw its share of our national income increase between 1979 and 2007.

*According to a joint House and Senate report entitled “Income Inequality and the Great Recession“, the top one percent of all income earners in the United States brought in a total of 10.0 percent of all income income in 1980, but by the time 2008 had rolled around that figure had skyrocketed to 21.0 percent.

*Between 1979 and and 2007, the average household income of the top one percent of all Americans soared from $346,600 to $1.3 million.

*In the United States today, the wealthiest one percent of all Americans have a greater net worth than the bottom 90 percent combined.

*As the “one percent” thrives, the share of the pie being enjoyed by the middle class is shrinking. According to Heidi Shierholz, an economist with the Economic Policy Institute, about 53 percent of all income went to the middle class back in the 1970s, but today only about 46 percent of all income does.

*According to Harvard Magazine, 66% of the income growth between 2001 and 2007 went to the top one percent of all Americans.

*The wealthiest one percent of all Americans now own more than a third of all the wealth in the United States while the poorest 50 percent of all Americans collectively own just 2.5% of all the wealth in the United States.

*The wealthiest one percent of all Americans own over 50% of all the stocks and bonds.

*The top 0.01% of Americans make an average of $27,342,212. The bottom 90% make an average of $31,244.

*This is all happening at a time when the United States as a whole is slipping. Ten years ago, the United States was ranked number one in average wealth per adult. In 2010, the United States fell to seventh.

*Income inequality is not just growing in the United States. Today, the wealthiest one percent of the earth’s population controls 39% of the wealth.

There is certainly nothing wrong with being wealthy. If you and your family work really hard and provide great value to the community around you then you should greatly benefit.

But a system that is designed to systematically drain wealth from the general population and transfer it into the hands of an ultra-wealthy elite is not what our founding fathers ever hand in mind. At the time of our founding, England was dominated by big government (the monarchy) and by big business (the East India Company, for example). Our founders warned us over and over about the potential abuses that can happen when very large concentrations of wealth and power are allowed to dominate a society.

Unfortunately, the Occupy Wall Street movement has it all wrong. They recognize the overwhelming wealth and power accumulated by the one percent, but most of them are advocating even more collectivism as the answer.

Some of them even say that they want to “end capitalism” altogether. Michael Moore says that he is not part of the one percent and that he wants to “end capitalism”, even though he has made millions upon millions of dollars from his various projects.

But socialism and communism never bring equality. Like other forms of collectivism, socialism and communism almost always bring more tyranny and they almost always funnel most of the financial rewards to a very small elite.

Others simply wish to see the U.S. government transfer more wealth from the hands of the rich to the hands of the poor.

Helping the poor is certainly a noble goal, and handouts can certainly ease suffering at least temporarily. But handouts are never a permanent solution and they can cause large numbers of people to end up becoming completely and totally dependent on the government.

Back in 1980, government transfer payments accounted for just 11.7% of all income. Today, government transfer payments account for 18.4% of all income.

So has the plight of the poor gotten better?

No, we now have more than 45 million Americans on food stamps, last year we had the largest increase in the number of Americans living in poverty in U.S. history and the middle class continues to shrink rapidly.

The truth is that what poor and middle class Americans really need are opportunities. Handouts will keep people alive, but they will not give people hope and a future.

What Americans really need is an environment where they can find jobs or start small businesses. Unfortunately, the environment for small businesses in this country is incredibly toxic and millions of our good jobs have been shipped overseas. The big corporations have discovered that they can make even bigger profits by sending jobs to countries where it is legal to pay slave labor wages. To say that we need big corporations because they are the ones that “create jobs” is simply not true anymore.

So now we have tens of millions of Americans that we have to take care of every single month. There is nothing wrong with helping them survive, but giving them even more handouts is not going to permanently solve anything.

We need to have a population that is empowered to work hard, produce wealth and create a bright future for their families.

Instead, what we have is a system that greatly rewards the top one percent and that is pushing all of the rest of us toward poverty.

Gigantic government plus gigantic corporations is always going to equal massive wealth inequality.

The bigger we allow government to grow and the bigger we allow corporations to grow, the worse it is going to get.

So is any of this going to change any time soon?

Well, considering the fact that the vast majority of our politicians are in the pockets of the big corporations, I would not be getting your hopes up.

VIDEO: Alex Jones Crazy News 10/27/11. German Pension Funds To Be Used To Collateralize Greek Bailout Ponzi Scheme









VIDEO: Lionel Wises Up To The Federal Reserve And The New World Order Police State Grid







VIDEO: The Vatican Calls For A World Bank And A New World Order

VIDEO: Corrupt Empire 10/27/11



VIDEO: Ron Paul - The Bloated Military Industrial Complex Makes Us Less Safe

VIDEO: Police State Brutality Erupts At Oakland Occupt Wall St. Protests

From 7 Billion People To 500 Million People – The Sick Population Control Agenda Of The Global Elite

The American Dream
October 27, 2011
http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/from-7-billion-people-to-500-million-people-the-sick-population-control-agenda-of-the-global-elite

The United Nations has officially designated October 31st as 7 Billion Day. On that day, the United Nations estimates that the population of the earth will hit 7 billion for the very first time. But instead of celebrating what a milestone 7 billion people represents, the UNPF is focusing instead on using October 31st to raise awareness about “sustainability” and “sustainable development”. In other words, the United Nations is once again declaring that there are way too many people on the planet and that we need to take more direct measures to reduce fertility. In recent years, the UN and other international organizations have become bolder about trying to push the sick population control agenda of the global elite. Most of the time organizations such as the UN will simply talk about “stabilizing” the global population, but as you will see in this article, there are many among the global elite that are not afraid to openly talk about a goal of reducing the population of the world to 500 million (or less). To you and I it may seem like insanity to want to get rid of more than 90 percent of the global population, but there is a growing consensus among the global elite that this is absolutely necessary for the good of the planet.

As we approach October 31st, dozens of articles are appearing in newspapers all over the globe that are declaring what a horrible thing it is that we are up to 7 billion people.

In fact, it surely is no accident that the United Nations put 7 Billion Day on the exact same day as Halloween. Perhaps they want to highlight how “scary” it is that we have 7 billion people on the planet, or perhaps they are trying to send us a message by having 7 Billion Day occur on the same day as “the festival of death”.

In any event, it seems like way too much of a coincidence that 7 Billion Day just happens to fall on the same day as Halloween.

Today, “sustainable development” has become one of the key buzzwords that those in the radical environmental movement love to use, but most Americans have no idea that one of the key elements of “sustainable development” is population control.

So what precisely is considered to be an ideal population for the earth by those pushing “sustainable development”?

Well, of course there is much disagreement on this issue, but many are very open about the fact that they believe that the earth should only have 500 million people (or less) on it.

For example, the first of the “new 10 commandments” on the infamous Georgia Guidestones states the following….

“Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.”

CNN Founder Ted Turner would go even farther….

“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”

Dave Foreman, the co-founder of Earth First, says that reducing our population down to 100 million is one of his three main goals….

“My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world.”

Sadly, this kind of garbage is even being taught at major U.S. universities. For example, Professor of Biology at the University of Texas at Austin Eric R. Piankaonce wrote the following….

I do not bear any ill will toward people. However, I am convinced that the world, including all humanity, WOULD clearly be much better off without so many of us.

Mikhail Gorbachev thinks that reducing the global population by 90 percent would be just about right….

“We must speak more clearly about sexuality, contraception, about abortion, about values that control population, because the ecological crisis, in short, is the population crisis. Cut the population by 90% and there aren’t enough people left to do a great deal of ecological damage.”

But most of the time, the way that the global elite speak of population control is much more “politically correct”. They tend to use terms such as “sustainable development” and “reduction of fertility rates” and “quality of life” when discussing the need to reduce our population.

As 7 Billion Day has approached, there have been articles popping up in major publications all over the globe that are advocating increased population control measures. Of course in the western world such measures are always framed as being “voluntary”, but that is the way that they always introduce things like this. Once enough people get on board with the “voluntary” population control measures they will become “mandatory”.

So now that you are aware of some of the buzzwords that are used, check out what has been written on some of the biggest news websites in the world recently….

Jeffrey D. Sachs, the director of The Earth Institute at Columbia University, recently said the following in an article for CNN….

“The arrival of the 7 billionth person is cause for profound global concern. It carries a challenge: What will it take to maintain a planet in which each person has a chance for a full, productive and prosperous life, and in which the planet’s resources are sustained for future generations?

“How, in short, can we enjoy ‘sustainable development’ on a very crowded planet?”

For Sachs, one of the “keys” to sustainable development is the “stabilization” of the global population….

“The second key to sustainable development is the stabilization of the global population. This is already occurring in high-income and even some middle-income countries, as families choose to have one or two children on average. The reduction of fertility rates should be encouraged in the poorer countries as well.”

In a recent article for the Guardian, Roger Martin stated that all of the problems that humanity is facing would be easier to solve if less people were running around the planet….

“…all environmental (and many economic and social) problems are easier to solve with fewer people, and ultimately impossible with ever more.”

He also says that if we reduce the population, it will mean better lives for all the rest of us….

“On a finite planet, the optimum population providing the best quality of life for all, is clearly much smaller than the maximum, permitting bare survival. The more we are, the less for each; fewer people mean better lives.”

But is that really the case?

Of course not.

There has been tremendous human suffering all throughout history. If we eliminated 90 percent of the global population it would not suddenly usher in some kind of “golden age”.

But many among the global elite are truly convinced that we are spoiling “their planet” and they don’t want so many of us around anymore. Thanks to technology, they only need a few hundred million people to run their system, and they view the rest of us as “useless eaters”.

This all may sound quite bizarre to many of you, but this is the kind of stuff that is being taught in colleges and universities across the western world.

In fact, you are starting to see an increasing number of people in the western world actually suggest that we adopt a “one-child policy” such as China has. For example, the following is from an opinion piece that appeared in the National Post….

A planetary law, such as China’s one-child policy, is the only way to reverse the disastrous global birthrate currently, which is one million births every four days.

The author of the opinion piece believes that such a “one-child policy” would reduce the global population to 3.43 billion by 2075….

The intelligence behind this is the following:

-If only one child per female was born as of now, the world’s population would drop from its current 6.5 billion to 5.5 billion by 2050, according to a study done for scientific academy Vienna Institute of Demography.

-By 2075, there would be 3.43 billion humans on the planet. This would have immediate positive effects on the world’s forests, other species, the oceans, atmospheric quality and living standards.

This is the kind of stuff that a lot of these people sit around and think about all day long.

They are obsessed with death and with reducing the population as rapidly as possible. They see us as a “plague” that is ravaging the planet, and they believe that by getting rid of us they would actually be saving the earth.

Due to public opinion, population control advocates have to tread lightly in the western world. But where they can get away with it, they are not afraid to be very forceful.

I have already discussed the horrific one-child policy in China. As the Epoch Times recently noted, enforcement of this policy can be absolutely brutal….

“Pregnant women lacking birth permits are hunted down like criminals by population planning police in China and forcibly aborted.”

If you don’t believe something like this can ever happen in the western world, you might want to think again.

Limitations on child births are already showing up in popular television shows. For example, a new show on Fox called Terra Nova portrays the future of the earth as a living hell due to overpopulation. People in the future can hardly breathe the air due to overwhelming pollution and a strict “two-child policy” is rigidly enforced.

The family featured in Terra Nova is able to go through a portal to a prehistoric world that is 85 million years in the past. In this “new world”, humans have set up a wonderful new socialist society where everyone is provided for and where “green technology” is helping them to avoid making the “mistakes” of the past.

Unfortunately, socialist utopias such as the one portrayed on Terra Nova only exist in works of fiction.

Instead, what happens most of the time in real life is that the “good intentions” of social planners devolve into absolute tyranny when put into practice.

For example, just check out what a recent National Geographic article said happened when social planners in India tried to aggressively reduce birth rates in India in the 1970s….

The Indian government tried once before to push vasectomies, in the 1970s, when anxiety about the population bomb was at its height. Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and her son Sanjay used state-of-emergency powers to force a dramatic increase in sterilizations. From 1976 to 1977 the number of operations tripled, to more than eight million. Over six million of those were vasectomies. Family planning workers were pressured to meet quotas; in a few states, sterilization became a condition for receiving new housing or other government benefits. In some cases the police simply rounded up poor people and hauled them to sterilization camps.

How would you feel if you were rounded up and hauled off to a sterilization camp?

Sterilization programs (most of the time they are “voluntary”) are in full force all over the globe. Much of the time they are sponsored and funded by the United Nations. The global elite are absolutely obsessed with getting women to have less babies.

That is one reason why abortion is so very important to them.

Recently, Al Gore made the following statement regarding population control….

“One of the things we could do about it is to change the technologies, to put out less of this pollution, to stabilize the population, and one of the principle ways of doing that is to empower and educate girls and women. You have to have ubiquitous availability of fertility management so women can choose how many children have, the spacing of the children.

The elite love to use terms such as “fertility management” and “family planning”, but what they really intend is for there to be less pregnancies and more abortions so that the population will not grow as quickly.

They certainly do not intend to empower women to have more children.

This agenda was also very much reflected when the March 2009 U.N. Population Division policy brief asked this shocking question….

“What would it take to accelerate fertility decline in the least developed countries?”

Now who in the world gave the UN the right to be trying to “accelerate fertility decline” for women in poor countries?

But to many in the global elite, trying to get women to have less babies makes all the sense in the world. In a recent editorial for the New York Times entitled “The Earth Is Full“, Thomas L. Friedman made the following statement….

You really do have to wonder whether a few years from now we’ll look back at the first decade of the 21st century — when food prices spiked, energy prices soared, world population surged, tornados plowed through cities, floods and droughts set records, populations were displaced and governments were threatened by the confluence of it all — and ask ourselves: What were we thinking? How did we not panic when the evidence was so obvious that we’d crossed some growth/climate/natural resource/population redlines all at once?

These people honestly and truly believe this stuff.

Unfortunately, this agenda is even represented in the highest levels of our own government.

Barack Obama’s top science advisor, John P. Holdren, once wrote the following….

“A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.

The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.”

Holdren also believes that compulsory abortion would be perfectly legal under the U.S. Constitution….

“Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.”

The following are 8 more quotes that show the mindset that a lot of these population control advocates have….

#1 Microsoft’s Bill Gates….

“The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s heading up to about nine billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.”

#2 U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg….

“Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”

#3 David Rockefeller….

“The negative impact of population growth on all of our planetary ecosystems is becoming appallingly evident.”

#4 Jacques Cousteau….

“In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day.”

#5 Prince Phillip, the Duke of Edinburgh….

“If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”

#6 David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club….

“Childbearing [should be] a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license … All potential parents [should be] required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”

#7 Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger….

“The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”

#8 Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger. Woman, Morality, and Birth Control. New York: New York Publishing Company, 1922. Page 12….

“Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race.”

When you believe that the earth has way too many people, human life becomes cheap, and abortion becomes a way to get rid of undesirables.

According to a recent article in the Daily Mail, thousands of “abnormal” babies are now being selectively aborted in the UK each year….

Thousands of pregnancies were aborted last year for ‘abnormalities’ including 500 for Down’s syndrome, new figures reveal.

In total, there were 2,290 abortions for medical problems with the foetus, with 147 performed after 24 weeks.

In a world that is “overpopulated”, babies that are not “perfect” become more “disposable” than ever.

In fact, the truth is that the population control agenda and the “abortion rights movement” have been inseparably linked for decades. Those that are obsessed with “overpopulation” view abortion as a very necessary method of birth control, and one of their main goals is to expand access to “reproductive health care” to as many women around the globe as possible.

But in the end, our “voluntary” actions are not going to be nearly enough to reduce the population and most population control advocates realize that. Many of them are openly calling for a “benevolent” global authority to take charge to lead us through the “necessary” transition that is ahead.

In a previous article, I described the type of world that the radical population control advocates see for our future….

Imagine going to sleep one night and waking up many years later in a totally different world. In this futuristic world, literally everything you do is tightly monitored and controlled by control freak bureaucrats in the name of “sustainable development” and with the goal of promoting “the green agenda”. An international ruling body has centralized global control over all human activity. What you eat, what you drink, where you live, how warm or cold your home can be and how much fuel you can use is determined by them. Anyone that dissents or that tries to rebel against the system is sent off for “re-education”. The human population is 90 percent lower than it is today in this futuristic society, and all remaining humans have been herded into tightly constricted cities which are run much like prisons.

This is the endgame for the radical green agenda. In order to save the earth, they feel as though they must dramatically reduce our numbers and very tightly control our activities.

But is that the kind of a future that anyone would actually want to live in? Would anyone actually choose to live in a future where bureaucrats micromanage our lives for the good of the environment?

Personally, I think that the 7 billion people on earth would do just fine if they were given a lot more liberty and freedom to live their own lives as they see fit.

But letting people decide how to run their own lives is anathema to those that have bought into the population control agenda of the global elite.

They actually believe that they are smarter than all of the rest of us and that they need to tell us what to do for the good of humanity and for the good of the planet.

This patronizing approach should truly sicken all freedom-loving Americans.

So what do you think of the population control agenda of the global elite?

Please feel free to leave a comment with your opinion below….