Thursday, November 29, 2012

VIDEO: The Economy Is Going To Implode And You Deserve To Understand Why

VIDEO: Hyperinflation in 1 Year...NEW John Williams Interview Oct 2012

VIDEO: THE $36 Trillion DTCC FRAUD? It's Owned By The Banks!

VIDEO: Glen Beck Breaks Down "The Big Reset". Unstoppable Economic Collapse Is Imminent!!!!

VIDEO: As The Global Economy Collapses The Sheeple Go Shopping On Black Friday

VIDEO: Rogue TSA Tells Congress They Are Above Congressional Oversight!

Wednesday, November 28, 2012

Is JPMorgan About To Take Over America, Again?

Zero Hedge
Nov 28, 2012

Great and wondrous things seem to be afoot among the righteous bankers of the world. A few months ago Matt Zames was named to get JPMorgan’s CIO office out of trouble – and also happens to be the Chairman of the all-powerful Treasury Borrowing Advisory Committee. Just yesterday, Mark Carney completed Europe’s full-house of ex-Goldman Sachs alum running the region’s monetary policy. Today we hear Lloyd Blankfein will be sidling up to Obama tomorrow. And now this; from the never-crony-capitalist himself, billionaire Warren Buffett has publicly blessed Jamie “apart from the failure of control” Dimon as the best man for the top job at the Treasury. “If we did run into problems in markets, I think he would actually be the best person you could have in the job,” Buffett added (sounding more like the ‘we’ meant he) and dismissed the London-Whale “failure of control” with sometimes “people go off the reservation.” With Zames running the Shadow Treasury and Dimon running the Real Treasury, is it any wonder that inquiring minds are asking who really runs America (and for whom)? Of course, in the pre-Fed era – over 100 years ago, JPMorgan Sr. ‘bailed-out’ America before…

Two-thirds of millionaires left Britain to avoid 50p tax rate

Robert Winnett
London Telegraph
November 28, 2012

Almost two-thirds of the country’s million-pound earners disappeared from Britain after the introduction of the 50p top rate of tax, figures have disclosed.
In the 2009-10 tax year, more than 16,000 people declared an annual income of more than £1 million to HM Revenue and Customs.
This number fell to just 6,000 after Gordon Brown introduced the new 50p top rate of income tax shortly before the last general election.
The figures have been seized upon by the Conservatives to claim that increasing the highest rate of tax actually led to a loss in revenues for the Government.
It is believed that rich Britons moved abroad or took steps to avoid paying the new levy by reducing their taxable incomes.

Full story here.

Obama Using “Endangered” Species to Kill Economy, Push Extreme Agenda

William F. Jasper
New American
Nov 28, 2012

“The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service today released its Candidate Notice of Review, a yearly appraisal of the current status of plants and animals considered candidates for protection under the Endangered Species Act (ESA),” the USFWS announced in a November 20, 2012 press release. “There are now 192 species recognized by the Service as candidates for ESA protection, the lowest number in more than 12 years,” the agency release stated.
Those opening sentences in the press release might have caused many farmers, ranchers, businesses and property owners to heave a sigh of relief, hoping that they might be spared prosecution and persecution due to the reduced ESA candidate list. That could be a false hope, as the Obama administration gives every sign of utilizing all the tools and opportunities at its disposal to stop energy projects, block economic development, and lock up federal lands. As reported here recently (“Specious endangerment: Obama Awards Spotted Owls 9.6 million acres”), the administration has nearly doubled the critical habitat for the Northern Spotted Owl, locking up 9.6 million acres of forestland in Washington, Oregon, and California.
Will a chipmunk or snail darter be used next as a pretext to wreak havoc on an industry, State, or region? The same USFWS press release states: “Today’s notice identifies two new candidate species: PeƱasco least chipmunk (Sacramento and White Mountains, New Mexico) and Cumberland arrow darter (Kentucky and Tennessee).”
But the new candidates have competition for ESA priority from many other contenders: weeds, bugs, fish, birds, frogs, flies, toads, snakes, etc. Federal agencies and their allies in environmental activist organizations are constantly presenting cases for adding new candidates and expanding the habitat and protection of those already listed as threatened or endangered. Once the proposed ESA rules are published in the Federal Register, it is anyone’s guess as to how long before the mayhem begins.
On September 11, 2012 the USFWS published this ESA listing in the Federal Register:
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, propose to list two Texas plants, Leavenworthia texana (Texas golden gladecress) as an endangered species and Hibiscus dasycalyx (Neches River rose-mallow) as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) and propose to designate critical habitat for both species.
Property owners will not be comforted to read in the proposed listing that “the majority of lands being proposed for critical habitat designation are owned by private landowners, although the Federal Government and the State of Texas own small portions.”

Will the listing of the newly protected weeds end up meaning that Texans will lose many of their property rights to the edicts of federal agencies and federal courts responding to the lawsuits of environmental activist groups? Very likely, unless the ESA is rewritten or abolished.
A month later on October 10, the USFWS struck again, announcing the designation of eight  freshwater mussels in Alabama and Florida waterways for EDSA listing. The entry in the Federal Register states:
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, determine endangered species status for the Alabama pearlshell (Margaritifera marrianae), round ebonyshell (Fusconaia rotulata), southern kidneyshell (Ptychobranchus jonesi), and Choctaw bean (Villosa choctawensis), and threatened species status for the tapered pigtoe (Fusconaia burkei), narrow pigtoe (Fusconaia escambia), southern sandshell (Hamiota australis), and fuzzy pigtoe (Pleurobema strodeanum), under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act); and designate critical habitat for the eight mussel species.
In this case, the USFWS says the impact on private land owners will be “insignificant,” which, if true, might be a first. But few people familiar with the USFWS and the ESA believe the “insignificant” assessment. “The majority of the designation occurs in navigable waterways whose stream bottoms are owned by the States of Alabama and Florida,” says the Service. The Federal Register entry continues:
Impacts of this designation could occur on non-Federal riparian lands adjacent to the designated streams where there is Federal involvement (e.g., Federal funding or permitting) subject to section 7 of the Act, or where a decision on a proposed action on federally owned land could affect economic activity on adjoining non-Federal land. However, in general, we believe that the takings implications associated with this critical habitat designation will be insignificant. The takings implications assessment concludes that this designation of critical habitat for these eight mussels does not pose significant takings implications for lands within or affected by the designation.
Even if the listing does not result in the federal government’s “taking” of private property, it is almost certain to have significant impacts on commercial and recreational fishing, boating, farming, livestock grazing, irrigation, home building, mining, dredging, oil and gas drilling, and many other uses.
”Stroke of the pen. Law of the land. Kind of cool.’
As we reported recently (“Regulators R Us: Feds Crank Up Regulations — on Everything”), the Obama administration is resorting more and more regularly to executive usurpation of legislative powers to advance a radical agenda that Congress has blocked. We noted:
In 2011, Congress passed 81 bills into law. During the same period, federal agencies promulgated 3,807 regulations — rules that are treated as if they are binding law. These agencies are under the executive branch, which means they are under the president. However, under the U.S. Constitution, the president has no authority whatsoever to make laws. Neither do any of his subordinates. The president’s role is to faithfully execute (i.e., administer) the laws passed by Congress, provided of course, that said laws comport with the Constitution.
The very first sentence of Article I, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution states: “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.” It is difficult to get plainer and more definitive than that: “All legislative powers.” Congress is the legislative branch, and it possesses “all legislative powers.” The executive and judicial branches have their own peculiar jurisdictions and purviews, but their powers do not include lawmaking. Nor does the Constitution allow the Congress to sublet or delegate its lawmaking authority to the president, bureaucrats, or judges.
U.S. Presidents since FDR — both Republican and Democrat — have been resorting increasingly to the use of executive orders and rule-by-regulation, but it was Paul Begala, counselor to President Bill Clinton, who infamously celebrated this illegal arrogation of power with a cavalier quip.
”Stroke of the pen. Law of the land. Kind of cool,” said White House counsel Begala, in a self-satisfied endorsement of Clinton’s abuse of executive orders.
Leaders of the Big Green lobby are urging President Obama to ignore the Constitution and Congress and stroke the pen for all its worth to enact all their pet projects by presidential fiat. In a November 7 post on, Sierra Club executive director Michael Brune congratulated President Obama for his election victory and challenged him to deliver on his “green” agenda promises. “During his first term, Barack Obama was the first American president to clearly articulate a vision of America leading the world toward a clean-energy future that can meet the challenge of a changing climate,” said Brune. “Now, he has four more years to deliver on that promise.”
Among the priority items targeted by Brune for President Obama’s action:
• Use the EPA to shut down coal mining and “dirty power plants.”
• Stop the Keystone Pipeline and “toxic tar sands oil.”
• Use the Antiquities Act to establish national monuments by presidential decree.
• “Boldly elevate the issue of climate disruption and climate solutions” and support “clean” wind and solar energy.
President Obama, of course, is already sailing that port tack. As The New American has reported in numerous articles over the past four years, the Obama administration’s EPA has been attacking the coal industry and  power generating plants without letup, guaranteeing that electrical bills will continue to skyrocket and that our future will contain power brownouts and blackouts. (See “Related Articles” below.)
In January of this year, President Obama gave a thumbs down to the Keystone pipeline. TransCanada Corporation announced that it would reapply for a permit for the pipeline, but President Obama will not likely approve it.
Regarding use of the Antiquities Act, President Obama has shown he is already on that page. On September 21, 2012 he signed aproclamation establishing Chimney Rock, located in the San Juan National Forest in southwestern Colorado, as a National Monument.
Chimney Rock is the third National Monument designated by President Obama using the Antiquities Act. At 4,726 acres, it is miniscule compared to the Spotted Owl’s domain, and many other national parks, monuments, and forests, but it is another tool that the president can wield, albeit, unconstitutionally, to limit or deny access of “the people” to the peoples’ “public lands.”

EPA — Nixon’s Monster Keeps Getting Bigger and Badder

As problematic and dangerous as the ESA is, however, the biggest, baddest bully in the federal stable is the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which has arrogated unto itself the power to regulate and control virtually everything, including CO2, the stuff we exhale with every breath.
Created in 1970 by an executive order of President Richard Nixon, the EPA has morphed into a lethal Leviathan that regularly issues edicts that can bankrupt towns and cities, as well as businesses and individuals. Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla), ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, has provided a detailed indictment of the EPA’s regulatory abuses.
Sen. Inhofe highlights, for instance, these horrendously costly and disruptive EPA regulations:
Ozone rule — The EPA has proposed tightening the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ground-level ozone. The compliance cost could range from $19 to $90 billion, making them the most expensive EPA regulations ever proposed. If these rules go into effect, many towns and cities across the nation not currently in violation of EPA ozone standards will suddenly find themselves on the agencies “dirty air list” and will be subject to costly fines and mitigation mandates.
Utility MACT — EPA’s Utility Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) rules will force the retirement of 30 to 100 gigawatts of coal-fired electricity.  That’s the potential elimination of 20 percent of America’s coal plants, along with hundreds of thousands of jobs. The impact will be felt hardest in these states: West Virginia, 90 percent coal-fired; Ohio, 80 percent coal-fired; Michigan, 60 percent coal-fired; Minnesota, 60 percent coal-fired; and Wisconsin, 66 percent coal-fired.
Boiler MACT — Boiler Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) would impose stringent emission limits and monitoring requirements for industrial boilers used in manufacturing, processing, mining, refining, as well as commercial boilers used in malls, laundries, apartments, restaurants, and hotels. IHS-Global Insight concluded that the proposal could put up to 798,250 jobs at risk.  Moreover, they said every $1 billion spent on upgrade and compliance costs will put 16,000 jobs at risk and reduce US GDP by as much as $1.2 billion.
Portland Cement MACT — According to EPA, “A projected 181 Portland cement kilns will be operating at approximately 100 facilities in the United States in the year 2013.”  EPA’s new emissions standards under will apply to 158 of those kilns. According to the Portland Cement Association, EPA’s rule puts up to 18 cement plants at risk of shutting down, threatening nearly 1,800 direct jobs and 9,000 indirect jobs. With cement being crucially important to construction, the costs of building will escalate and more jobs will be jeopardized in the construction trades as well.
Farm Dust rule — The EPA, which has been regulating farm dust for decades, indicates it may tighten the standards as part its review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). This could very likely put the standard below the amount of dust created during normal farming operations, making it impossible to meet. The effect will be to drive many already struggling family farms into insolvency — and to drive up food prices even higher.

Obama EPA’s “Crucifixion” Strategy

The onerous and staggeringly expensive regulations outlined above barely scratch the surface of the punitive burdens the Obama administration’s EPA intends to fasten upon us. Is punitive too strong a characterization? Hardly. In fact, additional adjectives, such as brutally and ferociously may need to be appended to punitive, in order to do justice to the nature of the EPA regulatory regime.
Consider EPA Region 6 Administrator Al Armendariz. Although some Americans have heard of him, Al Armendariz should be universally known and despised as the kind of bureaucratic tyrant not to be tolerated in this Republic. But President Obama’s friends in the establishment-controlled media assured that Armendariz’s shocking Al Capone enforcement style would not blow back on the president. Armendariz said that his philosophy of enforcement “was kind of like how the Romans used to conquer little villages in the Mediterranean. They’d go into a little Turkish town somewhere, they’d find the first five guys they saw, and they would crucify them. And then you know that town was really easy to manage for the next few years.”
According to Armendariz, you find folks who are not in compliance with the EPA’s constantly changing, draconian edicts, and “you hit them as hard as you can, make examples of them. There’s a deterrent there.” For those who have already felt the dread blows of the EPA, Armendariz’s comments are not surprising. What is surprising is that they were caught on video (embedded at the end of this article).
Even the pro-Obama, left-tilted Washington Post found Armendariz’s attitude chilling and welcomed his resignation. In an editorial entitled “The EPA is earning a reputation for abuse,” the Post editorial board noted that the Armendariz statement followed soon on the heels of a smack-down of the EPA by the Supreme Court for the Agency’s despotic treatment of the Sackett family, who have been dragged through years of regulatory hell in their attempt to build their home. By accepting Al Armendariz’s resignation, Obama and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson may have solved one of their election year political problems, but they did nothing to change the EPA’s ongoing crucifixion strategy.

VIDEO: .22 Rifles Deemed Al-Qaeda's Weapon of Choice to Takeout Power Grid

Global government now seeks total control over the internet

J. D. Heyes
Natural News
Nov 28, 2012

What is arguably the very last bastion of totally free speech is once again under assault by the world’s tyrants, as the United Nations is now eying regulation of the Internet – as though it was in need of being regulated.
Why? It’s an age-old story.
Leaders of authoritarian regimes the world over hate the free flow of information that is disseminated via the Internet. They hate the fact that they no longer have a monopoly on ideas and opinion within their own country. They see notions of freedom and liberty as a threat. They despise any medium that undermines their grip on power. And their regimes are heavily represented in the U.N., of which the United States (once considered the bastion of liberty and freedom) is the largest contributor.
“Who runs the Internet? For now, the answer remains no one, or at least no government, which explains the Web’s success as a new technology. But as of next week, unless the U.S. gets serious, the answer could be the United Nations,” reports The Wall Street Journal.

Authoritarians seek ways to control free expression, free speech, and individual liberty

A sizable number of the world body’s 193 members simply oppose the open and very uncontrolled nature of the Internet, the paper said, noting the World Wide Web’s interconnected global networks that defy international boundaries and, as such, make it extremely difficult for governments to tax or censor.
For over a year, these authoritarian regimes have lobbied a UN agency known as the International Telecommunications Union to grab the reins of the Internet and take over its management. The organization, which was originally created in 1865 as the International Telegraph Union, last wrote a treaty on communications in 1988, years before the commercial Internet developed into a popular communications and commerce medium, and back when telecommunications referred to voice telephone calls routed through national telephone monopolies.
In the coming days, the ITU plans to hold a “negotiating conference” in the emirate of Dubai, say reports. In the past months, rumors have surfaced that a new treaty could be in the offing – one that will no doubt prove disastrous to a free and open Internet.
Most U.S. resolutions, as well as free-market commentary in publications such as the Journal, “have focused on proposals by authoritarian governments to censor the Internet,” the paper reported. “Just as objectionable are proposals that ignore how the Internet works, threatening its smooth and open operations.”
What would be the effect of having the Internet “reviewed” and “regulated” by global bureaucrats, most of whom are sympathetic to, or beholden to, authoritarian regimes bent on stifling free speech, free expression and individual liberty.
The Internet consists of 40,000 networks, interconnected among 425,000 global routes that cheaply and inefficiently deliver messages and digital content to about two billion people around the world every day – with a half-million signing on each day.
Up to now, the Internet has been self-regulating, which has obviously been working just fine (hence the growth figures in the previous paragraph). As it stands, no one has to ask for permission to put up their own blog or website. No government has the ability or right to tell network operators how they should do their jobs.

‘Technology moves faster than any treaty process’

What has transpired is an extremely rare, if virtual, place for innovation that requires no prior permission from a regulatory or government agency or bureaucrat or governing body.
Former Federal Communications Commission Chairman William Kennard pointed out that 90 percent of cooperative “peering” agreements among co-existing networks are “made on a handshake,” adjusting as needs change.
“The Internet is highly complex and highly technical, yet governments are the only ones making decisions at the ITU, putting the Internet at their mercy,” Sally Wentworth of the Internet Society told the Journal recently. She went on to say that Web developers and engineers who make the Internet work have said it’s “mind boggling” that any government – even a so-called world government – would ever claim the universal right to regulate or manage the Internet.
“Technology moves faster than any treaty process ever can,” Internet Society warned.
Even if the Obama administration hasn’t yet publicly stated its position, liberty-minded officials and lawmakers in Europe (believe it or not) have stepped up to the plate.
The European Parliament has passed a resolution that protests plans by the ITU to seize control of the Internet.
“[The European Parliament] believes that the ITU, or any other single, centralized international institution, is not the appropriate body to assert regulatory authority over either Internet governance of Internet traffic flows,” says the resolution, which was passed by a majority of EP representatives, reports said.

Biggest backers of regulation include Russia, China

According to Britain’s The Guardian newspaper:
What’s worrying the EP, along with an unlikely coalition of Google, the U.S. Republican party, organized labor, and Greenpeace, is that the meeting might try and take over regulatory oversight for Internet communications in a closed-door coup. The U.S. government has said it will oppose serious moves to change the current regulatory order, but how effective that will be remains to be seen.
“The resolution of the Parliament is a big success for internet users. This sends a clear and positive signal to the European Commission and the Member States”, said Amelia Andersdotter, MEP for the Pirate Party and co-submitter of the resolution, The Register reported.
Some of the biggest backers of unmitigated Internet regulation include, not surprisingly, the authoritarian regimes of Russia and China.
As we’ve said, the Internet is truly the last bastion of genuinely free speech and expression, not to mention a tremendous creator of commerce and wealth. Regulating the Internet will have exactly the same effect as regulations on industry have had – it will stifle creativity, curb freedoms, kill jobs and destroy economic growth.
We’ll be keeping an eye on this very important issue.


We're Heading For Economic Dictatorship

Zero Hedge
Nov. 27, 2012
Authored by Janet Daley via the Ludwig von Mises Institute of Canada (originally posted on The Telegraph),

Forget about that dead parrot of a question – should we join the eurozone? The eurozone has officially joined us in a newly emerging international organisation: we are all now members of the Permanent No-growth Club. And the United States has just re-elected a president who seems determined to sign up too. No government in what used to be called “the free world” seems prepared to take the steps that can stop this inexorable decline. They are all busily telling their electorates that austerity is for other people (France), or that the piddling attempts they have made at it will solve the problem (Britain), or that taxing “the rich” will make it unnecessary for government to cut back its own spending (America).
So here we all are. Like us, the member nations of the European single currency have embarked on their very own double (or is it triple?) dip recession. This is the future: the long, meandering “zig-zag” recovery to which the politicians and heads of central banks allude is just a euphemism for the end of economic life as we have known it.
Now there are some people for whom this will not sound like bad news. Many on the Left will finally have got the economy of their dreams – or, rather, the one they have always believed in. At last, we will be living with that fixed, unchanging pie which must be divided up “fairly” if social justice is to be achieved. Instead of a dynamic, growing pot of wealth and ever-increasing resources, which can enable larger and larger proportions of the population to become prosperous without taking anything away from any other group, there will indeed be an absolute limit on the amount of capital circulating within the society.
The only decisions to be made will involve how that given, unalterable sum is to be shared out – and those judgments will, of course, have to be made by the state since there will be no dynamic economic force outside of government to enter the equation. Wealth distribution will be the principal – virtually the only – significant function of political life. Is this Left-wing heaven?
Well, not quite. The total absence of economic growth would mean that the limitations on that distribution would be so severe as to require draconian legal enforcement: rationing, limits on the amount of currency that can be taken abroad, import restrictions and the kinds of penalties for economic crimes (undercutting, or “black market” selling practices) which have been unknown in the West since the end of the Second World War.
In this dystopian future there would have to be permanent austerity programmes. This would not only mean cutting government spending, which is what “austerity” means now, but the real kind: genuine falls in the standard of living of most working people, caused not just by frozen wages and the collapse in the value of savings (due to repeated bouts of money-printing), but also by the shortages of goods that will result from lack of investment and business expansion, not to mention the absence of cheaper goods from abroad due to import controls.
And it is not just day-to-day life that would be affected by the absence of growth in the economy. In the longer term, we can say good-bye to the technological innovations which have been spurred by competitive entrepreneurial activity, the medical advances funded by investment which an expanding economy can afford, and most poignantly perhaps, the social mobility that is made possible by increasing the reach of prosperity so that it includes ever-growing numbers of people. In short, almost everything we have come to understand as progress. Farewell to all that. But this is not the end of it. When the economy of a country is dead, and its political life is consumed by artificial mechanisms of forced distribution, its wealth does not remain static: it actually contracts and diminishes in value. If capital cannot grow – if there is no possibility of it growing – it becomes worthless in international exchange. This is what happened to the currencies of the Eastern bloc: they became phoney constructs with no value outside their own closed, recycled system.
When Germany was reunified, the Western half, in an act of almost superhuman political goodwill, arbitrarily declared the currency of the Eastern half to be equal in value to that of its own hugely successful one. The exercise nearly bankrupted the country, so great was the disparity between the vital, expanding Deutschemark and the risibly meaningless Ostmark which, like the Soviet ruble, had no economic legitimacy in the outside world.
At least then, there was a thriving West that could rescue the peoples of the East from the endless poverty of economies that were forbidden to grow by ideological edict. It remains to be seen what the consequences will be of the whole of the West, America included, falling into the economic black hole of permanent no-growth. Presumably, it will eventually have to move towards precisely the social and political structures that the East employed. As the fixed pot of national wealth loses ever more value, and resources shrink, the measures to enforce “fair” distribution must become more totalitarian: there will have to be confiscatory taxation on assets and property, collectivisation of the production of goods, and directed labour.
Democratic socialism with its “soft redistribution” and exponential growth of government spending will have paved the way for the hard redistribution of diminished resources under economic dictatorship. You think this sounds fanciful? It is just the logical conclusion of what will seem like enlightened social policy in a zero-growth society where hardship will need to be minimised by rigorously enforced equality. Then what? The rioting we see now in Italy and Greece – countries that had to have their democratic governments surgically removed in order to impose the uniform levels of poverty that are made necessary by dead economies – will spread throughout the West, and have to be contained by hard-fisted governments with or without democratic mandates. Political parties of all complexions talk of “balanced solutions”, which they think will sound more politically palatable than drastic cuts in public spending: tax rises on “the better-off” (the only people in a position to create real wealth) are put on the moral scale alongside “welfare cuts” on the unproductive.
This is not even a recipe for standing still: tax rises prevent growth and job creation, as well as reducing tax revenue. It is a formula for permanent decline in the private sector and endless austerity in the public one. But reduced government spending accompanied by tax cuts (particularly on employment – what the Americans call “payroll taxes”) could stimulate the growth of new wealth and begin a recovery. Most politicians on the Right understand this. They have about five minutes left to make the argument for it.

Economic Totalitarianism and the Fiscal Cliff

Kurt Nimmo
November 28, 2012

In an article titled We’re Heading For Economic Dictatorship, Janet Daley of the Ludwig von Mises Institute of Canada breaks down the economic totalitarianism we now face as the so-called “double-dip recession” rears its ugly head. Daley describes how economies manipulated by central banks ultimately terminate in redistributive socialism designed to loot the producers and impose a grinding austerity across the board.

“In this dystopian future there would have to be permanent austerity programs,” she writes. “This would not only mean cutting government spending, which is what ‘austerity’ means now, but the real kind: genuine falls in the standard of living of most working people, caused not just by frozen wages and the collapse in the value of savings (due to repeated bouts of money-printing), but also by the shortages of goods that will result from lack of investment and business expansion, not to mention the absence of cheaper goods from abroad due to import controls.”
Daley correctly compares what is now emerging in the West to what brought down the Soviet Union. She writes that the West will increasingly use “the social and political structures that the East employed. As the fixed pot of national wealth loses ever more value, and resources shrink, the measures to enforce ‘fair’ distribution must become more totalitarian: there will have to be confiscatory taxation on assets and property, collectivization of the production of goods, and directed labor.”
It will be the “logical conclusion of what will seem like enlightened social policy in a zero-growth society where hardship will need to be minimized by rigorously enforced equality,” a false equality Democrats have enthusiastically demonstrated they are more than ready to impose.
I’d add to her analysis my own observation. If the so-called right is correct and Obama is indeed a socialist, he is a socialist designed by the banksters and the ruling elite. Despite inane cheering on the so-called left side of the rigged political spectrum, “taxing the rich” (the producers) will not be imposed in the name of social justice or as a valiant attempt to buttress the social safety net – it will be a continuation and expansion of predatory looting of wealth by the elite and just as importantly a method of social and political control of the masses.
“If one understands that socialism is not a share-the-wealth program, but is in reality a method to consolidate and control the wealth, then the seeming paradox of superrich men promoting socialism becomes no paradox at all,” writes the late Gary Allen in his nearly universally condemned book, None Dare Call It Conspiracy. “Instead it becomes the logical, even the perfect tool of power-seeking megalomaniacs. Communism, or more accurately, socialism, is not a movement of the downtrodden masses, but of the economic elite.”
Under the public relations cover of facing up to the “fiscal cliff,” Republicans have signaled they are ready to further tax the remaining producers of wealth as Democrats agree to politically suicidal budget cuts to formerly untouchable “entitlements” such as Medicare and Social Security.
The unanimity of Democrats and Republicans to further hobble wealth production was highlighted today when Grover Norquist, founder and president of Americans for Tax Reform, begged Republicans to maintain a “credible” separation from any tax hike as part of a deal to avoid the so-called fiscal cliff. Norquist said Republicans can’t “have their fingerprints on the murder weapon,” a declaration more pertinent than Mr. Norquist probably realizes.
Political suicide, of course, is a relative term: in a nation with only one political party – a monopoly underwritten by a predatory elite that ruthlessly subdues and attacks any viable alternative — there may be suicide for individual politicians, but not the system as a whole.
Only a revolution is capable of overturning this dismal state of affairs.

VIDEO: The UN Climate Conference Wants You To Pay Global Carbon Taxes To Save The Environment! The "Junk Science" Commission Is Just A Money Grab For Centralized Tyranny!!

Russian Newspaper: Obama Was Re-Elected by “Illiterate Society”
November 26, 2012

Russian newspaper Pravda is blaming President Obama’s re-election on an “illiterate society” who voted for him.
Putin in 2009 outlined his strategy for economic success. Alas, poor Obama did the opposite but nevertheless was re-elected. Bye, bye Miss American Pie. The Communists have won in America with Obama but failed miserably in Russia with Zyuganov who only received 17% of the vote. Vladimir Putin was re-elected as President keeping the NWO order out of Russia while America continues to repeat the Soviet mistake.
After Obama was elected in his first term as president the then Prime Minister of Russia, Vladimir Putin gave a speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland in January of 2009. Ignored by the West as usual, Putin gave insightful and helpful advice to help the world economy and saying the world should avoid the Soviet mistake.

Read more

VIDEO: Here's Why Rand Paul Was Right To Endorse Romney

Tuesday, November 27, 2012

VIDEO: Dismantling Democracy In The Euro Zone. Lord Christopher Monckton Reports On E.U. Corruption And Tyranny

VIDEO: Nigel Farage Predicts Violent Revolution Coming For European Union Tyrants!!

UN Global Gun Ban Flimflam

Joe Wolverton, II, J.D.
New American
November 27, 2012

On November 7, the First Committee of the United Nations General Assembly voted 157-0(with 18 abstentions) in favor of Resolution L.11 that will finalize the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) in March 2013.
China, the United Kingdom, and Germany all voted to move the historic measure toward passage.
As we have reported, when the treaty was being deliberated in July, the United States was the only obstacle preventing the global arms control regulations from being imposed on the world.
Miraculously, however, all the points of the agreement Secretary Clinton found so distasteful in the summer were made so much more palatable after President Obama’s reelection, and every single attack on the right to bear arms remains in the version of the treaty approved on November 7.
Within hours of his securing his reelection, President Obama placed a late night call to the U.S. United Nations delegation ordering them to vote in favor of a passage of L.11.
As soon as news of the U.S. policy 180 was confirmed, a new round of negotiations on the treaty was scheduled for March 18-28 at the UN headquarters in New York City.
That was immediately followed by a press release sent out early the next morning from the United Nations General Assembly’s First Committee proclaiming the good news of President Obama’s go-ahead for the gun grab and setting the agenda for the next gun control conference.

Also kindling discussion among delegations was a draft resolution aimed at building on the progress made toward the adoption of a strong, balanced and effective arms trade treaty. That text would decide to convene the “Final United Nations Conference” for the creation of such a treaty in March 2013.
Also by that resolution, the draft text of the treaty submitted by the conference’s president on July 26 would be the basis for future work, without prejudice to the right of delegations to put forward additional proposals on that text.
The U.S. government was now placing its full weight behind convening a “Final United Nations Conference” for the proposal of a treaty imposing worldwide gun control regulations.
In July, 51 senators sent a letter to President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton encouraging them to “not only to uphold our country’s constitutional protections of civilian firearms ownership, but to ensure — if necessary, by breaking consensus at the July conference — that the treaty will explicitly recognize the legitimacy of lawful activities associated with firearms, including but not limited to the right of self-defense.”
The failure to pass an acceptable version of the treaty in July is in the president’s rearview mirror, however, as Reuters reports that “adoption of a strong, balanced and effective Arms Trade Treaty” could be imminent.
Reuters quotes Brian Wood of Amnesty International:
After today’s resounding vote, if the larger arms trading countries show real political will in the negotiations, we’re only months away from securing a new global deal that has the potential to stop weapons reaching those who seriously abuse human rights.
The definition of an “abuse” of “human rights” will be left up to a coterie of internationalist bureaucrats who will be neither accountable to nor elected by citizens of the United States.
With good reason, then, gun rights advocates oppose approval of this treaty.
After all, it does seem more than a little incongruous that a nation that places such a high value on gun ownership that it enshrined it in its Bill of Rights participates in an organization that opposes gun ownership so staunchly that it has an Office for Disarmament Affairs. An office, by the way, that the U.S. Deputy Director, Office of Weapons Removal and Abatement, Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, Steven Costner, proudly announced would be moving from Geneva to New York City.
Lest anyone believe the U.S. delegation official’s promise to Reuters that “we will not accept any treaty that infringes on the constitutional rights of our citizens to bear arms,” consider the fact that a report issued after the conclusion of the last Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) conference in July listed the goal of the agreement to be UN control of the “manufacture, control, trafficking, circulation, brokering and trade, as well as tracing, finance, collection and destruction of small arms and light weapons.”
That is a very comprehensive attack on “all aspects” of gun trade and ownership. Notably, the phrase “in all aspects” occurs 38 times in the draft of the ATT. The United Nations will control the purchase of guns and ammo, the possession of guns and ammo, and any guns and ammo not willingly surrendered to the UN will be tracked, seized, and destroyed.
A question that must be considered is what the UN will consider “adequate laws.” Will the globalists at the UN consider the Second Amendment’s guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms without infringement to be a sufficient control on gun ownership?
The effort at eradication of private gun ownership is more insidious than it appears, however. On page 25 of the 1997 UN Secretary General’s Report on Criminal Justice Reform and Strengthening Legal Institutions Measure to Regulate Firearms  (of which the United States was a signatory), a part of the regulations agreed to by the United States is the administering of a psychological test before a person is cleared to buy ammunition.
Apparently, the UN recognizes that without ammunition a gun is no more than a club, so in order to effectively disarm a population, the UN does not need to seize all the weapons; it merely has to prevent purchase of ammunition.
How does the ATT (and the Programme of Action that undergirds it) propose to enforce this anti-gun agenda?
Section III, Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Programme of Action mandate that if a member state cannot get rid of privately owned small arms legislatively, then the control of “customs, police, intelligence, and arms control” will be placed under the power of a board of UN bureaucrats operating out of the UN Office for Disarmament Affairs.
This provision includes the deployment of UN peacekeeping forces in a member state to seize and destroy “weapons stockpiles.”
Again, no definition of stockpile, but by that time it will be too late to make that argument.
In order to assist these blue-helmets and their disarmament overlords in their search and seizure of this ammunition, Section III, Paragraph 10 mandates that member states develop technology to improve the UN’s ability to detect stockpiles of ammo and arms.
This will be made much easier when the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) gets its hands on the portable invisible lasers developed by Genia Laboratories (a company created by CIA offshoot In-Q-Tel) that can detect even trace amounts of gun powder from over 50 yards away. The laser reportedly can penetrate walls, glass, and metal. DHS is scheduled to take possession of the devices before the end of the year, according to testimony presented on Capitol Hill late last year.
The UN’s effort to collect ammo from those they wish to oppress (a disarmed society is a slave society) is nothing new. The “shot heard ’round the world” on Lexington Green in 1775 was fired because British troops planned to seize the ammunition stockpile stored outside of Lexington.
Perhaps our reporting on the president’s late-night call putting the wheels of global gun control in motion will awaken modern Americans to the threat to our sacred Second Amendment rights. After all, it was a late night call that roused sleepy colonists in defense of their right to bear arms, as well. This time, however, it is not the British who are coming for our guns and ammunition, but it is the United Nations and agents of our own federal government.

VIDEO: New World Order Tyranny Exposed! Former U.S. National Security Advisor Traitor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Fears Populist Resistance To The NWO!!!

VIDEO: The Max Keiser Financial Terrorism Reports For The Month Of November 2012. Twinkies, Ho-Hos, Ding Dongs, Silver On Steroids And The Zombie Apocalypse

Monday, November 26, 2012

The Supreme Court – A Law Unto Themselves

Bradlee Dean

Nov 26, 2012
Wherever LAW ends, tyranny begins. – Inscription in the Minnesota Supreme Court chambers.

Recently, Judge Andrew Napolitano gave a dim prognostication of what could happen to the rights of the American people if Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg would fall to sickness or old age in the next four years. He was afraid that Obama might replace her with a progressive (a communist) who would in turn do much damage to the Second Amendment and other rights that God has given to the American people.
The Bill of Rights was the “thou shalt nots” to the government. Judges do not have the right to usurp the Constitution by gutting the Second Amendment (or any other amendment) through their opinion.
Judge Andrew Napolitano must be under the delusion, as most Americans are, that the Supreme Court is the final say in all matters even if they violate our Constitution and the laws of our Republic, when in fact they are not the final say.
Judges were never intended to write, change, or create law. They are merely referees charged with the protection of the citizenry by enforcing laws enacted by Congress under the authority of the Constitution.
The judges themselves are to be ruled by law, just like the people they serve. Judges do not have the right to break the law. They are not to legislate from the bench in the manner that the American people have been trained and accustomed to over the last 50 years.
Keep in mind, this is the same court that sits under Moses and the Ten Commandments, whom in each individual case swore to uphold the Constitution, “so help me God,” and who starts their proceedings with the following statement: “God save the United States and this Honorable Court!”
William Blackstone, a professor of Common Law whom our founders often referenced when framing the American Constitution, said, “No enactment of man can be considered law unless it conforms to the law of God”.
In the 1892 case, “Church of the Holy Trinity v. The United States,” the Court provided 87 precedents of quotes and acts from the founding fathers, acts of congress and state governments, etc. to prove “this is a Christian nation.” They also said they could have found many more!
States also have laws on their books that are directly aligned with the Ten Commandments found in Exodus 20, prohibiting blasphemy, adultery, perjury (bearing false witness), murder, and theft.

The Attack Begins

Contrary to America’s Christian foundation, in 1962 the Supreme Court committed an oligarchy (few ruling over many) and removed prayer from public schools in the case Engel v. Vitale. This case was also the first court case in history to use ZERO precedents.
In 1980, the Ten Commandments were taken out of the schools in the case Stone v. Graham. The Court made the following statement:
“If the posted copies of the Ten Commandments are to have any effect at all, it will be to induce the schoolchildren to read, meditate upon, perhaps to venerate and obey, the Commandments… [which] is not a permissible … objective.”
These cases began the quick downward spiral of American freedom, for freedom cannot exist without morality. Since then, the Supreme Court has been guilty of attacking one American principle after another with cases such as Roe v. Wade (abortion), Lawrence v. Texas (sodomy), and now National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (Obamacare). (Need we mention Chief Justice Roberts’ treachery?)
Marbury v. Madison states that, “All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution, are null and void.”
It is clear that a majority of today’s Supreme Court justices are not ruling within the confines of the Constitution and many Americans are under the delusion that the Supreme Court justices once appointed, are in office for life. Yet the Constitution prescribes, “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices – ONLY – during good Behavior…” If they rule outside of their scope of power even once, they have committed an impeachable offense and it is our duty to remove them from the bench immediately.
In conclusion, if the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the Constitution says, then we have ceased to be our own rulers (under God) and the Supreme Court is our ruler, which in fact is not the case.

While vetting each of the current Supreme Court Justices in the video below, you decide who is lawfully on the bench today.

Paul Krugman Outright Calls for Printing Money and Lots of It

Bill Anderson
Lew Rockwell Blog
Nov 26, 2012

In his NY Times column today, Paul Krugman lets himself go and calls for an outright “inflation solution.”
The government, he says, does not have to worry about debt, since it can print as much money as it wants and investors apparently never will change any of their plans or expectations.
Indeed, he writes that more inflation will encourage more investment, since “expected inflation would discourage corporations and families from sitting on cash, while a weaker dollar would make our exports more competitive.”
I deal more with his column in my Krugman-in-Wonderland blog.
By the way, it is a two-for-one special as Warren Buffett in another NYT op-ed makes the amazing claim that tax rates have no effect upon investment decisions.

Fraud, It’s Much Bigger Than Goldman Sachs

By Greg Hunter’s 
April 19, 2010

Goldman Sachs was charged with fraud last week by the Securities and Exchange Commission.  The investment bank says the charges are “unfounded in law and fact.”  Regulators allege “Goldman wrongly permitted a client that was betting against the mortgage market to heavily influence which mortgage securities to include in an investment portfolio, while telling other investors that the securities were selected by an independent, objective third party,” SEC Enforcement Director Robert Khuzami said in a statement.  In other words
, Goldman and a hedge fund client put together a ball of sub-prime crap designed to fail and bet against it.  Goldman also took out insurance on those same mortgage backed securities from AIG–yes, the same AIG taxpayers bailed out to the tune of $180 billion. Goldman was paid a total of nearly $13 billion from AIG at the direction of Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner.  What a mess and it is going to get much worse before it gets better.  
Plaintiff attorneys are preparing for a deluge of future lawsuits written about in this recent Reuters article: The SEC’s charges against Goldman are already stirring up investors who lost big on the CDOs, according to well-known plaintiffs lawyer Jake Zamansky.  “I’ve been contacted by Goldman customers to bring lawsuits to recover their losses,” Zamansky said. “It’s going to go way beyond ABACUS. (name of Goldman security in question) Regulators and plaintiffs’ lawyers are going to be looking at other deals, to what kind of conflicts Goldman has.”  (Click here for the full Reuters story.)   Also, the UK and German governments are asking for their own investigation into Goldman Sachs deals.   
If you think this was the only shady deal dreamed up by Wall Street banks, you have another thing coming.  All of the big banks have been selling securities called derivatives for at least two decades.  Derivatives are usually bundles of debt.  There are derivatives for mortgages, car loans, credit cards, student loans and all types of government debt, to name a few.  Derivatives are complex, but when it comes right down to it, you can sum them all up as debt bets.  
Derivatives are a $600 trillion market according to the Bank of International Settlements.  (Some say the BIS estimate of the derivatives market is actually more than $1,000 trillion!)  And here is the best part–derivatives are totally unregulated.  That means there are no standards, no guarantees and no public markets.  With no public market, there is no real way to price this kind of Wall Street alchemy.  You just have to trust the person selling the “security.”  Take the Goldman fraud case, for example.  If there was a public market, Goldman would have never been able to pack crap loans into a security and sell them.  The regulation and guarantees would not have allowed it.  After all, regulations, guarantees and a public market make selling derivatives a lot less profitable.  That’s why Wall Street has been fighting regulation of the derivatives market for years.  
Now, amplify this kind of Wild West market with all the big Wall Street banks and you get something so huge and so packed with junk that you have to suspend accounting rules to keep the system solvent.  That is what you have today.   I wrote about this in a post last year called “Can The Financial System Really Be Fixed?  Some Say No.” 
Famed investor Jim Sinclair ( was setting off alarms about the massive problems derivatives can cause several years ago.  In 2005, he said, “What OTC derivatives do not do to International Investment Banks, litigation will.”  The Goldman fraud case is just the beginning of years of investor lawsuits against just about anyone dealing in the derivatives market.  So, when the news broke last Friday that Goldman was hit with fraud charges, all the big banks sold off.
Without unregulated derivatives, we would not have had the financial meltdown, mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would not have failed, and we would not have problems with Greek debt and other sovereign debt.  How can this $600 trillion dollar market be unwound?  So far, taxpayers and investors around the world have been picking up the tab.  Now it may be Wall Street’s turn to pony up some dough.  Don’t be surprised if some of them get taken down by their own toxic financial waste.

VIDEO: Even This Green Idiot Can See That "Cap and Trade" Is A Goldman Sachs And Enron Scam

December 8, 2009
Rolling Stone’s author Matt Taibbi wrote an article about Goldman Sachs titled, “The Great American Bubble Machine“, he writes how they are about to engineer the next great bubble — the trillion dollar carbon cap and credit market.
To my surprise, Enron, one of the most corrupt gangsters besides the Goldman Sachs mafia also take part in this new carbon-credit scheme. (pay no mind to the AWG propaganda):

“the first thing you need to know about Goldman Sachs is that it is everywhere. The world’s most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money.” -Matt Taibbi

Bankers Have Seized Europe: Goldman Sachs Has Taken Over

Paul Craig Roberts
Saturday, November 26, 2011

On November 25, two days after a failed German government bond auction in which Germany was unable to sell 35% of its offerings of 10-year bonds, the German finance minister, Wolfgang Schaeuble said that Germany might retreat from its demands that the private banks that hold the troubled sovereign debt from Greece, Italy, and Spain must accept part of the cost of their bailout by writing off some of the debt.

The private banks want to avoid any losses either by forcing the Greek, Italian, and Spanish governments to make good on the bonds by imposing extreme austerity on their citizens, or by having the European Central Bank print euros with which to buy the sovereign debt from the private banks. Printing money to make good on debt is contrary to the ECB’s charter and especially frightens Germans, because of the Weimar experience with hyperinflation.
Obviously, the German government got the message from the orchestrated failed bond auction. As I wrote at the time, there is no reason for Germany, with its relatively low debt to GDP ratio compared to the troubled countries, not to be able to sell its bonds.
If Germany’s creditworthiness is in doubt, how can Germany be expected to bail out other countries? Evidence that Germany’s failed bond auction was orchestrated is provided by troubled Italy’s successful bond auction two days later.
Strange, isn’t it. Italy, the largest EU country that requires a bailout of its debt, can still sell its bonds, but Germany, which requires no bailout and which is expected to bear a disproportionate cost of Italy’s, Greece’s and Spain’s bailout, could not sell its bonds.
In my opinion, the failed German bond auction was orchestrated by the US Treasury, by the European Central Bank and EU authorities, and by the private banks that own the troubled sovereign debt.
My opinion is based on the following facts. Goldman Sachs and US banks have guaranteed perhaps one trillion dollars or more of European sovereign debt by selling swaps or insurance against which they have not reserved. The fees the US banks received for guaranteeing the values of European sovereign debt instruments simply went into profits and executive bonuses. This, of course, is what ruined the American insurance giant, AIG, leading to the TARP bailout at US taxpayer expense and Goldman Sachs’ enormous profits.
If any of the European sovereign debt fails, US financial institutions that issued swaps or unfunded guarantees against the debt are on the hook for large sums that they do not have. The reputation of the US financial system probably could not survive its default on the swaps it has issued. Therefore, the failure of European sovereign debt would renew the financial crisis in the US, requiring a new round of bailouts and/or a new round of Federal Reserve “quantitative easing,” that is, the printing of money in order to make good on irresponsible financial instruments, the issue of which enriched a tiny number of executives.
Certainly, President Obama does not want to go into an election year facing this prospect of high profile US financial failure. So, without any doubt, the US Treasury wants Germany out of the way of a European bailout.
The private French, German, and Dutch banks, which appear to hold most of the troubled sovereign debt, don’t want any losses. Either their balance sheets, already ruined by Wall Street’s fraudulent derivatives, cannot stand further losses or they fear the drop in their share prices from lowered earnings due to write-downs of bad sovereign debts. In other words, for these banks big money is involved, which provides an enormous incentive to get the German government out of the way of their profit statements.
The European Central Bank does not like being a lesser entity than the US Federal Reserve and the UK’s Bank of England. The ECB wants the power to be able to undertake “quantitative easing” on its own. The ECB is frustrated by the restrictions put on its powers by the conditions that Germany required in order to give up its own currency and the German central bank’s control over the country’s money supply. The EU authorities want more “unity,” by which is meant less sovereignty of the member countries of the EU. Germany, being the most powerful member of the EU, is in the way of the power that the EU authorities desire to wield.
Thus, the Germans bond auction failure, an orchestrated event to punish Germany and to warn the German government not to obstruct “unity” or loss of individual country sovereignty.
Germany, which has been browbeat since its defeat in World War II, has been made constitutionally incapable of strong leadership. Any sign of German leadership is quickly quelled by dredging up remembrances of the Third Reich. As a consequence, Germany has been pushed into an European Union that intends to destroy the political sovereignty of the member governments, just as Abe Lincoln destroyed the sovereignty of the American states.
Who will rule the New Europe? Obviously, the private European banks and Goldman Sachs.
The new president of the European Central Bank is Mario Draghi. This person was Vice Chairman and Managing Director of Goldman Sachs International and a member of Goldman Sachs’ Management Committee. Draghi was also Italian Executive Director of the World Bank, Governor of the Bank of Italy, a member of the governing council of the European Central Bank, a member of the board of directors of the Bank for International Settlements, and a member of the boards of governors of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the Asian Development Bank, and Chairman of the Financial Stability Board.
Obviously, Draghi is going to protect the power of bankers.
Italy’s new prime minister, who was appointed not elected, was a member of Goldman Sachs Board of International Advisers. Mario Monti was appointed to the European Commission, one of the governing organizations of the EU. Monti is European Chairman of the Trilateral Commission, a US organization that advances American hegemony over the world. Monti is a member of the Bilderberg group and a founding member of the Spinelli group, an organization created in September 2010 to facilitate integration within the EU.
Just as an unelected banker was installed as prime minister of Italy, an unelected banker was installed as prime minister of Greece. Obviously, they are intended to produce the bankers’ solution to the sovereign debt crisis.
Greece’s new appointed prime minister, Lucas Papademos, was Governor of the Bank of Greece. From 2002-2010. He was Vice President of the European Central Bank. He, also, is a member of America’s Trilateral Commission.
Jacques Delors, a founder of the European Union, promised the British Trade Union Congress in 1988 that the European Commission would require governments to introduce pro-labor legislation. Instead, we find the banker-controlled European Commission demanding that European labor bail out the private banks by accepting lower pay, fewer social services, and a later retirement.
The European Union, just like everything else, is merely another scheme to concentrate wealth in a few hands at the expense of European citizens, who are destined, like Americans, to be the serfs of the 21st century.

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.

Goldman Sachs Completes Economic Takeover of Europe

“Surprise” BoE pick Mark Carney attended Bilderberg meeting earlier this year

Paul Joseph Watson
November 26, 2012
The “surprise” announcement that Canadian Mark Carney is to be appointed Governor of the Bank of England means that the 2012 Bilderberg attendee completes Goldman Sachs’ virtual domination over all the major economies of Europe.
Carney’s appointment has come as a shock to many who expected current BoE deputy governor Paul Tucker to get the nod, but it’s not a surprise for us given that we forecast back in April Carney would be headhunted for the position.
Carney is a former 13-year veteran of Goldman Sachs and was involved in the 1998 Russian financial crisis which was exacerbated by Goldman advising Russia while simultaneously betting against the country’s ability to pay its debt.
Carney’s appointment arrives just six months after he attended the 2012 Bilderberg conference in Chantilly, Virginia, an annual confab of over a hundred of the most powerful people on the planet who have routinely flexed their kingmaker status.
The Guardian reports that Carney is “largely unknown outside the cloistered circles of central bankers and financial regulators,” why is why his appointment came as a surprise to many, including JP Morgan’s Malcolm Barr who considered Paul Tucker to be a “shoo-in” for the job.
Carney’s status as a foreign national is cited as one of the reasons his selection came as a shock, but being Canadian he is after all a “subject” of the Queen of England, who confirmed his appointment after he was recommended to her by Prime Minister David Cameron.
The presence of Carney at this year’s Bilderberg confab undoubtedly helped him curry favor amongst the global elite and helped him to secure the position as Governor of the BoE, just as it has aided other luminaries in exalting them to higher office, such as Herman Van Rompuy, who was picked as President of the European Union just days after he attended a Bilderberg Group dinner meeting.
Carney’s ascension to BoE head also represents the final piece of the jigsaw puzzle in Goldman Sachs’ quest to control virtually every major economy across the European continent.
Last year, former EU Commissioner Mario Monti was picked to replace Silvio Berlusconi, the democratically elected Prime Minister of Italy. Monti is an international advisor for Goldman Sachs, the European Chairman of David Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission and also a leading member of the Bilderberg Group.
“This is the band of criminals who brought us this financial disaster. It is like asking arsonists to put out the fire,”commented Alessandro Sallusti, editor of Il Giornale.
Similarly, when Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou dared to suggest the people of Greece be allowed to have their say in a referendum, within days he was dispatched and replaced with Lucas Papademos, former vice-President of the ECB, visiting Harvard Professor and ex-senior economist at the Boston Federal Reserve.
Papademos ran Greece’s central bank while it oversaw derivatives deals with Goldman Sachs that enabled Greece to hide the true size of its massive debt, leading to Europe’s debt crisis.
Papademos and Monti were installed as unelected leaders for the precise reason that they “aren’t directly accountable to the public,” noted Time Magazine’s Stephen Faris, once again illustrating the fundamentally dictatorial and undemocratic foundation of the entire European Union.
Shortly afterwards, Mario Draghi – former Vice Chairman of Goldman Sachs International – was installed as President of the European Central Bank.
The U.S. Treasury Secretary at the beginning of the 2008 financial collapse was Hank Paulson, former CEO of Goldman Sachs. When Paulson was replaced with Tim Geither, Goldman Sachs lobbyist Mark Patterson was hired as his chief advisor. Current Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein has visited the White House 10 times. Goldman Sachs spent the most money helping Barack Obama get elected in 2008.
Zero Hedge, who also predicted that Carney would defy the odds to secure the position at the Bank of England,notes today that, “All one needs to realize and remember how the events in the world play out is to remember one simple thing: GOLDMAN SACHS RUNS IT. Everything else is secondary.”
As the graphic below illustrates, the economies of France, Ireland, Germany and Belgium are also all now controlled by individuals who harbor a direct relationship with Goldman Sachs. The international banking giant, notorious for its corruption and insider trading, now has massive influence over virtually every major western economy on the planet.

Sunday, November 25, 2012

Private Savings Accounts May Be "On the Table" in Fiscal Cliff Talks

National Seniors Council
Nov 19, 2012

As part of the Administration’s continuing drive to redistribute wealth, the National Seniors Council believes that tax-deferred contributions to retirement plans like 401(k)s and IRAs may very well be on the table in bipartisan budget negotiations going on right now between Congress and the White House.

NSC will vigorously oppose any such “compromise.”

Liberals in Washington have long maintained that the favorable tax treatment of such contributions is effectively a “subsidy” to people who can afford to save for retirement and is not only unfair but a significant cause of the current government debt crisis. Therefore, it is quite likely that some type of limitation on how much “wealthy” individuals will be allowed to save using these investment vehicles is being insisted on by the Administration.

Since President Obama first came into office his Administration has made no secret of its desire to overhaul the way Americans save for retirement. This new National Retirement System will force virtually all Americans into government-run Guaranteed Retirement Accounts and do away with private retirement accounts entirely. Congressional Democrats held hearings on this very issue in 2008, an alliance of labor unions and left-wing groups have founded Retirement USA, a non-profit lobbying group, and legislation limiting the ability of individuals to control their private savings is currently pending before Congress.

S. 1020, the Savings Enhancement by Alleviating Leakage in 401(k)Savings Act sponsored by liberal Senator Herb Kohl, specifically limits the rights of individuals to borrow from their own private retirement accounts and is a dangerous first step towards government control over all private retirement savings. NSA opposes this legislation and will fight any effort to reintroduce it or any similar type of bill in the next Congress which convenes in January.

We urge all Americans who oppose this new National Retirement System scheme to sign our online petition and to contact their representatives in Congress. While the confiscation of private savings will not happen tomorrow, the Administration is laying the groundwork for this scheme right now by attempting to limit the ability of all Americans to take care of themselves and save for their futures independent of the federal government.

Obama Begins Push for New National Retirement System

National Seniors Council
Oct 13, 2010

A recent hearing sponsored by the Treasury and Labor Departments marked the beginning of the Obama Administration’s effort to nationalize the nation’s pension system and to eliminate private retirement accounts including IRA’s and 401k plans, NSC is warning.

The hearing, held in the Labor Department’s main auditorium, was monitored by NSC staff and featured a line up of left-wing activists including one representative of the AFL-CIO who advocated for more government regulation over private retirement accounts and even the establishment of government-sponsored annuities that would take the place of 401k plans.

"This hearing was set up to explore why Americans are not saving as much for their retirement as they could," explains National Seniors Council National Director Robert Crone, "However, it is clear that this is the first step towards a government takeover. It feels just like the beginning of the debate over health care and we all know how that ended up."

A representative of the liberal Pension Rights Center, Rebecca Davis, testified that the government needs to get involved because 401k plans and IRAs are unfair to poor people. She demanded the Obama administration set up a "government-sponsored program administered by the PBGC (the governments’ Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation)." She proclaimed that even "private annuities are problematic."

Such "reforms" would effectively end private retirement accounts in America, Crone warns. "These people want the government to require that ultimately all Americans buy these government annuities instead of saving or investing on their own. The Government could then take these trillions of dollars and redistribute it through this new national retirement system."

Deputy Treasury Secretary J. Mark Iwry, who presided over the hearing, is a long-time critic of 401k plans because he believes they benefit the rich. He also appears to be one of the Administration’s point man on this issue.

"This whole issue is moving forward very quickly," warns Crone. "Already there is a bill requiring all businesses to automatically enroll their employees in IRA plans in which part of every employee’s paycheck would be automatically deducted and deposited into this account. If this passes, the government will be just one step away from being able to confiscate all these retirement accounts."

NSC has taken the lead in warning the nation about this new government onslaught and is plotting ways to stop it.

"This effort ultimately is designed to grab the retirement nest eggs of America’s senior citizens. This new government annuity scheme, even if it is at first optional, will turn into a giant effort to redistribute the wealth of America’s older citizens," explains Crone. "This scheme mirrors what I expect the President will try to do with Social Security. He wants to turn that program into a welfare program, too."

NSC will likely unveil a new grassroots campaign effort later this year or early in January to coincide with the seating of the new Congress.

(Originally posted 10/13/10)

Banker-Owned Obama Considers Corporate Sponsorship of Second Inauguration

Blatant conflict of interest would at least bring ‘transparency’ to the president who cloaks himself in class warfare rhetoric while serving bankster agenda

Aaron Dykes
November 24, 2012
President Obama is officially considering corporate sponsors to back his second inaugural ceremony, citing worries that his base of donors are tapped out after floating upwards of $1 billion for his re-election — and pondering openly, officially, accepting cash from the most notorious 1% of the 1% in order to pay for the extravagant inaugural pageant that will follow the private swearing in ceremony for a president they have always controlled.
The team of backers will, no doubt, be heavily represented on Wall Street, and in particular in the close-knit circles who reaped mad cash on bailout giveaways, who have bought out the important positions in the cabinet, and who pretend to advice Obama on creating jobs while shipping them overseas, or downsizing them altogether amidst the economic storm.
The blatant conflict of interest would at least bring more transparency to the banker owned & operated president, who otherwise cloaks himself in class warfare rhetoric to appeal to the masses who voted for him, while in reality actually serving the very bankster interests he attacks in words, and words alone.
The move, reported by the Wall Street Journal, would thus make clear to anyone paying attention the virtual corporate ownership of the Office of the President that has continued through several heads of state.
In 2009, Obama publicly denounced corporate backing for his first inauguration, in attempt to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest, despite the fact that Wall Street’s biggest welfare recipients heavily backed his bid for the Oval Office as well as the inauguration celebration itself.
According to the watchdog group Public Citizen, top executives from Wachovia, Goldman Sachs and Lehman Brothers bundled at least $700,000 in contributions for inauguration events following Obama’s first election.
Craig Holman, of Public Citizen, commented that Obama’s readiness to take on corporate money for this event would “essentially codify this idea that corporations should be financing politics.”
Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton both took corporate money for their inaugurations, with a documented $42 million floating Bush’s 2005 ceremonies and festivities, and some $100 million for Clinton’s second term inaugural in 1997, according to the Wall Street Journal.
As thoroughly documented in The Obama Deception, released at the start of Obama’s first term, the president is heavily influenced and bought out not only by top Wall Street banking interests but by globalist policy wonks hell bent on undermining the United States and its Constitution.

Friday, November 23, 2012

Government Sets Its Sights on Private Retirement Accounts: “Giant Effort to Redistribute the Wealth of America’s Older Citizens”

Mac Slavo
Nov 21, 2012

A new effort by the Obama administration, Congress, the Treasury Department and labor unions aims to fundamentally alter how Americans plan and save for retirement.
Warnings have been popping up over the last several years about the possibility of re-appropriating the $3.5 Trillion sitting in private retirement and spreading those funds around to Americans who are deemed less fortunate.
This couldn’t possibly happen in America, right? At one time, most Americans also believed heath care mandates that force Americans at the barrel of a gun to surrender portions of their earnings into a universal system for all would never happen. Well, it did.
And now, those who would control and regulate every aspect of our lives are making a new push; one whose efforts will ultimately end in the seizure and redistribution the personal retirement savings of every American who has ever put money into a 401(k) or IRA.
This is no longer in the realm of conspiracy, but rather, public record.
A recent hearing sponsored by the Treasury and Labor Departments marked the beginning of the Obama Administration’s effort to nationalize the nation’s pension system and to eliminate private retirement accounts including IRA’s and 401k plans, NSC is warning.
The hearing, held in the Labor Department’s main auditorium, was monitored by NSC staff and featured a line up of left-wing activists including one representative of the AFL-CIO who advocated for more government regulation over private retirement accounts and even the establishment of government-sponsored annuities that would take the place of 401k plans.
“This hearing was set up to explore why Americans are not saving as much for their retirement as they could,” explains National Seniors Council National Director Robert Crone, “However, it is clear that this is the first step towards a government takeover. It feels just like the beginning of the debate over health care and we all know how that ended up.

A representative of the liberal Pension Rights Center, Rebecca Davis, testified that the government needs to get involved because 401k plans and IRAs are unfair to poor people. She demanded the Obama administration set up a “government-sponsored program administered by the PBGC (the governments’ Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation).”

Such “reforms” would effectively end private retirement accounts in America, Crone warns.
“These people want the government to require that ultimately all Americans buy these government annuities instead of saving or investing on their own.The Government could then take these trillions of dollars and redistribute it through this new national retirement system.

“This effort ultimately is designed to grab the retirement nest eggs of America’s senior citizens. This new government annuity scheme, even if it is at first optional, will turn into a giant effort to redistribute the wealth of America’s older citizens,” explains Crone. “This scheme mirrors what I expect the President will try to do with Social Security. He wants to turn that program into a welfare program, too.”
Via: National Seniors Council
With the re-election of President Obama, a majority Democrat Senate and powerful organization and lobbying from labor unions, we can fully expect legislation that will shift private accounts into the public coffers  to become reality in the not too distant future.
In fact, the push to mold the perceptions surrounding this issue is already on, as highlighted in a recent Market Watch article which claims to explain the 10 Things 401(k) Plans Won’t Tell You.

Did you know, for example, that 401(k) plans aren’t supposed to provide you with full retirement benefits, and that they were originally intended to be “mere supplements” to other plans, and that they only “benefit the rich?” Not only that, but according to the article, no one can really tell you how much money you’re going to need; all of those math formulas and expert calculations were all wrong. Additionally, there are so many hidden fees that you’re losing hundreds of thousands of dollars to Wall Street (most of us knew that one).
And all this time, the millions of Americans who contributed their money to these accounts over the last three decades were under the impression that their accounts would one day grow into a retirement nest egg from which retirees could spend their days in comfort and relaxation.
Nope. We had it all wrong. Private retirement accounts were never actually designed to ensure that you could retire! Only a government managed retirement plan can ensure that you will have the money you need when you turn 59 1/2. Only they will be able to ensure you don’t pay excessive, hidden fees (even though they could have created legislation to require firms to overtly disclose this information int he first place). And, only the government can provide 100% full retirement coverage, not just supplemental funds. Oh, and they also know WHEN you should retire, currently 65 years of age.
It’s on folks. They are going to hit Americans from all angles on this one.
First, the political hearings that will claim only the rich are benefiting from private retirement accounts.
Then they’ll point out how stock market crashes and volatility put your money at risk. In fact, if we do have another market crash, look for this to be a key reverberation.
Then they put the spin machine into action, so that you think you’re getting unbiased analysis and truth.
Then they open the guilt spigot and make those who have personal retirement savings wonder if they are being greedy, and those who don’t have savings will direct their anger not just at the rich, but anyone who has put any money away.
Finally, they will pass a bill, which we have to pass first in order to know what’s in it, and it’ll be a done deal.
The government of this country is coming for everything they can get their hands on.

Europe Fails Again, This Time To Get Budget Deal Done

Zero Hedge
Nov 23, 2012

In what should be the least unexpected news of the day, Europe has failed for the second time in one week, after disappointing with no Greek resolution on Monday (and forcing the BIS into a EUR liftathon scramble to indicate that all is still well), this time announcing that an attempt to come to a deal on the EU budget has failed, with another budget summit scheduled now for January.
This follows yesterday’s misreported news that Cyprus, too, was fixed and the country had achieved a “hard-won” (as some sad Eurohack called it) bailout: turns out it wasn’t in the end. And just how does one “hard-win” a bailout – crash their economy better than the rest? And speaking of Greece, nothing is fixed there either, but Germany, whose position was the reason for the first stalemate, demands optimism.
And so, once again, all is well. At least until the next failure to “fix” Greece, at which point Germany will demand even more optimism.