2008 capitalism died: Money Scam, cornerstone of our slavery

[mr freedom]

Fraud on a scale unimagined has been committed and the wealth of the Uk and USA has been looted by a relative handful of people. You ain't seen nuthin' yet!!

Can you elaborate on that item7? If there is any truth in your statement then it is very important! This "handful of people" who are they? Perhaps the perpetrators of 911? Or is that over reaching... I was pleased to hear someone finally connect 911 to this "credit crunch", Rory Bremner, who noted that interest rates collapsed after 911.

[item7]

Fraud on a scale unimagined has been committed and the wealth of the Uk and USA has been looted by a relative handful of people. You ain't seen nuthin' yet!!

Can you elaborate on that item7? If there is any truth in your statement then it is very important! This "handful of people" who are they? Perhaps the perpetrators of 911? Or is that over reaching... I was pleased to hear someone finally connect 911 to this "credit crunch", Rory Bremner, who noted that interest rates collapsed after 911.

http://www.theinternationalforecaster.com/

The above site has a number of articles on who the fraudsters are and there are many more sites which have been mentioned on this and other threads. Laws have been passed and others repealed to allow this outrage to pass, and no I will not list them as they have been mentioned many many times and are easy to find with a little research. As for ownership of the Fed it has been established in the US courts that it is privately owned. Do a search. You have been referred to a number of videos - have you watched any?

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=lsC2k9opOP0

This latest vid from the "Banking Collapse" thread makes for interesting viewing.

[mr freedom]

Fraud on a scale unimagined has been committed and the wealth of the Uk and USA has been looted by a relative handful of people. You ain't seen nuthin' yet!!

It is rather strange item7, that you would make such a grand statement, then refuse to elaborate on it? This is a discussion board you know!? Perhaps you are expressing the views of others?

[Disco_Destroyer]

http://www.rense.com/general80/protc.htm
.........And this is how the U.S. Treasury would handle an economic collapse. It's called the 6900 series of protocols. It would start with declaring a force majeure, which would immediately be interpreted by the marketplaces as a de facto repudiation of debt. Then the SEC and the various regulatory exchanges would anticipate the market's decline, hour by hour -- when Japan's markets opened the next day, what would happen when the European markets, and all the inter- linkages of the global markets. On the second day, US Special Forces would be dropped in by parachute in the cities where the twelve Federal Reserve district banks are located........

Interesting as alot of this seems to be playing out

[TonyGosling]

A Brief History of Money from the UK Money Reform Party
why aven't we seen this lot on Newsnight?

* The Origins of Money.
* The Beginning of Banking in Britain.
* Goldsmiths: The First Bankers.
* The Bank of England.
* Growth During the Industrial Revolution.
* Private Note Issue Ceases.
* The Growth of Privately Created Money.

I said it was brief
http://www.moneyreformparty.org.uk/mone ... _money.php

[outsider]

I'm not au fait with financial affairs, but these two articles look interesting:

http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Find-Fre ... &From=News

http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Find-Fre ... ?At=039106

[Disco_Destroyer]

Hyperinflation Catalyst For $2,000 Gold

40-year market veteran and fund manager Robin Griffiths of Cazenove Capital Management predicts that the overprinting of dollars as a result of the Wall Street bailout will act as a catalyst for gold prices to rocket to $2,000 an ounce, as demand for precious metals outstrips supply amidst rumors of market manipulation.


http://www.prisonplanet.com/hyperinflat ... -gold.html

[Linda]

US Economy Collapsing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dpJL6AN ... inati.html

[Disco_Destroyer]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dpJL6ANnV0[/youtube]

http://dotconnectoruk.blogspot.com/2008 ... inati.html

[scubadiver]

For all those who have watched 'Zeitgeist: Addendum', the original court documents for the case vs Jerome Daly over his refusal to pay the mortgage.

http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/Credi ... River.html

what a storm that would be. I would be so tempted if I were to get a house...

[outsider]

Some interesting stuff from Max Keiser:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=J1AMs5o7l ... re=related
http://karmabanqueradio.com/2008/09/28/ ... t-selling/
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=TNj70PiVVak
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=cEtVUtOEigQ

and another:
http://freedomfighterradio.net/wearecha ... gia/?p=400

[Disco_Destroyer]

This just about rounds everything up:-

Afshin Rattansi talks to Max Keiser: Global Rate Cuts

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRe0lIbSeaE[/youtube]

[outsider]

Brasscheck clip on the secrecy of the bailouts:

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/457.html

[acrobat74]

Just in case anyone still wonders about who will pay for the bailout:


http://blogs.ft.com/maverecon/2008/11/c ... ne-already

By Willem Buiter

Professor of European Political Economy, London School of Economics and Political Science; former chief economist of the EBRD, former external member of the MPC


As demonstrated in my previous post on the subject, the UK government has taken on a massive contingent exposure through its policies to bail out and support the UK banking sector.

Very soon, for instance, it is likely to own around 60 percent of all RBS stock. At the end of 2007, the balance sheet of the RBS Group was just under £2 trillion. Against this roughly £2 trillion increase in the UK government’s liabilities, one has to set the value of the assets of RBS Group.

I doubt whether the fair value (let alone the mark-to-market value) of the assets of RBS Group is anywhere near the value of the liabilities.

This is not based on any direct information on the quality of the assets, but on two observations.

First, a de-facto government take-over was required to keep the bank alive by restoring its access to external funding.

Second (and not unrelated) its market valuation was plummeting before the government stepped in.

The situation of the other banks in which the UK government has either a majority stake or a large (controlling) minority stake is unlikely to be much better.

Demands on the budget may also be made in the not too distant future by non-bank financial intermediaries, including insurance companies and pension funds, and by large non-financial companies, if the US experience with AIG and the Detroit car manufacturers is anything to go by.

The UK government is severely fiscally stretched by its wide range of explicit and implicit, formal and informal, firm and flaccid financial commitments to the UK banking sector. It is not clear that the government debt issuance implied by both this massive actual and contingent exposure to the banking sector and by the discretionary fiscal stimulus the government is preparing, will be financeable in the global capital market.

There is no guarantee that the market will be willing to absorb the additional debt issues the government must be planning for the next few years.

It (the market) will do so only if it believes that the government is able - economically, administratively and politically - to raise future taxes and/or to cut future public spending by enough to ensure that the increase in its total indebtedness net of the increase in the assets it acquires is matched by a correspondingly higher present discounted value of future primary government budget surpluses.

[acrobat74]

As mentioned...

The UK government is severely fiscally stretched by its wide range of explicit and implicit, formal and informal, firm and flaccid financial commitments to the UK banking sector. ...

There is no guarantee that the market will be willing to absorb the additional debt issues the government must be planning for the next few years.

It (the market) will do so only if it believes that the government is able - economically, administratively and politically - to raise future taxes and/or to cut future public spending by enough ...

And now...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008 ... airdarling
£120bn debt shock a headache for Darling
• Fiscal stimulus may be followed by tax rises
• Level of borrowing £30bn higher than forecast

* Allegra Stratton, political correspondent
* guardian.co.uk, Saturday November 22 2008 00.01 GMT

The chancellor, Alistair Darling, is preparing to admit that tax will need to rise after the next election as borrowing projections emerged showing the public finances in a worse state than previous estimates had shown. Darling will use his pre-budget report on Monday to say that "adjustments" will have to be made, though it is unclear whether these will be slated for 2010 or 2011.

[acrobat74]

Within the confines of the existing flawed monetary system, where the survival of banks is linked to the survival of the system itself, some folks still try to get things right in their own way.

It's just not true that all policy is being driven by baby-eating friends of Henry Kissinger who wear underwear with Zionist logos: the world is not black-and-white like this.


Here's an excellent article on David Blanchflower, an economist of the Bank of England's monetary policy committee.

Note how the pattern of deviating from the norm adds value.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008 ... erestrates

'They called me bonkers'

A year ago, leading economist David Blanchflower warned of recession and urged the Bank of England to cut interest rates. He was denounced as a crank. But that was then ... Ed Pilkington meets the wisest of the wise men

o Ed Pilkington
o guardian.co.uk, Thursday November 27 2008 00.01 GMT

There are few more powerful depictions of the brutality of the mob than Henrik Ibsen's play An Enemy of the People. Trouble erupts when the central character, Dr Thomas Stockmann, warns his fellow villagers that the public baths they have just opened are poisoning them. But no one listens. A baying crowd denounces him as a madman, the enemy of the people of the play's title. Ibsen concludes that "the strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone".

David Blanchflower knows intimately what it is to stand alone. The 56-year-old British-born economist, who now lives in New Hampshire on the east coast of the US, has spent much of the past year doing a Stockmann. In his case the village is the whole of the UK and the polluted water of which he has warned is the threat of a looming recession. Blanchflower consistently argued that unless the Bank of England cut interest rates to stimulate the economy, the country would pay a heavy price by falling into a deep and prolonged downward spiral. But nobody listened. He faced, as one commentator put it, a "tyranny of consensus", that inflation, not recession, was the looming evil. He was denounced as a maverick, a crank, and his views were widely discounted.

The dispute was one of the starkest disagreements at the highest levels of policy making to have been made public. And it was of supreme significance. Blanchflower is one of the nine "Wise Men" (even though one is a woman) who sit on the Bank of England's monetary policy committee. In them is vested the power - delegated by Gordon Brown in that dramatic first act of the incoming Labour government in 1997 - to set interest rates, and by so doing steer the nation's economy towards monetary stability. The decision those nine people make every month in Threadneedle Street directly touches the lives of millions, playing a crucial role in determining the UK's rate of growth, consumer spending levels and cost of living. If you are thinking of buying a new house, worried about hanging on to your job, struggling to pay off your credit-card debt, then your future partly hangs on Blanchflower and his colleagues getting it right.

Just how lonely things got for Blanchflower is illustrated by an Excel spreadsheet on the bank's website. It gives the month-by-month voting record of each of the MPC's members. In May this year he voted for a 0.25% cut in interest rates; all the other eight, led by the governor of the Bank of England, Mervyn King, voted no change. June: same again. July and August: same again, except that this time one member, Tim Besley, actually voted for an increase of 0.25%. September was the coldest month: Blanchflower, by now convinced that without a sharp reduction in interest rates Britain was heading over a cliff, voted for an extraordinary 0.5% cut. The other eight voted for no change.

"It was not a comfortable place to be in. It was not a comfortable time," Blanchflower says. "Within the MPC we had a debate. Externally though they called me bonkers. Various former members of the MPC said I didn't know what I was talking about. I was shocked by how many commentators went along with the consensus, and how little thought there was about alternatives. Newspapers were saying: 'Oh, here he goes again! Who listens to him? He's on his own.'"

Then came the collapse of Lehman Brothers, a seismic shock that radiated out from Wall Street and rapidly rumbled across the Atlantic and around the world. As panic spread, and Britain's own financial institutions came under massive pressure, the man who had for 12 consecutive months been warning of just this sort of crisis turned overnight from lonely maverick into sage with the crystal ball.

Again, the Bank of England spreadsheet tells the story. In October, all nine members of the MPC voted for a 0.5% rate cut - precisely the whopping reduction Blanchflower had advocated the previous month. November: the MPC acted unanimously again to slash interest rates by an astonishing 1.5%, the biggest cut in 27 years, bringing the rate to its lowest level since 1955. Stockmann had been vindicated.

There has always been a streak of the loner in Blanchflower, though he prefers to call it individualism. His mother reminded him recently that when he was about six the other children in his street in Brighton would say, "Let's go off this way," and he would promptly set off in the opposite direction.

It was at school that he acquired the nickname by which he is now universally known. When he was 10 the most famous footballer in Britain was Danny Blanchflower, so naturally his schoolmates latched on to that. Today, his mother is the only person who calls him David: even Mervyn King calls him Danny.

At school he also gained his lifelong passion for economics, which he went on to study at Leicester University as the first member of his family ever to go to college. After Leicester, he taught the subject for a while in schools in a poor area of Wolverhampton before deciding that he wanted to practise economics in his own right.

He calls himself a micro-economist, or more prosaically, a "data guy". "What people will say about Blanchflower," says Blanchflower, "is that I'm really good with data. I've been working with data for ever. That's my skill."

The data he knows best relates to labour and the workplace. The theme running through all his work, first in British universities and for the past 19 years in an American academic institution, has been a concern for the wellbeing of ordinary working families. For Blanchflower, economics is not just an intellectual challenge but a toolbox for improving the lot of people, or at least, when times are bad, to diminish their pain.

"I always think that we should worry about the wellbeing of the man on the Clapham Omnibus. How do you get people out of unemployment and into good jobs? I come from a data-driven tradition, the economics of walking about. You ask people what's going on in their lives, and you take seriously what answers they give you."

But first he had to take seriously his own economic wellbeing. At the age of 38, by now a lecturer at Surrey University, he came to the conclusion that the life of an impecunious British academic wasn't for him. Paradoxically, what drove him out of the country and across the Atlantic was high interest rates: at 14%, his salary was barely paying the mortgage. "I had two choices - leave academia and join the City, which I didn't want to do, or move to the much more lucrative academic environment of America." In 1989, he chose the latter.

It's easy to see why he abandoned his home country for the new world. We are sitting in his office on Dartmouth college campus, an Ivy League private university in rural New Hampshire. The office itself is sparse, lined with volumes of economic journals punctuated only by a biography of Jim Callaghan. But the minute you step out on to the campus the place oozes money. Its elegant Oxbridge-style quads are spacious and immaculate, its libraries lavishly stocked, and its art collection runs to 65,000 works of art and artefacts, including pieces by Goya, Picasso and William Blake.

The benefits to Blanchflower of such largesse were instant. Upon arrival, he had access to computing power that simply didn't exist at that time in the UK. If he lacked for anything, he only had to ask. When he wanted to write a book, Dartmouth gave him a decent salary, an office, a research assistant and all the time he needed to complete his seminal 1990 study of the relationship between wages and unemployment, The Wage Curve.

Since then he has settled into the life of an American academic with apparent ease. Now a dual British-American citizen, he is burdened little with administrative duties, teaches a bit, but has ample time and resources to pursue his own studies. He plays golf in the summer and in winter goes snowmobiling with his friend Bill Bryson. The author met Blanchflower while he was living in nearby Hanover, and has written a story about their escapades in which he notes: "Danny's a real smart guy, except for one thing. He is crazy about snowmobiling."

Blanchflower radiates a contentment that has found its way into his work. Over the years he has developed a research sideline that involves the study of happiness. He has attempted to calculate the relative worth of such variables as income, health and marriage. He once even put a figure to the value of a regular sex life - $50,000 a year - which got the press excited, even if he seems a little embarrassed about it now.

As for his own happiness quotient, there have been bleaker moments. In 2003 his wife left him for a woman. He filed for divorce on the grounds of adultery but the court ruled against him, with the controversial logic that there could have been no adultery because there is no such thing as sexual intercourse between women. He is understandably unenthusiastic about going into details. "It's in the past and not relevant to anything I do. Honestly, I've moved on."

And then came the knock on the door three years ago from Gordon Brown. Would he be interested in taking a seat on the MPC? "They told me it was going to be a part-time, boring occupation. Neither turned out to be true."

From the moment he joined the committee in June 2006, he was the outsider. All other eight members of the MPC had been to Oxbridge and lived in London; he had gone to a redbrick university and lived in New England. Yet in the early days his involvement with the committee was notable only for its lack of drama. Through 2006 and most of 2007 he voted with the majority to keep interest rates as they were - a reflection of the general opulence and stability of those times. How long ago they seem.

Several factors conspired to turn Blanchflower into Stockmann. As an economist living in the US, he was aware of the progressive collapse of the American economy. Having written many papers comparing the US and UK economies, he was also aware that the two had moved closer together in the past 20 years and that what happened in the US was very likely to be echoed in the UK a few months later.

One other great influence on his thinking was that he had studied previous economic downturns, from the Great Depression of 1929 to those of the 70s and 80s, and was attuned to recognising tell-tale signs of a downturn. While everyone else was fretting about high oil prices, and the risk they posed of an inflationary spiral, he was alarmed by signals suggesting the opposite was about to happen: the UK was heading for a slump. The more data he looked at, the more small business owners he talked to, the more convinced he became that unless the MPC acted quickly and decisively to cut interest rates, disaster lay ahead.

"In my transatlantic way of putting it, I felt an awesome responsibility. This matters, this really matters. I felt a tremendous pressure to get it right, and to convince the others. It was like the weight of the British people on my shoulders." There were moments of intense self-doubt. "I had a lot of sleepless nights. Maybe I shouldn't be doing this. Maybe I'm completely wrong."

The doubts were amplified by his isolation. All other members of the MPC, from King down, were of the opinion that the hike in oil prices was a far more pressing problem than any hypothetical future downturn. Inflation had to be curbed. But to Blanchflower that thinking ignored the evidence. Yes, oil prices were historically high, but that was outweighed by the dwindling supply of capital that was already hitting the US. With no money to borrow, people couldn't buy houses, fridges, new cars. House prices were falling; businesses were retrenching. Wherever he travelled in America and the UK, he heard the same thing: people were worried and hurting.

"So I dissented from virtually everyone else in Britain, and as it happens, I was probably the one who got it right. It seemed so obvious, but everybody else seemed to think I was kooky."

The difference of opinion between Blanchflower and the consensus was sharp and increasingly strongly worded. In January, he caused a stir when he told the Guardian that worrying about inflation was "fiddling while Rome burns". In April he predicted house prices could fall by a third. In May he said the number of jobless in Britain could reach 2 million by Christmas. Meanwhile, King and the others continued to vote for a strategy of glorious inaction.

When the crash came, was it sweet vindication? Far from it, he says: "I'm very upset that I got it right. I think of it as the winner's curse. This is not something I wanted to get right. That's why I warned that this was going to happen unless we acted - I wanted to prevent the crisis. I'm not saying everything would have been wonderful, but at least if we'd acted earlier we would be ahead of events and not reacting to them."

The good news, he says, is that "we are now doing the things we should be doing. All hands are to the pump and I get the sense that people have absolutely got it."

There is implicit criticism in that statement - that until recently people didn't get it, and all hands were not to the pump - but Blanchflower is not in the mood to speak explicitly about "the tyranny of consensus" that he suffered for so many months. All he will say is: "We are where we are. Recriminations are past; they are over with."

Does King owe him an apology?

"No, not at all. Not at all."

Blanchflower's stint on the MPC ends in May, and he may or may not be invited to stay on for a second term. Until then, there's a crisis to be fought, public confidence in the economy to rebuild, the prospect of surging unemployment still looming. The next MPC vote is fast approaching. Soon it will be time once more to cast his vote. The strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone.

[acrobat74]

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d9352cda-d86e ... 07658.html

Britain faces the worst economic outlook since the early 1980s, according to the Financial Times' annual survey of leading economists, which shows considerable concern that the Treasury's forecast of a recovery in the second half of the year is too optimistic.

...

DeAnne Julius, chairman of Chatham House, thought the government should provide further support for banks to ease lending pressures on companies.

"The UK government has been especially tight-fisted in the terms it has offered its banks for assistance. This may yet backfire," she said.

Chatham House is the RIIA of course.


http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/b ... 434660.ece

Chancellor Alistair Darling on brink of second bailout for banks
Billions may be needed as lending squeeze tightens

Alistair Darling has been forced to consider a second bailout for banks as the lending drought worsens.

The Chancellor will decide within weeks whether to pump billions more into the economy as evidence mounts that the £37 billion part-nationalisation last year has failed to keep credit flowing. Options include cash injections, offering banks cheaper state guarantees to raise money privately or buying up “toxic assets”, The Times has learnt.

The Bank of England revealed yesterday that, despite intense pressure, the banks curbed lending in the final quarter of last year and plan even tighter restrictions in the coming months. Its findings will alarm the Treasury.

And a short note on deflation (falling prices driven by a rapidly contracting money (=debt) supply):

Deflation is generally regarded negatively, as it is a tax on borrowers, which accrues to the benefit of savers.

In this sense it is the opposite of inflation, which is a tax on savers in favor of borrowers and short term consumption.

[acrobat74]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... &aid=11709

Bill Gross: We've Got a "Ponzi-Style Economy"

Global Research, January 9, 2009

Bill Gross is managing director of the world's largest bond fund, Pimco, which manages some $790 Billion Dollars in assets. Pimco also is managing the commercial-paper assets for the Federal Reserve as part of the government's Commercial Paper Funding Facility program. As such, Pimco is in many ways an insider.

In his January 2009 Investment Outlook, Gross writes that it is not only Madoff who ran a Ponzi scheme, but the entire U.S. economy is a Ponzi-like scheme.
He calls it "our Ponzi-style economy".

This may be obvious to many of us. But the fact that Gross said it is news.

[Newspeak International]

Sarkozy, Merkel, Blair call for new capitalism


PARIS – The leaders of France and Germany appeared to put disagreements over economic policy behind them Thursday, calling on the U.S. to join global efforts to address the financial crisis.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy, leading a two-day conference with former British Prime Minister Tony Blair on the future of capitalism, said the crisis has shown that no country can go it alone on economic policy.

"In the 21st century, there it is no longer a single nation who can say what we should do or what we should think," he said.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel said the system "cannot continue as it is" and called for better-regulated financial markets.

European leaders will meet in Berlin before the G-20 summit in London to decide a common approach as global leaders gear up for a second meeting on the global financial crisis, Sarkozy said.

Measures will be taken at the G-20 meeting in London on April 2, Sarkozy promised, saying "we cannot accept the status quo."

He called for closer cooperation on economic policy, saying: "We should discuss how each of us is managing his currency, his interest rates."

The leaders of France and Germany have differed in the past over how much government support Europe's economy needs.

Merkel deplored huge debts that governments are accumulating to spend their way out of the present crisis. But she said she recognized, for the moment, that "there is no other possibility."

Leaders should look beyond financial markets, she said, singling out the American budget deficit and China's current account surplus — or trade balance — as problems upsetting the global economy.

A Congressional Budget Office report estimates that the U.S. federal budget deficit will hit an unparalleled $1.2 trillion for the 2009 budget year — and that is before President-elect Barack Obama's sweeping stimulus package is calculated.

European governments have agreed to be flexible about budget rules that limit deficits to 3 percent of gross domestic product as recession bites. Merkel is planning an extra stimulus of up to euro50 billion ($70 billion) and Sarkozy said Thursday that he is considering additional measures.

French Finance Minister Christine Lagarde said Thursday that Paris is planning to inject a second tranche of euro10.5 billion into some of the nation's largest banks in an effort to spur lending.

Merkel said the International Monetary Fund has not managed to regulate global capitalism, and she called for the creation of an economy body at the United Nations, similar to the Security Council, to judge government policy.

Speaking at the conference, European Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes said "global rules" on government aid to companies would be "helpful."

"A closer network of competition systems is slowly emerging after decades of work," she said.

Sarkozy blamed financial speculators for encouraging a system fueled on debt. He called financial capitalism based on speculation "an immoral system" that has "perverted the logic of capitalism."

"It's a system where wealth goes to the wealthy, where work is devalued, where production is devalued, where entrepreneurial spirit is devalued," he said.

But no more: "In capitalism of the 21st century, there is room for the state," he said.

Blair called for a new financial order based on "values other than the maximum short-term profit."

"The greatest entrepreneur I had the chance to meet was passionate about what he had created, not what he had accumulated," he said.

___

AP Business Writer Greg Keller contributed to this report from Paris.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090108/ap_ ... capitalism

[acrobat74]

http://mises.org/story/3288

The Great Credit-Crunch Hoax of 2008

Probably the most important measure of credit-market conditions is the amount of commercial-bank credit outstanding.

These figures show that although the middle part of 2008 does stand out in the long view, it does so not by virtue of credit's frightening contraction, but only by virtue of its hitting a six-month plateau from April through September.


The beauty of the Great Hoax of 2008, from the perspective of the ruling class, is that is was also a Great Scare, and such scares invariably serve as pretexts for the rulers' most audacious assaults on the peasants' lives, liberties, and purses.

You'd almost have to admire the elite's ability to spook the rest of us into blind, unreasoning panic on such a flimsy basis, if it weren't for the fact that after the episode has passed, we find ourselves enormously worse off, our economic prospects diminished greatly, and our liberties throttled more tightly by an even bigger Leviathan, with nothing to show for it on the upside but the further enrichment of a handful of big bankers and other malefactors of great wealth and power.



http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/08/news/ec ... 2009010817

Peter Schiff, president of Euro Pacific Capital, an investment firm specializing in overseas investments, wrote in a research note the stimulus debate has not done enough to focus on the cost to taxpayers that will come from the programs.

"The truth is that the only way out of this mess is less government, more savings, and increased production," Schiff wrote. "Obama's plan is a recipe for economic ruin."

Wesbury said he is pleased by various tax cut proposals being discussed as part of the plan, but he is worried that taxpayers will still have to eventually foot the bill for all the new government spending.

He said the only way to pay for stimulus is by taxing those who are productive, joking that the plan is more like a Ponzi scheme than any creation of wealth.

"Every time we bail somebody out, we have to get that money from somebody else. It's like [Bernard] Madoff," he quipped, referring to the financier accused in a $50 billion securities fraud case.

[acrobat74]

http://www.europac.net/#

December 29, 2008

There's No Pain-Free Cure for Recession: Peter Schiff's Editorial in The Wall Street Journal

As recession fears cause the nation to embrace greater state control of the economy and unimaginable federal deficits, one searches in vain for debate worthy of the moment.

Where there should be an historic clash of ideas, there is only blind resignation and an amorphous queasiness that we are simply sweeping the slouching beast under the rug.

With faith in the free markets now taking a back seat to fear and expediency, nearly the entire political spectrum agrees that the federal government must spend whatever amount is necessary to stabilize the housing market, bail out financial firms, liquefy the credit markets, create jobs and make the recession as shallow and brief as possible. The few who maintain free-market views have been largely marginalized.

Taking the theories of economist John Maynard Keynes as gospel, our most highly respected contemporary economists imagine a complex world in which economics at the personal, corporate and municipal levels are governed by laws far different from those in effect at the national level.

Individuals, companies or cities with heavy debt and shrinking revenues instinctively know that they must reduce spending, tighten their belts, pay down debt and live within their means.

But it is axiomatic in Keynesianism that national governments can create and sustain economic activity by injecting printed money into the financial system.

In their view, absent the stimuli of the New Deal and World War II, the Depression would never have ended.

On a gut level, we have a hard time with this concept. There is a vague sense of smoke and mirrors, of something being magically created out of nothing. But economics, we are told, is complicated.

It would be irresponsible in the extreme for an individual to forestall a personal recession by taking out newer, bigger loans when the old loans can't be repaid.

However, this is precisely what we are planning on a national level.

I believe these ideas hold sway largely because they promise happy, pain-free solutions. They are the economic equivalent of miracle weight-loss programs that require no dieting or exercise. The theories permit economists to claim mystic wisdom, governments to pretend that they have the power to dispel hardship with the whir of a printing press, and voters to believe that they can have recovery without sacrifice.

As a follower of the Austrian School of economics I believe that market forces apply equally to people and nations. The problems we face collectively are no different from those we face individually.

Belt tightening is required by all, including government.

Governments cannot create but merely redirect. When the government spends, the money has to come from somewhere.

If the government doesn't have a surplus, then it must come from taxes.

If taxes don't go up, then it must come from increased borrowing.

If lenders won't lend, then it must come from the printing press, which is where all these bailouts are headed.

But each additional dollar printed diminishes the value those already in circulation.

Something cannot be effortlessly created from nothing.


Similarly, any jobs or other economic activity created by public-sector expansion merely comes at the expense of jobs lost in the private sector.

And if the government chooses to save inefficient jobs in select private industries, more efficient jobs will be lost in others.

As more factors of production come under government control, the more inefficient our entire economy becomes.

Inefficiency lowers productivity, stifles competitiveness and lowers living standards.

If we look at government market interventions through this pragmatic lens, what can we expect from the coming avalanche of federal activism?

By borrowing more than it can ever pay back, the government will guarantee higher inflation for years to come, thereby diminishing the value of all that Americans have saved and acquired.

For now the inflationary tide is being held back by the countervailing pressures of bursting asset bubbles in real estate and stocks, forced liquidations in commodities, and troubled retailers slashing prices to unload excess inventory.

But when the dust settles, trillions of new dollars will remain, chasing a diminished supply of goods. We will be left with 1970s-style stagflation, only with a much sharper contraction and significantly higher inflation.


The good news is that economics is not all that complicated. The bad news is that our economy is broken and there is nothing the government can do to fix it.

However, the free market does have a cure: it's called a recession, and it's not fun, easy or quick.

But if we put our faith in the power of government to make the pain go away, we will live with the consequences for generations.


Mr. Schiff is president of Euro Pacific Capital and author of "The Little Book of Bull Moves in Bear Markets"

[acrobat74]

This is a cross-post that is very relevant to this thread as well..

Lietaer's 'The future of money' is now 'out of print'.


Bernard Lietaer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Lietaer

Bernard Lietaer (born in 1942 in Lauwe, Belgium) is an economist and author. He studies monetary systems and promotes the idea that communities can benefit from creating their own local or Complementary currency, which circulate parallel with national currencies.

Bernard Lietaer, the author of "The Future of Money: Beyond Greed and Scarcity" (London: Random House, 2001) and the forthcoming "Of Human Wealth," has been active in the realm of money systems for over 25 years in a wide variety of functions.

While at the Central Bank in Belgium (National Bank of Belgium) he implemented the convergence mechanism (ECU) to the single European currency system.
During that period, he also served as President of Belgium’s Electronic Payment System. His consultant experience in monetary aspects on four continents ranges from multinational corporations to developing countries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Future_of_Money


Note how Lieater talks about going 'beyond scarcity'.


And here is his current prediction:

http://www.lietaer.com/crisis2008.html

Whatever governments do for the banks, credit will be a lot harder to obtain for businesses, for many years to come. The trickiest aspect of the current situation is the simultaneous, global nature, of the banking crisis. Please, get ready now for an unprecedented rough ride for as long as one decade. What all this means in practice is that we have now entered the period of an unprecedented convergence of the four planetary issues - financial instability, climate change, unemployment and the financial consequences of an aging society - that was described in the 2001 book, The Future of Money.


Interestingly, The Guardian's George Monbiot brought these ideas up in a recent article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... currencies

[item7]

Excellent site which exposes the reality behind the federal reserve. Lots of links to articles and videos which explain why the federal reserve must be abolished.

http://www.bigeye.com/griffin.htm

The Declaration of Independence of England's American colonies expresses a political principle that is as radical today as it was in 1776. The new nation's Constitution with its first ten amendments, The Bill of Rights, was intended to preserve this principle --

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident: That all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness... "

Government was intended to be the servant of We the People of the United States, not the reverse. When any government (central, state, or local) becomes a "business partner" of banks, corporations, and other private monetary institutions, the reverse occurs. It is unfortunate that the foresight of Jefferson and others with respect to central banking was not more widely appreciated.

One of the educational aims of this web site is to provide details of the bankers' private monetary system and how, in 1913, it became the policy of the United States government.

It is unfortunate, but understandable, that young people in the United States are not taught (in the government's schools) the history and operation of their country's most powerful financial institution, The Federal Reserve System. Created in 1910, codified by Congress in 1913 (along with the personal income tax), this "system" facilitated the US government's ability to inflame the nation's citizens for the purpose of supporting the European war of 1914-1918 (World War I). Warfare provides a source of immense borrowing and provides banking corporations with huge profits in the form of interest income. Several of these same Wall Street banks financed Adolph Hitler two decades later.

Readers desiring an insight into the international interests and subsequent political relationships of the bankers who created the Federal Reserve System can click here. To understand how recent the Federal Reserve System is, my own parents were alive when it was created in the USA. The adoption of "central banking", a concept indispensible to enforcing policies determined by big central government, is as old as Alexander Hamilton and The Federalists. Central banking has been tried and thwarted in the past. Today it is alive and well. For a brief background of this subject, read this fascinating essay.

We suggest that informed teachers use this page to help students gain valuable knowledge as part of their general education. A masterful audio-visual resource covering the broad aspects of this subject is Money As Debt.
Stewart Ogilby
Sarasota, FL

THE comprehensive site about the Federal Reserve:-

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/reserve.htm

[outsider]

AIG gives out $100 million in bonuses, after massive 'bailout' (eat your heart out, Dick Turpin!):

http://www.nytimes.com/?emc=na

As for doing away with the Federal Reserve, don't be too rash!
Look what happened to JFK.

Post corrected; I forgot the 'million' when I first posted!

[item7]

Look what happened to JFK.

And Lincoln and Jackson and even Reagan after the Grace enquiry!!

[conspiracy analyst]

Who is Bernard Madoff, the man behind the $50 billion fraud?


Written by Christopher Bollyn

Monday, March 15, 2009


By Christopher Bollyn

"Where's the money, Bernie?"

MADOFF'S BUSINESS PARTNERS ARE TIED TO ISRAELI CRIMINALS & NOTORIOUS MONEY-LAUNDERING BANKS - SO, WHERE DID THE MONEY GO?

"So he spends the rest of his life in jail — is that justice? People's lives are ruined," said Adriane Biondo of Los Angeles, one of five members of her family who lost money with Madoff. "He's sitting in jail? That's awesome," she said sarcastically. "Where's the money, Bernie?"
- AP Report, March 12, 2009

Bollyn's Update on Madoff's Guilty Plea
of March 12, 2009

By Christopher Bollyn
March 14, 2009

Bernard Madoff's plea of guilt on 11 charges is merely a ruse to protect his Zionist co-conspirators, especially those Zionists in high positions at two private Israeli banks apparently involved in the fraud.

Bernard Madoff's guilty plea of March 12 was clearly meant to do two things essential to protect the billions of dollars of assets stolen in this huge crime: prevent him from having to cooperate with investigators and thus keep hidden the secrets of where the stolen money is – and how it got there. By claiming to have acted alone, Madoff is defending the other criminals involved in the massive fraud. Madoff is simply playing the fall guy for his family members and a whole "army of people" involved in this huge and long-lasting scheme.

As investor George Nierenberg told the court: "I know that the operation was massive. I know that he didn't commit these crimes alone and do not understand why conspiracy isn't one of his pleas."

Nierenberg, who described himself as "one of the many victims of Madoff's egregious crimes," said that just producing the false client account statements for the 4,800 customers in Madoff's investment firm would have required an "army of people." Nierenberg noted that Madoff was often away from the office so there would have had to have been other people involved in the scheme.

As Madoff victim Ronnie Sue Ambrosino told the court of Judge Chin: "I believe you have the opportunity today to find out as to where the money is and who else was involved in this crime."

Finding the other people and institutions involved in this crime is crucial. As I have pointed out in the following article about Madoff, he is closely tied with two individuals who are long-standing directors or owners of private Israeli banks: Sy Syms, a veteran director of Israel Discount Bank of New York (now controlled by the Bronfman family), and Jacob Ezra Merkin, co-owner of Bank Leumi.

Merkin, for example, is known to have been deeply involved in the fraud as an investor and a person who funneled billions of dollars of funds to Madoff. In the Madoff scheme, all the victims are not really victims; some of them are actually part of the fraud. Ezra Merkin is evidently one of them.

Most importantly to the Madoff scheme, both Bank Leumi and Israel Discount Bank have branches in Switzerland where Swiss banking secrecy laws apply. Bank Leumi has its main office in Zurich and a branch in Geneva. It should be noted that Bank Leumi's Swiss banking operation has "representative offices" in Budapest and Israel. Banking secrecy is the first point of Bank Leumi's Swiss branch:

Leumi Switzerland is a full service private banking institution operating according to Swiss regulations. As such, the bank provides its clients with all the benefits that a Swiss-banking environment has to offer: Maximum discretion in accordance with the tradition of Swiss banking secrecy.

Israel Discount Bank is the same. Oddly, IDB of New York opens it's webpage with this comment about Madoff:

IDB Bank wishes all of you a healthy and happy New Year. We are also pleased to notify you that IDB Bank has no exposure to the Madoff funds or any of the other funds that were feeder funds to Madoff. Our heart goes out to those who have suffered losses from this scandal and we hope that 2009 will bring you some relief. Our balance sheet is strong, as is our liquidity position. The future is bright, and we look forward to being able to serve all of your banking needs in 2009 and in all the coming years.

IDB has its Swiss branch in Geneva, Switzerland.

Both Bank Leumi and IDB have branches in other countries, such as the Cayman Islands, where money-laundering is common. While Madoff mentions other banks in his confession, he says nothing about banking at either Bank Leumi or IDB. How strange. Stranger is the fact that while JP Morgan had invested hundreds of millions (until recently) in the Madoff scam as had many leading Zionist organizations and individuals, IDB had not. How is it that the bank run by his close friend and business partner at Yeshiva University's Syms School of Business managed to remain untouched by the Madoff scheme?

Why would Madoff NOT have used the banking services at these banks, given his very close working relationship with a veteran director and owner of each bank? This does not make any sense, unless, of course, these banks are part of the crime on a higher level.

This is how Madoff's confession is part of the ruse. Most likely Madoff used his co-conspirators at the highest level of these private Israeli banks for the most important part of his scheme: the removal of the funds from the United States to off-shore accounts where they could not be seen or reached by U.S. investigators or courts. It's all quite obvious. Why are Madoff's business ties to Merkin and Syms, and the Israeli banks they represent, not being discussed in the Zionist-controlled media? Don't they want to find the money? Some of these media outfits lost money in the Madoff scam.

In Madoff's written confession of March 12, he says that he maintained accounts at several banks in the United States and Britain. These banks are identified as Chase Manhattan, now part of JP Morgan Chase, and the Bank of New York. Are we, the public, the court, and the victims of his fraud, to believe that Madoff maintained accounts only at these banks, which at times must have held billions of dollars – and nobody thought something was wrong? This is simply not credible.

Wouldn't the bankers at Chase have wondered why Madoff, who was supposedly running an investment fund, was leaving huge amounts of cash to sit for significant periods? Wouldn't the bank want to know the purpose of the account and the source of its funds? Who were Madoff's bankers at Chase, and what sort of relationship did he have with them? Another fundamental question is what kind of relationship did he have with Ezra Merkin and Sy Syms, and with the private Israeli banks they controlled?

Madoff is a accomplished liar and complete criminal. To accept what he said in his confession as the complete truth would be absurd and foolish. Madoff is simply taking the fall to protect the ill-gotten gains and his fellow co-conspirators, particularly those at Bank Leumi and IDB. A proper investigation to find Madoff's stolen assets must include these two banks.


The Strange Case of Ira Sorkin
Why Would a Madoff Victim Defend Him in Court?

Understanding the Zionist Fundraising Scheme
Surrounding Bernie Madoff and the Missing $50 Billion

Update: March 10, 2009
By Christopher Bollyn

Mega-fraudster Bernard Madoff appeared in court on March 10 to discuss whether his head defense attorney, Ira Lee Sorkin, has a conflict of interest due to the fact that Mr. Sorkin and his family are among the "victims" of Madoff's alleged $50 billion fraud. Indeed, the names of Ira Sorkin and those of his late parents, Nathan and Rosalie, appear no fewer than 9 times on a published list of Madoff's victims. Madoff's parents had at least six accounts with Madoff. Sorkin, however, has yet to appear in a single news photograph with his most notorious client, the much despised Bernie Madoff.


Ira Sorkin, on right in the pumpkin-colored shirt, at a recent Hebrew University event in Palm Beach, has yet to be photographed with his notorious client, Bernie Madoff. Why does he avoid being seen in public with Madoff?


Madoff is usually seen with another lawyer, not Sorkin, when he leaves court.

Prosecutors are asking Madoff to answer questions about a potential conflict of interest concerning Sorkin, who reportedly invested $900,000 with the Zionist con-man who bilked billions of dollars from unwitting investors, according to the New York Post. Madoff was the former national treasurer of such major Zionist organizations as the American Jewish Congress and Yeshiva University (YU).

Madoff's defense attorney "Ike" Sorkin had also invested $18,860 with Madoff in a retirement account during the early 1990s prosecutors said in a letter to a federal judge made public today, according to news reports. Madoff has also reportedly said that he will plead guilty to 11 crimes, in two day's time, on Thursday.

Furthermore, from 1995 to 1997, Sorkin served as the Chief Legal Officer and a Member of the Board of Directors for Nomura Holding America, Inc. and Nomura Securities International, Inc., one of the larger corporate victims of the Madoff scam. In December 2008 Nomura Holdings reported losing more than $302 million into Madoff's black hole. Madoff had also defrauded a client's trust fund managed by Sorkin's previous law firm.


Ike Sorkin leaving court on March 10. Why doesn't Sorkin want to be photographed with his most infamous client? Is he complicit in the crime?
Given these obvious connections, the real question being avoided by the controlled-media is: Are Bernie Madoff and Ike Sorkin partners in crime? Three months into the investigation of the Madoff scam and still not one bit of information has been forthcoming about where the billions of dollars disappeared to. In this day and age, after 9-11, when international transactions over $10,000 are scrutinized by federal snoops, how can it be that $50 billion simply disappeared into thin air, or a financial black hole as the case may be? This does not make any sense. Somebody is obviously blowing a very big and thick cloud of smoke around this whole Madoff affair and that cloud obscures the courtroom proceedings and media coverage.

The BBC News reported in February that not one dollar of the Madoff money had been re-invested during the past 13 years. What does this mean? In order for such immense sums to be secretly stashed away, Madoff must have criminal partners in the private banking business who have the ability and capacity to transfer billions of dollars to secret offshore accounts without being seen on the books. Judging by Madoff and the people around him, these accounts are probably in Switzerland or other offshore tax havens, and are controlled by Zionist/Israeli organizations and individuals.

It may, at first glance, seem quite confusing that Madoff's defense lawyer, Ira Lee Sorkin, is actually a defrauded "customer" of his. Why would a lawyer like "Ike" Sorkin want to defend a fraudster like Madoff who apparently stole his money and that of his late parents? Why would Sorkin even want to defend Madoff? What are Sorkin's interests in this huge case of fraud in which some $50 billion are said to have been stolen? Why are high-profile Jewish "victims" like Steven Spielberg and others not going after Madoff with all the power and money they have? What's going on?

As previously stated, it appears most likely that a great deal of the missing money was sent to offshore Israeli-controlled accounts through such corrupt private banks as Israel Discount Bank, where Madoff's partner at Yeshiva University's business school, Sy Syms, has been a director for many years. The Israel Discount Bank is controlled by the Bronfman family. Sorkin, a Zionist supporter and fund-raiser, fits perfectly into this scenario -- as Madoff's lead defense attorney.

WHO IS IRA SORKIN?

Besides his career as a lawyer, Mr. Sorkin is President and Chairman of the Board of a private company called the American Friends of the Hebrew University, Inc. (AFHU). He is also a member of Hebrew University’s Board of Governors and a member of the University’s Executive Committee. Hebrew University is located in Jerusalem and is the oldest Zionist university in Palestine.

As head of AFHU, Sorkin works closely with fellow director Harvey M. Krueger, former vice chairman of the now defunct Lehman Brothers, Inc. Krueger is the former chairman of the Board of Governors of The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, a position he held for nine years, and was the former President and Chairman of the American Friends of the Hebrew University. Krueger is also the past Chairman of the [Shimon] Peres Center for Peace and has been a major fund-raiser for Israel and Israeli banks since the early 1960s.


Harvey Krueger (on right) at the same 2009 Palm Beach event for Hebrew University that Ike Sorkin presided over, with Israeli Carmi Gillon (left). Gillon is a former head of Shabak, the Internal General Security Service of Israel.


Carmi Gillon, as head of Shin Bet. Israeli spymasters are asked to serve on past retirement age. Gillon is the third head of Shin Bet to have a conspicuous role in 9-11 and the financial scam. Abraham Shalom Ben-Dor and Yaakov Peri, a.k.a. Jacob Perry, are two others. Are we beginning to see a pattern?

THE FATHER OF ISRAEL'S ACCESS TO INTERNATIONAL CAPITAL

Krueger was Vice Chairman of Lehman Brothers, Inc. and had held other senior positions with the firm since 1977, when Krueger merged Kuhn, Loeb, & Co., the investment banking firm of which he was CEO, with Lehman Brothers. He is also honorary chairman of Automatic Data Processing, Inc., a provider of computerized transaction processing, data communication and information services. Krueger was chairman of Automatic Data Processing, Inc. (ADP) from 1982 to April 1998 and was its chief executive officer from 1982 to August 1996.


Harvey Krueger: Father of Israeli Access to International Capital Markets

At ADP, a company that specializes in "computerized transaction processing," Krueger would have worked closely with Madoff's friend, Josh S. Weston, a subsequent chairman at ADP, and the company's founder, Henry Taub. Taub serves on the Board of Trustees at New York University with the likes of Maurice Greenberg, Larry Silverstein, Mort Zuckerman, and Edouard de Rothschild. It is through such charitable networks that a great deal of Zionist networking is done.

Krueger has long been a major player in providing Israel with access to international capital, as an 2004 Lifestyles magazine article says, "Since the '60s, this distinguished banking and investment executive has worked tirelessly -- professionally and personally -- on behalf of the Jewish state."

In 1961, when Krueger went to Israel to work on a financing venture for Bank Leumi, he wasn't even sure where the small country was located on the map. He recollects that "Jerusalem was cold and unfriendly." He also says that he didn't particularly love Israel when he first went. However, in 1962, when he returned to do a financing deal for Israel Discount Bank, he had an experience that changed him and his feelings to that mission...

And though to this day Krueger continues to say that whatever he is or has become he owes to Israel, truth be told, a lot of what Israel has become is owed to Harvey Krueger. He is the man who brought Israeli companies into international capital markets: From the 1960s until the '90s he effected almost every international debt and equity financing deal for the country. When in the early '90s other firms realized that Israeli business could be profitable, they, too, wanted a piece of the action and Krueger graciously encouraged it because he knew it would be good for Israel. Nonetheless, to this day, Krueger alone is referred to as the father of Israel's access to international capital markets.

Krueger is a director of a number of American and Israeli public companies, and is a co-founder of the Renaissance Fund, which is dedicated to investing in Israeli companies. The Renaissance Fund was founded by Krueger and Charles Bronfman.

The Renaissance Fund was created in the early 1990s when Bronfman joined his Claridge Israel Inc. with Krueger's Stockton Partners to invest in Israeli businesses. Bronfman has created similar Israeli funds, such as Challenge-Etgar, which are designed to funnel billions of dollars from North America to the Jewish State. With the privatization of the Israel Discount Bank, the Bronfman family obtained a controlling interest in an private Israeli bank that has a branch in Switzerland, where it is allowed to operate with all the secrecy of other Swiss banks. Money that is deposited in the IDB bank in Switzerland is in a financial black hole -- just like the $50 billion that disappeared from Madoff Investments.

Harvey Krueger also sits on the five-man Strategic Advisory Board of Markstone Capital Group, where he and Jacob Perry (a.k.a. Yaakov Peri) plan how they will strategically invest the money they control into Israeli ventures. Perry's bio sketch from Markstone's website says this about him:


Yaakov Peri, a.k.a. Jacob Perry, became a businessman after 30 years in Israel's secret service. His first post: CEO of Israeli Cellcom.

Mr. Perry is a leading figure in Israel in both the public and the private sectors. Mr. Perry is Chairman of Lipman Electronics Engineering and United Mizrahi Bank Ltd. and serves on the Board of Directors of Magal Security Systems Ltd. For the past eight years, he served as President and CEO of Cellcom, Israel’s largest cellular operator. During his tenure at Cellcom, Mr. Perry initiated and supervised several acquisitions and mergers. Prior to joining Cellcom, Mr. Perry served for 29 years in Israel’s General Security Service (Shin Bet). There he held a wide variety of positions culminating with his appointment by Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir to the position of Director of the organization. During his seven years as Director of the Shin Bet, Mr. Perry oversaw the sweeping changes to the country’s security apparatus. He is considered a leading expert in Middle East security matters.

[outsider]

Was the Bailout itself a Scam?' asks PCR:

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22248.htm

[outsider]

Clinton repealed Glass/Steagal Act (enabling Bank Collapse Scam?):

http://www.associatedcontent.com/articl ... l_act.html

[Disco_Destroyer]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSkRwa65v24[/youtube]


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhCDW40rA0s[/youtube]
Combat Freedom Fighters with hysterical laughter thats all they have left
PS I like the Obama Likeness for the New Americns

[Disco_Destroyer]

http://restoretherepublic.com/latest-ne ... -interview

Actor Glenn Jacobs joins Gary on this special weekend edition of the Reality Report to discuss Keynesian vs. Austrian economics, the Federal Reserve, running for office, Glenn Beck, Ron Paul, the state of the economy and more.
Glenn Jacobs is a Professional Wrestler for World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) and has been referred to by some as the next Jesse Ventura.


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsnRpoi2IWY[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aent_TD9FC0[/youtube]