Wednesday, March 11, 2009

Evangelicals and Catholics Together


Geoff Thomas
Reprinted from Evangelical Times, June 1994

Evangelicals and Catholics together: the Christian mission in the third millennium is the title of the twenty-five-page document which has been brought out and signed by a group of Roman Catholics and evangelical Christians in the USA. The evangelical signatories include Bill Bright of Campus Crusade, Os Guinness of the Trinity Forum, Richard Mouw of Fuller Theological Seminary, Mark Noll of Wheaton College, James I Packer of Regent University, Charles Colson of Prison Fellowship, Larry Lewis of the Home Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, Richard Land of the Christian Life Commission, Jesse Miranda of the Assemblies of God, and John White of Geneva College.
Like the English document Growing into union, of twenty-five years ago, there is an almost girlish delight in their `discovery' of one another and a commitment on the part of both evangelicals and Roman Catholics to the affirmations of this statement. It says such things as: `All who accept Christ as Lord and Savior are brothers and sisters in Christ. Evangelicals and Catholics are brothers and sisters in Christ. We have not chosen one another, just as we have not chosen Christ . . . . However imperfect our communion with one another, we recognize that there is one church of Christ . . . . As evangelicals and Catholics we pray that our unity in the love of Christ will become ever more evident as a sign to the world of God's reconciling power . . . . We thank God for the discovery of one another in contending for a common cause. Much more important, we thank God for the discovery of one another as brothers and sisters in Christ . . . . We promise one another that we will work to deepen, build upon, and expand this pattern of convergence and co-operation.

"Today, in this country and elsewhere, evangelicals and Catholics attempt to win `converts' from one another's folds. In some ways, this is perfectly understandable and perhaps inevitable. In many instances, however, such efforts at recruitment undermine the Christian mission by which we are bound by God's Word and to which we have recommitted ourselves in this statement . . . . In considering the many corruptions of Christian witness, we, evangelicals and Catholics, confess that we have sinned against one another and against God. We most earnestly ask the forgiveness of God and one another, and pray for the grace to amend our own lives and that of our communities."

Let it be affirmed that this document was not needed to affirm that evangelicals and Roman Catholics can live together in peace and harmony. Even in Northern Ireland this happens all the time, we are friends, we respect each other, and we have many of the same opinions and goals. But our understanding of the gospel of Christ and the way of salvation are poles apart.

One example of this is the institution of papacy. This document has these two slim references to the pope: (1) "Mutually respectful conversation between Muslims and Christians should be encouraged in the hope that more of the world will, in the oft-repeated words of John Paul II, `open the door to Christ.'" And (2) "We rejoice together that the Roman Catholic Church--as affirmed by the Second Vatican Council and boldly exemplified in the ministry of John Paul II--is strongly committed to religious freedom."

Yet Rome without the papacy is like a wheel without a hub. Imagine an old Polish bachelor beginning to attend your Baptist church. You learn that his name is Mr. Wjotyla. He has a fine noble face. He tells you that Jesus Christ is his Savior and the Son of God. He abhors abortion and even birth control. He has no time for women priests. In time Mr. Wjotyla applies for membership and the elders are impressed with this cultured kindly man and his love of Jesus. "Anything else you want to tell us?" you ask him. "Well, just this," he says, "I am the head of the church and Christ's special representative and spokesman in this world. There are certain occasions when I speak on his behalf--not very often--and then you've got to believe what I say, because the message comes directly from Jesus."

You smile embarrassingly at this joke, not in very good taste. He does not. You ask him what he means, and you discover he means exactly what he says. This old Pole thinks that he is the head of the church worldwide, believing that he has been given that authority by Christ himself, and, warming to his conviction, he pronounces an anathema on any of the elders who dare to disagree.

He says, "If anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has only the office of inspection or direction, but not he full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, not only in matters that pertain to faith and morals, but also to matters that pertain to the discipline and government of the church throughout the whole world; or if anyone says he has only a more important part and not the complete fullness of the supreme power; or if anyone says that this power is not ordinary or immediate over each and every faithful shepherd or member, let him be anathema."

You try again, "You say you are trusting in the merits of Christ's mercy. How do those merits come to sinners?" The old man says, "I believe that the church communicates Christ's mercy to sinners through the mass and the sacraments, and all the prayers and good works of the faithful. It is the church that reconciles sinners to God. The sacraments are necessary for salvation."

You say to him, "If you came to our Lord's Supper how would you understand it? Do you believe in the finished work of Christ?" He quotes easily from the Catechism of the Council of Trent: "The holy sacrifice of the mass is not a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving only, or a mere commemoration of the sacrifice of the cross, but also a truly propitiatory sacrifice, by which God is appeased and rendered propitious to us."

You look with horror at his blazing certainty as he repeats those words, and you know that there is no way that he, holding such delusions, can become a member of your church or come to the Lord's Table. He is terribly confused: he may even be mad; if he seeks to persuade other Christians to believe these things about himself he must be opposed. You fear for his own spiritual condition. What must it be like for any Christian to wake up in the morning with the realization, "I am the special representative of Jesus Christ in the world and speak on his behalf?" You put him under discipline and forbid him to share his notions about himself with anyone in or out of the church. That is the end of union between yourselves and Mr. Wjotyla, and who is to blame?

About this joint document Evangelicals and Catholics together, the charismatic leader and U.S. presidential candidate Pat Robertson says, "The time has come when we must lay aside minor points of doctrinal differences and focus on the centralization of our faith in the Lord Jesus Christ." "Minor doctrinal differences?" We have picked out a few doctrines--concerning who is the head of the church and the finished work of Christ. There are many others. These evangelical men, some of whom we esteem so highly, are trifling with the very word God has revealed to us to take to the world, a message which has been utterly distorted by the Roman Church. This document will be no help to us at all, certainly not to evangelicals, nor to our Catholic friends.



.

.

Tuesday, March 10, 2009

Bernanke calls for regulatory overhaul (@ CFR)

Tuesday, March 10, 2009

Listen to the show: http://marketplace.publicradio.org/www_publicradio/tools/media_player/popup.php?name=marketplace/pm/2009/03/10/marketplace_cast1_20090310_64&starttime=00:03:32.900&endtime=00:05:55.0

Bernanke calls for regulatory overhaul

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke says he wants to reform the bank regulatory system. Steve Henn reports on the ideas that Bernanke is proposing.


U.S. Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke speaks to the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington, D.C. about reforming the bank regulatory system. (Win McNamee/Getty Images)

More on America's Financial Crisis


TEXT OF STORY


Kai Ryssdal: House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank did what he could to put some steel back in Wall Street's spine today. Frank said he wants to see something called the uptick rule back in effect, perhaps by the end of the month too. Not to get all complicated on you here, but the uptick rule says short sellers, that is, traders who are betting a stock will go down, can only sell short when the last trade in a given stock was up. Prevented piling on a falling stock is what it did. The SEC got rid of it back in 2007. And a whole lot of people say that contributed mightily to the fall of Bear Stearns and Lehman and so helped get us where we are today.


Where Ben Bernanke was today was making a speech to the Council of Foreign Relations. He said the rules that are supposed to cover this country's troubled financial system need to be re-written. Congress has already started its debate. So today the Fed Chairman laid out his own ideas. Marketplace's Steve Henn reports.


STEVE HENN: Financial regulation is a balkanized mess. There's the Fed, the FDIC, the CFTC, the SEC, OTS, the OCC, not to mention more than 100 state regulators too. And Ben Bernanke says it's not working.

BEN BERNANKE: We must have a strategy that regulates the financial system as a whole, in a holistic way, not just its individual components.
So today, the Fed chairman outlined his ideas. Bernanke said more institutions that are too big to fail -- should fail. We should plan for huge failures and figure out how to deal with them in an orderly way. Hal Scott, at Harvard, says interconnectedness is an issue too.


HAL SCOTT: The problem in the past is if we had one bank that owed a billion dollars and it didn't pay it would cause an unwinding of the entire system.
The banks that got stiffed wouldn't be able to pay their own debts, which is why Lehman Brothers' failure last fall was so terrifying to Wall Street. We have to fix that. Next, Bernanke said banks should have to set aside more money in good times so when the economy sours they'll have enough. And finally, he says someone needs to be looking out for big threats to the entire system and have the powers to head them off. So who gets to wear the cape and tights?


SCOTT: Who else would it be?
Hal Scott says the Fed's record as a regulator isn't that strong but...


SCOTT: I can say they are very good at what they want to be good at.
And if there is a big systemic failure, it's the Fed and its billions that have to fly to the rescue.


In Washington, I'm Steve Henn for Marketplace.


Source: http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/03/10/pm_bernanke/

.

Notes:

  1. Highlights added for emphasis.
  2. Bernake of the FED speaking at the CFR; My, my, is anyone aware of the collusion?

Obama's Diplomatic Offensive and the Reality of Geopolitics


Obama's Diplomatic Offensive and the Reality of Geopolitics
March 10, 2009 1246 GMT


By Reva Bhalla


The Obama administration is only one and a half months into the job, but between pressing “reset buttons” with the Russians, reaching out to the Europeans, talking about reconciling with the Taliban, extending invitations to the Iranians and rubbing elbows with the Syrians, this is already one of the most diplomatically active U.S. administrations in quite some time.
During the campaign, now-President Barack Obama made the controversial statement that he was prepared to speak to adversaries, including countries like Iran. This position was part of a general critique by Obama of the Bush administration, which Obama said enclosed itself diplomatically, refusing to engage either adversaries or allies critical of the United States. Now, Obama is sending emissaries across the globe to restart dialogue everywhere from Europe to the Middle East to South Asia to Russia. For Obama, these conversations are the prelude to significant movement in the international arena.

From a geopolitical perspective, that people are talking is far less important than what they are saying, which in turn matters far less than what each side is demanding and willing to concede. Engagement can be a prelude to accommodation, or an alternative to serious bargaining. At the moment, it is far too early to tell which the present U.S. diplomatic flurry will turn out to be. And of course, some of the diplomatic initiatives might succeed while others fail.

Nevertheless, as the global diplomatic offensive takes place, we must consider whether Obama is prepared to make substantive shifts in U.S. policy or whether he will expect concessions in exchange for a different diplomatic atmosphere alone. Since Obama and his foreign policy team are too sophisticated to expect the latter, we must examine the details of the various conversations. In this case more than others, the devil is very much in the details.

Russia
The Obama administration has made clear to Russia its desire to reset its relations with Russia, with Clinton even presenting a red “reset button” as a gift to her counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, on March 6 at a NATO summit in Geneva. But the Russians want to clarify how far the Americans really intend to rewind the tape. The 2004 Orange Revolution and NATO’s reach to the Baltics crystallized Moscow’s fears that the United States intends to encircle and destabilize Russia in its former Soviet periphery through NATO expansion and support for the color revolutions. Since then, Russia has been resurgent. Moscow has worked aggressively to reclaim and consolidate its influence in the Russian near abroad for its long-term security while the United States remains preoccupied in its war with the jihadists.

The Russians are pushing for a grand deal that guarantees a rollback of NATO expansion to Georgia and Ukraine, scraps plans for U.S. ballistic missile defense (BMD), maintains some semblance of Russian nuclear parity in post-Cold War treaties, and ensures Western noninterference in a region that runs from the Baltics down through Eastern Europe and across the Caucasus and Central Asia — what Russia views as its rightful sphere of influence. Only then can Russia feel secure from the West, and confident it will remain a major player in Eurasia in the long run. In return, the Russians theoretically could make life easier for the Americans by cooperating with Washington against Iran and increasing support for U.S. operations in Afghanistan through the expansion of an alternate supply route — two key issues that address the most pressing threats to U.S. national security interests in the near term, but which may not be entirely worth the strategic concessions Moscow is demanding of Washington.

So far, the Obama administration has responded to Russia’s demands by restarting talks on the START I nuclear armaments treaty in exchange for Moscow allowing U.S. nonmilitary goods bound for Afghanistan to transit Russia and Central Asia. The Russians responded by permitting some supplies bound for Afghanistan to pass through the former Soviet Union as an opening toward broader talks. The United States then privately offered to roll back its plans for BMD in Central Europe i f Russia would pressure Iran into making concessions on Tehran’s nuclear program. But the Russians have signaled already that such piecemeal diplomacy will not cut it, and that the United States will need to make broader concessions that more adequately address Moscow’s core national security interests before the Russians can be expected to sacrifice a relationship with a strategic Middle East ally.

At the Geneva NATO summit, Clinton upped the offer to the Russians when she signaled that the United States might even be willing to throw in a halt to NATO expansion, thereby putting at risk a number of U.S. allies in the former Soviet Union that rely on the United States to protect them from a resurgent Russia. This gesture will set the stage for Obama’s upcoming trip to Russia to meet with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev, but the Russians will be watching closely to see if such gestures are being made for the sake of public diplomacy or if the United States really intends to get down to business.

Europe
In Europe, Obama is dealing with allies rather than adversaries, but even here his administration’s work does not get any easier. The willingness of Obama to talk with the Europeans far more than his predecessor is less important than what Obama intends to demand of NATO, and what those NATO members are capable of delivering.
A prime example is how Washington is requesting the Europeans to commit more NATO forces to the war in Afghanistan now that the United States feels ready to shift gears from Iraq. Despite their enthusiasm for Obama, the Europeans are not on the same page as the Americans on NATO, especially when it comes to Afghanistan. The U.S. argument for strengthening NATO’s commitment to Afghanistan is that failure to do so would recreate the conditions necessary for al Qaeda to rebuild its ability to carry out transcontinental attacks against the West, putting both European and American cities at risk. But the Europeans (for the most part) view a long-term war effort in Afghanistan without a clear strategy or realistic objectives as a futile drain on resources. After all, the British — who currently have the largest European contingent in Afghanistan — remember well their own ugly and drawn-out efforts to pacify the region in three brutal wars in the 19th and early 20th centuries, each won by Afghan tribesmen.
This disagreement goes beyond the question of Afghanistan to a long-standing debate over NATO’s intended security mission. NATO was formed during the Cold War as a U.S.-dominated security alliance designed to protect the European continent from internal and external Soviet aggression. Since the end of the Cold War, however, NATO’s scope has widened, with only limited agreement among members over whether the alliance should even be dealing with the broader 21st century challenges of counterterrorism, cyberattacks, climate change and energy security. More important, NATO has pushed up against Russia’s borders with its expansion to the Baltics and talk of integrating Georgia and Ukraine, worrying some states that they may need to bear the burden of Washington’s hardball tactics against the Russians. Germany, which is dependent on Russians for energy, has no interest in restarting another Cold War. The French have more room to maneuver than the Germans in dealing with a powerful player like Russia. But the French can only work effectively with the Russians as long as Paris avoids getting (permanently) on Moscow’s bad side, something U.S.-dominated policy of trying to resurrect NATO as a major military force could bring about.

Before taking any further steps in Afghanistan, the Europeans, including those Central and Eastern Europeans who mostly take a hard-line stance against Moscow, first want to know how Obama intends to deal with the Russians. Even with the Poles going one way in trying to boost NATO security and the Germans going the other in trying to bargain with Russia, none of the European states can really move until U.S. policy toward Russia comes into focus. The last thing the Poles would want to do is to take an unflinching stance against Moscow only to have the United States cancel BMD plans, for example. Conversely, the United States is unable to formul ate a firm policy on Afghanistan or Russia until it knows where the Europeans will end up standing on NATO, their commitment to Afghanistan and their relationship with Russia. Add to this classic chicken-and-egg dilemma a financial crisis that has left Europe much worse off than the United States, and the gap between U.S. and European interests starts to look as wide as the Atlantic itself.

Iran
Talking to Iran was a major theme of Obama’s campaign, and the first big step in following through with this pledge was made March 5 when Clinton extended an invitation to Iran to participate in a multilateral conference on Afghanistan, thereby recognizing Iran’s influential role in the region. There is also an expectation that after Iran gets through elections in June, the United States could move beyond the multilateral setting to engage the Iranians bilaterally.
The idea of the United States talking to Iran is not a new concept. In fact, the United States and Iran were talking a great deal behind the scenes in 2001 in the lead-up to the war in Afghanistan that toppled the Taliban and in 2003 during the precursor to the war in Iraq that toppled Saddam Hussein. In both of these cases, core mutual interests brought the two rivals to the negotiating table. Iran, facing hostile Sunni powers to its west and east, had a golden opportunity to address its historical security dilemma in one fell swoop and then use the emerging political structures in Iraq and Afghanistan to spread Persian power in the wider region. The United States, knocked off balance by 9/11, needed Iranian cooperation to facilitate the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions to uproot al Qaeda and intimidate al Qaeda state-sponsors into working with Washington.

U.S.-Iranian relations have been rocky (to say the least), but have reached a point where it is now politically acceptable for both openly to discuss U.S.-Iranian cooperation on issues related to Iraq and Afghanistan, where the Iranians hold influence and where the United States is still engaged militarily.

Iran knows that even with the United States drawing down from Iraq, Washington will still maintain a strategic agreement with Baghdad that could be used as a launchpad for U.S. designs in the region as it works to protect Sunni Arabs from Iranian expansionist goals. At the same time, Washington has come to realize that its influence in Baghdad will have to be shared with the Iranians given their geographic proximity and clout among large segments of the Iraqi Shia.
Though U.S. and Iranian interests overlap enough to the point that the two cannot avoid working with each other, negotiating a power-sharing agreement has not come easily. In Iraq, Tehran needs to consolidate Shiite influence, contain Sunni power and prevent the country from posing a future security threat to Iran’s western frontier. In addition, the Iranians are looking for the United States to recognize its regional sphere of influence and accept the existence of an Iranian nuclear program. The United States, on the other hand, needs to defend the interests of Israel and its Sunni allies and wants Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions (or at least place real curbs on its nuclear program) and end its support for militant proxies. Though Washington and Tehran have made some progress in their diplomatic dialogue, the demands of each remain just as intractable. As a result, the U.S.-Iranian negotiations start and stop in spurts without any real willingness on either si de to follow through in addressing the other’s respective core demands.
In reaching out to Iran over Afghanistan, the Obama administration is now trying to inject more confidence into the larger negotiations by recognizing Iran as a player in Kabul in return for intelligence sharing and potential logistical cooperation in supporting the U.S. war effort in Afghanistan. But as much as Iran enjoys the recognition and shares an interest in preventing jihadist spillover into its territory, the Iranian regime is not about to offer its full cooperation on an issue as big as Afghanistan as long as the United States avoids addressing issues that the Iranians deem more central to their national security interests (e.g., Iraq.) Complicating matters further at this juncture is Iranian displeasure over U.S. talk of speaking to the Taliban, a long-time enemy of Tehran that the Ir anians will fight to keep contained, but with which the United States needs to engage if it has any hope of settling Afghanistan.

The Taliban
Obama told the New York Times in a March 6 interview that the United States is not winning the war in Afghanistan, and that in addition to sending more troops, his strategy for the war might include approaching elements of the Afghan Taliban. While he acknowledged that the situation in Afghanistan is more complex, he related the idea to the successful U.S. strategy of reaching out to Iraqi Sunni nationalists to undercut the al Qaeda presence in Iraq.
The idea of negotiating with the Taliban to split the insurgency has been thrown around for some time now, but just talking about talking to the Taliban raises a number of issues. First, the United States is fighting a war of perception as much as it is fighting battles against die-hard jihadists. So far, Obama has approved 17,000 additional U.S. troops to be deployed to Afghanistan, but even double that number is unlikely to convince Taliban insurgents that the United States is willing or even capable of fighting this war in the long run. The Taliban and their allies in al Qaeda and various other radical Islamist groups are pursuing a strategy o f exhaustion where success is not measured in the number of battles won, but rather the ability to outlast the occupier. Considering that Afghanistan’s mountainous, barren terrain, sparse population centers and lack of governance have historically denied every outside occupier success in pacifying the country, the prospects for the United States are not good in this war.
Talk of reconciliation with the Taliban from a U.S. position of weakness raises the question of how the United States can actually parse out those Taliban members who can be reconciled. It also raises the question of whether those members will be willing to put their personal security on the line by accepting an offer to start talks when the United States itself is admitting it is on the losing side of the war. Most important, it is unclear to us what the United States can actually offer these Taliban elements, especially as Washington simultaneously attempts to negotiate with the Iranians and the Russians, neither of which want to live next door to a revived Taliban and both of which must cooperate with the United States if Washington is to be able to fight the war in the first place.

Syria
After exchanging a few words with Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem in Egypt on March 2, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton dispatched two emissaries in what was the highest-level U.S. delegation to Syria in four years. The March 7 visit came on the heels of a British announcement that London will be resuming talks with Hezbollah’s political wing — a move likely made in close coordination with the Americans.
The Americans want Syria to end its support for militant proxies like Hezbollah and stop interfering in Lebanese affairs. But Syrian dominance over Lebanon is non-negotiable from the Syrian point of view. Lebanon historically has been Syria’s economic, political and military outlet to the Mediterranean basin, allowing Syria to play a prominent role in the region. If Damascus is not in control of Lebanon, then Syria is poor and isolated. Even though the Americans and the Syrians are holding talks again, it is still unclear that Washington is willing to accept Syrian demands regarding Lebanon. And unless the United States is, these talks are guaranteed to remain in limbo.

That said, there may be more to these talks then meets the eye. Instead of rushing to cater to Syrian demands over Lebanon, the United States is probably more interested in using the Syrian talks (largely a Turkish-backed initiative) to send a positive signal to Turkey — a resurgent regional power with the ability to influence matters in the Middle East, the Caucasus, Central Asia and the Balkans. Turkey is beginning to throw its weight in the region around again, and will have a major say in how the United States interacts with states that Ankara perceives are in the Turkish sphere of influence (Syria and Iraq, for example). The United States will need Turkish cooperation in the months and years ahead, particularly as it reduces its military presence in Iraq and attempts to deal with another resurgent power, Russia. It comes as litt le surprise, then, that one of Obama’s first major trips abroad will be to Ankara. Rather than revealing any true U.S. interest to accommodate the Syrians, the U.S. diplomatic opening to Syria is more likely a gesture to the Turks, whose agenda for the Middle East includes reshaping Damascus’s behavior through negotiations with the United States and Israel and containing Iran’s regional ambitions.

Back to Reality
Obama has put into motion a global diplomatic offensive fueled by a dizzying array of special envoys designed to change the dynamic of its relations with key allies like the Europeans and adversaries like the Russians, the Taliban, the Iranians and the Syrians. This diplomatic blitzkrieg may spin the press into a frenzy. But once we look beyond the handshakes, press conferences and newspaper headlines and drill down into the core, unadulterated demands of each player in question, it becomes clear that such a diplomatic offensive actually could end up yielding very little of substance if it fails to address the real issues.

This is not a fault of the administration, but the reality of geopolitics. The ability of any political leader to effect change is not principally determined by his or her own desires, but by external factors. In dealing with any one of these adversaries individually, the administration is bound to hit walls. In trying to balance the interests between adversaries and allies, the walls only become reinforced. Add to that additional constraints in dealing with Congress and the need to maintain approval ratings — not to mention trying to manage a global recession — and the space to maneuver becomes much tighter. We must also remember that this is an administration that has not even been in power for two months. Formulating policy on issues of this scale takes several months at the least, and more likely years before the United States actually figures out what it wants and what it can actually do. No amount of power delegation to special envoys will change that. In fact, it could even confuse matters when bureaucratic rivalries kick in and the chain of command begins to blur.

Whether the policymakers are sitting in an Afghan cave or in the Kremlin, they will not find this surprising. As is widely known, presidential transitions take time, and diplomatic engagements to feel out various positions are a natural part of the process. Tacit offers can be made, bits of negotiations will be leaked, but as long as each player questions the ability of Washington to follow through in any sort of “grand bargain,” these talks are unlikely to result in any major breakthroughs. So far, Obama has demonstrated that he can talk the diplomatic talk. The real question is whether he can walk the geopolitical walk.


The Kenwood billionaire

What's a million here? Or, a hundred billion there?

Dems face internal revolt over Obama agenda

J. Scott Applewhite / AP
Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., and Sen. Robert Casey, D-Pa., are seen on Capitol Hill on Feb. 6 discussing efforts by Senate Democrats to pass the economic stimulus bill in the face of strong GOP opposition.


Dems face internal revolt over Obama agenda

Solidarity of stimulus debate fades as lawmakers read fine print of bills


By Shailagh Murray
updated 2 hours, 1 minute ago



Democratic leaders in Congress did not expect much Republican support as they pressed President Obama's ambitious legislative agenda. But the pushback they are receiving from some of their own has come as an unwelcome surprise.


As the Senate inches closer to approving a $410 billion spending bill, the internal revolt has served as a warning to party leaders pursuing Obama's far-reaching plans for health-care, energy and education reform.


Those goals, spelled out in Obama's 2010 budget blueprint, continue to enjoy broad Democratic support. But as the ideas develop into detailed legislation, they will transform from abstract objectives into a tangle of difficult trade-offs. Crop subsidies, the student loan program and Medicare radiology rules are all currently niche concerns, but any one could become the next crisis for party leaders, with the potential to derail a major agenda item. One major proposal, to limit itemized deductions for wealthy taxpayers, has already raised doubts among prominent Democrats in both chambers.


Some issues that inflamed Democrats in previous years have yet to even register, including the proposal in Obama's budget plan to "means-test" the Medicare drug benefit as a way to pay for health-care reform. Doling out entitlement benefits based on income has long been anathema to most Democrats.

'Waiting in the wings'
"There are a lot of items in the budget that would normally get a lot more attention, if we were in a normal year," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), who heads the House Democrats' fundraising arm. "They've been eclipsed by the tidal wave of the economy." But Van Hollen added: "They are waiting in the wings."

Democrats rejected four GOP amendments to the omnibus spending bill last night, and they will face more today. The additional amendments are the price that Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) was forced to pay Thursday night after he sought to bring an end to debate on the bill and came up one vote short. Several Republicans whose support Reid had anticipated did not deliver, but the most costly defection was that of Sen. Robert Menendez (N.J.), a member of the Democratic leadership, in protest of a little-noticed Cuba provision that would ease U.S. rules on travel and imports to the communist-led island.

The Menendez rebellion was a jolt of political reality for Reid, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Obama, signaling that the solidarity of the stimulus debate is fading as Democratic lawmakers are starting to read the fine print of the bills they will wrestle with in the coming weeks and months, and not always liking what they see.

Reid had been focused on fending off a bloc of conservative Republicans who were seeking to eliminate more than 8,500 pet projects in the bill, many of them inserted by GOP lawmakers. Democratic leaders were hearing some internal grumblings, but those concerns focused largely on the bill's hefty overall price tag.

Minority view
Menendez knew that his hard-line approach to Cuba was a minority view within his party, and that it was at odds with Obama's approach. But he did not expect to discover a significant policy change embedded in the text on an appropriations bill. His policy aides came across the language when the legislation was posted on a congressional Web site.

"The process by which these changes have been forced upon this body is so deeply offensive to me, and so deeply undemocratic, that it puts the omnibus appropriations package in jeopardy, in spite of all the other tremendously important funding that this bill would provide," the enraged son of Cuban immigrants said last week on the Senate floor. Menendez even slapped a hold on a pair of Obama nominees to draw attention to the issue.

Treasury officials, working with Reid's office, continued yesterday to search for an administrative resolution with Menendez that would ensure a narrow interpretation of the legislative language in order to prevent gaping loopholes from developing. Menendez has pointed out that, had the bill sought significant changes in U.S. policy toward Iran or Venezuela, lawmakers would revolt. "What's the difference with Cuba?" said Menendez spokesman Afshin Mohamadi.

By allowing Republicans to offer a total of 11 amendments last night and today, Reid was hopeful that GOP support for the bill would grow and he would not need his New Jersey colleague's vote when the bill comes to a final vote, which is expected today.

Already, a pair of provisions in Obama's budget have attracted determined, if limited, Democratic opposition. One proposal would overhaul the federal student loan program to guarantee yearly increases in the Pell Grant program. That idea enjoys broad Democratic support. But to pay for the Pell Grant expansion, Obama would end federal support for private lending. And one of the major corporate providers of student loans is NelNet, a company based in Lincoln, Neb., the home state of Sen. Ben Nelson, a moderate Democrat who balked at the stimulus package and teamed up with three moderate Republicans to cut $100 billion from the final bill. Cutting off support for NelNet would cost Nebraska about 1,000 jobs, according to Nelson's office. Nelson said the move could hurt middle-class students who do not qualify for Pell Grants. "I don't support anything that could reduce those benefits," Nelson said.

Nelson is also one of several Democrats who have objected to changes Obama has proposed in the farm subsidy system. By stopping direct payments to farms with annual sales of more than $500,000, the White House expects to save about $10 billion over 10 years. But along with Nelson, another Democratic opponent of Obama's annual-sales model is Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (N.D.).

Similar revolts are building against tax changes Obama has proposed, including one to limit deductions that many Democrats privately consider to be a non-starter. Climate-change legislation is months away from emerging, but some Democrats already worry about the political consequences of creating a cap-and-trade system that could result in higher utility bills. Some House Democrats have floated the issue of tariffs on foreign companies — potentially an explosive trade issue —to equalize the cost of a carbon cap.

Obama's proposal for Medicare means testing has received surprisingly little attention so far, beyond plaudits from Republicans who have supported the idea for years. The debate over an income scale was especially heated when Congress created the Medicare drug benefit, known as Part D, during President George W. Bush's first term. As a senator, Obama voted against a Medicare means-testing proposal in March 2007.

But times have changed, said Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.), who also voted no two years ago. The growing consensus among Democrats that health-care costs must be contained, and that coverage must be expanded to everyone, has redrawn the battle lines. "In the past, we've dealt with Part D on its own, and that tends to be polarizing. So the thought here is, that's much less likely if people think we're all in this together," Baucus said.

.
.

Monday, March 09, 2009

Madoff case sparks calls for global court over finance fraud


By Kevin McCoy, USA TODAY


NEW YORK — A multi-national coalition of law firms is asking G-20 nations to form an international financial court for cases like the global scam allegedly run by Bernard Madoff.
Representatives of the 45-member coalition, made up of law firms from 25 nations representing some 10,000 Madoff victims, said Monday the proposal is needed to ensure the financial services market trust, transparency and legal certainty that's been threatened by the case.


MORE MADOFF NEWS: Investors ask to be heard at plea hearing

They have asked for discussion of the proposal at the April 2 London meeting of G-20 finance ministers from industrialized and developing nations.

Javier Cremades, president of the group and a partner at Spain-based Cremades & Calvo-Sotelo, said an international solutions is needed for a complex case that "is a global threat to everyone, including the governments."

FIND MORE STORIES IN:London Miami Argentina Bahamas Bernard Madoff


Madoff, who may plead guilty to federal charges at a federal court hearing set for Thursday, allegedly victimized investors worldwide by reporting almost uniformly positive returns for decades. The global nature of the alleged scam has investors scrambling for the best legal route to seek recovery.

Citing one example, Cremades said an estimated 3,000 clients from Argentina invested millions of dollars with Madoff through banks or funds in Miami, the Bahamas or elsewhere. Where should they sue?

"There is no answer at all," to questions about the overlapping and potentially conflicting legal jurisdictions, said Cremades.

An international financial court would help cut through the confusion, said Gaytri Kachroo, the coalition's vice president and a law partner at U.S.-based McCarter & English.

Source: http://www.usatoday.com/money/world/2009-03-09-madoff-case-sparks-calls-for-global-court_N.htm
.

Note: A Global Financial Court?

So, Burkina-Faso, Lesotho, Djibouti, Lichtenstein, and Andorra can then get their day in this "global" court?
What ever happened to representative government?
.

Tim Geithner's Black Hole


Tim Geithner's Black Hole

By David M. Smick
Tuesday, March 10, 2009; Page A13

Pity Barack Obama's economic advisers. The blogs are now demanding their scalps, and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and his colleagues face a nasty dilemma: There are no solutions to the banking crisis without extraordinary political and financial risks. Thus, they have adopted a three-pronged approach, delay, delay, delay, in the hope that somebody comes up with a breakthrough.

This Story
Tim Geithner's Black Hole
Waiting for 'Dow 36,000'
Let's Learn What Caused This Crisis


Here's the problem: Today's true market value of the U.S. banks' toxic assets (that ugly stuff that needs to be removed from bank balance sheets before the economy can recover) amounts to between 5 and 30 cents on the dollar. To remain solvent, however, the banks say they need a valuation of 50 to 60 cents on the dollar. Translation: as much as another $2 trillion taxpayer bailout.


That kind of expensive solution could send the president's approval rating into a nose dive. Consider: $2 trillion is about two-thirds of the tax revenue the federal government collects each year.

The logical alternative -- talk show hosts' solution du jour -- is to temporarily restructure or nationalize the banks and leave taxpayers alone. Remove the toxic assets, replace management and cut the too-big-to-fail financial dinosaurs into smaller, nimbler entities. Then reprivatize these smaller banks and let the recovery begin.

Oh, if it were that simple. I suspect Obama's advisers would like nothing more than to dismantle an irresponsible firm such as Citigroup. They are afraid to do so, for one reason: All the big banks are connected to a potentially lethal web of paper insurance instruments called credit default swaps. These paper derivatives have become our financial system's new master.

The theory holds that dismantling a big bank could unravel this paper market, with catastrophic global financial consequences. Or not. Nobody knows, because the market for these unregulated financial derivatives, amounting potentially to over $40 trillion (by comparison, global gross domestic product is now not much more than $60 trillion), is the financial equivalent of uncharted waters.

Geithner has reason to be terrified. He was part of the Henry Paulson-led team that underestimated the devastating global-contagion effect of the collapse of Lehman Brothers. Geithner won't make the mistake of underestimation again.

Geithner also knows that the mood in Congress has changed. Were a global financial brush fire to break out as a result of bank restructuring or nationalization, today's populist Congress might just let it burn. Congressional anger is likely to intensify when policymakers realize that credit default swaps demand a stream of premium payments like a life insurance policy, not just a payment due at termination. And recent signs indicate that firms such as Citigroup, in recycling their taxpayer bailout funding, may have helped other financial firms, including some in Europe, meet these payment obligations.

In addition, Geithner worries that because the troubled insurance giant American International Group (AIG) is a conduit for the banks' use of credit default swaps, a collapse of AIG (as an unintended consequence of dismantling the big banks) could be catastrophic. AIG's more than 300 million terrified holders of insurance-related investments and pension funds, who have investments totaling $20 trillion (U.S. GDP is $14 trillion), could suddenly rush for redemptions -- the equivalent of a run on a bank. Geithner would face a worldwide insurance collapse to accompany his global banking collapse.

Or again, maybe not. Nobody knows.

Here's another likely Geithner fear -- that Congress forces the banks' bondholders to take a hit. So far, only stockholders have lost out because of the banking crisis. One reason for the fragility in the credit default swap market of late is that markets fear that bank bondholders, who today are protected even before U.S. taxpayers, could soon see their status change. The worry is that if even bondholders are put at risk, U.S. and foreign investors alike would stop financing all corporate America. The administration says that won't happen, but market participants believe (probably correctly) that this White House can't control Congress.

So our Treasury secretary has no choice but to talk of bank stress-testing and other tactics to buy time before the big bank bailout. Notice that the president's budget already contains a contingency fund of up to $750 billion for a future bank bailout -- a politically shrewd number that roughly matches the size of the Paulson bailout. The true cost is likely to be two or three times as much, unless some last-minute intellectual breakthrough -- a tax holiday for derivatives? -- arises.

The Obama team needs to remember that we got into this mess because of a lack of financial transparency. It's time to tell the American people what the stock market already knows: that the path to recovery will probably be expensive and politically unpopular, perhaps explosively so. This dire situation could take us all down, which is why Obama should name a proven, world-class problem-solver who is not from Wall Street as his bank workout czar. James Baker, the former Republican secretary of state and Treasury secretary, comes to mind. Other possibilities: former Democratic senators Bill Bradley or George Mitchell. Perhaps the White House should name a team.

In the end, at least one thing is certain: Our present position is unsustainable. The longer we delay fixing the banks, the faster the economy deleverages, the more credit dries up, the further the stock market falls, the higher the ultimate bank bailout price tag for the American taxpayer, and the more we risk falling into a financial black hole from which escape could take decades.

David M. Smick is a global financial strategist and the author, most recently, of "The World Is Curved: Hidden Dangers to the Global Economy."



.

Bailouts, Stimulus Packages or Redistribution of Assets? Part Two of Two


- by Deanna Spingola, 24 February, 2009


Unconstrained, the bankers have financed all of the profit-producing, declared and undeclared wars. The U.S. government alleged that the Second World War was caused by obstacles to free trade, exacerbated by the financial events of 1929 manifested in Nazi fascism and responsible for the tensions that led to the Second World War. As a consequence of their questionable theory, the conditions of receiving American economic aid included the implementation of a free trade policy. Free trade policies, like central banks, only assist the bankers and the corporations who exploit cheap labor in third world countries.

World War II ended the depression. There was plenty of money. People had jobs. Women were encouraged to work - more money to service the interest payments to the Federal Reserve. Shuffling women into the workplace was really never about equal rights and opportunities, despite the rhetoric. Bankers serve on corporate boards and control corporate decisions. They depress or increase corporate stock by leveraging loans. When stock prices are depressed, bankers' agents purchase large blocks of the company's stock. The bank may then approve a multi-million dollar loan to the company which increases the stock which can be sold at a profit. Billions are accrued, enabling the purchase of additional stock. The Federal Reserve Board manipulates the market by increasing or decreasing their discount rates. Stocks soar or crash at their whim, sustained by economic experts who manipulate public opinion.

The Fed can also coerce corporations to borrow huge sums so that earnings can be siphoned off to pay the interest to the banks, reducing actual profits. Banks may collect billions in interest through corporate loans even with depressed stock prices. The bankers benefit while individual stockholders suffer. New money or credit carries debt, keeping most citizens in a never-ending cycle of debt. Dumping more money into the system, which bailouts and stimulus packages do, devalues the money already in circulation which escalates the prices of basic commodities, usually without comparable wage increases. Compound interest on mortgages and other items produces massive profits for the banks. Over the term of a mortgage, a house ultimately costs as much as three homes. With numerous taxes attached to products and services, plundered Americans are drowning in debt. If you think you are off the hook because you have paid off your mortgage, just fail to pay property taxes and see how fast the government seizes your house. We have been transformed from a debt-free nation into a debt-ridden nation.

Since 1935, the one dollar Federal Reserve Note has had the Illuminati all-seeing eye within the Great Seal. At the base of the pyramid is Roman numerals 1776, the year the Illuminati was founded. One dollar bills were printed as Federal Reserve Notes beginning in 1963. The phrase "In God We Trust" was added in 1957. Considering the enslaving amount of usury that we pay, totally eschewed by Jesus, the Fed's use of that statement on their notes appears to be an ironic hoax on the Christian citizens of this country. The Power Elite enjoy concealing their nefarious agenda in plain sight. Under the pyramid are the Latin words - "Novus Ordo Seclorum" which means "a new order of the ages" or "new order of the centuries." The words "Annuit Coeptis" are above the eye which means "he looks upon your endeavors favorably." Who would that be? Some suggest that it represents Osiris, Egypt's pagan god.1

In 1958, Chase Manhattan Bank introduced the Chase Manhattan Charge Plan, the first bank in the nation to offer customers a convenient, immediate gratification interest-bearing credit card. Consumer credit, encouraged by constant tantalizing media advertising, has sky-rocketed. Recently, big pharma started advertising their consistently inadequately tested, questionably-safe products. If your doctor fails to prescribe their latest miracle cure or vaccines for every minor malady, just ask for the product or injection and hope that the side effects don't permanently harm or kill you.

On June 4, 1963, President John F. Kennedy issued Executive Order 11110 which directed the U.S. Treasury to issue $4,292,893,815 in interest-free U.S. Notes. On October 2, 1963, he issued NSAM 263, an order for the immediate withdrawal of 1,000 U.S. military advisors from Vietnam and a timetable for the withdrawal of all CIA operatives and U.S. personnel. This would have ended the steady stream of profits to the banks. He was assassinated on November 22, 1963 in Dallas, Texas.

Government bailouts started in 1970 with the bailout of Penn Central which had 96,000 employees and had borrowed from most of the major banks. Additionally, those same banks held stock in the railroad and seats on their board of directors. They made many of the management decisions and were privy to insider financial information. The banks loaned the railroad more money - millions that were used to artificially inflate the stock market price and pay dividends. A month before the railroad failed and before the public was notified, Chase Manhattan's trust department dumped 262,000 shares. The bevy of bankers who held the loans had received dividends on the worthless stock, earned interest on the loans and unloaded a total of 1.8 million share of stock after they collected the dividends.2

Lockheed was near bankruptcy in 1970. Bank of America had loaned them $400 million. Lockheed's managers and employees approached congress with pleas - 31,000 jobs would be lost, national security would be at risk, sub contractors and suppliers would be hurt. Banks, due to Lockheed's dire financial straits, would not make any further loans. Allegedly, to protect the economy, Treasury Secretary John B. Connally finagled a bailout plan guaranteed by the government (taxpayer). Once the government stepped in, the banks freely loaned Lockheed money. Ultimately, the government awarded hundreds of no-bid contracts to Lockheed which has become one of the nation's biggest war contractors. Other similar companies who operated more efficiently lost contracts to Lockheed.3

Connally, a former big oil lawyer turned Texas governor, was riding in John F. Kennedy's limousine in the motorcade and witnessed the president's assassination. Connally encouraged Johnson to be aggressive in accelerating and executing the war in Vietnam. When Connally was Treasury Secretary under Nixon, he oversaw a $50 billion increase in the debt limit. Additionally, he endorsed a $40 billion budget deficit referred to as a "fiscal stimulus." At the time, five million Americans were unemployed. Secretary Connally announced Nixon's program to increase gold prices and officially devalue the dollar. During Nixon's administration, the U.S. was taken off the gold standard completely, a process started by Roosevelt.

Then there was the bailout of New York City, a city overflowing with corruption and a burgeoning bureaucracy. In 1975, New York, a huge welfare state, was unable to get additional credit. New York City employees, otherwise known as friends and relatives, were paid huge salaries for lower-paying comparable jobs in private industry. The city managed to get a loan from the Treasury for $2.3 billion, approved by Congress. It was enough to continue paying interest on their previous bank loans. The taxpayers suffered the consequences through massive inflation. But the banks collected their interest, a huge source of income. New York was supposed to make changes and reduce spending. That didn't happen.4 Chicago, with their glut of relative and friend employees, is in similar circumstances. But Mayor Daley manages to stealthily sell public property. Recently, it was the city's parking meters. Now, in addition to inflation, citizens pay outrageous fees to park in the city which affects business. Before that, it was the famous Skyway.

Rod Blagojevich, the former Illinois governor was arrested December 9, 2008, the day after he publicly declared that the state of Illinois would suspend all business dealings with the Bank of America, the recipient of a $25 million bailout, until it restored a credit line to Republic Windows & Doors which, without credit, was forced to close and lay off their 240 employees. The governor apparently forgot who really runs everything. His indiscretions, attributable to every other professional politician, went unnoticed until he challenged the banks. Goldman Sachs, another bailout recipient, used $6.5 billion of our taxpayer dollars to give bonuses to their financial staff.

Banks create money with a computer keystroke. The money changers can print a $5 bill or a $100 bill for a few cents each. The Federal Reserve prints money to pay the obligations of the metastasizing government. Congress authorizes the Treasury Department to print U.S. bonds, held by the Federal Reserve which the government agrees to pay it back, plus interest, by plundering the labor of the taxpayers. The Fed now considers those bonds as assets, reserves to create more credit to lend to states, municipalities, individuals and businesses. Currently, banks give credit for home purchases, cars and other commodities that people used to save for. U.S. citizens depend on consumer and business credit. When that credit is arbitrarily withheld or withdrawn, industry and spending comes to a halt.

The Federal Reserve is the power behind the recently inaugurated, smooth-talking, charismatic Barack Obama who is overly-anxious to impose government control and dispense bailouts through the Stimulus Package. Through wealth transference and suppressive legislation designed to decrease liberty, each consecutive administration moves America closer to economic collapse and one world governance. Bush coerced passage of the PATRIOT Act (written long before 9/11 and unread by Congress), facilitated the Department of Homeland Security, increased the number of FEMA detention centers, allowed unrestrained illegal invasion to drain state economies (especially California), and incited invasive economy-destroying war against two countries which do not have central banks with debt-based money under the control of the international bankers. Arabs do not believe in charging or paying usury (interest on loans). By the end of 2008, the U.S. had spent $3 trillion on the Iraq War, borrowed from the Fed with interest.

With Obama, citizens will likely be disarmed, in direct violation of the 2nd Amendment, created for citizens to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. We will finally get Hillary Clinton's universal health care. Big pharma, run in concert with big banks and insurance companies, the main benefactors. The government will make all health decisions - who lives, who dies, how many children one may bare, etc. Natural solutions for health care may be outlawed. Warfare will continue as demonstrated by the very recent deployment of 17,000 troops to Afghanistan. This, despite those campaign promises about reducing the troops. Warfare, a huge drain on our economy and a financial boon for the Fed, will continue. Troop numbers are being augmented by waiving criminal histories of those who enlist simply because they are unable to find work. The economy will ultimately bleed-out resulting in riots, food shortages and eventually martial law and perhaps mass detention.

The recent bailouts and the current stimulus package, disguised as assistance to the populace, is a huge transference of wealth - from the taxpayer's pockets into the banker's pockets. Any promised infrastructure enhancements may consist of such things as the completion of the unpublicized NAFTA super highway to connect Canada, the United States and Mexico. While in Denver signing the Stimulus Package, Obama said: "We will build on the work that's being done in places like Boulder, Colorado - a community that is on pace to be the world's first Smart Grid city."5 This appears to refer to an Agenda 21 program being initiated in Boulder by Xcel Energy.

Senators disregarded the taxpayer's pleas to reject the socialist Stimulus Package. The taxpayers, stuck with the tab, are outraged. Democratic senators, including the newly-installed Roland Burris, voted for the stimulus. Burris is now under criminal investigation for his duplicitous involvement with Rod Blagojevich's brother regarding questionable fundraising. This issue was concealed until after his guaranteed vote. Concealment of significant facts seems common with the incoming administration and its appointments. Apologies that follow embarrassing exposures somehow seem insincere.

The outrageous, squealing, pork-filled stimulus plan was designed to benefit the bankers and bleed America dry. The 1000+ page package was certainly written months ago. Pelosi, who recently claimed that America was losing 500 million jobs a month, lacks the intelligence to devise anything more that a one page yes-memo to the bankers that finance her repetitive campaigns. Congress, with few exceptions, have not represented the voters for decades. They are agents for the banks and corporations while paying lip service to their constituents during election campaigns. They profess concern for the voter's essential needs and pass measures that appear to address those needs which in reality expand the coffers of big business and the banks. Meanwhile, members of congress collect generous salaries with regular self-approved pay increases, lobbyist perks, private health plans, and look forward to a life-long, non-Social-Security pension.

Ayn Rand (1905-1982) said in her book Atlas Shrugged: "When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion - when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing - when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors - when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don't protect you against them, but protect them against you - when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice - you may know that your society is doomed."

Banks and corporations run a centralized, metastasizing entity, disguised as the federal government. Their objectives are promoting war while financing both sides, confiscating people's money and resources, and propagandizing the naïve masses to maintain and perpetuate their power. Our two main political parties are their servants, government departments are the spending agencies, and the Internal Revenue Service, a private offshore corporation is the collection agency.

Thomas Jefferson said: "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."

Endnotes
1.^ Pat Riott, The Greatest Story Never Told, Winston Churchill and the Crash of 1929, 1994, Nanoman Press, pg 28.
2.^ G. Edward Griffin, The Creature From Jekyll Island, American Media, 2002, pp. 41-48
3.^ Ibid
4.^ Ibid
5.^ Obama's Remarks at Stimulus Signing, New York Times, February 17, 2009, p. 2
.
.

Note: Bolds and Highlights added for emphasis.

Arsenio.

Prayer for Deliverance and Guidance


Psalm 143

1Hear my prayer, O LORD, give ear to my supplications: in thy faithfulness answer me, and in thy righteousness.

2And enter not into judgment with thy servant: for in thy sight shall no man living be justified.

3For the enemy hath persecuted my soul; he hath smitten my life down to the ground; he hath made me to dwell in darkness, as those that have been long dead.

4Therefore is my spirit overwhelmed within me; my heart within me is desolate.

5I remember the days of old; I meditate on all thy works; I muse on the work of thy hands.

6I stretch forth my hands unto thee: my soul thirsteth after thee, as a thirsty land. Selah.

7Hear me speedily, O LORD: my spirit faileth: hide not thy face from me, lest I be like unto them that go down into the pit.

8Cause me to hear thy lovingkindness in the morning; for in thee do I trust: cause me to know the way wherein I should walk; for I lift up my soul unto thee.

9Deliver me, O LORD, from mine enemies: I flee unto thee to hide me.

10Teach me to do thy will; for thou art my God: thy spirit is good; lead me into the land of uprightness.

11Quicken me, O LORD, for thy name's sake: for thy righteousness' sake bring my soul out of trouble.

12And of thy mercy cut off mine enemies, and destroy all them that afflict my soul: for I am thy servant.

Globalized Babylonian Banking Crisis: An Out of the Cities Calling


Globalized Babylonian Banking Crisis: An Out of the Cities Calling

by Sister Sabbay (November 30, 2008)
SDA Writer's Corner


Please watch video posted below, then proceed to read the full document. This is very important for Seventh-day Adventists in these End Times, warranting that God's people prayfully move OUT OF THE CITIES.


The SDA Churches' sleepiness and lack of edification will not be excused by God, as since 1844 we have possessed all the materials, permitting us to move forward with the Everlasting Gospel manifesting and teaching the Righteousness of the Messiah, unto Sealing and Empowerment, solidifying our Absolute and Unchanging Victory over sin.


Although both Benet Mandelbrot and Nassim Taleb are Atheists, their message appears to have some validity economically. The implications are important for our lifetime and need to be understood by all, as patient saints, cognizant of the Forthcoming Mark of the Beast, Enforced Sunday Law, as it will require ground work to establish a system that is centralized, controlled by the Papacy. Mandelbrot and Taleb, who endorse and author this book "Black Swan" (1987 during the Reagan Admin.) appear to have a grasp of the Volatility of the fast spreading Globalized Banking system.


This system is fragile I agree; placing centralized power in ONE BANK can never be stable. One mistake made by the Vatican's Papal Powers-that-be will create major problems for the populous (populace) .


Additionally, during the year of 1987, Reagan was meeting regularly with Pope John Paul II, suspectedly formalizing a Global Banking System. In 1999, at an Interfaith meeting, Pope John Paul II was elected the universal spokesperson, chief Spiritual Guide, and Overseer for the World. George W. Bush also stated that the best way to honor Pope John Paul II is to honor his word containing the Sanctity of pagan Sunday, thus supressing the Sanctified Sabbath (Exo 20:8).


As Seventh-day Adventists, we understand that Electronic Banking has serious implications for our Purchasing Power, thus we must prepare for this by learning how to grow our own providence, OUT OF THE CITIES. A Pseudo-Protestant, Billy Graham, an awardee of the Templeton prize, has been noted for his alignment with Papal Powers. Such an alignment by the Image of the Beast, Pseudo-Protestant Entities, will endorse the Forthcoming Mark of the Beast, Enforced Pagan Sunday Law and its PERSECUTION of 7th-day Sabbath keepers (Rev 13:15):


God calls his people out of ruins, let's revisit the example of Lot, instructing his family to LEAVE sodom and gomorrah, fleeing to the mountains, God's warning; avoiding destruction:

Gen 19:17 And it came to pass, when they had brought them forth abroad, that he said, Escape for thy life; look not behind thee, neither stay thou in all the plain; escape to the mountain, lest thou be consumed.

We are TRULY in serious times, as was Lot and his family. As illustrated by the level of immorality, existing in our world today. Homosexuals conjoining in marital unions, a salient example. Another obvious example of extreme IMMORALITY is Trans-sexuals procreating; unnatural affection (Rom 1:31, 1Cor 6:9, 2Tim 3:3) combined with God's precious blessing of fruitfulness, multiplication of mankind; created in His own image (Gen 1:27). Mankind and its iniquities have reached unto heaven, leading into the loud cry of the third angel's message (Rev 14:9-11); the fourth angel's CRY (Rev 18:4,5).


Rev 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.


There are several other examples in the bible which illustrate an OUT OF THE CITY'S call. God has chosen the Seventh-day Adventist Message, a movement, which has been unique in re-enforcing the keeping of the ten commandments, the decalogue, the Character God and the Faith of Jesus (Isa 8:20, Rev 12:17, 14:12). God's True SDA remnant will continue with the movement, responding to God's calling, despite imminent Sunday Law Persecution (Rev 13:11-18). By Scriptural allegorical reference, Corporate and Elitest America is the "Lamb-Like Beast" that emerges as gentle and peaceful, yet speaks as a dragon (Rev 13:11). Recalling history, Pagan Rome enacted the Sunday law in AD 321, later re-enforced by Papal Rome, permitting the death and persecution of Seventh-day Sabbath Believers and Keepers. "In the days of Rome's supremacy there were instruments of torture to compel assent to her doctrines" (Great Controversy p.319/569).


We must abhor the Beast, The Romish Church's Papacy, and it's Image, Corporate and Elitest "Protestant" Entities within America, teaching others likewise, as harmony with the these Babylonian Powers is disharmony and disloyalty to God (Great Controversy p. 316/563). Martin Luther, a spiritually-driven reformer for Christ, was clear about his stance for absolute Truth in the scriptures. Sadly, "Protestantism" has majorly aligned with (Non-Denominationalism) Ecumenical deceptive teachings, falling into apostasy. Thus, the Roman Catholic church, Mother Harlot, and the "Protestant" Churches, its daughters (Rev 17:4,5) have become instruments of Satan, determined to prevent the completion of God's work. The Roman Church takes pride in the Laodicean condition of the SDA Movement (Rev 3:14,15). However, to God be the Glory, as "The reformation did not, as many suppose, end with Luther. It is to continue to the close of this world's history" (Great Controversy p.76/148). "But the path of the just is as the shining light, that shineth more and more unto the perfect day" (Pro 4:18).

Targeted individuals in these PRESENT TIMES may be victims of High Technological Electromagnetic weaponry, disguised killings, manifested as heart attacks, myocardial infarction. Vaccinations also can no longer be trusted as they have evidenced levels of mercury attributed to child emotional problems, such as Austism, a pervasive developmental disorder. Defraud European (by origin) pharmaceutical companies share in this disguised persecution of the populous, as they infiltrate medical organizations, steering physicians away from herbal remedies, encouraging legal drugs for "treatment". Thus brethren, we must diligently heed the calling of the TRUE WITNESS, Christ, remaining obedient and INFORMED; ensuring the sealing POWER OF GOD (Rev 12:17, Rev 7:4).


The teaching that the Seventh-day Adventist movement is Babylon is not of God (2 Selected Messages p. 63, 64), true Adventism is the Church of Philadelphia, uniquely obedient to God's ten commandments, loving and brotherly in character (Rev 3:7,8). As we understand that history will repeat itself, as the SDA church was given the precious message of RIGHTEOUSNESS by Faith (at the Minneapolis Conference by Elders Waggoner and Jones, Testimonies to Ministers p. 91, 92 ): for over 100 years, most rejected this PRECIOUS TRUTH, remaining lethargic and spiritually ASLEEP (Rev 3:14,15). God will move his message forward, with His True SDA remnant.

Rev 3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

Overcomers in these end times will be fueled by the Holy Spirit's Early and Latter rain (Jer 5:24, Zech 10:1, James 5:7), bringing God's Harvest to the "Measure of the Stature of the fullness of Christ" (Eph 4:13). Our focus, the manifestation of the fruits of the Holy Spirit (Gal 5:22-23), as we "take on the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the WORD OF GOD" (Eph 6:17). The church of Philadelphia is true Adventism. As we prepare for the Latter Rain (James 5:7), embracing the return of Christ, true sincere believers must focus on becoming harvest ripe, perfecting Christ-like characters. Harvest ripe by biblical definition entails a process of establishing ..."first the blade, then the ear, after that the full corn in the ear"(Mark 4:26-29). "Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord" (Act 3:19). Once, our christ-like Characters have become converted and faultless, we have reached the stage of "the ear" , poised for the showers of the Spiritually enriching latter rain (Zech 10:1, James 5:7).

We must focus on strengthening the true church of Christ, those that keep the Ten commandments of God and the faith of Jesus Christ, adhering to the law and the testimony. The focus on the light of Truth, a non-negotiable objective, will be kept solely by true Christians, obedient and faithful; God's peculiar people (Isa 8:20, Titus 2:14, 1Peter 2:9, Rev 14:12). An uncompromising, unchangeable, immutable faith in the Messiah, our Reedemer, is thus required. God wants his chosen to daily grow in sanctification, developing in the Character of God. Finding love and reassurance in the Messiah by grace through faith, God's remnant can become firmly rooted in Truth; receptive of the Seal of God (John 15:1-7, Eph 2:8, Eph 4:30). With guile-free mouths and blemish-free garments, those chosen, successfully withstanding the trials and tribulations without the aid of an intercessor, will be rewarded as God's precious gems, 144,000 in number (Rev 7:1-4).

Most recently, in 2008, Banks inability to lend money is apparent as evidenced by the collapse of Banking systems, causing a tax fund Bail out. Globalization has far greater consequences than we have yet seen, as this 700 billion dollar issue along with hedge funds being forced to liquidate, driving its prices down, will create the most WORRISOME scenario for all. Powerful/Elite "Protestant" Entities in America will become the image of the Roman Catholic Church's Papacy, reinstating the laws of Sunday law persecution (Rev 13:11-18). The National Sunday Law by definition will begin and apply to the United States of America, later becoming globally standardized, while the world welcomes a cashless system. America, with it's tremendous Power and Influence, as per the scriptures, written by John the Revelator, will allow the Papacy to establish Sunday as a Persecutory law (Rev 13:14,15), THE MARK OF THE BEAST (Rev 13:16). Remember, while exiled on the Isle of Patmos, John was given allegorical visions, as the Romans would have murdered him, had they been able to understand his inspired messages.

We are truly living in the END TIMES and as the potential 144,000, we will need to be spiritually equip to withstand trials and tribulation without Christ's mediation (Daniel 12:1,2; Rev 6:17, 7:1-4). The Mark of the Beast, ENFORCED Sunday Pagan Worship, having "no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image" [Romanism &"Protestant" Entities] (Rev 13:11-18, Rev 14:9-11), will cause a loss of purchasing power for God's chosen. However, the Creator will provide resources for His own "He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna..." coriander seed, honey wafers (Exo 16:31, John 6:58, Rev 2:17). The Ten Commandments, a legal and binding Heavenly governmental ordinance, will be a last day constitutional mandate, maintained by God's chosen (Exo 20, Rev 14:12). Spiritual Babylonians will be a tool by satan, persecuting the remnant of Christ's seed (Rev 12:17). Be encouraged, as persecution will purify the faithful body of Christ (Mal 3:1-3, Tit 2:11-15, Rev 14:1-5), reserving their seat at the throne of God (Rev 3:21).

Ye shall receive Power,

http://www.adventistwheat/.com

Spirit of Prophecy Books & EndTime Truth
7th-day Sabbath Believers
A Time of Harvest Ministry
Copyright © 2008
.
.
.
.

The Beginning of The End & The Day of Reckoning


"The beginning of the end"


"The day of reckoning"...

Sunday, March 08, 2009

The Night Cometh...


I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.....

John 9:4.

First Law of Self Preservation Is to Expel Jesuits From U.S.


First Law of Self Preservation Is to Expel Jesuits From U.S.

Mar 3, 2009


New York Times reports, according to Episcopal Bishop Cleveland Coxe, First Law of Self Preservation Is to Expel Jesuits From U.S.

Coxe goes on to say Pope’s motives and his directives come from the Jesuits

By Greg Szymanski, JD
Mar. 3, 2009

Cleveland Coxe, Episcopal Bishop of Western New York, recently was the center of a scathing article about how he knows the Jesuit Order is trying to infiltrate and under mind the U.S. Constitution.

Coxe wrote a letter which appeared in the New York Times directed at the shenanigans of a Roman Catholic archbishop trying to direct and control politicians in New York.

In the article, Coxe went on to say the Pope was under complete control of the Jesuit Order, saying all his motives are supplied by the Jesuits and all his acts are responsive to their direction.

The article appeared without censorship in the Dec 13, 1893, edition of the Times.

Considering the 600 year methodical approach taken by the Jesuits since the Order’s inception to bring about a world under Papal control, the article appearing in the Times could be considered recent history.

Today, however, Coxe’s anti-Jesuit letter would never be allowed to appear because the Times support the Vatican’s New World Order agenda and Protestant ministers have become cowards when it comes to exposing the Vatican as the beast in Revelations bent upon creating a one world fascist government and a one world religion with a single dictator.

Here is the article about Coxe’s anti-Jesuit statements directed to Francis Satolli, titular Archbishop of Lepanto, Monsignor, and Delegate of Pope Leo XIII, to the United States.

Cleveland Coxe, Episcopal Bishop of Western New York, has written another open letter to Satolli. He begins his communication by saying:

American people are beginning to understand that you represent a Court and not a religion and that the Court of the Vatican is ruled, not by Pious Leo, but by the most formidable political machine that ever disturbed the peace of nations.

The Bishop explains this somewhat startling statement by the declaration that the Pope is completely under the control of the Jesuits. Satolli himself, he says, is the agent in the United States of this same Society of Jesus, meddling in politics, instead of sticking to matters of religion, intriguing and conspiring for the control of the illiterate and alien mass of voters and arraying it against the intelligent American people.

“Balance of power,” says the Bishop, “is thus placed in the clutch of the Jesuits and they have well-nigh ceased to play with us like kittens with velvet caresses; already we feel their claws.”

The Bishop then goes on to discuss the character of the Jesuit Society and sketches its history. Its history, he says, is a history of intrigues, frauds, conspiracies, assassinations and terrible wars. Continuing, he says:

All the Roman Catholic governments were forced to expel the Jesuits as the first law of self preservation. Finally, they united in an appeal to Clement XIV to suppress and abolish them accordingly. Infallibility itself is not infallible apart from Jesuit inspiration. They found means to restore themselves and here they are among us, practicing on the defenseless features of our Constitution, which they only admire because it gives them every facility for destroying it.

The Society of Jesus, the Bishop says, is a conspiracy not a Church and to this he adds:

“While the conspiracy is permitted to assail the dearest rights of Americans, there can be no peace or harmony or good neighborhood among us. Subject them to law or expel the whole “Society” and we can dwell together as fellow Christians.

As a specification of his general charge Bishop Coxe points to the course of recent events in Buffalo, referring particularly to Satolli’s visit there and his open affiliation with the detestable element in the citizenship that is headed by Lt. Gov. Sheehan. The Bishop points to some of the outrageous acts of the Sheehan Party and declares his belief that behind Sheehan has been operating secretly the malignant influence of the Jesuits.

“You and your retinue of dignitaries made common cause with this offender,” he says to Satolli. Then he goes on:

The “Constitution” according to Sheehan! Hear it, American freemen and to know what it means read the real history of our State; the history of Buffalo; the history of the great metropolis, hoisting a foreign flag over its City Hall and sending a national vessel to land you on our shores; the history of our National Treasure and Indian missions; the history of the City of Washington and the lobby that intimidates the Senate and the Representatives; the history of the Jesuit conspiracy.

“I close this letter,” says the Bishop, “with the words of George Washington.”

‘”Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence, I conjure you to listen to me, fellow citizen, the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most harmful foes of a republican government.’”



.

Bailouts, Stimulus Packages or Redistribution of Assets? Part One of Two


- by Deanna Spingola, 20 February, 2009


On February 17, 1950, James Paul Warburg appeared before the U.S. Senate and declared: "We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it. The only question is whether world government will be achieved by conquest or consent."1 To establish a world government, it is necessary to incrementally eradicate the constitution, bring the U.S. to her knees economically, and shackle the taxpayers to perpetual debt through bailouts and stimulus packages funded by printing billions of dollars of interest and debt-bearing Federal Reserve Notes to drastically devalue the currency in circulation thus impoverishing the taxpayers. The only benefactors are the extant banks, certain corporations and the individuals who concocted the financial disaster.

The colonists issued debt-free script in the 1700s commensurate to the demands of trade and industry. The citizens were self-sufficient and industrious. Incensed over the currency issue, England burdened the colonists with excess taxes to fund Britain's imperialistic wars. This precipitated the Revolutionary War. Alexander Hamilton, a Rothschild agent, convinced George Washington to allow the Rothschilds to finance the war. In 1791, with a big war debt to be paid, Hamilton set up a central bank, owned by the Rothschilds and other foreigners called the First Bank of the United States with a twenty-year charter.2

Congress rejected renewal of the charter and the bank was closed on March 4, 1811. Nathan Rothschild was outraged and asked the British Parliament to declare war to reinstate the bank. The Prime Minister refused and was assassinated on May 11, 1812. Parliament declared war on June 18, 1812. British troops burned the White House and other government buildings including the one that housed the ratification papers for the U.S. constitution. The war increased our national debt from $45 million to $127 million.3 President Madison proposed the establishment of a second central bank on December 5, 1815 for a twenty year period. It was created by Congress on January 7, 1817. Nicholas Biddle, a Rothschild protégé, became the bank's president in 1822. President Andrew Jackson refused to renew the charter in 1836, as promised during his presidential campaign.

In opposition to the international bankers, Abraham Lincoln issued debt-free, interest-free greenbacks through the Legal Tender Act of February 25, 1862. This currency funded the Civil War, a horrific, bloody battle that took the lives of over 600,000 souls and was devised to weaken and divide the country. The privately-owned Bank of England planned to impose a gold standard on the United States. Lincoln was soon assassinated by John Wilkes Booth, a Rothschild agent. No debt-free or interest-free money has been issued in America since then.

J. P. Morgan & Company was founded in New York City in 1871 as Drexel, Morgan & Company by J. Pierpont Morgan and Philadelphia banker Anthony Drexel, agents for Europeans investing in the United States. Ultimately, they were so well capitalized that they financed much of America's industrial expansion. By the 1890s, Morgan became an industry consolidator, reorganizing and restructuring the debts of financially troubled railroads - the Northern Pacific, the Erie, the Reading and many other railroads for a total of one-sixth of the track in the U.S. Morgan financed and merged smaller companies to create U.S. Steel, International Harvester and others. A decline in competition results in a concentration of control. In 1904, J. P. Morgan & Company loaned money to finance the Panama Canal, the largest real estate transaction in history. J. P. Morgan & Company became the world's most powerful investment bank.

J. P. Morgan loaned money to Thomas Edison for his incandescent light research and therefore directed Edison's power generation and distribution plants. Nikola Tesla (July 10, 1856 - January 7, 1943), a Serbian who later became a U.S. citizen, was fluent in seven languages. He patented the radio on March 20, 1900, a patent usurped and used by Marconi. Tesla needed the financing that the House of Morgan offered but wishing to retain independence, he resisted the accompanying control. He had witnessed the robber baron's 1891 aggressive takeover of the struggling Thomson-Houston Company and the Edison Company to form General Electric.4

Tesla had also witnessed how Morgan coveted and endangered the autonomy of Westinghouse. Morgan wanted Tesla to sign over his broad spectrum radio patents as security for the loans. Tesla had plans for a directed-energy weapon, not yet patented. Tesla proposed an end to all war. Tesla's alternating current induction motor could have provided free, world-wide electricity to every human. Undoubtedly, Morgan, making huge profits from energy, wished to conceal that possibility. German born George H. Scherff Sr. served as Tesla's accountant and assistant. When Tesla died, his vast collection of papers were seized and classified by the banker-obedient government.5

By the turn of the century, Americans paid very few taxes, had minimal debt and grew their businesses internally - without bank loans. However, by 1910, there were, throughout the country, a combination of over twenty thousand private banks and national banks, chartered by the federal government, all taking business away from the big New York City banks. Legally, banks were allowed to issue currency or bank notes. Since they operated on a fractional reserve system, they could lend out 90 percent of their deposits. This system is manageable unless demands for cash in the form of checks or depositor withdrawals are greater than their reserve cash. Many of those banks failed in orchestrated financial panics. Those remaining would be coerced to join the Federal Reserve System, soon to be established, where their reserves would be managed and controlled by a small, highly competitive, greedy group.

In the fall of 1910, six influential competitor bankers and one well-connected congressman, Republican Senator Nelson Aldrich, stealthily collaborated at Jekyll Island to plot the establishment of a shared monopoly, the Federal Reserve System. The bankers represented the interests of J. P. Morgan, Rothschild, Rockefeller, Warburg, and Kuhn, Loeb & Company. Consequently, legislation was passed to create the Federal Reserve System in 1913, the culmination of decades of plotting by the international bankers. Under the jurisdiction of a board of directors, the U.S. was divided into twelve Federal Reserve Districts. Americans were led to believe that the Fed would eliminate financial catastrophes and stabilize the economy. In reality, the Fed is a cartel that was designed to obliterate competition and increase profits through higher prices and deceptive policies enforced by the government.

J. P. Morgan arranged the financing and purchasing of American supplies for France and Britain during World War I. By the end of that war, J. P. Morgan Bank had handled $3 billion in commercial transactions, netting $3 million in fees, and had arranged over $1.5 billion in credits to become the world's most influential bank, moving it permanently into the political arena of foreign policy, serving as an extension of the federal government.6

In 1901, the U.S. national debt was less than $1 billion. After World War I, the national debt was $25 billion. Between World War I and II, it increased to $49 billion. In 1952, in the midst of the Korean War, under U.N. command, the debt stood at $72 billion. In 1962, the debt was $303 billion which increased to $383 billion by 1970 during the Vietnam War. By 1976, at the end of the Vietnam War, it was $631 billion. During the 1980s and the orchestrated Cold War military buildup, the debt increased substantially. The international bankers funded both the U.S. and the Soviet military buildup. However, all records evidencing congressional acquiescence to the massive banker-funded technological transfer from 1916 forward were classified by Eisenhower's executive order in 1953.7 By 1998, the debt was over $5.5 trillion. Now, the national debt is well over $10.8 trillion. This does not include personal indebtedness such as credit cards, car loans or mortgages.

By the 1920s, banks routinely offered low-interest credit to businesses that had previously relied on profits and patience for expansion. Soon, businesses, eager for additional profit accepted the deceptively low-interest loans offered by the banks. Once hooked, businesses became dependant on banks for growth. To maintain perceptions beneficial to their objectives, bankers have always entrenched like-minded minions into influential positions such as newspaper publishers, editors, columnists, university presidents, professors, textbook writers, labor union leaders, filmmakers, and radio and television commentators.

Even after the deliberate New York Panic of 1920-21, America was still industrially strong. Farms provided adequate and toxin-free, un-genetically modified food. Our infrastructure and transportation systems were then modern and efficient and we were technologically advanced compared to the rest of the world. In 1921, U.S. per capita income was $522. In 1925, Winston Churchill, Chancellor of the Exchequer, wanting England to return to world leadership, adjusted the British pound to $4.86 which limited the amount of British goods companies and individuals around the world could afford. Consequently, over the next two years, hundreds of millions of dollars of gold flowed to the U.S. from all over Europe.8

Montague Norman of the Bank of England, Charles Rist of the Bank of France, Hjalmer Scacht of the Reichsbank, Benjamin Strong of the Federal Reserve, all privately-owned central banks, and Andrew Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury convened in 1927 and agreed to lower U.S. interest rates and the Fed's discount rate. Additionally, in July, 1927, the directors of the Bank of England, the New York Federal Reserve Bank, and the German Reichsbank plotted to move the gold out of the U.S. Allegedly, this helped to generate the depression. By 1928, about $500 million in gold was transferred to Europe, especially Germany, most under the guise of post-war aid.

By 1928, U.S. per capita income grew to $628. Winston Churchill, Benjamin Strong, the New York Federal Reserve chief and the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, Andrew Mellon operated together to ensure that easy money for Wall Street speculation was readily available.

Newspaper and magazine articles promoted stock market speculation claiming that one could make a veritable fortune in a short time for minimum monthly investments. However, there were "special" speculators who owned dozens of accounts in various names which could be traded in enormous blocks. Small investors, never in a position to manipulate the market, suffered the consequences and received the blame for the 1929 crash. Blame for every catastrophe is always placed elsewhere.

Since Woodrow Wilson, the Fed has installed and managed many U.S. presidents. On October 25, 1929, President Herbert Hoover claimed: "The fundamental business of the country is on a sound and prosperous basis." The crash of October 28-29, 1929 was devised. On November 8, 2002, current Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said: "Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve. I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression. You're right, we did it. We're very sorry. But thanks to you, we won't do it again."9

In 1929-1930, the banks, purportedly because they were short on gold, would not give loans to U.S. industry and individuals. Yet, three banks, J. P. Morgan & Company, First National Bank of New York and First National Bank of Chicago, had sufficient money to send huge amounts out of the country to the Bank of International Settlements which ultimately built up Nazi Germany. The money supply was deliberately decreased, causing the Great Depression. People defaulted on their loans and the banks repossessed farms, homes and business properties. People lost their savings - everything. The banks benefited. It was an unethical, egregious redistribution of assets. The catastrophic crash was world-wide, creating joblessness, hunger, disintegration of production and national bankruptcies.

On March 7, 1930, Hoover said: "All the evidence indicates that the worst effects of the Crash upon unemployment will have passed during the next sixty days." He then signed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act against the advice of the thousand economists hired by Wall Street manipulators who were most concerned about repayment of their foreign loans. In September 1930, Bernard Baruch, after returning from a visit to Churchill in England, sent a cable affirming Churchill's views about British world supremacy. On December 11, 1930, New York's fourth largest bank, Bank of the United States, failed. Its 450,000 depositors had no recourse and no FDIC insurance. Another one thousand banks failed in 1930.10 Bank failures signal bank consolidation - extant banks consume them.

The entire national debt in 1932 was $19.5 billion. Roosevelt then initiated the New Deal in 1933 by introducing the practice of deficit spending, which was the brain-child of Britain's John Maynard Keynes, a member of the Illuminati. In 1910, Lenin said: "The surest way to overthrow an established social order is to debauch its currency." Nine years later, Keynes wrote: "Lenin was certainly right, there is no more positive, or subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency ... The process engages all of the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner that not one man in a million is able to diagnose."11

On March 9, 1933, Franklin Roosevelt issued Executive Orders 6073, 6102, 6111, and 6260 which declared that the U.S. was bankrupt. On April 5, 1933, Roosevelt declared a National Emergency and made it illegal for U.S. citizens to own gold. He ordered all gold coins, gold bullion, and gold certificates to be turned into the Federal Reserve banks by May 1 (the Illuminati was created on May 1, 1776). People would face imprisonment and fines if they refused to relinquish their gold. Further, on June 5, 1933, Congress enacted a joint resolution outlawing all gold clauses in contracts. The Federal Reserve System was not energized until 1933 when the U.S. went off the gold standard which allowed the expansion and devaluation of the money supply. The Federal Reserve collects usury on every bill printed. "Our currency has no value past the confidence of those who use it."12

Gold coinage was withdrawn from circulation, and kept in the form of bullion. The public and the Federal Reserve returned their stocks of gold to the government. The people were paid $20.67 an ounce in Federal Reserve money. The Federal Reserve received Gold Certificates. So the Federal Reserve, owned by some Illuminati families, had control of the country's gold and could control its price. The stability and responsibility of the government that issues a currency is the primary reason people accept that currency. Obviously, the collapse of that government would render the currency worthless.


Endnotes
1.^ Liberty Tree
2.^ The Ultimate Yellow Brick is GOLD!
3.^ Financial Background, the Beginning of Monetary control by David Allen Rivera
4.^ The New York Times Guide to Essential Knowledge: A Desk Reference for the Curious Mind By The New York Times, Published by Macmillan 2004, pp. 142-143
5.^ Margaret Cheney, Tesla, Man Out of Time, Barnes & Noble, New York, 1993, pg. 99, 80, 157-160
6.^ Sterling and Peggy Seagrave, The Yamato Dynasty, the Secret History of Japan's Imperial Family, Broadway Books, New York, 1999, pp. 116-125
7.^ Antony C. Sutton, National Suicide, Military Aid to the Soviet Union, Arlington House, New Rochelle, New York, 1973, p. 49
8.^ Pat Riott, The Greatest Story Never Told, Winston Churchill and the Crash of 1929, 1994, Nanoman Press, p. 34
9.^ Remarks by Governor Ben S. Bernanke At the Conference to Honor Milton Friedman, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, November 8, 2002
10.^ Pat Riott,op. cit., pp. 148-163
11. ^ Gold Reserves Manipulated And Us Economy Destroyed Final Warning: A History Of The New World Order by David Allen Rivera
12. ^ The Reality of the Debt