Plutocracy could well instigate another War for better Distraction

An original point of view, just in from Geofinancial (it makes some good points, but EU is dead in the water anyway. And that is good for europeans, since the more you enlarge the base, the more you push up the apex):



UNITED EUROPE: A REACTION TO PLUTOCRACY. PLUTOCRACY IS ADAPTING.
***
The middle class of the USA has seen its income go down markedly in the last decade, while its costs, in health and education, and unemployment, have gone up considerably. It is a curious thing that, as the USA struggles with the increasing economic despondency of most of its population, many American opinion makers obsess about Europe and the Eurozone currency, the Euro. Less than a decade ago, the Euro used to be worth .79 dollar. But then the Euro doubled in value relative to the Dollar.


A massively overvalued Euro is not so bad for Europe; European exporters have so increased the quality of their products that they sell them nevertheless. Moreover, the Eurozone has no oil whatsoever, most of the oil trade is made in Dollar (particularly since Saddam Hussein hanged by the neck shortly after switching to the Euro!) Thus, after the Euro doubled relative to the Dollar, the cost of oil for the Eurozone was halved.


This ought to have delighted "liberal", supposedly left wing, nationalist American economists such as Stiglitz and Krugman. They claim that the devaluation of a currency is good, because it makes the country which has devalued more competitive (although standard European theory on devaluations, for 30 years, has been that they are always bad).
So, as the Dollar went down, by 50% relative to the Euro, American nationalists really believing that devaluation is heaven should have been singing the praises of the Euro. But not at all. Instead we hear concerted howling, all over Anglo-Saxon’s most respected media, on the sorrow of not seeing Spain devalue relative to France. It sounds like coyotes in the deep woods: fascinating, but not thinking.


American economists claims computations show that when Europe was cut up in small nations, it was optimal. Devaluation is the only way to attenuate, according to them, the Iberian peninsula supposed misery.
Honorable critters may undervalue a few facts they rarely mention: keeping notes for 27 countries in one’s pockets is confusing and time consuming to truck drivers, tourists, and prevented transnational prices comparison, let alone purchases (French who want to buy a cheap French car, shop in Spain, or Italy, because, Spaniards or Italians being less rich than the French, car are cheaper there, and they can do this at a distance, every price being in the same currency; since Spain and Italy are contiguous to France, getting the car is very easy).


However judiciously byzantine American economists computations may be, they are irrelevant to the bottom line. And the bottom line, in Europe, is not economics. Not everything in society is about money, or even economics. The main set of reasons for a European currency is not about economic optimization. It has to do with war, or more exactly avoiding its return.
It’s no coincidence that the Secession War in the USA was followed by the establishment of a single currency (which did not exist, prior to said bellicose activity). The American Civil war is the deadliest civil war that a Western country has known. It’s no coincidence that the greatest war gave rise to the greatest currency known.


The astute will notice that World War Two ought to be seen as a civil war too, as it killed around 50 million civilians in Europe. Thus, to this even greater civil war, ought to correspond an even greater currency.
American economists who trash the Euro claim that the Euro is bad because it prevents devaluations: they always mix the idea of independent currency with salvational devaluation. It is a bit as if one were deploring the law, because it prevents to kill one’s neighbor when it is handy. Why not to do the right thing economically, to start with, instead?


Verily, the present crises in the USA and EU have nothing to do with currencies, but everything to do with nationalizing the losses of some private companies which have captured the minds of the elites. Hence those particular private companies are viewed as the highest national interest. Which, of course, they are not.


Saving the top financial companies in the USA such as Goldman Sachs and Citigroup cost nearly 5 trillion dollar, in the USA alone (more than a third of GDP, wasted in two years mostly through Quantitative Easing). Why? Because plutocracy has captured the psychology of the leaders. Obama went around aloud, calling some of the world’s greatest, not to say dirtiest, plutocrats "my friend", while they were stealing billions. He obviously thought that was a small price to pay to ingratiate himself to those powers that be.


Let me add two technical points here: one has to distinguish between banks, and bank holding companies. One also has to distinguish between insuring depositors (certainly innocent, so who should be saved) and those plutocrats, or plutocratic organizations, which pull the strings of the bank holding companies (and who are presumably culprit, or at least responsible). A systematic confusion has been entertained by the plutocratic media between saving depositors and their ATMs with saving the plutocrats, and their derivatives.


Verily, the plutocrats do not have to be saved: they played dead and dying, but it was all a trick, or more exactly a CONSPIRACY. If they were dying of anything, it was of indigestion, or the anxiety they had about realizing their next plan, the boldest so far. The plutocrats deliberately engaged in the whole financial disaster operation, knowing full well that the greatest risk to society was actually the greatest profit imaginable to themselves:leveraging themselves more than ever, using the full power of governments as the ultimate lever.What they basically did was steal all the money, hide it, for their private enjoyment, and then observe there was none left for the normal functioning of society, and order the people to bring those necessary funds, or else civilized society would be shut down…


Obviously depositors of the non plutocratic type ought to have been saved, and the ATMs and managements of the banks themselves kept open (this should have been done by nationalizations of these restricted entities, instead of the much larger gifts made by national government to the private bank holding corporations and their plutocratic puppet masters.)
There would be no Irish crisis if some large private banks had gone bankrupt. What caused the crisis was that large BRITISH and Eurozone private banks had given to Irish developers funds for crazy leveraging, and, as the bubble imploded, they did not want to go bankrupt. So they used their political influence to make the governments (hence taxpayers) provide them with what they had lost (and a bit more for bonuses).


Then the national governments got bankrupt instead. This is the case of Ireland, or the USA.
Britain offered to pay for Ireland, with the Eurozone, and with the USA (the latter through the IMF). All this because our so called democratic leaders cannot stand the private pain of the plutocrats. Plutocrats in pain is the end of the world as they know it. Our democratic leaders would do anything to prevent that: without plutocrats to give them a future, how could they have a present.


So the world financial crisis is all about plutocracy not currency.
So why so much talk about China and its currency, and why the obsession of so many opinion makers of the USA with the doom and gloom of the Euro? One month they feel the Euro is too weak, the next, they see it as too strong. In all and any case, it is the dollar which stays weak.
Plutocracy talks about currency, as the end all, be all, because it deflects the conversation from itself.


Plutocracy is out to destroy the European Union, that is, Europe, because, once again, it sees the danger that the force of democracy, which is strong there, rebels and fights back. As it ought to.
As I have tried to explain in many essays, plutocracy hates democracy. In essence the wars which wrecked Europe in the period 1853-1945 were an attempt, by plutocracy and its insanely murderous servants, to destroy democracy and replace it by plutocracy (hence the elaborate relations between fascism and its corporate sponsors).


The European Union was precisely designed, initially to prevent the return of war and fascism. But who had caused, animated, organized and supported the later? Plutocracy. The European Union fathers did not want to confront plutocracy directly, so they used other names, as they built an institution to fight it.


Lo and behold, a plan presented by France and Germany requires the plutocrats ("lenders") to be responsible when the ventures they engage in fail. But only starting in 2013. Why give the plutocrats three more years?
What we contemplate now is the vengeful return of the ultimate cause of the wars in Europe, namely plutocracy (this theory was well known in July 1914). Hence the continual verbal attacks, in the USA, against Europe, its Union, and its currency. The plutocrats could well instigate still another war as a better distraction, and source of funding, if verbosity is not enough, and the government of the USA is not as compliant as it used to be.


It may be time for Europe to address the real problem, plutocracy, instead of ignoring its attacks, while throwing it all the fresh meat it howls for, as if it was going to appease it.
It will not. Appeasement only encourages plutocracy, as once upon a time, its servant, Hitler, used to be encouraged by every kind gesture coming his way, to become ever more insane.

Ellen Brown: Is Quantitative Easing (QE2) the Road to Zimbabwe Style Hyperinflation? Not Likely

(My only problem with Ellen Brown is that she presupposes that a good [fiat money] power could exist):


By Ellen Brown

Global Research, December 2, 2010

webofdebt.com

Unlike Zimbabwe, the U.S. can easily get the currency it needs without being beholden to anyone. But wouldn't that dilute the value of the currency? No.

A month ago, the bond vigilantes were screaming that the Fed’s QE2 would be the first step on the road to Zimbabwe-style hundred trillion dollar notes.  Zimbabwe (the former Southern Rhodesia) is the poster example of what can go wrong when a government pays its bills by printing money.  Zimbabwe’s economy collapsed in 2008, when its currency hyperinflated to the point that it was trading with the U.S. dollar at an exchange rate of 10 trillion to 1.  On November 29, Cullen Roche wrote in the Pragmatic Capitalist:

Back in October the economic buzzwords had become “money printing” and “debt monetization”. . . . [T]he Fed was initiating their policy of QE2 and you’d have been hard pressed to find someone in this country (and around the world for that matter) who wasn’t entirely convinced that the USA was about to send the dollar into some sort of death spiral.  QE2 was about to set off a round of inflation that would make Zimbabwe look like a cakewalk.  And then something odd happened – the dollar rallied as QE2 set sail and hasn’t looked back since.

 What really happened in Zimbabwe?  And why does QE2 seem to be making the dollar stronger rather than weaker, as the inflationistas predicted? 

Anatomy of a Hyperinflation

Professor Michael Hudson has studied hyperinflation extensively.  He maintains that “every hyperinflation in history stems from the foreign exchange markets.  It stems from governments trying to throw enough of their currency on the market to pay their foreign debts.” 

It is in the foreign exchange markets that a national currency becomes vulnerable to manipulation by speculators. 

The Zimbabwe economic crisis dated back to 2001, when the government defaulted on its loans and the IMF refused to make the usual accommodations, including refinancing and loan forgiveness. Zimbabwe’s credit was ruined and it could not get loans elsewhere, so the government resorted to issuing its own national currency and using the money to buy U.S. dollars on the foreign exchange market. These dollars were then used to pay the IMF and regain the country’s credit rating. According to a statement by the Zimbabwe central bank, the hyperinflation was caused by speculators who charged exorbitant rates for U.S. dollars, causing a drastic devaluation of the Zimbabwe currency.

But something darker seems also to have been going on.  Timothy Kalyegira, a columnist with the Daily Monitor of Uganda, wrote in a 2007 article:

Most observers and the general public believe Zimbabwe’s economic crisis was brought about by Mugabe’s decision to seize white-owned commercial farms in 2000. That might well be true. But how about another, much more sinister element . . . sabotage?

Kalyegira asked how a government “with the same tyrant called Mugabe as president, the same corruption, and same mismanagement, kept inflation down to single digit figures [before 2000], but after 2000, the same leader, government, and fiscal policies suddenly become so hopelessly incompetent that inflation is at the latest reported to be over 500,000 percent?”  

Canadian commentator Stephen Gowans calls it “warfare by other means.”  Devaluing the enemy’s currency has been used as a war tactic historically.  It was used by Napoleon against the Russians and by the British against the American colonists. 

In 1992, financier George Soros showed how it was done, when his hedge fund virtually single-handedly brought down the British pound.  His fund sold short more than $10 billion worth of pounds, forcing the Bank of England to devalue the currency, earning Soros an estimated $1.1 billion and the title "the man who broke the Bank of England."  In 1997, the UK Treasury estimated the cost at 3.4 billion pounds.

 War by Other Means

The push for regime change in Zimbabwe was detailed by Stephen Gowans in a March 2007 article posted on Global Research.  He wrote:

Before 1980 Zimbabwe was a white-supremacist British colony named after the British financier Cecil Rhodes, whose company, the British South Africa Company, stole the land from the indigenous Matabele and Mashona people in the 1890s. . . .

Ever since veterans of the guerrilla war against apartheid Rhodesia violently seized white-owned farms in Zimbabwe, the country’s president, Robert Mugabe, has been demonized by politicians, human rights organizations and the media in the West. . . .

I’m going to argue that the basis for Mugabe’s demonization is the desire of Western powers to change the economic and land redistribution policies Mugabe’s government has pursued; . . . and that the ultimate aim of regime change is to replace Mugabe with someone who can be counted on to reliably look after Western interests, and particularly British investments, in Zimbabwe.

Timothy Kalyegira concurred in this theory, observing:

A former undercover operative John Perkins recalled events that are strikingly familiar to what we see in Zimbabwe today: “[In] 1951...Iran rebelled against a British oil company that was exploiting Iranian natural resources and its people...An outraged England sought the help of her...ally, the United States...Washington dispatched CIA agent Kermit Roosevelt...to organize a series of ...violent demonstrations, which created the impression that [Iranian Prime Minister] Mossadegh was both unpopular and inept. (Confessions Of An Economic Hit Man, Ebury Press, 2005, page 18)  Clearly, Mugabe’s capital crime was to displace White privilege in Zimbabwe and personally stand up to the White establishment in London and Washington.

This is not to condone any atrocities of which the Mugabe government stands accused, or to overlook the fact that breaking up the white-owned farms and delivering them to unskilled workers was a disaster for the economy.  The original black workforce did have the necessary skills, and if the farms had been transferred to cooperatives owned by them, little harm would have been done to the economy. 

The narrow issue considered here is whether the Zimbabwe hyperinflation was the result of the government printing money to fund its budget.  In fact, the government was printing money to buy the foreign currency needed to pay debts owed in a foreign currency, something that subjected it to the whims of speculators.      

The U.S. Is Not Zimbabwe

Even if Zimbabwe’s hyperinflation was the result of currency manipulation rather than exploitation by corrupt politicians, couldn’t the same thing happen to the U.S. dollar? 

The answer is, not likely.  The U.S. does not owe debts in a foreign currency over which it has no control.  It can issue bonds payable in its own currency. 

Today that currency is issued by the Federal Reserve, which is privately owned by a consortium of banks; but the Fed has been at least semi-captive ever since the 1960s, disgorging its profits to the Treasury.  Its website states, “Federal Reserve Banks are not . . . operated for a profit, and each year they return to the U.S. Treasury all earnings in excess of Federal Reserve operating and other expenses.”  The Federal Reserve Act provides that it can be modified or rescinded at any time, so Congress retains ultimate control.

Randall Wray, Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, writes that “involuntary default is, literally, impossible for a sovereign government.” 

The U.S. does not have to rely on foreign investors even to buy its bonds.  If the investors are not interested, the central bank can buy the bonds.  That is, in fact, what the Fed’s second round of quantitative easing is all about: issuing $600 billion for the purchase of long-term government bonds. 

Unlike Zimbabwe, which had to have U.S. dollars to pay its debt to the IMF, the U.S. can easily get the currency it needs without being beholden to anyone.  It can print the dollars, or borrow from the Fed which prints them. 

But wouldn’t that dilute the value of the currency? 

No, says Cullen Roche, because swapping dollars for bonds does not change the size of the money supply.  A dollar bill and a dollar bond are essentially the same thing.  One bears interest and is a little less liquid than the other, but both are obligations good for a dollar’s worth of goods or services in the economy.  If the bondholders had wanted cash, they could have cashed out the bonds themselves.  They don’t have any more money to spend, or any more incentive to spend it, when they’ve been cashed out by the government than when they were holding bonds.     

Moreover, adding money to the money supply cannot hurt the economy when the money supply is shrinking, as it is now.  Most money today consists simply of bank credit, and bank credit is shrinking because banks are deleveraging.  Bad debts are wiping out capital, which wipes out lending capacity.  QE2 is just an attempt to fill the empty liquidity pitcher back up -- and a rather feeble attempt at that.  Financial commentator Charles Hugh Smith estimates that the economy now faces $15 trillion in writedowns in collateral and credit, based on projections from the latest Fed Flow of Funds (September 17, 2010).   Based on his projections, it might be argued that the Fed could print enough money to refinance the entire federal debt without creating price inflation.  (The current inflation in commodity prices is due to other factors, as was discussed in an earlier article, here.) 

Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, wrote recently concerning the federal deficit:

There is no reason that the Fed can’t just buy this debt (as it is largely doing) and hold it indefinitely. If the Fed holds the debt, there is no interest burden for future taxpayers. The Fed refunds its interest earnings to the Treasury every year. Last year the Fed refunded almost $80 billion in interest to the Treasury, nearly 40 percent of the country’s net interest burden. And the Fed has other tools to ensure that the expansion of the monetary base required to purchase the debt does not lead to inflation.

This means that the country really has no near-term or even mid-term deficit problem. The current deficit is a positive. In fact, if it were larger we would have more jobs and growth. Furthermore, there is no reason that the debt being accumulated at present should pose any interest burden on future generations. In this vein, it is worth noting that Japan’s central bank holds debt amounting to almost 100 percent of that country’s GDP. As a result, Japan’s interest burden is considerably smaller than the United States’s, even though Japan’s debt is almost four times as large relative to the size of its economy.  [Emphasis added.]  

Although Japan’s relative debt is almost four times as large as ours and its central bank holds enough to equal nearly 100% of its GDP, investors are not fleeing the yen or driving the economy into hyperinflation.  In fact Japan still can’t pull itself out of DEFLATION, despite massive quantitative easing.  The country still has willing trading partners and is still the third largest economy in the world, an impressive feat for a small island. 

If the Fed were to follow the lead of Japan and hold federal debt equal to the country’s gross domestic product, the Fed would be holding $14.75 trillion in federal securities, enough to refinance the ENTIRE U.S. federal debt of $13.8 trillion virtually interest-free. 

The federal debt hasn’t been paid off since the 1830s under President Andrew Jackson.  It is just rolled over from year to year.  An interest-free debt rolled over indefinitely is the functional equivalent of the government issuing money itself. 

Andrew Jackson would have said the government SHOULD be issuing the money itself, rather than borrowing from banks that issue it.  If Congress gave itself the right under the Constitution to issue money, he said, “it was conferred to be exercised by themselves, and not to be transferred to a corporation.”  

Indeed, that may be why the U.S. dollar has been going UP since QE2 was initiated, while the Euro has been going DOWN.  EU governments are doing what the inflation hawks want them to do: cut back on services, privatize their pension money, and otherwise engage in austerity measures to balance their budgets.  The effect has been to depress their economies and throw them deeper and deeper into debt, with nowhere to get the extra cash needed to pay the expanding debt and interest burden. 

The U.S. and Japan are exploring another model: allowing their currencies to expand to meet the needs of their economies.  This was, in fact, the original money system of the American colonists.  It was revived by Abraham Lincoln to avoid a crippling war debt, after which it was dubbed the “Greenback solution.”

Ellen Brown is an attorney and the author of eleven books, including Web of Debt: The Shocking Truth About Our Money SystemWeb of Debt and How We Can Break Free.  Her websites are webofdebt.com, ellenbrown.com, and public-banking.com.

URL of this article: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=22214

Max Keiser on UN’s ‘grim outlook’ for world economy 2011

How to wage economic warfare with foreign "aid" for dummies

This is what happened (and still happens) not only in Haiti, but all around the "Third world" for several decades, behind the cover of foreign "aid":

4 December by Probe International

Food aid in Haiti is the real reason the country is struggling to feed itself.

Haiti’s inability to feed its own population is often used as an excuse for developed countries and aid agencies to dump food aid on the impoverished country. But a recent report provides more evidence that the real problem behind Haiti’s food crisis is subsidized imports and food aid. The result, according to Oxfam, is that these subsidized food imports have wiped out the country’s farmers, and subsequently, its ability to feed itself. Food aid in Haiti is the real reason the country is struggling to feed itself.

According to a report from Oxfam, domestic subsidies offered by the US government to its own farmers means they “dump” this rice—known locally as Riz Miami or “Miami Rice”— on the local economy. The report says this has exacerbated a mass migration from rural areas to the country’s capital Port-au-Prince, as farmers, previously making a living by selling food to cities, search for employment.

“Currently, US rice subsidies and in-kind food aid undercut Haitian farmers at the same time as the US government is investing in Haitian agricultural development,” said Philippe Mathieu, Oxfam Country Director in Haiti.

Highlighting the failure of such a program is its architect, former US President Bill Clinton, UN Special Envoy for Haiti and Co-Chair of the Interim Haiti Recovery Commission, who now says the policy, brought in by his administration, was “a mistake”. Under Clinton’s presidency, the US urged Haiti to abandon tariffs on imported rice, which paved the way for subsidy-laden farmers in the US to dump their rice on Haitian markets.

“It may have been good for some of my farmers in Arkansas, but it has not worked,” he said. “I have to live every day with the consequences of the lost capacity to produce a rice crop in Haiti to feed those people, because of what I did.”

Oxfam says that in 1980 Haiti was nearly self-sufficient in rice, but today imports nearly 80% of its rice and 60% of its total food supply.

The group also says that recent food aid—in the wake of January’s earthquake—has made the situation even worse, as it brought about massive price reductions and “negatively affected rural Haitians” who were already struggling to make a living from selling food to cities.

That foreign aid has actually hurt Haiti, rather then helped, is hardly a new revelation. In March,a Haiti-based businessman Maulik Radia lamented that he was forced to lay off more than 20 of his 150 workers at his plastic company because he was unable to compete with the free materials being shipped in from the US.

The systematic failure of foreign aid in Haiti, though, has done nothing to stop the massive influx of aid funds and workers flowing into the country. According to the BBC, there are an estimated 8,000 development charities working Port-au-Prince. If that number is correct, there is one aid agency for every 375 people living in the city.

Probe International, November 15, 2010

From the “Wealth of Nations” to the “Debt of Nations”

From WashingtonsBlog:

 – As everyone from Paul Krugman to Simon Johnson has noted, the banks are so big and politically powerful that they have bought the politicians and captured the regulators (and see this).
But it’s not just a question of regulatory capture and corruption. It’s actually a loss of sovereignty.
As Damon Vrabel wrote in July:

It seems ridiculous to point this out, but sovereign debt implies sovereignty. Right? Well, if countries are sovereign, then how could they be required to be in debt to private banking institutions? How could they be so easily attacked by the likes of George Soros, JP Morgan Chase, and Goldman Sachs? Why would they be subjugated to the whims of auctions and traders?
A true sovereign is in debt to nobody and is not traded in the public markets. For example, how would George Soros attack, say, the British royal family? [Vrabel is presumably referring to Soros'currency speculation against the British pound and other currencies.] It’s not possible. They are sovereign. Their stock isn’t traded on the NYSE. He can’t orchestrate a naked short sell strategy to destroy their credit and force them to restructure their assets. But he can do that to most of the other 6.7 billion people of the world by designing attack strategies against the companies they work for and the governments they depend on.
The fact is that most countries are not sovereign (the few that are are being attacked by [the big Western intelligence services] or the military). Instead they are administrative districts or customers of the global banking establishment whose power has grown steadily over time based on the math of the bond market, currently ruled by the US dollar, and the expansionary nature of fractional lending. Their cult of economists from places like Harvard, Chicago, and the London School have steadily eroded national sovereignty by forcing debt-based … currencies on countries.
We long ago lost the free market envisioned by Adam Smith in the “Wealth of Nations” [the book widely considered to be the foundation of modern economic theory]. Such a world would require sovereign currencies…. Only then could there be a “wealth of nations.” But now we have nothing but the “debt of nations.” The exponential math of debt by definition meant that countries would only lose their wealth over time and become increasingly indebted to the global central banking network.

An obvious example of a nation which has lost it’s sovereignty and gone from the “wealth of nations” to the “debt of nations” is Ireland. The Irish bailout won’t really help the Irish people, but will help the big banks which invested in Ireland. See this and this. Ironically, German banks may actually be more at fault for the Irish crisis than the Irish banks themselves. See this, this and this.
And the EU is now arguably trying to tell Ireland what to do (while using pleasantries and niceties to appear not too pushy), and somewhat ignoring Ireland’s status as a sovereign nation. See this, this and this.
Similarly, Americans – without their knowledge or consent – are bailing out banks all over the world . See this,this and this.
Of course, there is no bright line between private and central banks, since big banks own the Fed, and the world’s central banks – in turn – own the BIS.
Central bankers are not elected by – or accountable to – the people of the nations in which they sit, nor are the IMF or World Bank. The IMF often loans money to countries and then imposes draconian austerity packages.
Sure, Irish and American politicians were irresponsible and corrupt, and both peoples were spendthrifts.
But – as I’ve repeatedly pointed out – the game has also been rigged in favor of the banks and against the sovereign nations.
For example, economist Michael Hudson points out that debt grows exponentially, while the economy only grows in an s-curve. So the amount of debts will always surpass the size of the real economy. If private banks have the power to create debt, then the biggest banks will always eventually win out over the sovereign nations, especially when the amount of credit which can be created (i.e. the size of the monetary base) is not limited by real assets, but is simply based on a system of fiat currency.
As I wrote in October, in a post entitled “The Founding Fathers’ Vision of Prosperity Has Been Destroyed”:

The ability for America and the 50 states to create its own credit has largely been lost to private bankers. The lion’s share of new credit creation is done by private banks, so – instead of being able to itself create money without owing interest – the government owes unfathomable trillions in interest to private banks.
America may have won the Revolutionary War, but it has since lost one of the main things it fought for: the freedom to create its own credit instead of having to beg for credit from private banks at a usurious cost.

And see this.
But – whatever one thinks about public banking or paper currencies – one thing should be clear to everyone: the giant banks are rapidly chipping away at the sovereignty of virtually all of the world’s nations.

[LOL] Man had an orgasm during a TSA groping: arrested on the spot

(I wonder about the crime he will be charged with):

From Facts not Fairies:

A 47 year old man was arrested at San Francisco International Airport after[...] while being patted down by a male TSA agent. Percy Cummings, an interior designer from San Francisco, is being held without bail after the alleged incident, charged with sexually assaulting a Federal agent.

According to Cummings’ partner, Sergio Armani, Cummings has “multiple piercings on his manhood” which were detected during a full body scan. As a result, Cummings was pulled aside for a pat-down. Armani stated that the unidentified TSA agent spent “an inordinate amount of time groping” Cummings, who had apparently become sexually aroused. Cummings, who has a history of sexual dysfunction, ejaculated while the TSA agent’s hand was feeling the piercings. The TSA agent, according to several witnesses, promptly called for back up. Cummings was thrown to the ground and handcuffed. More


_____________


Related:

Boy Asks TSA ‘Why Pat Down Mom And Not Me?’, TSA Replies “You Don’t Have Boobs”

Actress Donna Derrico Discriminated Against By The TSA For Her Sexy Looks

US-South Korean FTA Rammed Through

From  Info-wars Ireland, December 4, 2010 by Tony Cartalucci 

Globalists Expertly & Successfully Wield Terror Against Koreans

South Koreans don't want it, most Americans don't know about it, and now the US-South Korean FTA has passed.

by Tony Cartalucci
Friday, December 3, 2010

Under the threat of imminent war, compounded by overtly provocative naval maneuvers, the United Statespushed through what was thought to be a tenuous free-trade agreement with South Korea.

Indeed, headlines dominating Korean papers included “Military readies live-fire drills to deter North’s provocations” from Yonhap News Agency, and “Defense chief-nominee vows air strikes if attacked” from The Korean Times, as the largest US free-trade agreement since NAFTA silently slipped through.

The free-trade agreement had been shelved during the previous Bush administration three years ago on the heels of massive South Korean street protests and again rebuffed during President Obama’s acrimonious visit to Seoul last November. Now signed, the agreement will make it easier for US corporations to enter Korean markets. This includes the US’s parasitic banking sector, a prospect that might off-set efforts by Korea’s Ministry of Finance to close their markets to the dangerous speculation that has begun a collapse in the West.

Also worth mentioning is that with South Korea locked into the sovereignty-usurping free-trade agreement, bent ever more to the will of the West, reunification of the peninsula under a joint US-South Korean force will have Americans literally on China’s doorstep. China may not then be as welcoming or supportive of reunification as the alleged”Wikileaks” suggest.

If the suspicious sinking of the South Korean naval ship Cheonan was linked to America’s efforts to rein in the newly assertive Japanese government under Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama, then this latest bout of provoked artillery exchange in late November and the subsequent military build-up can be attributed to helping rein in an “overly protective” South Korea.

Hardly unpredictable, America has consistently shored up its position, when tenuous with South Korea and Japan, by provoking North Korea. Respected geopolitical analyst Dr. Webster Tarpley noted during his November 27th radio show that the recent provocations did indeed appear intentional and part of a “classic gambit” designed to drive South Korea and Japan under the protective umbrella of the US.

What is worrying now is whether or not this will send a chill to other nations seeking to protect themselves from the unfolding catastrophic economic collapse taking place in the West, particularly Brazil and Thailand. Both nations have proposed Tobin taxes among other capital flow controls, both have relatively strong economies, but may now be fearing similar “serendipitous” destabilization targeting their respective governments. Already in Thailand the globalist backed “red” color revolution is preparing another round of protests in an attempt to bring back globalist hitman Thaksin Shinwatra.

For the Koreans, their government and media seem to have taken advantage of the perfect smokescreen to hide the passage of this highly unpopular US-FTA behind. It was a smokescreen of such perfect magnitude and timing, of such benefit to the United States, it is painfully obvious that it was yet another reckless and contrived stunt.

For those that question the psychosis of the ruling elite, remember November 2010, when several lives were ended, roughly 73 million lives were threatened, and greater war involving billions risked, so more diseased US beef could be sold and US banks could plant their parasitic proboscis into another thriving, productive economy.

_______

Tony Cartalucci is a regular contributor to Infowars Ireland. You can find more of his articles at: http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com

______________________--

Related:

China issues warning over US-S Korea-Japan talks 
BEIJING: China, after being snubbed in its call for six-way talks on North Korea, has warned the United States, Japan and South Korea not to ‘intensify confrontation’ at a meeting next week in Washington. North Korea’s nuclear-armed regime last week launched a deadly artillery attack on South Korea and boasted about a new uranium reprocessing plant, deepening international concern about its intentions. China, under pressure to bring its ally to heel, proposed to hold multilateral talks in Beijing in early December. But that was rejected by the United States, South Korea and Japan, which will meet themselves in Washington on Monday. ‘We’ll keep a close watch on this meeting,’ Chinese foreign ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu said in a statement issued late Thursday. ‘As the situation on the Korean peninsula is highly complicated and sensitive, we expect the meeting to ease tensions and promote dialogue, rather than heighten tensions and intensify confrontation,’ Jiang said. afp 

China, Russia Excluded From Clinton's Tripartite Talks On Korea
Russian Information Agency Novosti
December 4, 2010

Moscow: U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will discuss North Korea in a meeting with the South Korean and Japanese foreign ministers on Monday, CNN reported.
The Russian and Chinese foreign ministers have not been invited to the meeting, despite being members of the six-party talks on North Korea.

A senior State Department official told the channel that the meeting was meant to bring the three "cornerstones of security in the region," adding that "China should not view this as a snub."
 Clinton will hold separate bilateral talks with Korean Foreign Minister Kim Sung-hwan and Japanese Foreign Minister Seiji Maehara before opening the three-party talks.

Tensions escalated in the region in mid-November when North Korea launched artillery fire at a South Korean island, injuring four soldiers and provoking a retaliatory attack from the South.
The sides will also the perceived threat from North Korea's nuclear program. The secretive state recently revealed the existence of a new uranium enrichment plant.
North Korea pulled out of talks with Russia, Japan, China, the United States and South Korea over its nuclear program last April after the United Nations condemned the communist state's missile tests.
North Korea wants the talks to resume but the United States has refused, insisting that Pyongyang show it is serious about ending provocations and the development of its nuclear program.

On Wednesday, South Korea and the United States concluded four-day joint naval drills to the west of the Korean peninsula in a show of force to deter the North from launching further attacks across its disputed maritime border with the South.
The United States has also launched large-scale joint military exercises with Japan off Japan's southern island of Okinawa.

North Korea As Pretext: U.S. Builds Asian Military Alliance Against China And Russia 

US, Japan stage joint drill amid regional tensions 


Pushing to brink of war: U.S. sends warships, jets to Korea

North Korea deploys more multiple rocket-launchers 

US Deal Humiliating: S Korea Lawmakers

The new agreement is a "humiliating and treacherous deal that prevents South Korea's access to the US auto market, which should be a key pillar of the FTA (Free trade Agreement)," the opposition party lawmakers said in a statement on Sunday, AFP reported.

The South Korean lawmakers added that the agreement has too many concessions for Washington and too little in return for Seoul.

"We have been hit by the North with cannons and now we're being hit by the US with the economy," said Park Jie-Won, floor leader of the Democratic Party, referring to last month's artillery assault by Pyongyang on a border island.'
Read more...

(A new CIA/Mossad False Flag?) Bio Terror Threat from Kenyan Germ Labs Worries US

Just in from VaticProject:
 Vatic Note: Well, finally, here it is. Senator Lugar just showed his deep involvement with these statements since he knows full well Al Qaeda does not exist. Any AQ is funded, supported and works for the CIA and Mossad. I wondered when we would get down to the bottom line that all these distractions were covering up. I have been waiting on this since the very first microbiologist was killed and I tracked them over the years as they were murdered, suicided or heart attacked and that is a huge percentage of those with that background and expertise.


Lets not forget Obama's involvement in the election problems Kenya had the year Obama took office. And now the coalition gov spokesman was Obamas cousin and candidate that was foisted after the election, onto the kenyan people through violence and then negotiations. If we are that tied into that country, than this lab could mean a lot more than appears on the surface.


After reading the link above about Obama's involvement, please watch this video. Since all of this article below should be read in the CONTEXT OF THIS INFORMATION.... Did the US/Israel use kenya to cover for them in developing the bioweapon they plan on using against the world??? This video toward the end shows you Mr. Olinga that Obama helped overthrow the real duly elected gov. Is this why???





http://www.theeastafrican.co.ke/news/Bio%20Terror%20Threat%20from%20Kenyan%20Germ%20Labs%20Worries%20US/-/2558/1048870/-/14imjin/-/index.html (video off to the right side of article)


Even though I knew since the first anthrax attack right after 9-11, that they intended to do us in with bioweapons, I still was not sure until more and more of these microbiologists were murdered, etc and my belief then grew to realize that, plus nukes were to depopulate the planet in a rapid manner with minimum impact on the satanist evil ones doing this. DNA SEQUENCING IS HOW THESE MICROBIOLOGISTS CAN TRACK WHICH BIOWEAPONS FACILITY THESE BUGS COME FROM. And they have to be tracked for those dealing with them so the DNA sequencing is important to even the satanists for that reason. First they tried the vaccines and that fell apart almost immediately because of Baxters Faux pas.


After that no one will take the vaccines. Its their phoney pretending about worrying about it that really galls me. They have their underground facilities for themselves so their worry is bogus. I believe they are just trying to decide if their little pets are ready to be thrown into the population and have it work. STock up on immune building products to strengthen your system. Its also why I believe the bees were under attack by that virus created by Israel, (read about half way down**) since raw unprocessed, unfiltered Honey is natures most potent antibiotic along with natural and unradiated cinnamon, believe it or not. Remember, the workers in the cinnamon factory in europe were the ones spared from the Spanish flu killer virus that caused a pandemic. Stock up on natural cinnamon at your local organic store.


** Excerpt:

'The only pathogen found in almost all samples from honeybee colonies with CCD, but not in non-CCD colonies, was the Israeli acute paralysis virus. It was found in 96.1 percent of the CCD bee samples.'

So there is a lot more to all of this than it appears on the surface.

Bio Terror Threat from Kenyan Germ Labs Worries US
Posted by EU Times on Nov 10th


pic - kemrilab
Concerned about the threat of biological terrorism, a powerful US senator will lead a team of high-level Pentagon officials on an inspection tour of Kenyan germ laboratories next week.


Richard Lugar, the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, will be accompanied by the director of the US Defence Department’s Threat Reduction Agency as well as by the heads of units focused on biological defence and global strategy.


The labs to be inspected are designed for the study of infectious diseases. Work to develop treatments and to help prevent outbreaks also takes place at these facilities.But Pentagon officials warn that the Kenyan labs have not been sufficiently secured against terrorism threats.


“Deadly diseases like Ebola, Marburg and anthrax are prevalent in Africa,” Senator Lugar said in a statement announcing a trip that will take him to Uganda and Burundi as well as to Kenya. (VN: That is why the traitors selected that place. The Ukraine didn't work, so now they switched the new false flag to Obama's influenced officials at the top of that government.)


“Al-Qa’ida and other terrorist groups are active in Africa, and it is imperative that deadly pathogens stored in labs there are secure.


“These pathogens can be made into horrible weapons aimed at our troops, our friends and allies, and even the American public,” the senator added. “This is a threat we cannot ignore.”


Mr Lugar said he has been told by Pentagon chief Robert Gates that the inspection tour will help ensure that the governments of Kenya and Uganda work closely with the United States to secure the labs.The US delegation is scheduled to arrive in Kenya on November 16. A list of the sites the Americans will visit has not been released.


Source
________________
The article is reproduced in accordance with Section 107 of title 17 of the Copyright Law of the United States relating to fair-use and is for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.