Monday, December 31, 2007

The Planned Killing of Benazir Bhutto

by Ramtanu Maitra

The gruesome killing of Benazir Bhutto in the evening hours of Dec. 27 in Pakistan's garrison town of Rawalpindi is yet another step in the process of weakening, and eventual break-up, of Pakistan.

Despite the crocodile tears shed in Washington and London over Bhutto's assassination, it was a disaster waiting to happen and therefore, was altogether expected. Those who believed, naively, that Bhutto's mission was to reinstate democracy in Pakistan and put its usurpers, the Pakistani military, in the background, do not realize why she was inserted into the scene, which was already rife with violence. The truth is that the British imperial circles, with their stooges in Washington, set up Bhutto's execution, to advance their scheme to break up Pakistan, and create chaos throughout this strategic region. (See Lyndon LaRouche's statement on British role.)

Bhutto, no doubt, was a mass-based political leader, but she was a woman (an excuse used by the puppet Islamic jihadists to commit violence against a person), and she was goaded into the scene by the United States—perhaps now the most hated nation among Muslims in general—to serve Washington's purpose, which was to put the Pakistani military on the defensive and force it to share power with a democratic politician. According to the master strategists in Washington, that is the best of both worlds—the Pakistani military stays friendly, while the United States shakes off its guilt of backing a military dictator.

It is not known what transpired in the telephone call between U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Benazir Bhutto that led to Bhutto's decision to return. What promises were made will not be known unless Rice can shake off the national security garb and tell the truth. The one who knew, and could tell others, is gone.

The 9/11 event had enticed a weak-in-the-head Bush Administration to embark on a journey, the path of which was paved by the British colonialists. The vestiges of British colonial aspirations exist not only at Buckingham Palace, but even more so in the power of the intrigue and secrecy-ridden City of London.

Britain and the Muslims

The partition of India, and the formation of Pakistan, a Muslim nation, by the British Raj, was not done because the British liked Muslims. They had slaughtered them by the thousands in 1856, when the Hindus and Muslims joined hands under the last Mughal emperor, Bahadur Shah Zafar, to drive out the firenghee (white-skinned foreigners). Those who remember that untold part of the history of the Indian independence movement, talk of the piles of bodies lying in the streets of Delhi slaughtered by British soldiers. Most of them, like Benazir Bhutto and her colleagues who died on Dec. 27, were Muslims. The Muslims were "traitors" aspiring to reinstate the "despicable" and "corrupt" Mughal dynasty, London screamed.

The key to the British Empire's financial success was its ability to manipulate Islam. The British Empire-builders eliminated the Islamic Caliphate, created nations out of deserts, eliminated some nations, and partitioned others to create Islamic nations. Britain was aware that the oil fields of Arabia would be a source of great power in the post-World War II decades. The western part of British India bordered Muslim Central Asia, another major source of oil and gas, bordering Russia and Muslim Afghanistan. British India also bordered Islamic Iran and the Persian Gulf—the doorway to the oil fields of Arabia. In order to keep its future options open, Balochistan, bordering northeastern Iran, and the tribal Pushtun-dominated areas bordering Afghanistan, remained as British protectorates.

So, when the break-up of British India was planned by Churchill and others, Balochistan was not a problem. The problem was the Pushtun-dominated North West Frontier Province (NWFP), which was led by a pro-Congress Party leadership, and had voted in the last referendum before partition, to join Hindu-majority India.

What London wanted was that the large Hindu-dominated India must not have common borders with Russia, or Central Asia. That could make it too powerful and, worst of all, energy independent. Pakistan was created by the gamesmen in London because they wanted a weak Muslim state that would depend heavily on the mighty British military. The Cold War period held this arrangement in place, to the satisfaction of the British. The Kashmir dispute, triggered from London to cut off Indian access to Afghanistan, served the British policy-makers well.

But the post-Cold War days are different. China is rising in the north and seeking entry into the Persian Gulf and Central Asia through the western part of Pakistan bordering Afghanistan. China has a long-term plan to build, and build, and build, infrastructure in this area, to bring resources into its vast but thinly populated western sector that extends from bordering areas of Kazakstan under the shadows of the Tien Shan mountains in the West, to the Shaanxi province deep inside China.

What is the connection of this history to the gruesome incident that happened in the darkening shadows of Liaquat Ali Bagh in Rawalpindi? It is important for the Pakistanis, as well for the other citizens of the Indian subcontinent, to know and assimilate.

Britain wants another partition of Pakistan. Whether Washington wants it, or not, it is playing second fiddle to this absurd policy. This time, a new nation is supposed to emerge—a weak and disoriented nation, born out of violence, just like the partition of British India. This nation will consist of Pushtun-dominated North West Frontier Province (NWFP), Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), and Balochistan—all situated west of the Indus River and bordering he British-drawn disputed Durand Line that allegedly separates Afghanistan from Pakistan.

Why Bhutto?

The purpose of inserting Benazir Bhutto into the scene, after eight years of self-imposed exile, at a time when law and order had completely broken down, and even the Pakistani military was coming under serious attacks from the Islamic militants, was two-fold. The first objective, which Bhutto achieved in no time, was to put the Pakistani military on the defensive and generate demands in the street for the military to get back to barracks.

It is understood by the majority of Pakistanis, that despite the corruption that envelops the military, it is the only force in the nation that could, in the short term, maintain law and order, and fight the secessionists.

Once she put the Pakistani military on the defensive, Benazir did not become irrelevant. She became the designated qurbani (sacrifice). The killing of Benazir Bhutto has already unleashed domestic violence. In the midst of grieving Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) activists and workers, who feel betrayed and orphaned, will be the killers whose objective is to challenge the military and postpone the Jan. 8 elections. They would provoke the military to shoot at the people.

It is to be noted that the international Islamic radicals, who dip heavily into the British and other foreign intelligence sources, have infiltrated over the years into the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and the lower echelons of Pakistan's military. That makes the task of keeping Pakistan together even more challenging.

The death of Bhutto was a step to breaking up Pakistan. She, however, wanted to unify the country. The Pakistani people must see to it that her death was not in vain.

The System Is Dead; Now What?

by John Hoefle Dec. 30, 2007
The year 2007 was one of remarkable changes in the global
financial system, the chief among them, it being the year
that the casino of unpayable debts and off-balance-sheet
fantasies finally broke down, leaving us to watch as the
ramifications of that collapse spread inexorably across
the planet. This was the year that financial terms of
which most people had never heard, such as ``SIVs,''
``CDOs,'' and ``monolines,'' became almost household
words, the year the so-called ``subprime crisis'' turned
into the so-called ``credit crunch,'' only to be revealed
at the end as a solvency crisis of the international
banking system itself. It was the year that the central
banks went from talking tough about asserting market
discipline and letting speculators take their losses, to
launching increasingly desperate schemes to keep the whole
system from grinding to a halt.
We now enter 2008 in uncharted territory. The
problems we saw in 2007 will only get worse, and there are
new horrors to be discovered as the death throes intesify.
The losses to the banks in 2007, likely to be on the order
of $100 billion, once the final reports are in, are just
the beginning. The entire economy, particularly in the
United States, has depended upon the accumulation of vast
amounts of debt, with households, businesses, governments,
and the financial markets all depending upon the ability
to borrow to finance their existence. The ability to
finance that debt depended in turn upon the ability of the
banks to turn loans into securities that could be sold to
speculators, moving the loans off the banks' balance
sheets into what is euphemistically called the investment
community. That securitization game is now over, and its
demise will wreak havoc with the ability of the economy to
finance itself with debt. The wave of losses we have seen
thus far is but a glimpse of what is to come, as the
collapse eats its way through the world's balance sheets
and flows relentlessly home to the balance sheets of the
commercial banks, the investment banks, the insurance
companies and other financial institutions, and to the
lives of people.
- Battle Royal -
While the death of the system plays out before us in
the financial press, the soap opera of falling dominoes
and dueling pundits is but a cover for a much more
profound battle: the battle over the nature of the system
which will rise from the ashes. There are those poor fools
who are trying to save the current system, to pretend that
what has happened did not, to save their illusions of
wealth; but they are irrelevant and will simply be swept
away by events beyond their understanding and control. The
real battle is between those who know the system is gone,
and want to decide the nature of its replacement.
On the one side are the forces around Lyndon LaRouche
and the American System of economics, who want to put the
financial system through bankruptcy, putting up firewalls
to protect the General Welfare of the citizenry, stopping
home foreclosures and freezing the mass of financial
claims until the wheat can be separated from the chaff.
The speculative claims and fictitious values can be
written off over time, while the elements necessary to
protect the proper functioning of the economy can be
protected, and the economy rebuilt. The essence of
LaRouche's approach is that the welfare of the population
comes first, and must be protected at all costs.
On the other side are the forces of the international
financial oligarchy, organized around the Anglo-Dutch
rentier-financier model. Their intent is to use the crisis
to destroy the power of the nation-states and to restore
the power of the empires, in a world dominated by imperial
financiers and their trading cartels. To this crowd,
people are but expendable peasants, little more than herds
of cattle to be managed, sometimes slaughtered. What
motivates the oligarchy is power, the ability to rule the
world for the benefit of a small ruling class. In their
view, the nation-states, in particular the historic United
States, usurped their power, and they intend to reclaim
it. They have, in fact, already made large steps in that
There are, to be sure, fights among these jackals
which are of interest to those of us who oppose them, but
what they have in common is more important than their
differences. To the prey, fights among the jackals over
who will eat first are of little consequence.
The point which must be clearly understood is that
this is a political fight rather than a financial one. The
financial system is already gone and cannot be
resurrected, and there are no serious attempts to do so.
The moves by the central banks and the regulators are not
intended to bring back the bubble, but rather to attempt
to control its disintegration and buy the time to
establish the replacement system. The money is already
- British Moves -
The center of this global imperial assault is the
City of London, which is openly plotting to become the
capital of the new order. To do this, it must eliminate or
at least severely weaken its rivals, beginning with the
United States and its financial center, Wall Street.
The British take the long view of things, and began
preparing for this collapse years ago. In 1986, the City
of London transformed itself, breaking up its inbred
financial system in what was called the ``Big Bang,'' as
London positioned itself to be the center of a new global
system based upon trading and speculation. Most of the
old-line British merchant banks were sold off to better
capitalized partners, with S.G. Warburg going to what is
now known as UBS; Kleinwort Benson going to Dresdner Bank;
Hambros to Societe Generale; and Schroders to
Citigroup, to name a few of the more prominent banks.
These banks did not leave the City but stayed to help
orchestrate a shift which brought foreign banks to London.
In this way, London became the financial center of the new
derivatives game, while the exposures, and ultimately the
losses, were centered in New York, Tokyo, Frankfurt, and
Zurich. The City positioned itself as the casino,
profitting from the gambling of others and, through its
network of offshore centers like the Cayman Islands, it lured
its rivals into the trap.
Now the trap is being sprung. The Brits are using
their propaganda assets like Rupert Murdoch's News Corp.
to assault Wall Street. Murdoch's launching of the Fox
Business cable television channel and his purchase of the
{Wall Street Journal} provide the City with a platform to
undermine the credibility of U.S. institutions.
- It Began With Citigroup -
Illustrative is the crisis which hit Citigroup in
November. It began with a report issued by Canadian
Imperial Bank of Commerce analyst Meredith Whitney, who is
also a regular guest on Fox News. Whitney said that
Citigroup was in big trouble, in dire need of billions of
dollars of new capital, and should probably break itself
up into smaller pieces. The {Wall Street Journal} ran with
the report, which resulted (or perhaps provided cover for)
a sharp drop in Citigroup's stock. The crisis led to the
resignation of Citigroup chairman and CEO Chuck Prince
within days.
Citi was hit by yet another British blow when
HSBC--the infamous Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank of the
British East India Company's Dope, Inc.--announced that it
was taking $45 billion in SIV (structured investment
vehicle) assets onto its balance sheets, putting pressure
on Citigroup to do the same. Citigroup has thus far
survived, but in a weakened state, and its new chairman is
Sir Winifred Bischoff, a British knight who joined Citi
when it purchased Schroders.
The British also played a major role in blowing up
the subprime lenders. In March, Barclays forced New
Century mortgage, the big subprime lender, to buy back
mortgages, in effect, throwing New Century under the bus
and escalating the meltdown of the subprime lenders.
Barclays also played a role in the Bear Stearns hedge fund
fiasco which erupted in June, as a major creditor to the
bankrupt Bear funds.
The issue is not whether the problems
identified by the British were real--they are--but why the
British would choose to exacerbate them. In previous
financial crises, such problems would have been covered
up, the factions more interested in maintaining the
illusion of calm, but the nature of the battle has
changed. We are now in the endgame, where pushing as much
of the damage as possible onto your rivals has replaced
cooperation. The jackals are now fighting among
themselves, to see who will survive.
- Time To Move -
What is coming, is something none of us has ever seen
before. Were the British plans to prevail, the world would
descend into a fascist, Cheneyesque nightmare: Governments
stripped of what little remains of their abilities to
protect their populations from imperial looting, corporate
cartels gouging the public in ways that bring to mind what
Enron did to California, a veritable new dark age of
austerity, population reduction, and utter chaos--with the
City of London ruling over whatever pile of rubble is
The irony is that the nation-state is far superior to
the empire as a political structure, that the levers to
reverse this nightmare are within reach, should we choose
to grasp them. So, let us make 2008 the year America
reasserted itself, beginning with the passage of
LaRouche's Homeowners and Bank Protection Act. When you
consider the alternative, it is the only choice.

Bin Laden Killed Bhutto? How Blind Can We Be?

The shorthand being bandied about in the news that al-Qaeda is responsible for the assassination of Benazir Bhutto is so sloppy, so lacking in nuance or understanding of the dynamics of Pakistan, and so self-centered in its reference to America's enemy as to be almost laughable.

Several U.S. defense and intelligence experts are quoted today dismissing even the possibility that President Pervez Musharraf, Pakistani government forces, or other domestic elements could be involved, a conclusion that flies in the face of the country's history and ignores the obvious beneficiaries.

Retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, commander of U.S. Central Command during the Clinton administration, told The Washington Post that there is "no doubt in my mind" that the murderers are linked to al-Qaeda. In an interview with Time magazine, he elaborated: "[T]hey're the only ones who gain from this.... I really think they're trying to ignite Pakistan into the kind of chaos they need to survive."

Former CIA official and National Security Council staffer Bruce Riedel, now at the Brookings Institution, is spouting the same theory, telling Newsweek that the assassination was "almost certainly the work of Al Qaeda or Al Qaeda's Pakistani allies...Their objective is to destabilize the Pakistani state, to break up the secular political parties, to break up the army so that Pakistan becomes a politically failing state in which the Islamists in time can come to power much as they have in other failing states."

To be sure, al-Qaeda has found sanctuary in Pakistan since its founding in 1988. Key al-Qaeda lieutenants such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the Sept. 11 organizer, have operated from there. Before Sept. 11, Pakistan was a source of recruits and financing and technical support for al-Qaeda. And since Sept. 11, "al Qaeda" has been tied to various attempts to kill President Musharraf and to attacks on Pakistani Army and intelligence facilities - attacks that have increased in frequency and consequence since the central government sought to control the lawless border region. The thinking is that al-Qaeda has been trying to preserve its freedom of operations and to build relations with like-minded affiliates and Pakistani jihadis.

That said, al-Qaeda -- at least the movement led by and associated with Osama bin Laden -- is in terms of power and importance at the bottom of a long list of anti-democratic factions in Pakistan, including malcontents in the active and retired military, renegade intelligence and secret service elements, radical Islamic political parties, extremist Sunni movements, indigenous terrorist organizations and Afghan and Pakistani "Taliban" movements.

To say that "al-Qaeda" is responsible for Bhutto's assassination -- suggesting Osama bin Laden and an external force -- is to ignore all those political and religious factions inside the country that had the motives and resources to kill the former prime minister. Some of those factions in the government, the military or the intelligence services were likely privy to Bhutto's movements, and they could have actively schemed, if not played a direct role, in getting the suicide attacker to the right place at the right time.

Musharraf, of course, will say that he "warned" Bhutto of the dangers. Though, given that Bhutto's father, another former prime minister, was hanged by a military dictatorship and her two brothers were killed under suspicious circumstances, she no doubt already understood the landscape of domestic threats.

Meanwhile, U.S. intelligence officials are trying to verify the claim, via an Italian website, that al-Qaeda was behind the killing. Mustafa Abu al Yazid, al-Qaeda's commander in Afghanistan, allegedly told a reporter: "We have terminated the most precious American asset which vowed to defeat [the] mujahedin." The website reported that the call to assassinate Bhutto came from al-Qaeda's second-in-command, Ayman Zawahiri.

This claim of responsibility is highly suspect. And, if al-Qaeda were involved at all, it's less likely to have dictated decisions than to have been used by domestic factions pursuing their own power objectives. Those factions almost universally have an interest in labeling all lawlessness and terrorism "al Qaeda" activity.

Given Pakistan's history, it is unlikely that the true perpetrators will ever be brought to justice. For the United States though, the al-Qaeda bogey-man has the negative effect of affirming support for Musharraf and his martial law, while ignoring the various extremists who represent the true existential threat to the country. We should not let our al-Qaeda fixation blind us, just as the Soviet threat did in Iran in the 1970s, to the realities that Pakistan could implode of its own accord.

By William M. Arkin (WASHINGTONPOST.COM) | December 28, 2007; 8:15 AM ET Pakistan , War on Terrorism
Previous: Russia Lends a Hand | Next: False Messiah of Pakistan

Saturday, December 29, 2007

Bhutto wanted ties with Israel, sought Mossad protection

Israel Today - Jerusalem,Israel, 12/28/07

Israeli media reports on Friday revealed that slain Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto intended to establish official relations with the Jewish state if elected and was seeking Mossad protection in the interim.

Speaking to The Jerusalem Post, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert grieved over Bhutto's assassination following an election rally on Thursday, and said that upon her return to Pakistan in October after years of exile Bhutto conveyed to him via a mutual acquaintance that she wanted close ties between Israel and Pakistan.

The Hebrew daily newspaper Ma'ariv further revealed that Bhutto had asked Israel's Mossad spy agency, along with the CIA and Britain's Scotland Yard, to help protect her in the run-up to Pakistan's January 8 election. Bhutto complained that current Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf was trying to make her an easy target for assassination by not allowing her to use adequate protective measures.

According to the report, Israel's Foreign Ministry was in favor of aiding Bhutto, though the government ultimately decided against it for fear of angering the Musharraf regime and upsetting relations with neighboring India, a close ally of Israel engaged in an ongoing bitter confrontation with Pakistan.

Israeli leaders lamented that Bhutto, a popular former prime minister who was twice deposed by authoritarian elements, could have served as a bridge between Israel and the Muslim world.

Friday, December 21, 2007

A Nation Of Lemmings?

By Judith Moriarty

It appears that many Americans are lemmings. Few have the privilege of not having to engage in dreary, tedious, mind-numbing work. Today, workers are doing the jobs of two or three employees (downsizing does that). They work their entire lives, get a a few weeks vacation, have five more years to pay that house off, then the Paper Mill (Maytag - Steel Plant) closes, and the house is foreclosed upon. For decades, they paid bundles of money only to have the banksters come in and clean up in the end. Then they wind up in a trailer, living in their car or tent...and then they die.

The lemmings in airports are held captive by ludicrous (supposed) safety regulations. If they object, there goes that vacation or business trip. Worse , they could end up DEAD by being shot with 50,000 volt taser guns (or die, terrified, in airport holding rooms in the hands of cops). Airport 'security' people are given all kinds of fancy pins, badges, and authority enabling them to utilize power they would never have in their dreary, lackluster lives. For a moment in time (work hours), they can boss around or cancel trips for those that they've always envied. Of course, all of this was never about SECURITY. It's about CONTROL...and a few corporate vultures making countless MILLIONS.

Meanwhile, we're supposed to believe that 19 Arabs directed by a sick man in a cave took a few flying lessons on crop dusters and became proficient multi-engine jetliner pilots and were then able to maneuver huge, computerized airliners across the country with NO interference? And that this was all accomplished with $1.98 box cutters (weapons) against the world's biggest mega-billion dollar defense department? We are supposed to believe that 47 story buildings just fall by themselves and 1,000 other absurdities. And because of this 'terrorist attack' we are now ALL suspected terrorists, captive in our own country, who must be examined, and strip-searched if desired, head-to-toe by the TSA in our airports.

Citizens, today, are treated as mindless idiots. Toothpaste, bunion cream, mouth wash, perfume, nail clippers, maple syrup etc - are the potential makings of a BOMBS. These ingredients might supposedly be secreted into the airplane bathroom - mixed - and then hidden in the heels of one's shoe. NO, it doesn't matter if you're wearing flip flops, sneakers, or socks. Everything must be bagged and held up for inspection by the cretins manning the 'security' barricades. This is the level of insanity the lemmings have been forced to comply with.

Even the elderly, in handicap carts, are not exempt from suspicion. This is the FREEDOM for whom multitudes through the ages have died for?

Billions upon billions spent on sophisticated defense (NORAD) weapons over the years is not enough. Today citizens are reminded to be on the ALERT. We are being molded into a snitch culture.

Meantime, six million+ shipping containers arrive at American ports yearly, and only 1-2% of them are ever searched. This does not include the thousands of trucks, now, thanks to NAFTA, rolling in over our southern 'border.' (What border?) Maybe it's me, or what's called common sense, but if I were about some mischief, the last place I'd go is to an airport.

Even the once laid-back Swiss are having a problem with increased crime due to Europe being overrun with illegal immigrants. This has resulted in a security crisis world wide. People don't like being dispossessed from the land of their birth, despite what the media and politicians proclaim. Meantime, American citizens are asked to supply ID in triplicate, and are being watched by thousands of cameras. If 19 terrorists could saunter into our country though airports, then what's to stop armies of terrorists from simply walking in over our porous borders?

Cameras are mounted on city streets to observe the comings and goings of U.S. citizens.

Security in today's America is targeted towards the housewife who dares to question the loss of FREEDOM. No, these men are not searching trucks, containers, or CORPORATE OR CIA JETS which are allowed to fly freely wherever they choose. Those who vote/profit by Big Brother's Security are exempt from living its humiliating intrusions. Only the lemmings need suffer embarrassment and humiliation.

People are hoping that the election of a new overseer will see things improved. Unfortunately, we've had just a bit of a problem with Diebold voting machines these past few years. To date, no security personnel have been assigned to keeping our elections honest...all of them are too occupied searching and watching for 'terrorists' at our airports. Even those with original copies of the Mayflower Compact, proving their heritage, are under suspicion.

Meantime, the government crows 'Our airports are being kept SAFE!'

...for the lemmings.

Sunday, December 2, 2007

Expert: U.S. Attack on Iran Would Have Terrible Consequences

Jeff Burtn, NEWSMAX,
November 28, 2007

Iran may be militarily impotent but a U.S. first strike would throw the Middle East into chaos while leaving Iran’s nuclear program largely intact, an Israeli military expert tells Newsmax.

Martin van Creveld, a professor of military history and strategy at Hebrew University in Jerusalem says that, for all its bombastic rhetoric and saber rattling, there is little Iran can do to protect itself from an attack by the United States or to strike back in retaliation.

Iran has an underfunded defense budget, ill-equipped ground and air forces, and a limited number of unreliable Shihab III missiles that, while technically able to reach Israel, do not pose much of a threat, van Crevald says.

Still, any first strike by the U.S. would be ill-advised, van Crevald warns.

A U.S. air attack using cruise missiles and manned aircraft aimed at knocking out Iran’s large, entrenched nuclear program would succeed only in exacerbating conflict in the Middle East and put U.S. troops in Iraq at risk. “The scenarios are really terrible,” he says.

Iran’s leadership is in a panic, with the September bombing by Israel of a nuclear installation in Syria and implied threats by the U.S. of similar action in Iran. In response, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and other officials are “lashing out in all directions,” van Creveld tells Newsmax.

“What makes me think they are in a panic was this commander of the Revolutionary Guard [Gen. Mahmoud Chaharbaghi] talking about 11,000 rockets that they would fire at a single moment,” he said. “Either he’s mad or he’s trying to bluff or he’s in a panic, because militarily, it makes no sense whatsoever.”

There is little substance behind the threats. Van Creveld estimated Iran’s defense budget at about $6.3 billion—just more than half of Israel’s and less than 2 percent of the United States’—hardly enough to fund a conventional force. However, that could be an indication that Iran is using its money to build its nuclear capability.

“My interpretation, and I’m not the only one who thinks this way, is that actually what has happened is that Iran has neglected its conventional defenses in favor of the nuclear program,” van Creveld says.

This is where it would become difficult for the United States, he adds. Unlike nuclear programs in Syria and Iraq, the Iranian facilities appear to be large, well concealed and well dispersed. The chances of the United States being able to knock out the entire program is remote.

“We are talking about a large program, and probably not all the components of the program are known,” van Creveld said. “Since you don’t know them, you cannot hit them.”

Still, if struck, there is little Iran could do to retaliate. Its air force is a sorry collection of old U.S.-made aircraft left over from the Iran-Iraq War, some Russian-made fighters and homebuilt Saeqeh jets modeled after the American F5 Tiger, an aircraft last updated in the 1960s and rejected by the U.S. Air Force, he says.

Iran could foment terrorist attacks against the U.S. and Israel, but, at best, they would be ad hoc events with little strategic impact, he adds.

“Coordinated terrorist attacks are very, very difficult to organize,” van Creveld tells Newsmax. “There may be an occasional act of terrorism … but it won’t make any difference. Tomorrow, if Iranians blew up the White House, would it make any difference in the United States’ ability to wage war against Iran? Not really.”

Militarily, the greatest risks would be to U.S. troops in Iraq, he said. Those soldiers are configured to fight an insurgency, and a conventional attack by Iranian forces could result in some U.S. troops being isolated and in danger.

“You can well imagine a scenario where they are surrounded, and where the U.S. would use tactical nuclear weapons to extricate them,” van Creveld says.

Iran also could start trouble — what the Iranian commander could have been referring to when he talked about the 11,000 missiles — among Persian Gulf states, which would cause the price of oil to skyrocket and have an immediate impact on the West, he says.

The question that needs to be answered by U.S. and Israeli officials is whether they need to be concerned about a nuclear Iran. Historically, every time a country—whether it was the Soviet Union, Israel, Pakistan, India or others—was to test a nuclear weapon, the United States warned of terrible consequences.

“Each time any country wants to go nuclear, the United States will invent some kind of reason why that country does not deserve nuclear weapons,” van Creveld says. “And each time it goes nuclear, nothing happens. It’s all rubbish.”

The argument that a nuclear Iran is more of a threat than those other countries makes no sense.

“In the whole of history, who was more crazy than Josef Stalin?” he asks. “In the whole of history, who was more crazy than Mao Tsetung? I don’t see that Ahmadinejad is more crazy than them. Maybe to the contrary. I listen to Ahmadinejad’s rhetoric, but I cannot think of even one case since 1980 and the Iranian Islamic Revolution that this country has behaved irrationally.”

In the end, what may be best for the U.S., Israel and the rest of the region is for negotiations with Iran, van Creveld said. The West should accept a nuclear Iran and draw the country into talks about setting up some kind of regional security program. Western powers also need to ensure that the Gulf states are protected, a move that he believes already is underway, possibly through a deal with the United States.

“The greatest threat coming from Iran is not to Israel,” he says. “Israel can take care of itself. The United States has nothing to fear from Iran. It is the Gulf states that have to fear.”

Tuesday, November 6, 2007

Influence of George Soros

By Herb London
Friday, March 30, 2007

Who is George Soros and why is he saying such awful things? Most Americans do not know this billionaire investor, but he, using his vast wealth, has become a force in left wing political circles. In some ways, he is the litmus test for Democratic politics.

Most of the time, Mr. Soros concerns himself with foreign affairs pointing out what he considers the failures of the Bush administration. In interviews with the press, Soros claims that President Bush’s war on terror “is really exploitation.” Moreover, he urges European leaders to adopt a stance different from the United States.

Writing in the London based Independent Soros contends the Bush foreign mission shamelessly exploits fears generated from 9/11. As he sees it, “fear is a bad counselor; we must resist it wherever it comes from.” He maintains that with the Bush policy terror will never end. “The terrorists are invisible; therefore they can never disappear. It is our civil liberties that may disappear instead.”

That position is the sine qua non of leftist thought. Terrorism is merely a cover for a subtle coup d etat in which civil liberties are imperiled. According to Soros, we exaggerate the threat al Queda represents and underestimate the extent to which civil liberties are at risk. For him terrorism is an abstraction representing different forces and groups that require correspondingly different means of engagement.

When it comes to the issue of Iraq, Soros takes a pass. He expresses concerns about minority groups in that county, but he doesn’t know how we should help them. That doesn’t translate into a diatribe against the use of military force, but when force is mentioned it is accompanied with the caveat “where appropriate.” Of course, where it is appropriate is rarely, if ever, explained.

Soros believes there are “nefarious psychological reasons” that explain the behavior of Bush-Cheney, but these are also never specified, albeit he has called erstwhile Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton a member of a group of “rabid American supremists.” Does that mean they are patriots?

Soros seems to take great pleasure in attacking members of the Bush administration in a manner reminiscent of Michael Moore. For example, on one occasion he said, “you don’t have a Karl Marx, you have only a Karl Rove who has been successful in creating a coalition of fundamentalists.”

In Soros’ book, The Age of Fallibility it is noted that after 9/11 when President Bush said “Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists,” Soros was reminded of Nazi propaganda. Although he attempted to backpedal on this outrageous claim, he did say, “the Bush administration has been able to improve on the techniques used by the Nazi and the Communist propaganda machines by drawing on the innovations of the advertising and marketing industries.”

In a recent article published in the New York Review of Books, Soros asserts that America should pressure Israel to negotiate with the Hamas-led unity government in the Palestinian territory regardless of its refusal to recognize the right of the Jewish state to exist. Mr. Soros goes on to say that the overarching reason the United States has not embraced this policy is the insidious influence of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, an argument reminiscent of the Walt-Mearshimer thesis.

The Soros article puts Democrats in the awkward position of having to choose between Soros, a major funder of its causes, and the pro-Israel lobby whose members are disproportionately represented in the Democratic Party.

In a sense even Karl Rove, as bright as he is, couldn’t have invented George Soros. He is the leftist that keeps giving, not only to the causes he wants to support, but to those he detests. Imagine a megalomaniacal billionaire intent on destroying a democratically elected president with well oiled propaganda institutions he subsidizes and with outrageous commentary he glibly delivers to the press.

Soros thinks he funds public interest organizations, but in fact they are ideologically driven propaganda enterprises designed to foster his belief system. Some on the left have denounced Soros and his campaigns, but one shouldn’t underestimate the lure of Soros money and what it can buy. He has become the principal philanthropist for radical groups and, if money talks, Soros should be heard from for a very long time.

Herbert London is president of Hudson Institute and professor emeritus of New York University. He is the author of Decade of Denial (Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, 2001).

Dr. Evil = George Soros

The 5/9/07 Wall Street Journal article entitled “Axis of Soros” reports that the soon-to-be Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, is an “ally” of George Soros. Unless you are a card carrying member of the far-left, this is not good news. Soros believes in a stong centralized international government, correcting the “excesses of self-interest” and all of the other tenets of the "progressive" far-left. Soros hearts the nanny state.

George Soros who?

George Soros became famous when he shorted the English pound in 1992 – he made a BILLION (!?!) pound profit and seriously damaged the British economy in the process. Soros is the 80th richest man in the world, a Hungarian Jew and an anti-semite. German Nazis took over Hungary when Soros was 13; he survived by pretending that he wasn’t Jewish, disquised as the son of a non-Jewish neighbor. He studied at the London School of Economics and he made his money trading, primarily hedge funds.

George Soros hates George Bush and he hates America, and he has in recent years devoted much of his fortune to bringing down Bush and to bringing down America.

He gave $23.5 million dollars to “527” groups (lobbying groups) in order to defeat George Bush in 2004. (Thereby inadvertantly proving that money really isn’t everything.)

Presently, he channels money to, Center for American Progress, Open Society Institute, Democracy Alliance, Tides Foundation, and Media Matters. All of these groups work to promote the far-left political agenda, to influence the media and to defeat the Republicans.

According to the New York Times, anti-war lobbying groups, spearheaded by Soros’, have a conference call EVERY morning with Democratic law makers in Washington D.C. George Soros has cleverly found a legal way to buy direct access and influence in Washington. links to a Fox news report with Bill O’reilly which goes into depth about Soros’s influence in Washington.

The fact that Gordon Brown is an ally of George Soros is not good news for England or America.

Sunday, October 14, 2007


David Icke said Zionism is often said to be the heart of conspiracy, but he doesn’t agree. It is part of it yes, but the brotherhood network is far bigger than that. Zionism is not the Jewish people, it is a political movement. Many Jews do not support it, many non-Jews do. He added that saying Zionism are the Jewish people is like saying the democratic party are the American people. Yet to challenge the extremes of Zionism is to be called anti-semitic or anti-Jewish. Just as the Republic of South Africa is really the Fiefdom of Oppenheimers, so the state of Israel is really the state of Rothschild. Zionism was the creation of the Rothschild on behalf of the brotherhood and in truth is not Zionist, but “Sion”ism, a cult branch of the Reptile-Aryan Sun cult religion. This has been used to ensure the take over of Arab Palestine for two main reasons. This is a sacred land for the Reptile-Aryans going back to Levites and the ancient world, also blatantly stealing an Arab country, offered endless opportunities to foster conflict and division in the Middle East.This was particularly effective in manipulating the Arab oil states. The crucial moment in the Rothschild plan for “Israel” was the Balfour Declaration when the British Foreign secretary, Lord Arthur Balfour, announced on November 6, 1917 that Britain supported the claim for a Jewish homeland in Palestine. The Rothschild – dominated Versailles Peace Conference confirmed their support for this. The Balfour declaration was not made by the Westminster parliament. It was allegedly a letter from Lord Balfour of the Committee of 300, an inner circle of the Round Table secret society, to Lord Lionel Walter Rothschild of the Committee of 300, who funded the Round Table. It was a letter between two members of the secret society. Rothschild was the representative of the English federation of Zionists which was set up with Rothschild money. It is widely believed by researchers that the “Balfour” letter was actually written by Lord Rothschild together with Alfred Milner of the Committee 300, the Round Table’s leading light who had been made chairman of the mining giant, Rio Tinto Zinc by Lord Rothschild. Rio Tinto is heavily involved in South Africa and the Queen of England was reportedly a major shareholder. The Arabs of Palestine were used to fight the Turks in the First World War under the command of the Englishman, T.E. Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia, who promised them full sovereignty for their efforts). All along, he knew that the brotherhood plan was for the “Jewish” (Khazar-Aryan) homeland in Palestine. Lawrence, a close friend of Winston Churchill, later admitted this fact, when he said:

“I risked the fraud of my conviction that Arab help was necessary to our cheap and easy victory in the East, and that better we win and break our world, than lose… the Arab inspiration was our main tool for winning the eastern war. So I assured them that England kept her world in letter and in spirit. In this comfort they performed their fine things, but, of course, instead of being proud of what we did together, I was continually bitter and ashamed”.

  • Sounds familiar! Remember the Vietnam War, the EDSA 1 and 2, the RAM-SFP-YOU coup and so many other political swindle done in the name of commitment and word of honor.

This has been the globalist’s operandi for thousands of years. But leaders never learned from history and always repeated it.

According to Icke, it was the Rothschilds who funded the early “Jewish” settlers in Palestine; it was the Rothschilds who helped to create and fund Hitler and the Nazis in the Second World War which included the sickening treatment of Jews, Gypsies, Communists and others. It was the Rothschilds who used the understandable post war sympathy for the “Jews” they had mercilessly exploited to press through their demands for a take over of Arab Palestine and get donations worldwide for the “Jews”. It was the Rothschilds who funded the “Jewish” terrorist groups in Palestine which bombed, murdered and terrorized Israel into existence. They funded and manipulated these terrorists into the key positions in Israel, among them Prime Ministers Ben-Gurion, Shamir, Begin and Rabin. It was the Rothschilds who many believed, owned and controlled Israel from the start and have continued ever since to dictate its policy. It was the Rothschilds and the brotherhood who hid and suppressed this fact, confirmed by Jewish historians, that the overwhelming majority of “Jewish” people in Israel originate genetically from the Caucasus mountains, not from the lands they now occupy. The Jewish people have been sacrificed on the Rothschilds alter of greed and lust for power.Allegedly,the Rothschilds take their orders from a higher authority who, Icke believe, is probably based in Asia, and the Far East dictates to the operational headquarters in London. Ultimately, the whole scam is reportedly orchestrated from the lower fourth dimension.

Saturday, October 6, 2007


Monday, 01 October 2007

A review of The True Story Of The Bilderberger Group, By Daniel Estulin

It is difficult to re-educate people who have been brought up on nationalism to the idea of relinquishing part of their sovereignty to a supra-national body.

~Bilderberg Group founder, Prince Bernhard~

As a rhetorical question, can someone please explain to me how it is that progressive liberals such as John Edwards and Hillary Clinton, as well as do-gooder humanitarians with multiple social projects ongoing such as the Rockefellers and every Royal House in Europe, can perennially attend Bilderberg meetings apparently knowing that the final objective of this despicable group of hoodlums is a fascist One World Empire?

~Daniel Estulin (P.318)~

Daniel Estulin is a Madrid-based journalist and an investigative reporter who took on the daunting and dangerous task of researching the Bildeberg Group, and who offers his findings in The True Story Of The Bilderberg Group, recently published by Trine Day. Equally intriguing as his harrowing tales of being followed and nearly killed on a couple of occasions while working on the book, is the manner in which Estulin connects the dots between the Bilderberg Group, world events, notable politicians and corporate tycoons and the two other secretive monsters of the ruling elite, the Council on Foreign Relations ( CFR ) and the Trilateral Commission (TC). The project lasted fifteen years and was motivated by Estulin's curiosity about how it is that the mainstream media has never covered in depth the meetings of the Bilderberg Group whose combined wealth exceeds the combined wealth of all U.S. citizens.

What Estulin's book makes clear is that the group, along with the CFR and TC, has become a shadow government whose top priority is to erase the sovereignty of all nation-states and supplant them with global corporate control of their economies under the surveillance of "an electronic global police state." (xv)

The author emphasizes that not all members of the group are "bad" people, and he implies that membership is structured somewhat like concentric circles in a target scheme with in inner core and various levels of relationship between that core and the outer circles of membership. Almost every famous player in politics and finance in the world is a member of one of the three organizations mentioned above, and their political affiliations range from liberal to conservative, for example, George W. Bush, George Soros, Gerald Ford, George McGovern, Jimmy Carter. Of this private club, Estulin says:

This parallel world remains unseen in the daily struggles of most of humanity, but, believe me, it is there: a cesspool of duplicity and lies and double-speak and innuendo and blackmail and bribery. It is a surreal world of double and triple agents, of changing loyalties, of professional psychotic assassins, brainwashed black ops agents, soldiers of fortune and mercenaries, whose primary sources of income are the dirtiest and most despicable government-run subversive missions-the kind that can never be exposed.(15)

This world, according to Estulin, is so perverse and evil that "it has left an indelible mark on my soul". (16) How not? Because the Bilderberg Group and its two other triplets, the CFR and the TC have set about to loot the entire planet. Their members run the central banks of the world and are poised to control discount rates, money-supply, interest rates, gold prices, and which countries receive or do not receive loans. Membership is by invitation only, many of the earliest members being handpicked, not from right-wing groups but from among none other than the Fabian Socialists who ultimately supported global government.

Another chilling quote Estulin includes is from William Shannon:

The Bilderbergers are searching for the age of post-nationalism: when we won't have countries, but rather regions of the Earth surrounded by Universal values. That is to say, a global economy; one World government (selected rather than elected) and a universal religion. To assure themselves of reaching these objectives, the Bilderbergers focus on a ‘greater technical approach' and less awareness on behalf of the general public.


In 1991 Bill Clinton attended the Bilderberg Conference in Baden-Baden where Estulin asserts that he was "anointed" to the U.S. presidency, and shortly thereafter he took an unexpected, unannounced trip to Moscow. It appears, says Estulin, that he was sent there to get his KGB student-era, anti-Vietnam war files "buried" before he announced his candidacy for president which happened some two-and-a-half months later. Today, Clinton is a member of all three groups: Bilderberg, CFR , and TC. Hillary Clinton is a member of the Bilderberg Group.

Estulin points out that "almost all of the presidential candidates for both parties have belonged to at least one of these organizations, many of the U.S. congressmen and senators, most major policy-making positions, especially in the field of foreign relations, much of the press, most of the leadership of the CIA , FBI, IRS , and many of the remaining governmental organizations in Washington. CFR members occupy nearly all White House cabinet positions."(80) When one considers that most prominent members of mainstream media are also members of what Edith Kermit Roosevelt, granddaughter of Theodore Roosevelt called "this legitimate Mafia", how can we assert that Americans obtain their news from independent sources?

For example, The News Hour with Jim Leher is the cornerstone of PBS's programming. Leher is a CFR member, and when one examines the funding of the news hour by: Archer Daniels Midland ( ADM ) whose chairman Dwayne Andreas was a member of the Trilateral Commission; Pepsico, whose CEO Indra Krishnamurthy Nooyi is a Bilderberger and TC Executive Committee member; and Smith Barney which is interlocked with Citigroup, a global financial services company that is a member of the Bilderberg Group, the CFR , and the TC, what kind of "news" should one expect from Leher's News Hour? Consider also that many of the journalists on the News Hour: Paul Gigot, David Gergen, William Kristol, and William Safire are members of one or more of the three groups. (153)

Likewise, when we consider the membership in one or more of these groups of almost every American president since the inception of these organizations, we can no longer pretend that any Democratic or Republican presidential candidate offers the American people an alternative to ruling elite global hegemony.

In fact, Estulin's research reveals that "the Council on Foreign Relations creates and delivers psycho-political operations by manipulating people's reality through a ‘tactic of deception', placing Council members on both sides of an issue. The deception is complete when the public is led to believe that its own best interests are being served while the CFR policy is being carried out."(117)

And what happens if the "anointed ones" become too autonomous? One chapter in the book, "The Watergate Con-Game", answers that question. In it Estulin suggests that Richard Nixon was set up by the Council on Foreign Relations of which he was a member because of his insubordination and unwillingness to submit to the shadow government. Presumably, Nixon's demise was carefully crafted to demonstrate to subsequent Chief Executives the price they would pay for disregarding the agenda of those who anointed them.


In the book's final pages, Estulin's research waxes increasingly relevant to the present moment in history. He asks: "Why would David Rockefeller and other U.S. Trilateralists, Bilderbergers and the CFR members want to dismantle the industrial might of the United States?" (184). He then launches into a summary of the economic history of the twentieth century and makes one of the most powerful statements of the entire book: "What we have witnessed from this ‘cabal' is the gradual collapsing of the U.S. economy that began in the 1980s." (187)

In case you haven't noticed, this "gradual collapse of the U.S. economy" is no longer gradual, and what Estulin is asserting confirms a great deal of the assertions made by Catherine Austin Fitts that the current housing bubble explosion/credit crunch/mortgage meltdown has its roots in the 1980s. James Howard Kunstler has also written recently in his blog entitled "Shock and Awe" that the great American yard sale has begun. In other words, as an engineered economic meltdown drives hundreds of thousands and eventually millions of businesses and individuals into bankruptcy, key players in the Big Three ruling elite organizations can buy up the train wreck left behind for pennies on the dollar-a brilliant fast-track strategy for owning the world.

In the final months of 2007 we are witnessing the stupendous success of the Big Three's strategy for planetary economic hegemony as the cacophony of their carefully engineered global economic cataclysm reverberates across America and around the world. It was never about buyers who didn't read the fine print when taking out liar loans. It was always about silver-tongued, ruling elite politicians and central bankers, anointed by the shadow government, who ultimately and skillfully stole and continue to steal governments from people and replace them with transnational corporations.

No one could have said it better than David Rockefeller, founder of the Trilateral Commission, a Bilderberg member and board member of the Council On Foreign Relations in his Memoirs:

Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure-one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.

If you want to know who really runs the world and the lengths to which they will go to establish their globalist hegemony, you must read Estulin's well-documented The True Story of The Bilderberg Group.

Saturday, September 22, 2007

John F. Kennedy vs The Federal Reserve Message Board

On June 4, 1963, a virtually unknown Presidential decree, Executive Order
11110 , was signed with the authority to basically
strip the Federal Reserve <> Bank of its power to
loan money to the United States Federal Government at interest. With the
stroke of a pen, President Kennedy declared that the privately owned Federal
Reserve Bank would soon be out of business. The Christian Law Fellowship
has exhaustively researched this matter through the Federal Register and Library
of Congress. We can now safely conclude that this Executive Order has never
been repealed, amended, or superceded by any subsequent Executive Order. In
simple terms, it is still valid.

When President John Fitzgerald Kennedy--the author of Profiles in Courage
--signed this Order, it returned to the federal government, specifically the
Treasury Department, the Constitutional power to create and issue currency
--money--without going through the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank.

President Kennedy's Executive Order 11110 [the full text is displayed
further below] gave the Treasury Department the explicit authority: "to
issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard
silver dollars in the Treasury." This means that for every ounce of silver
in the U.S. Treasury's vault, the government could introduce new money
into circulation based on the silver bullion physically held there. As a result,
more than $4 billion in United States Notes were brought into circulation in
$2 and $5 denominations. $10 and $20 United States Notes were never
circulated but were being printed by the Treasury Department when Kennedy
was assassinated. It appears obvious that President Kennedy knew the Federal
Reserve Notes being used as the purported legal currency were contrary to
the Constitution of the United States of America.

"United States Notes" were issued as an interest-free and debt-free currency
backed by silver reserves in the U.S. Treasury. We compared a "Federal
Reserve Note" issued from the private central bank of the United States (the
Federal Reserve Bank a/k/a Federal Reserve System), with a "United States
Note" from the U.S. Treasury issued by President Kennedy's Executive Order.
They almost look alike, except one says "Federal Reserve Note" on the top
while the other says "United States Note". Also, the Federal Reserve Note
has a green seal and serial number while the United States Note has a red seal
and serial number.

President Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963 and
the United States Notes he had issued were immediately taken out
of circulation. Federal Reserve Notes continued to serve as the "legal"
currency of the nation. According to the United States Secret Service,
99% of all U.S. paper "currency" circulating in 1999 are Federal Reserve

Kennedy knew that if the silver-backed United States Notes were widely
circulated, they would have eliminated the demand for Federal Reserve Notes.
This is a very simple matter of economics. The USN was backed by silver and
the FRN was not backed by anything of intrinsic value. Executive Order 11110
should have prevented the national debt from reaching its current level (virtually
all of the nearly $9 trillion in federal debt has been created since 1963) if LBJ or
any subsequent President were to enforce it. It would have almost immediately
given the U.S. Government the ability to repay its debt without going to the
private Federal Reserve Banks and being charged interest to create new "money". Executive Order 11110 gave the U.S.A. the ability to, once again, create its own
lawful money backed by silver and realm value worth something.

Again, according to our own research, just five months after Kennedy was
assassinated, no more of the Series 1958 "Silver Certificates" were issued
either, and they were subsequently removed from circulation. Perhaps the
assassination of JFK was a warning to all future presidents not to interfere
with the private Federal Reserve's control over the creation of money. It
seems very apparent that President Kennedy challenged the "powers that
exist behind U.S. and world finance". With true patriotic courage, JFK boldly
faced the two most successful vehicles that have ever been used to drive up

1) war (Viet Nam); and,
2) the creation of money by a privately owned central bank. His efforts to
have all U.S. troops out of Vietnam by 1965 combined with Executive Order
11110 would have destroyed the profits and control of the private Federal
Reserve Bank. [see #3 below to know who also owns the Federal
Reserve Bank--Rothschilds are the majority Class A stockholders
of this "private" corporation that has never been audited]
[3) JFK was also firmly against Israel possessing a nuclear arsenal--
this indisputable fact is universally excluded from historical records
because of Zionist control of the major media.]

Executive Order 11110

By virtue of the authority vested in me by section 301 of title 3 of the
United States Code, it is ordered as follows:

SECTION 1. Executive Order No. 10289 of September 19, 1951, as amended,
is hereby further amended - (a) By adding at the end of paragraph 1 thereof the
following subparagraph (j): "(j) The authority vested in the President by
paragraph (b) of section 43 of the Act of May 12, 1933, as amended (31
U.S.C. 821 (b)), to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion,
silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury not then held for
redemption of any outstanding silver certificates, to prescribe the
denominations of such silver certificates, and to coin standard silver
dollars and subsidiary silver currency for their redemption," and (b) By
revoking subparagraphs (b) and (c) of paragraph 2 thereof.
SECTION 2. The amendment made by this Order shall not affect any act
done, or any right accruing or accrued or any suit or proceeding had or
commenced in any civil or criminal cause prior to the date of this Order but
all such liabilities shall continue and may be enforced as if said amendments
had not been made.


Once again, Executive Order 11110 is still valid. According to Title 3,
United States Code, Section 301 dated January 26, 1998:

Executive Order (EO) 10289 dated Sept. 17, 1951, 16 F.R. 9499, was as
amended by:

EO 10583, dated December 18, 1954, 19 F.R. 8725;
EO 10882 dated July 18, 1960, 25 F.R. 6869;
EO 11110 dated June 4, 1963, 28 F.R. 5605;
EO 11825 dated December 31, 1974, 40 F.R. 1003;
EO 12608 dated September 9, 1987, 52 F.R. 34617
The 1974 and 1987 amendments, added after Kennedy's 1963 amendment,
did not change or alter any part of Kennedy's EO 11110. A search of Clinton's
1998 and 1999 EOs and Presidential Directives has also shown no reference to
any alterations, suspensions, or changes to EO 11110.

The Federal Reserve Bank, a.k.a Federal Reserve System, is a Private
Corporation. Black's Law Dictionary defines the "Federal Reserve System" as:
"Network of twelve central banks to which most national banks belong and to
which state chartered banks may belong. Membership rules require investment
of stock and minimum reserves." Privately-owned banks own the stock of the
FED. This was explained in more detail in the case of Lewis v. United
States, Federal Reporter, 2nd Series, Vol. 680, Pages 1239, 1241 (1982),
where the court said: "Each Federal Reserve Bank is a separate corporation
owned by commercial banks in its region. The stock-holding commercial banks
elect two thirds of each Bank's nine member board of directors".

The Federal Reserve Banks are locally controlled by their member banks.
Once again, according to Black's Law Dictionary, we find that these privately
owned banks actually issue money:

"Federal Reserve Act [circa 1913]. Law which created Federal Reserve banks
which act as agents in maintaining money reserves, issuing money in the form of
bank notes, lending money to banks, and supervising banks. Administered by
Federal Reserve Board (q.v.)".

The privately owned Federal Reserve (FED) banks actually issue (create) the
"money" we use. In 1964, the House Committee on Banking and Currency,
Subcommittee on Domestic Finance, at the second session of the 88th
Congress, put out a study entitled Money Facts which contains a good
description of what the FED is: "The Federal Reserve is a total money-making
machine. It can issue money or checks. And it never has a problem of making
its checks good because it can obtain the $5 and $10 bills necessary to
cover its check simply by asking the Treasury Department's Bureau of
Engraving to print them".

Any one person or any closely-knit group who has a lot of money has a lot of
power. Now imagine a group of people who have the power to create money.
Imagine the power these people would have. This is exactly what the privately
owned FED is!

No man did more to expose the power of the FED than Louis T. McFadden,
who was the Chairman of the House Banking Committee back in the 1930s. In
describing the FED, he remarked in the Congressional Record, House pages
1295 and 1296 on June 10, 1932:

"Mr. Chairman, we have in this country one of the most corrupt institutions
the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the
Federal reserve banks. The Federal Reserve Board, a Government Board, has
cheated the Government of the United States and he people of the United
States out of enough money to pay the national debt. The depredations and
the iniquities of the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal reserve banks
acting together have cost this country enough money to pay the national debt
several times over. This evil institution has impoverished and ruined the
people of the United States; has bankrupted itself, and has practically
bankrupted our Government. It has done this through the maladministration
of that law by which the Federal Reserve Board, and through the corrupt
practices of the moneyed vultures who control it".

Some people think the Federal Reserve Banks are United States Government
institutions. They are not Government institutions, departments, or agencies.
They are private credit monopolies which prey upon the people of the United
States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers.

Those 12 private credit monopolies were deceitfully placed upon this country
by bankers who came here from Europe and who repaid us for our hospitality
by undermining our American institutions.

The FED basically works like this: The government granted its power to
create money to the FED banks. They create money, then loan it back to
the government charging interest. The government levies income taxes to
pay the interest on the debt. On this point, it's interesting to note that the
Federal Reserve Act and the Sixteenth Amendment, which gave congress
the power to collect income taxes, were both passed in 1913. The incredible
power of the FED over the economy is universally admitted. Some people,
especially in the banking and academic communities, even support it. On the
other hand, there are those, such as President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, that
have spoken out against it. His efforts were spoken about in Jim Marrs' 1990
book Crossfire:"

Another overlooked aspect of Kennedy's attempt to reform American society
involves money. Kennedy apparently reasoned that by returning to the
Constitution, which states that only Congress shall coin and regulate money,
the soaring national debt could be eliminated by not paying interest to the
private bankers of the Federal Reserve System, who print paper money then
loan it to the government at interest. He moved in this area on June 4, 1963,
by signing Executive Order 11110 which called for the issuance of
$4,292,893,815 in United States Notes through the U.S. Treasury rather
than the traditional Federal Reserve System. That same day, Kennedy signed
a bill changing the backing of one and two dollar bills from silver to gold, adding
strength to the weakened U.S. currency.

Kennedy's comptroller of the currency, James J. Saxon, had been at odds
with the powerful Federal Reserve Board for some time, encouraging broader
investment and lending powers for banks that were not part of the Federal
Reserve System. Saxon also had decided that non-Reserve banks could
underwrite state and local general obligation bonds, again weakening the
dominant Federal Reserve banks".

In a comment made to a Columbia University class on Nov. 12, 1963,
Ten days before his assassination, President John Fitzgerald Kennedy
allegedly said:

"The high office of the President has been used to foment a plot to destroy
the American's freedom and before I leave office, I must inform the citizen
of this plight."

In this matter, John Fitzgerald Kennedy appears to be the subject of his own
book... a true Profile of Courage.

This research report was compiled for Lawgiver. Org. by Anthony Wayne

What is the Federal Reserve Bank?

What is the Federal Reserve Bank (FED) and why do we have it?

by Greg Hobbs November 1, 1999

The FED is a central bank. Central banks are supposed to implement a
country's fiscal policies. They monitor commercial banks to ensure that
they maintain sufficient assets, like cash, so as to remain solvent and stable.
Central banks also do business, such as currency exchanges and gold
transactions, with other central banks. In theory, a central bank should be
good for a country, and they might be if it wasn't for the fact that they are
not owned or controlled by the government of the country they are serving.
Private central banks, including our FED, operate not in the interest of the
public good [understatement of the century!] but for profit. There have
been three central banks in our nation's history. The first two, while deceptive
and fraudulent, pale in comparison to the scope and size of the fraud being
perpetrated by our current FED. What they all have in common is an insidious
practice known as "fractional banking."

Fractional banking or fractional lending is the ability to create money from
nothing, lend it to the government or someone else and charge interest to
boot. The practice evolved before banks existed. Goldsmiths rented out
space in their vaults to individuals and merchants for storage of their gold or
silver. The goldsmiths gave these "depositors" a certificate that showed the
amount of gold stored. These certificates were then used to conduct business.

In time the goldsmiths noticed that the gold in their vaults was rarely withdrawn.
Small amounts would move in and out but the large majority never moved.
Sensing a profit opportunity, the goldsmiths issued double receipts for the
gold [factually, up to ten times of the amount of gold held], in effect
creating money (certificates) from nothing and then lending those certificates
(creating debt) to depositors and charging them interest as well.

Since the certificates represented more gold than actually existed, the
certificates were "fractionally" backed by gold. Eventually some of these
vault operations were transformed into banks and the practice of fractional
banking continued.

Keep that fractional banking concept in mind as we examine our first central
bank, the First Bank of the United States (BUS). It was created, after bitter
dissent in the Congress, in 1791 and chartered for 20 years. A scam not unlike
the current FED, the BUS used its control of the currency to defraud the public
and establish a legal form of usury.

This bank practiced fractional lending at a 10:1 rate, ten dollars of loans
for each dollar they had on deposit. This misuse and abuse of their public
charter continued for the entire 20 years of their existence. Public outrage
over these abuses was such that the charter was not renewed [Thank you,
Andrew Jackson!] and the bank ceased to exist in 1811.
[President Andrew Jackson refused to renew the private banker's
charter with his veto executed on July 10, 1832 (after it passed the
Senate on June 11 and the House on July 3) and summed it up by
expressing his opinion of the parasitic bankers: "You are a den of
vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and by the Eternal God,
I will rout you out."
Don't forget President Thomas Jefferson: "I believe that banking
institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.
Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the
government at defiance. The issuing power (of money) should be
taken away from the banks and restored to the people to whom it
properly belongs.
"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue
of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and
corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people
of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the
continent their fathers conquered."
Then there's President Abraham Lincoln (assassinated by Rothschild
agent John Wilkes Booth for defiantly issuing $449,338,902 in debt-free
U.S. Notes ("greenbacks) to finance the Rothschild-initiated Civil War
(thank you, Mel Gibson) instead of accepting the terms of their usurious
"loan" at the unbelievable rate of 35%): "I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me, and causes me to tremble for the safety
of our country. Corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption
will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong
its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people, until wealth is
aggregated in a few hands and the republic is destroyed.
"The money power preys upon the nation in times of peace and
conspires against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than
monarchy, more insolent than the aristocracy, more selfish than the
bureaucracy. It denounces, as public enemies, all who question its
methods or throw light upon its crimes."
President Woodrow Wilson said after realizing his complicity in
the creation of the private multi-national corporation owned by the
world's leading Zionist banking families--the Federal Reserve System:
"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country.
A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our
system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore,
and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to
be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and
dominated governments in the civilized world. No longer a government
by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of
the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small
group of dominant men." (To Learn more about this "small group of
dominant men", read The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.)
What about the statement taken from the Banker's Manifest—for
private circulation among leading bankers in 1934, at the height of
the Great Depression—that shows the intent of the destructive central
banking system in America: "Capital must protect itself in every way...
Debts must be collected and loans and mortgages foreclosed as soon
as possible. When through a process of law the common people have
lost their homes, they will be more tractable and more easily governed
by the strong arm of the law applied by the central power of leading
financiers. People without homes will not quarrel with their leaders.
This is well known among our principal men [Learned Elders of Zion]
now engaged in forming an imperialism of capitalism to govern the
world. By dividing the people we can get them to expend their energies
in fighting over questions of no importance to us except as teachers of
the common herd."

One of my all-time favorites is from Sir John Stamp--former
governor of the Rothschild's Bank of England--on central banking
"The modern banking system manufactures money out of
nothing. The process is perhaps the most astonishing piece of slight
of hand ever invented. Banking was conceived in iniquity, and born
in sin. Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave
them the power to create money, and with the flick of a pen, they
will create enough money to buy it back again. Take this great
power away from them, and all great fortunes like mine will disappear.
And, they ought to disappear, for then this would be a better and
happier world to live in. But if you want to continue to be the slaves
of the bankers, and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let bankers
continue to create money, and control credit."

Finally, the one that sums it all up (circa 1838) from Banker
Amschel Mayer Rothschild (1773-1855):
"Permit me to issue and
control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws."]

The war of 1812 left the country in economic chaos, seen by bankers as
another opportunity for easy profits. They influenced Congress to charter
the second central bank, the Second Bank of the United States (SBUS), in

The SBUS was more expansive than the BUS. The SBUS sold franchises and
literally doubled the number of banks in a short period of time. The country
began to boom and move westward, which required money. Using fractional
lending at the 10:1 rate, the central bank and their franchisees created the
debt/money for the expansion.

Things boomed for a while, then the banks decided to shut off the
debt/money, citing the need to control inflation. This action on the part of
the SBUS caused bankruptcies and foreclosures. The banks then took control
of the assets that were used as security against the loans.

Closely examine how the SBUS engineered this cycle of prosperity and
depression. The central bank caused inflation by creating debt/money for
loans and credit and making these funds readily available. The economy
boomed. Then they used the inflation which they created as an excuse to shut
off the loans/credit/money.

The resulting shortage of cash caused the economy to falter or slow
dramatically and large numbers of business and personal bankruptcies
resulted. The central bank then seized the assets used as security for the
loans. The wealth created by the borrowers during the boom was then
transferred to the central bank during the bust. And you always wondered how
the big guys ended up with all the marbles. [Surprise...present housing crash!]

Now, who do you think is responsible for all of the ups and downs in our
economy over the last 85 years? Think about the depression of the late '20s
and all through the '30s. The FED could have pumped lots of debt/money into
the market to stimulate the economy and get the country back on track, but
did they? No; in fact, they restricted the money supply quite severely. We
all know the results that occurred from that action, don't we?

Why would the FED do this? During that period asset values and stocks were
at rock bottom prices. Who do you think was buying everything at 10 cents on
the dollar? I believe that it is referred to as consolidating the wealth.

How many times have they already done this in the last 85 years?
Do you think they will do it again?

Just as an aside at this point, look at today's economy. Markets are
declining. Why? Because the FED has been very liberal with its
debt/credit/money. The market was hyper inflated. Who creates inflation? The
FED. How does the FED deal with inflation? They restrict the
debt/credit/money. What happens when they do that? The market collapses.

Several months back, after certain central banks said they would be selling
large quantities of gold, the price of gold fell to a 25-year low of about
$260 per ounce. The central banks then bought gold. After buying at the
bottom, a group of 15 central banks announced that they would be restricting
the amount of gold released into the market for the next five years. The
price of gold went up $75.00 per ounce in just a few days. How many hundreds
of billions of dollars did the central banks make with those two press

Gold is generally considered [silver is better] to be a hedge against more severe economic conditions. Do you think that the private banking families that own the FED
are buying or selling equities at this time? (Remember: buy low, sell high.)

How much money do you think these FED owners have made since they restricted
the money supply at the top of this last current cycle?

Alan Greenspan has said publicly on several occasions that he thinks the
market is overvalued, or words to that effect. Just a hint that he will
raise interest rates (restrict the money supply), and equity markets have a
negative reaction. Governments and politicians do not rule central banks,
central banks rule governments and politicians. President Andrew Jackson won
the presidency in 1828 with the promise to end the national debt and
eliminate the SBUS. During his second term President Jackson withdrew all
government funds from the bank and on January 8, 1835, paid off the national
debt. He is the only president in history to have this distinction. The
charter of the SBUS expired in 1836.

Without a central bank to manipulate the supply of money, the United States
experienced unprecedented growth for 60 or 70 years, and the resulting
wealth was too much for bankers to endure. They had to get back into the
game. So, in 1910 Senator Nelson Aldrich, then Chairman of the National
Monetary Commission, in collusion with representatives of the European
central banks, devised a plan to pressure and deceive Congress into enacting
legislation that would covertly establish a private central bank.

This bank would assume control over the American economy by controlling the
issuance of its money. After a huge public relations campaign, engineered by
the foreign central banks, the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was slipped
through Congress during the Christmas recess, with many members of the
Congress absent. President Woodrow Wilson, pressured by his political and
financial backers, signed it on December 23, 1913.

The act created the Federal Reserve System, a name carefully selected and
designed to deceive. "Federal" would lead one to believe that this is a
government organization. "Reserve" would lead one to believe that the
currency is being backed by gold and silver. "System" was used in lieu of
the word "bank" so that one would not conclude that a new central bank had
been created.

In reality, the act created a private, for profit, central banking
corporation owned by a cartel of private banks. Who owns the FED? The
Rothschilds of London and Berlin; Lazard Brothers of Paris; Israel Moses
Seif of Italy; Kuhn, Loeb and Warburg of Germany; and the Lehman Brothers,
Goldman, Sachs and the Rockefeller families of New York.

Did you know that the FED is the only for-profit corporation in America that
is exempt from both federal and state taxes? The FED takes in about one
trillion dollars per year tax free! The banking families listed above get
all that money.

Almost everyone thinks that the money they pay in taxes goes to the US
Treasury to pay for the expenses of the government. Do you want to know
where your tax dollars really go? If you look at the back of any check made
payable to the IRS you will see that it has been endorsed as "Pay Any F.R.B.
Branch or Gen. Depository for Credit U.S. Treas. This is in Payment of U.S.
Oblig." Yes, that's right, every dime you pay in income taxes is given to
those Zionist private banking families, commonly known as the FED, tax free.
Like many of you, I had some difficulty with the concept of creating money
from nothing. You may have heard the term "monetizing the debt," which is
kind of the same thing. As an example, if the US Government wants to borrow
$1 million--the government does borrow every dollar it spends--they go to
the FED to borrow the money. The FED calls the Treasury and says print
10,000 Federal Reserve Notes (FRN) in units of one hundred dollars.

The Treasury charges the FED 2.3 cents for each note, for a total of $230
for the 10,000 FRNs. The FED then lends the $1 million to the government at
face value plus interest. To add insult to injury, the government has to
create a bond for $1 million as security for the loan. And the rich get
richer. The above was just an example, because in reality the FED does not
even print the money; it's just a computer entry in their accounting system.

To put this on a more personal level, let's use another example.

Today's banks are members of the Federal Reserve Banking System. This
membership makes it legal for them to create money from nothing and lend it
to you. Today's banks, like the goldsmiths of old, realize that only a small
fraction of the money deposited in their banks is ever actually withdrawn in
the form of cash. Only about 4 percent of all the money that exists is in
the form of currency. The rest of it is simply a computer entry.

Let's say you're approved to borrow $10,000 to do some home improvements.
Do you know that the bank didn't actually take $10,000 from its pile of cash
and put it into your pile? They simply went to their computer and input an
entry of $10,000 into your account. They created, from thin air, a debt
which you have to secure with an asset and repay with interest. The bank is
allowed to create and lend as much debt as they want as long as they do not
exceed the 10:1 ratio imposed by the FED.

It sort of puts a new slant on how you view your friendly bank, doesn't it?
How about those loan committees that scrutinize you with a microscope before
approving the loan they created from thin air. What a hoot! They make it
complex for a reason. They don't want you to understand what they are doing.
People fear what they do not understand. You are easier to delude and
control when you are ignorant and afraid.

Now to put the frosting on this cake. When was the income tax created? If
you guessed 1913, the same year that the FED was created, you get a gold
star. Coincidence? What are the odds? If you are going to use the FED to
create debt, who is going to repay that debt? The income tax was created to
complete the illusion that real money had been lent and therefore real money
had to be repaid. And you thought Houdini was good!!!

So, what can be done? My father taught me that you should always stand up
for what is right, even if you have to stand up alone.

If "We the People" don't take some action now, there may come a time when
"We the People" are no more. You should write a letter or send an email to
each of your elected representatives. Many of our elected representatives do
not understand the FED. Once informed they will not be able to plead
ignorance and remain silent.

Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution specifically says that Congress
is the only body that can "coin money and regulate the value thereof." The
US Constitution has never been amended to allow anyone other than Congress
to coin and regulate currency.

Ask your representative, in light of that information, how it is possible
for the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, and the Federal Reserve Bank that it
created, to be constitutional. Ask them why this private banking cartel is
allowed to reap trillions of dollars in profits without paying taxes. Insist
on an answer.

Thomas Jefferson said, "If the America people ever allow private banks to
control the issuance of their currencies, first by inflation and then by
deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will
deprive the people of all their prosperity until their children will wake up
homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."

Jefferson saw it coming 150 years ago. The question is, "Can you now see
what is in store for us if we allow the FED to continue controlling our

"The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal
vigilance; which condition if he breaks, servitude is at once the
consequence of his crime, and the punishment of his guilt."

John P. Curran
Source: <>

Related Articles:
Executive Order 11110
The JFK Myth by G. Edward Griffin
yth&refpage=issues> Message Board
Post <>>