Overarching Conspiracy?

[immune]

Thinking about JFK and his determination to circulate lawful silver certificates in the US to bypass the Fed, and his attempts to gain national control over some of the nation's largest industries and corporations, which many people believe may be what got him killed. So, as they say, "follow the money". Who has benefitted most since his untimely death? Pay special attention to the last paragraph.

Fortune Global 500
We turn now to a detailed analysis of our data. Several findings stand
out. First, there has been a substantial increase in the number and proportion
of transnational interlocks among Fortune Global 500 firms. Second,
this growth has occurred primarily among European firms and between
firms in Europe and the US.

```````````````````````

Findings
Several findings stand out in our analyses. First, there has indeed been a
significant increase in the number of global linkages among the boards of
directors of the world’s largest corporations over the past two decades.
Second, the growth in international linkages has outpaced the expansion
of domestic ties. Third, the geographical distribution and intensification of
these ties do not reflect the global distribution of corporate head-quarters.

```````````````````````

Two additional issues need to be highlighted. First, it is important to
recognize that interlocking directorates give us insight into the structure
of control of these corporations rather than the ownership of these firms
(Useem, 1984). It is relatively easy to identify those who control these
organizations. The names of directors are, by law, public information
(although board memberships can be obscured by proxies, such as
relatives or close business associates). It is not so simple, however, to
identify who owns these firms. Stock ownership is much more easily
hidden. Second, we must distinguish between the potential power of these
interlocks and the actual power exercised. Interlocks may create the possibility
for collusive activities. This does not necessarily imply that these
activities do, in fact, occur. This becomes an empirical question.
``````````````````````````

The implications of this global shift are significant. As the process of
global integration among transnational corporations intensifies, these
firms may become increasingly unified actors in the global economy, and
the individuals who control these organizations may indeed emerge as a
global capitalist class. Mergers and acquisitions may accelerate and intensify
this process (Renner, 2000). Moreover, these actors will be, to an ever
greater extent, outside the control of the nation-states within which they
are geographically located. Economic, political and social policies, historically
regulated by nation-states, will increasingly be influenced and
possibly dictated by these transnational organizations and those who
control them.

http://www.abdn.ac.uk/sociology/notes06/Level4/SO4530/Assigned-Readings/Seminar%2010.2.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_on_multiple_governing_boards

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[zappaman]

2. wow

you are the master of copy/paste!
and making shit up!
:toast:

[Octafish]

6. Still haven't added anything worth reading, zappaman.

You ever even hear of Silver Certificates before this post?

[SDuderstadt]

9. Jesus, dude...

Do you think you're the only one who has ever heard of silver certificates? The claim that the Federal Reserve had JFK killed because of E.O.1110 is, frankly, the goofiest of the goofy bullshit.

[defendandprotect]

3. K&R .... back tomorrow to read more thoroughly --

[LARED]

4. Truther logic

In an increasingly global economy, organizations respond by bringing on board members with global experience and connections in order to remain competitive in said global markets.

This is somehow viewed as an overarching conspiracy masterminded by the PTB in order to control the world via corporations.

[immune]

5. The tipping point.

The modern pantheon of enemies has now been identified, along with their demiurges, by even the most common of men. The enemies are the banking consortium; the global Elite born and bred from mega-wealth; the academics and economists who disconnect ideas from reality; and the scientific and military minds who are so compartmentalized by design that they rarely know what sort of dictatorship to which they are making their contributions. These are the groups that every man, woman, and child recognizes instinctively, because they are the same personalities encountered in our childhood. Until this point, these dictators have had the smugness to assume that the ones they view as the weak would cower forever.

http://www.activistpost.com/2010/10/tyrannys-last-stand-tipping-point-is.html?showComment=1286380858696

There are two catagories of human beings, those who rule and those who are ruled. Many who are ruled don't even know it, much less by whom they are ruled. Some seem to enjoy it because, by their willing obedience and complicity, they are awarded authority to keep others, who are not quite so willing, in line. What these overseers don't realize is that the whip can be taken away and turned upon themselves in the blink of an eye for any small infraction, or on a mere whim of the rulers.

Money talks, bullshit waves whips. Well, at least until the bullshitter wakes up one day to discover he's suddenly on the receiving end.

[LARED]

16. A little advice

If you want to be taken seriously

1. Links and cut and paste is fine, but one should actually attempt to explain using English sentence structure why they think the link or cut an paste is posted. In other words explain yourself based on the notion that the other person may not be living in your head :scared:

2. Try and stay on topic. It works this way. Someone posts something. Someone else responds about that subject. Frankly this seems to be an extremely alien concept to you as you frequently post stuff that makes no sense and is off topic.

[SDuderstadt]

17. It's a safe bet that...

"immune" has no idea wtf he's babbling about at any given moment.

[immune]

18. Why do I so often post the words of others?

Maybe its because to you I am an anonymous nobody and you have no reason to take my word for anything. So here are some more famous words for you about the state we're in and how we got here:

At the time President Abraham Lincoln fought against the central bankers, he said:

“The money power preys upon the nation in time of peace and conspires against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. 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 the wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the republic is destroyed.”

He was shot and killed shortly after on May 22nd, 1864. From 1864 – 1913 the National Banking Act and the Civil War all but forced the majority of America’s banks to become nationalized.

..................

In 1881 President Garfield was assassinated less than four months after taking office. He was another anti-banking establishment President, who took action and spoke out against them. He was “coincidentally” shot and killed shortly after declaring:

“Whosoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce … And when you realize that the entire system is very easily controlled, one way or another, by a few powerful men at the top, you will not have to be told how periods of inflation and depression originate.”

......

The next Presidential assassination happened 20 years later when a supposed “anarchist” shot William McKinley twice at pointblank range. Once again, McKinley was a strong supporter of the gold standard and helped pass the Gold Standard Act of 1900 less than a year before his death.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/atlantean_conspiracy/atlantean_conspiracy11.htm

And of course there was Kennedy with his executive order that would've ended the federal reserve and put a major hurt on corporations run amok and who was assassinated a mere five months later.

So can you dispute the fact that all these president's words were prescient? You want hundreds of years of ponzi schemes and shell games neatly packaged in a paragraph and wrapped with a pretty bow? Have at it. Give us a paragraph or two that clearly explains how and why we've exchanged all the tangible wealth in this country for worthless federal reserve notes and debit entries in international banking corporations and why we're helpless to correct those errors.

[SDuderstadt]

19. The myth that JFK was assassinated because of E.O.11110 is...

without a doubt, one of the dumbest conspiracy theories.of all time.

It's notable that this myth is debunked by Political Research Associates, which specializes in tracking and debunking RIGHT-WING propaganda. How this RW propaganda infiltrates liberal discussion boards demonstrates the intellectual bankruptcy of conspiracists.

www.publiceye.org/conspire/flaherty/flaherty9.html

[LARED]

20. 'all these president's words were prescient'

In what way? Foreknowledge of what?

What cabal is killing Presidents that criticized central bankers? Are you insinuating the Federal Reserve assassinates critics in high places.

Have other Presidents criticized central bankers and lived?

[immune]

21. Foreknowledge that the money men would ultimately rule

and we'd all suffer for it is how it sounds to me.

I'm insinuating nothing ... I'm skeptical and asking questions, none of which you've answered.

"Other presidents" that bucked the bankers? ... well there's Andrew Jackson, of course. But he was also doing "God's" work in ridding the new elites of those damned pesky Indians so I'd guess he was allowed to temporarily set the central bank on its ear. It didn't last, of course, and they knew it wouldn't, he was barely out of office before they brought another panic and set up shop like there had been no interruption.

But for the sake of argument on who wanted these four presidents dead ...

Lets just take McKinley’s assassin as an example:

Leon Czolgosz
As a young man, Leon Czolgosz (1873-1901) worked in a wire mill in Cleveland, Ohio. He was a good employee, retaining his job even through an economic depression. In 1898 he suffered a breakdown, and returned to the family farm. He made trips to hear the anarchist leader Emma Goldman speak, and approached several anarchist groups, who rebuffed him. In 1901, Czolgosz moved to Buffalo, New York, site of the Pan American Exposition. There, in a receiving line on September 6, he shot President McKinley two times. Czolgosz--who gave his name to police as Fred Nieman, or Fred Nobody--later stated in reference to his decision to assassinate McKinley, "I didn't believe one man should have so much service, and another man have none." After a brief trial, Czolgosz was convicted. He was executed on October 29, 1901.

So, who was this dastardly Emma Goldman who “so influenced Czolgosz that he’d go out and shoot the president?

Emma Goldman at her trial:
“Our patriotism is that of the man who loves a woman with open eyes. He is enchanted by her beauty, yet he sees her faults. So we, too, who know America, love her beauty, her richness, her great possibilities; we love her mountains, her canyons, her forests, her Niagara, and her deserts -- above all do we love the people that have produced her wealth, her artists who have created beauty, her great apostles who dream and work for liberty -- but with the same passionate emotion we hate her superficiality, her cant, her corruption, her mad, unscrupulous worship at the alter of the Golden Calf.”
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/emmagoldmanjuryaddress.htm

What an incredible speech! She also said: “Would the gentlemen who came with Marshal McCarthy have dared to go into the offices of Morgan, of Rockefeller, or of any of those men without a search warrant?”

Ah no, probably not. She doesn’t sound terribly impressed with banker’s privileges, does she? So you’d think she, and therefore her alleged devotee’, Czolgosz, would have been right in line with McKinley’s efforts to halt the mad, unscrupulous corruption of the banker’s golden calf.

But maybe you can explain why Leon would translate Emma's teachings into cause for killing a president who was doing what they allegedly wanted? Why didn’t he instead kill the leaders of the anarchist groups that rebuffed him? And then this bonus: “one man shouldn’t have so much service? What kind of a stupid confession statement is that? It doesn’t compute.

[LARED]

22. Who are the "money men" and whom do they rule?

It seems your position is that money men now rule, snd the warnings that got four presidents murdered have come to pass.

Evidence would be nice, Got any?

[immune]

23. Well for pete's sake

try to buy a donut and a cup of coffee without forking over a few of the "products" of the money men.

Without the credit, debt or dollar bills provided ... wait, I mean BORROWED from the money men you'd be shit up a creek.

Incidentally, investigations of serial killers don't generally start with solid evidence. They start with who has motive, means and opportunity. There are several basic motives for murder ... gain, revenge, elimination, jealousy, conviction, blood lust, escape, altruism or duty, insanity, and impulse or curiosity.

It isn't hard to imagine how a few of those motives may span decades and even centuries.

[zappaman]

24. does anyone know what this means?

"try to buy a donut and a cup of coffee without forking over a few of the "products" of the money men."

[LARED]

25. I was going to ask the same thing.

The whole currency thing seems to mystify immune.

[immune]

26. Not any more. I've been demystified by you.

Now I know that money grows on trees and the tooth fairy circulates it.

Thanks for the education.

[LARED]

27. Glad to have been a help nt

[SDuderstadt]

28. I hereby announce...

the "immune" corollary:

The more "immune" rambles on, the less sense it makes.

[immune]

29. As bait goes

I've caught bigger fish with a cane pole and a worm.

[zappaman]

30. lol

you really are funny!

[LARED]

31. Well boys and girls it seems the corollary is true. nt

[SDuderstadt]

32. I frankly don't recall any other poster who...

rocketed to the top of the "biggest hoot" community quite so quickly.

[Octafish]

7. Money does things to people. Makes some forget their nations and their loyalties.

"One of the things that is interesting about reading conspiracy theory is that much of what folks think is conspiracy is really many people acting in concert to make or protect their money." - Catherine Austin Fitts

Kennedy opposed the warmonger class, the War Party. Wish they had a single address. They do, however, run in the same circles:

Know your BFEE: Spawn of Wall Street and the Third Reich.

[immune]

8. Four presidents assassinated

by four crazed lone nuts. All four of those dead presidents, McKinley, Garfield, Lincoln and Kennedy, were openly opposed to central banks. A pattern.

Jackson is the only one who made it stick (for awhile) and survived an assassin's bullet.

The warmongers are the financiers of all sides in war, and they decide the winners and losers. Profits and spoils go to the financiers. Always.

[SDuderstadt]

10. JFK was not opposed...

to a central bank.

Stupid post.

[immune]

11. Oh really?

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.

http://www.apfn.net/Doc-100_bankruptcy31.htm

[SDuderstadt]

12. The Federal Reserve does not...

"loan money to the Federal government at interest". Anyone who claims they do is on a steady diet of anti-Federal Reserve and also is ignorant of the fact that the Fed is required by federal law to rebate all of its proceeds, minus operating costs back to the U.S. Treasury.

Another stupid post.

[immune]

13. Where does the federal

debt originate? To whom is the federal government indebted?

[SDuderstadt]

14. It's no wonder that someone who doesn't know...

the answers to these questions, wouldn't understand how the Federal Reserve actually works.

[immune]

15. The Federal Reserve Custody Account

It turns out that when China's central bank (or any other foreign central bank) decides to buy either US agency or Treasury bonds, they do not walk up to some window somewhere, hand over a pile of cash, and then take some nice looking bonds home with them in a suitcase.

Instead, what happens is that the Federal Reserve actually holds the bonds (or rather an electronic entry representing the bonds) in a special account for these various central banks. This is called the "Custody Account" and it holds US debt 'in custody' for various central banks. Think of it as a magnificently vast brokerage/checking account, run by the Federal Reserve for central banks, and you'll have the right image.

The custody account currently stands at $2.787 trillion (with a "t") dollars. It has increased by over $430 billion the past 12 months and by more than $275 billion in 2009 alone (through July 29). These are truly shocking numbers, and they tell us that foreign central banks have been accumulating US debt instruments throughout the crisis.

http://www.chrismartenson.com/blog/shell-game-how-federal-reserve-monetizing-debt/25806

[immune]

33. "President Obama: Nationalize the Fed

and Create Our Own Money"

by Doug Page
www.dissidentvoice.org/, February 7th, 2009

We are all full of anxiety these days. How bad will the depression be? Will the bailout work? How will we (and our children and grandchildren) be able to pay for the massive bailout of the Banks and our massive public debt?

The new book, The Web of Debt, by Ellen Hodgson Brown, Stephen J. Zerlanga's proposed American Monetary Act, and Paul Grignon's 47 minute video Money and Debt present a persuasive case for the United States to exercise its sovereignty by creating its own currency, and for the nationalization of the Federal Reserve System. The fact that Wall Street banks are "too big to fail," is a compelling reason, among many others, why they should be nationalized. These authors present interesting solutions for our current anxiety. They propose a way to abolish our Ponzi-like private banking system and to curb banker fraud.

.... Read Stephen J. Zerlenga's proposed American Monetary Act at the link below.

CONCLUSION

President Obama and his economic advisors can be encouraged by the fact that famous and influential economist Milton Friedman supports the idea of abolishing the Fed. For at least 300 years, the private banks have used their wealth and power to persuade governments to allow them exclusive control over money. They have relentlessly and vigorously battled every single effort of governments to create currency. The author Ellen Brown does not expressly claim that banks have resorted to actual assassination, but she does note the strange sudden deaths of many of the reformers such as President James Garfield who urged public creation of currency. The political power of Wall Street banks is currently illustrated by their ability promptly to get billions of dollars of bailout money with no serious debate. The banks due to their own greed and ineptitude are now near bankruptcy and collapse. They are more vulnerable now to nationalization than they ever have been. They have brought all of us to the brink of economic disaster. This is a strategic political time for the U.S. to create our money. The awesome political power of private banks driven by the quest for huge profits would be curbed. Public control of the money supply would unleash the government to meet our legitimate human needs as it has done in the past in our own history. If the private banks can create money out of thin air, there is no reason why the government could not do it. We would all escape our excessive debt and tax burdens due to the interest owed to private banks. If interest must be charged, let it go into the public treasury.

Doug Page is a retired lawyer for unions, a former Democratic politician, and a life long observer of government, unions and business. He can be reached at: [e-mail]. Read other articles by Doug, or visit Doug's website.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Banks/Nationalize_Fed_DPage.html

[LARED]

36. Odd choice you present

Fleecing by the Federal reverse or fleecing by congresscritters.

Also exactly how does nationalizing the banks provide an escapes from excessive debt and tax burdens. And please explain how private banks create money out of thin air.

[SDuderstadt]

37. "immune" has been watching...

"Money as Debt" by Paul Grignon. Of course, the fact that Grignon has no idea what he is talking about is lost on "immune".

This is just another example of how RW anti-Fed propaganda has infiltrated DU.

[immune]

44. What in the HELL

does RW or LW have to do with pro or anti fed positions? Is there a trick question on loan application forms these days that ask what your party affiliation is and you're only approved if you guess correctly?

Loans to governments or private citizens have nothing to do with right, left, center, up or down.


Napoleon Bonaparte Quote:
"When a government is dependent upon bankers for money, they and not the leaders of the government control the situation, since the hand that gives is above the hand that takes. Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency; their sole object is gain."

[immune]

38. Just type

"money out of thin air" into any search engine and begin your education.

So what you're admitting is that we're getting fleeced, so let's just keep on doing what we're doing and expect different results. Sure. Right now your congresscritters are funded (bought and paid for) by whom? What if that wasn't the case?

[SDuderstadt]

40. "begin your education"

This week's unintentionally ironic post of the week winner.

[LARED]

45. Well, I typed 'money out of thin air'

and I can see why you're confused. Look up "Leverage and bank regulation". No one is creating money out of thin air.

My point is if you believe bankers are fleecing us, it make no difference if banking transactions are private with regulations or public with regulations. According to your view (the best I can sort it out) we get fleeced by the concept of banking.

Banks serve a very useful purpose. Without banks and the ability to finance capital investments, etc, our standard of living would be much much lower. Private property ownership would be far more difficult. Frankly private banks in order to stay in business have to be responsive to customers. A banking system run by the federal government would have no such constraint. Just look at any number of government institutions that are at best inept.

Also the present issues we have with credit and bad debt in the banking and mortgage industries are LARGELY due to bad government policy, with bad government regulations, going back at least 20 years that allowed and in fact encouraged inept or greedy corporations to screw things up.

[BeFree]

47. Fractional Reserve Banking

Google it.

In case you decline to google, here is a short picture:
If a bank has $10 in reserve, that bank can loan $100.

See, the $10 is a reserve and is a fraction of what the bank can loan.

So, where does that extra $90 come from?
Basically, thin air.

[LARED]

48. So when the bank gave you

a check for the $100 dollars you borrowed, did they create it out of thin air?

[BeFree]

49. Where else did it come from?

You have any idea?

[zappaman]

50. it's magic!

abracadabra!
poof!
I just got 100 bucks!

[BeFree]

51. Not magic

It is: Fractional Reserve Banking

[LARED]

52. Let's try this again

So when the bank gave you a check for the $100 dollars you borrowed, did they create it out of thin air?

[BeFree]

53. Yes, in a simple sense.

Of course they don't have cash to cover all the money they lend.

Let's use a mortgage as an example: They loan you $100,000.
They only need $10,000 in cash to loan you the money.

So, in a simple sense they created $90,000 out of thin air.
Now, what happens when you default on that loan?

[LARED]

54. If you default on your loan, the bank

has a problem. If lots of people default on their loans the bank has an even bigger problem. That's where central banks or the government step in. Sound familiar?

Whether the reserve is 10% or 90% there are risks inherent in any banking system. Fractional reserve banking clearly provides benefits to peoples lives. But the idea that the federal reserve is part and parcel of some overarching conspiracy for some mysterious reason is just silly.

[BeFree]

55. well

What does the Fed do for the banks?

The Fed covers that 90%, right?

So when you default and the bank defaults, who is it that has to cover the loss?

[LARED]

57. It depends

Bailout, write off, bankruptcy, are among a few options.

Again can someone explain what this has to do with an overarching conspricy?

[immune]

56. I don't believe I said banks serve no useful purpose.

Intent and methodology is the problem and as BeFree pointed out, fractional banking is one of the major ways they've been fleecing us by creating money out of thin air. The BIS has tried on several occasions to roll back that policy, but the banks have mostly ignored the strictures.

There is no reason a national bank cannot finance capital investments, etc. and rather than harming our standard of living, it would improve it greatly across the board, by making funding available on a more level playing field, as well as maintaining a balance between production, deposits and the currency in circulation to avoid wild fluctuations in values and costs.

Can you possibly have missed the glaring fact that our monetary policy is set by political hacks who ride into office on the back of the corporate money machine? It can be argued that this is much more of a republican tendency than democratic, but there certainly has been no one on the hill in either party in recent decades who wanted to take on the folks they will need to fund their next elections. Did you think the millions of dollars flowing into their campaign coffers from major corporations, including banks, came without strings attached? "Loosen the restrictions and ease up on the regulations" is the is the song of the banker's, and their hired help dance to the music.

So obviously along with a national banking system, elections would have to be publicly funded to keep corporate whores out of congress and the white house. IMO, keeping elections free of private money is even more important than nationalizing the banks. Would there still be opportunities for graft and corruption? Yep, you bet. Even so, in this democratic system, no one has ever voted for a fed chairman, nor can he be voted out, nor does he answer to congress or to us when they screw up .. he only "reports" to congress.

I'm posting a link to the North Dakota State banking system which is, without a doubt, the greatest financial success story of this country and its definitely worth a read.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ellen-brown/escape-from-pottersville_b_409813.html

[LARED]

58. Thoughtful honest people can debate the merits

of various forms and functions of banking systems until the cows come home.

What does any of this have to do with an overarching conspiracy. Your original posit.

If I remember you implied the bankers could very well of carried out the assassination of four Presidents.

[BeFree]

59. It makes sense

Bankers do conspire, y'know?
Many have gone to jail for ripping people off.

Now we have global banking.
Do you really believe that bankers have stopped conspiring to rip off people?

[LARED]

63. How do you think bankers rip off people? nt

[immune]

60. So,

thoughtful people can debate the merits of whether the mob or the cia or Cuba or oswald, etc. had the biggest motive in killing Kennedy till the cows come home, but suggesting that Wall Street, which is the primary go to guy for all US corporations and organizations, legal or otherwise, and without whose sponsorship those corporations, etc. would not be major at all (overarching, so to speak) and that they may have had an even greater motive in assassinating the president is ... unreasonable? Especially taken in the context of three previously murdered presidents who all expressed the same attitude and intent to shut down the Wall Street bankers?

Remember from the OP?

"Moreover, these actors will be, to an ever
greater extent, outside the control of the nation-states within
which theyare geographically located. Economic, political and
social policies, historically regulated by nation-states, will
increasingly be influenced and possibly dictated by these transnational
organizations and those who control them."

You don't see this as a potential threat to anyone who bucks their system?

So I also posted somebody's commentary on what President Obama should do to fix these inequalities. But IF Wall Street did already conspire to bring down four anti-fed presidents, could we expect Obama to fare any better if he acted on the demand in that article?

And what that has to do with NESARA's proposed reaction to the unbelievably corrupt gang in New York that has bankrupted this country is to spread North Dakota's example nation-wide, leaving it up to the individual states to rein in the fed, which would make it more difficult to stop. Bottom up. Of course since the other 49 states (except Montana) have had North Dakota as a working model of economic reason and logic for over 90 years and no one has even noticed, much less taken a page from their book, it looks like it would still pretty much depend on putting Kennedy's EO back into effect on a national level. Not that I expect that to happen. He probably knows where the bodies are buried.

Does that tie it together for you a little better? Or would you rather keep pretending that you don't understand a word anyone's saying?

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LARED]

62. So in your world

folks having a discussion about the proper policy for banking regulations has an equivalence with wild speculation like wall street bankers assassinating four Presidents.

Gotta.

[immune]

64. Which folks in my world are having a discussion

about proper policy for banking regulations? Nobody in my world has any say-so in the matter.

Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Obama backs down on criticism of Wall Street CEOs
http://www.americablog.com/2010/02/obama-backs-down-on-criticism-of-wall.html

That's who has the say-so, and presidents typically don't listen much to people in my world.

And as far as assassinations go, you obviously don't appreciate nuance much, like does a godfather personally go out and whack his enemies in front of god and everybody? No, he hires it done and he carefully stacks many layers between himself, his organization, and the actual "lone nut" with the gun.

But, in retrospect, I'd guess you probably do have more of an appreciation for extreme examples of coincidence than I.


C'est la vie.

[LARED]

65. Well you must sleep better at night knowing Obama backed off

his criticism of Wall Street CEO's.

Afters all we all know what happens to Presidents that take on the financial PTB.

[alcibiades_mystery]

34. Oy vey

Pfffft.

[immune]

35. I see what you mean.

A national currency would probably put a lot of people out of work ... like foreclosure specialists and collection agents. And I suppose sheriffs would have to switch gears from serving eviction notices to arresting criminals.

What a mess that would be!!

[SDuderstadt]

39. " A national currency"

Does anyone have any idea wtf "immune" is babbling about now? I seriously suspect "immune" has no idea what the difference between "currency" and "money supply" is.

[immune]

41. Let's start with what the money supply isn't.

It certainly isn't taxpayers bailing out the banks to the tune of billions of dollars that they never had and will never have, and then being required to borrow their "own" money back from those same banks, at interest, while those same banks reward their top brass with huge bonuses and refuse to loan the "money supply" back to the taxpayers so that the taxpayers are forced out of their homes.

Is that the money supply that you're so enamored with?

http://www.nesara.com/articles/letter_from_college08.htm

A currency system is, or at least should be, a public utility serving all the people, not just a select few. The creation of currency should be a public function and, through natural law, its volume related to the volume of goods and services produced by society.

Because a currency system is rightfully a public utility in service of all the people, ensuring that the exchange value of a currency never changes should be the one and only monetary goal of a society. Markets might adequately control the output of goods and services, but prices remain stable only when the corresponding volume of currency is adequately controlled.

With a constant exchange value, people who hold currency in their pockets, under the mattress, or in a bank, are all assured that the value of future exchanges of wealth are preserved. Such a goal secures the integrity of contracts, secures the value of wealth, and secures the general wealth of the society. Not only should the value of a ham sandwich today be relatively the same in 20 years, for those retiring on a fixed income that exchange value is critical.

[SDuderstadt]

42. Aha...

as I suspected, "immune" is just parrotting nonsense from a site that sells gold.

I'd love to hear "immune" define "currency" versus "money supply" in his own words, but I know I am asking the impossible.

[immune]

43. Re-read post #41

re: what the money supply is not. The first paragraph is my own words.

I don't care if people buy gold or silver or a pig in a poke with their worthless fed res notes. but at least they can roast the pig for lunch if (when) the money supply dries up.

[LARED]

46. Post 41 does not address the request nt

[defendandprotect]

66. Oil industry -- MIC -- right wing which can only rise on political violence ....

[LARED]

67. So the mid-term elections

were the result of political violence?

Who knew.

[immune]

68. More like

the tea potty's "victories" were the result of the FEAR of violence. The right wing traffics in mind numbing fear, the more the better. There are still a lot of peepul out there who eat that sh*t up. All those drug-running job-stealing illegal "aliens", all those Islamaniacs tucking bombs inside their jockey shorts, all those death panels, all those onerous taxes on the people who provide jobs (in Indonesia).

And then, when they win, they never fail to give us a lot of things to really be afraid of.

[immune]

69. Which reminds me ... jumping forward from assassinated presidents

to today.

Who is at war with Islam? You? Me? No, probably not. So can anyone point to any group of people besides the Wall Street banksters and their joined-at-the-wallet transnational energy buds who might target people for whom Usury is forbidden? Especially if those anti-usury folks happen to be perched on top of some of the world's largest energy reserves?

http://www.clubconspiracy.com/forum/f29/islamic-banking-banking-without-usury-interest-4309.html

Yeah, yeah, yeah, its in the bible, too, I know. But that's only for the Sabbath don't you see. Monday thru Friday you'll find good Christians applying for loans, granting loans and bellied up to the bar on the trading room floor. Well, I suppose sometimes you can find them there when they aren't just lying belly up on the trading room floor.

I think most of us know religion is just a handy excuse for war and nothing fires up the masses quite like a good dose of the "haters of god are gonna kill us all". But if you dig a little deeper, underlying the religious hyperbole is always money and profit. And no one profits from war like the financiers and the corporate giants to whom the winner of the spoils contracts are awarded. And we send our kids to die for this:

"The Iraqi government is to award a series of key oil contracts to British and US companies later today, fuelling criticism that the Iraq war was largely about oil.

The successful companies are expected to include Shell, BP, Exxon Mobil, Chevron and Total.

Non-Western companies, notably those in Russia, are expected to lose out."

So I'll leave it up to the reader to decide if the money barons might find it profitable enough to remove a non-compliant president with extreme prejudice, or if they might precipitate a second Pearl Harbor (or a first one, for that matter) if the stakes were high enough. Apparently the stakes were pretty high.