Special thanks to Louiebee of Crotch Shot Radio for these gems.
Part 1
Part 2
More to come...
Saturday, August 7, 2010
Jews are eight times over-represented in UK parliament
By Stuart Littlewood
Stuart Littlewood considers the phenomenal over-representation of Jews and non-Jewish Zionists in the UK parliament which, in terms of support for Israel, is magnified even further when viewed alongside the Conservative and Labour party leaders’ umbilical ties to the Israel lobby.
“Proportional Representation” is a big buzz-word in the UK these days. It implies fairer voting and fairer government. It is claimed to give minorities a better chance of being heard and therefore, they say, it should be incorporated into the “new politics” our shiny new coalition government has promised us.
But one minority group needs no help in that direction.
The Jewish Chronicle has published a list of Jewish MPs in Britain's parliament. It names 24 – Conservatives 12, Labour 10 and Liberal Democrats two.
I thought it was more. But let us for the sake of argument accept the Jewish Chronicle’s figures.
The Jewish population in the UK is 280,000 or 0.46 per cent. There are 650 seats in the House of Commons so, as a proportion, Jewish entitlement is only three seats.
With 24 seats they are eight times over-represented. Which means, of course, that other groups must be under-represented, including Muslims.
The UK's Muslim population is 2.4 million or 3.93 per cent. Their proportional entitlement is 25 seats but they have only eight – a serious shortfall. If Muslims were over-represented to the same extent as the Jews (i.e. eight times) they’d have 200 seats.
All hell would break loose.
Yes sir, in the name of fairness there’s plenty of work here for proportional representation. Bring it on!
Meanwhile two Jews – the Miliband brothers – are battling for the leadership of the beaten Labour Party. Ed Miliband (former energy secretary) is 40 and David Miliband (former foreign secretary) 44, both far too young to lead this country, especially when neither has achieved anything worthwhile in the real world outside politics.
It’s a reflection of the generally poor calibre of MP talent when such people, although academically gifted, can rise to the top. And indulging the young has had disastrous results. Think of Blair and the cult of arrogant youth he brought onto the political scene. Men of 40, especially politicians, think they know everything. They know nothing, as David Miliband (who backed the Iraq war) demonstrated in his blundering approach to the Middle East in Gordon Brown's government.
Jewish over-representation is only part of our problem. An even bigger worry is the huge number of non-Jew Zionists that have stealthily infiltrated every level of political and institutional life. They swell the pro-Israel lobby to such a phenomenal extent that it accounts for an enormous 80 per cent of the Conservative Party, which is now in power with the Liberal Democrats in tow as their junior coalition partner.
Too many pro-Israel MPs speak and act as if they would rather wave the Israeli flag than the Union Jack. These “Israel-firsters” refuse to condemn the illegal occupation, the racist policies and the war crimes. As Israel’s interest often clashes with Britain’s, their defence of the indefensible inevitably raises questions about loyalty, a deadly serious issue given the number of Zionists in public life.
And still we are cursed with the cult of youth. Cameron, 43, had no significant achievement under his belt but was able to manoeuvre himself, with the help of Jewish backers, into Britain’s prime minister slot. He is also a self-declared Zionist and voted for the war in Iraq, so how can he be trusted?
William Hague, who has been a member of Conservative Friends of Israel since he was 15, is the new foreign secretary. Alistair Burt, an officer of the Parliamentary group of Conservative Friends of Israel, has been appointed Foreign Office minister for the Middle East, and David Lidington is now the Foreign Office minister for Europe. He has spoken of being a “staunch defender” of the State of Israel. So the stooges are safely installed and activated.
Nick Clegg, Cameron’s Liberal Democrat coalition partner, is also 43. He at least had a useful career before becoming an MP, as did his right-hand man Vince Cable, a person of more mature years and far greater stature than the two coalition leaders put together.
In their “programme for government” our new coalition has precious little to say about the stolen Holy Land except “We will push for peace in the Middle East, with a secure and universally recognized Israel living alongside a sovereign and viable Palestinian state”. Note it’s a secure Israel and only a viable Palestinian state, not the other way round or even equal status. And there’s no mention of action to end the Gaza blockade which Clegg called for in the Guardian last December.
So, stooging for Israel has made the transition from Labour to the Conservative-led coalition with seamless smoothness. It is business as usual between Britain and the rogue state’s amoral thugs, as Sir Gerald Kaufman calls them.
Stuart Littlewood is author of the book Radio Free Palestine, which tells the plight of the Palestinians under occupation. For further information please visit www.radiofreepalestine.co.uk
Source
Stuart Littlewood considers the phenomenal over-representation of Jews and non-Jewish Zionists in the UK parliament which, in terms of support for Israel, is magnified even further when viewed alongside the Conservative and Labour party leaders’ umbilical ties to the Israel lobby.
“Proportional Representation” is a big buzz-word in the UK these days. It implies fairer voting and fairer government. It is claimed to give minorities a better chance of being heard and therefore, they say, it should be incorporated into the “new politics” our shiny new coalition government has promised us.
But one minority group needs no help in that direction.
The Jewish Chronicle has published a list of Jewish MPs in Britain's parliament. It names 24 – Conservatives 12, Labour 10 and Liberal Democrats two.
I thought it was more. But let us for the sake of argument accept the Jewish Chronicle’s figures.
The Jewish population in the UK is 280,000 or 0.46 per cent. There are 650 seats in the House of Commons so, as a proportion, Jewish entitlement is only three seats.
With 24 seats they are eight times over-represented. Which means, of course, that other groups must be under-represented, including Muslims.
The UK's Muslim population is 2.4 million or 3.93 per cent. Their proportional entitlement is 25 seats but they have only eight – a serious shortfall. If Muslims were over-represented to the same extent as the Jews (i.e. eight times) they’d have 200 seats.
All hell would break loose.
Yes sir, in the name of fairness there’s plenty of work here for proportional representation. Bring it on!
Meanwhile two Jews – the Miliband brothers – are battling for the leadership of the beaten Labour Party. Ed Miliband (former energy secretary) is 40 and David Miliband (former foreign secretary) 44, both far too young to lead this country, especially when neither has achieved anything worthwhile in the real world outside politics.
It’s a reflection of the generally poor calibre of MP talent when such people, although academically gifted, can rise to the top. And indulging the young has had disastrous results. Think of Blair and the cult of arrogant youth he brought onto the political scene. Men of 40, especially politicians, think they know everything. They know nothing, as David Miliband (who backed the Iraq war) demonstrated in his blundering approach to the Middle East in Gordon Brown's government.
Jewish over-representation is only part of our problem. An even bigger worry is the huge number of non-Jew Zionists that have stealthily infiltrated every level of political and institutional life. They swell the pro-Israel lobby to such a phenomenal extent that it accounts for an enormous 80 per cent of the Conservative Party, which is now in power with the Liberal Democrats in tow as their junior coalition partner.
Too many pro-Israel MPs speak and act as if they would rather wave the Israeli flag than the Union Jack. These “Israel-firsters” refuse to condemn the illegal occupation, the racist policies and the war crimes. As Israel’s interest often clashes with Britain’s, their defence of the indefensible inevitably raises questions about loyalty, a deadly serious issue given the number of Zionists in public life.
And still we are cursed with the cult of youth. Cameron, 43, had no significant achievement under his belt but was able to manoeuvre himself, with the help of Jewish backers, into Britain’s prime minister slot. He is also a self-declared Zionist and voted for the war in Iraq, so how can he be trusted?
William Hague, who has been a member of Conservative Friends of Israel since he was 15, is the new foreign secretary. Alistair Burt, an officer of the Parliamentary group of Conservative Friends of Israel, has been appointed Foreign Office minister for the Middle East, and David Lidington is now the Foreign Office minister for Europe. He has spoken of being a “staunch defender” of the State of Israel. So the stooges are safely installed and activated.
Nick Clegg, Cameron’s Liberal Democrat coalition partner, is also 43. He at least had a useful career before becoming an MP, as did his right-hand man Vince Cable, a person of more mature years and far greater stature than the two coalition leaders put together.
In their “programme for government” our new coalition has precious little to say about the stolen Holy Land except “We will push for peace in the Middle East, with a secure and universally recognized Israel living alongside a sovereign and viable Palestinian state”. Note it’s a secure Israel and only a viable Palestinian state, not the other way round or even equal status. And there’s no mention of action to end the Gaza blockade which Clegg called for in the Guardian last December.
So, stooging for Israel has made the transition from Labour to the Conservative-led coalition with seamless smoothness. It is business as usual between Britain and the rogue state’s amoral thugs, as Sir Gerald Kaufman calls them.
Stuart Littlewood is author of the book Radio Free Palestine, which tells the plight of the Palestinians under occupation. For further information please visit www.radiofreepalestine.co.uk
Source
And Now The Zionists Control Newsweek
Influential Newsweek Magazine Sold for $1
To CFR’s Super-Rich, Pro-Israel Harman Couple
By Michael Collins Piper
Newsweek magazine is now the property of Zionist billionaire Sidney Harman and his wife Jane—a fervent advocate for the interests of Israel—who (rather than serving in Congress as she does) should instead be serving time in prison for influence peddling and conspiracy to obstruct justice on behalf of two Washington operatives for AIPAC, the powerful lobby for Israel.
On Aug. 2, the Washington Post Company—publisher of the powerful but weakened daily and longtime owner of Newsweek—announced the sale of the weekly magazine to the Harmans. Faltering badly in recent years, with massive losses and declining circulation, Newsweek was on the auction block for only $2 million, but according to reports, the Harmans grabbed the magazine for the exchange of virtually no money—a token payment of $1.
Glowing media reports say the 91-year-old Sidney Harman—who gained his fortune in electronics and helped bankroll his much younger wife’s political ambitions—now wants to put his money toward the nation’s welfare by keeping Newsweek alive and ensuring its continuing role in educating the public and perpetuating free and open debate on issues of importance. Or so they say.
In fact, this high-level business deal will make no difference insofar as the editorial content of Newsweek. If anything, Newsweek may well become even more openly and stridently on the side of the Zionist agenda. This has
happened before when Zionist business tycoons (with no publishing background) grabbed control of other mainstream publishing ventures. For example, when real estate manipulator Sam Zell assumed command of The Chicago Tribune and The Los Angeles Times and when Mort Zuckerman, another land baron, seized ownership of U.S. News and World Report and The New York Daily News.
Although the Meyer-Graham family of Washington is traditionally “known” to the public as the power behind the Washington Post-Newsweek combine, the truth is that the company is ultimately another American front for the interests of the Rothschild dynasty. Rothschild-related financial interests on American soil—including famed Nebraska-based billionaire money man Warren Buffet primary among them—hold substantial interests in the Post-Newsweek operation, making it anything but the “family-owned” enterprise it has often been portrayed.
Now Newsweek falls into the hands of the Harmans, who, by the way, are both members of the Council on Foreign Relations, the New York-based affiliate of the London-based Royal Institute of International Affairs, which is the foreign policy arm of the Rothschild empire.
That Jane Harman should now be a major media force is disturbing to those who value both national security and individual rights. Mrs. Harman’s corrupt behind-the-scenes activity on behalf of Israel and its American operations was discovered in 2006 when Mrs. Harman—a strong supporter of the warrantless wiretaps program of the Bush administration—was overheard speaking on the telephone with a known Israeli spy operating in the U.S. whose phone was being tapped by the National Security Agency. The spy’s identity has never been made public.
Read More...
To CFR’s Super-Rich, Pro-Israel Harman Couple
By Michael Collins Piper
Newsweek magazine is now the property of Zionist billionaire Sidney Harman and his wife Jane—a fervent advocate for the interests of Israel—who (rather than serving in Congress as she does) should instead be serving time in prison for influence peddling and conspiracy to obstruct justice on behalf of two Washington operatives for AIPAC, the powerful lobby for Israel.
On Aug. 2, the Washington Post Company—publisher of the powerful but weakened daily and longtime owner of Newsweek—announced the sale of the weekly magazine to the Harmans. Faltering badly in recent years, with massive losses and declining circulation, Newsweek was on the auction block for only $2 million, but according to reports, the Harmans grabbed the magazine for the exchange of virtually no money—a token payment of $1.
Glowing media reports say the 91-year-old Sidney Harman—who gained his fortune in electronics and helped bankroll his much younger wife’s political ambitions—now wants to put his money toward the nation’s welfare by keeping Newsweek alive and ensuring its continuing role in educating the public and perpetuating free and open debate on issues of importance. Or so they say.
In fact, this high-level business deal will make no difference insofar as the editorial content of Newsweek. If anything, Newsweek may well become even more openly and stridently on the side of the Zionist agenda. This has
happened before when Zionist business tycoons (with no publishing background) grabbed control of other mainstream publishing ventures. For example, when real estate manipulator Sam Zell assumed command of The Chicago Tribune and The Los Angeles Times and when Mort Zuckerman, another land baron, seized ownership of U.S. News and World Report and The New York Daily News.
Although the Meyer-Graham family of Washington is traditionally “known” to the public as the power behind the Washington Post-Newsweek combine, the truth is that the company is ultimately another American front for the interests of the Rothschild dynasty. Rothschild-related financial interests on American soil—including famed Nebraska-based billionaire money man Warren Buffet primary among them—hold substantial interests in the Post-Newsweek operation, making it anything but the “family-owned” enterprise it has often been portrayed.
Now Newsweek falls into the hands of the Harmans, who, by the way, are both members of the Council on Foreign Relations, the New York-based affiliate of the London-based Royal Institute of International Affairs, which is the foreign policy arm of the Rothschild empire.
That Jane Harman should now be a major media force is disturbing to those who value both national security and individual rights. Mrs. Harman’s corrupt behind-the-scenes activity on behalf of Israel and its American operations was discovered in 2006 when Mrs. Harman—a strong supporter of the warrantless wiretaps program of the Bush administration—was overheard speaking on the telephone with a known Israeli spy operating in the U.S. whose phone was being tapped by the National Security Agency. The spy’s identity has never been made public.
Read More...
Friday, August 6, 2010
THE WORLD ORDER: The Rothschilds By Eustace Mullins
In its issue of Dec. 19, 1983, Forbes Magazine noted that “Half of Germany’s top ten banks are Frankfurt based.” The modern world’s financial system, an updating of the Babylonian monetary system of taxes and money creation, was perfected in Frankfurt-on-Main, in the province of Hesse. Mayer Amschel Bauer (later Rothschild) discovered that although loans to farmers and small businesses could be profitable, the real profits lay in making loans to governments. Born in Frankfurt in 1743, Mayer Amschel married Gutta Schnapper. He served a three year apprenticeship in Hanover at the Bank of Oppenheim. During this period, he had occasion to be of service to Lt. Gen. Baron von Estorff. Von Estorff was the principal adviser to Landgrave Frederick II of Hesse, the wealthiest man in Europe. Frederick was worth from 70 to 100 million florins, much of it inherited from his father, Wilhelm the Eighth, brother of the King of Sweden. Baron von Estorff advised the Landgrave that Mayer Amschel showed an uncanny ability to increase money through his investments. The Landgrave immediately sent for him.
At this time, King George III was trying to put down the American Rebellion. His troops were being outfought by the hardy Americans, who were accustomed to wilderness battles. Mayer Amschel arranged for King George to hire 16,800 sturdy young Hessian soldiers from the Landgrave, a considerable addition to the Hesse’s fortune. This advantageous relationship came to a halt with the sudden death in 1785 of the Landgrave, who was only twenty-five years old. However, Mayer Amschel attained absolute influence over his successor, Elector Wilhelm I, who, like Mayer Amschel, had also been born in 1743. It was said that they were like two shoes, so well did they go together. It was a pleasant change from Mayer Amschel’s relationship with the former Landgrave, who had been a very difficult and demanding person. In fact, the Landgrave’s sudden death had luckily placed Mayer Amschel in charge of the largest fortune in Europe.
As he prospered, Mayer Amschel placed a large red shield over his door of the house in the Judengasse, which he shared with the Schiff family. He took the name “Rothschild” from his sign. In 1812, when he died, he left one billion franks to his five sons. The eldest, Anselm, was placed in charge of the Frankfort bank. He had no children, and the bank was later closed. The second son, Salomon, was sent to Vienna, where he soon took over the banking monopoly formerly shared among five Jewish families, Arnstein, Eskeles, Geymüller, Stein and Sina. The third son, Nathan, founded the London branch, after he had profited in some Manchester dealings in textiles and dyestuffs which caused him to be widely feared and hated. Karl, the fourth son, went to Naples where he became head of the occult group, the Alta Vendita. The youngest son, James, founded the French branch of the House of Rothschild in Paris.
Thus strategically located, the five sons began their lucrative operations in government finance. Today, their holdings are concentrated in the Five Arrows Fund of Curacao, and the Five Arrows Corp. Toronto, Canada. The name is taken from the Rothschild sign of an eagle with five arrows clutched in its talons, signifying the five sons.
The first precept of success in making government loans lies in “creating a demand”, that is, by taking part in the creation of financial panics, depressions, famines, wars and revolutions. The overwhelming success of the Rothschilds lay in their willingness to do what had to be done. As Frederic Morton writes in the Preface to “The Rothschilds”, “For the last one hundred and fifty years, the history of the House of Rothschild has been to an amazing degree the backstage history of Western Europe.... Because of their success in making loans not to individuals but to nations, they reaped huge profits.... Someone once said that the wealth of Rothschild consists of the bankruptcy of nations.”
In “The Empire of the City”, E.C. Knuth says, “The fact that the House of Rothschild made its money in the great crashes of history and the great wars of history, the very periods when others lost their money, is beyond question.”
On July 8, 1937, the New York Times noted that Prof. Wilhelm, a German historian, had said, “The Rothschilds introduced the rule of money into European politics. The Rothschilds were the servants of money who undertook the reconstruct the world as an image of money and its functions. Money and the employment of wealth have become the law of European life; we no longer have nations, but economic provinces.”
On June 4, 1879, the New York Times noted, “Baron Lionel N. de Rothschild, head of the world famous banking house of Messrs. Rothschild & Co. died at the age of 71. He was son of the late Baron N.M. Rothschild who founded the house in London in 1808 and died in 1836. His father came to the conclusion that in order to perpetuate the fame and power of the Rothschilds, which had already become worldwide, it was necessary that the family be kept together, and devoted to the common cause. In order to do this, he proposed that they should intermarry, and form no marital unions outside the family. A council of the heads of the houses was called at Frankfurt in 1826, end the views of Baron Nathan were approved.”
In “The Rothschilds: the Financial Rulers of Nations,” John Reeves writes, “The first occasion in which Nathan assisted the English government was in 1819, when he undertook the loan of $60 million; from 1818-1832 Nathan issued eight other loans totalling $105,400,000; he subsequently issued eighteen Government loans totalling $700 million. To the Rothschilds, nothing could have occurred more propitiously than the outbreak of the American revolt and the French Revolution, as the two enabled them to lay the foundation of the immense wealth they have since acquired. The House of Rothschild was (and is) the ruling power in Europe, for all the political powers were willing to acknowledge the sway of the great financial Despot, and, like obedient vassals, pay their tribute without murmur.... Its influence was so all-powerful that it was a saying, no war could be undertaken without the assistance of the Rothschilds. They rose to a position of such power in the political and commercial world that they became the Dictators of Europe. To the public the archives of the family, which could throw so much light upon history, are a profound secret, a sealed book kept well hidden.”
On July 27, 1844, Mazzini said, “Rothschild could be King of France if he so desired.” The Jewish Encydopedia noted (1909 edition), “In the year 1848 the Paris house (of Rothschild) was reckoned to be worth 600,000,000 francs as against 352,000,000 francs held by all the other Paris bankers.”
Prof. Werner Sombart wrote, “The principal loan floaters of the world, the Rothschilds, were later the first railway kings. The period of 1820 onwards became the 'Age of the Rothschilds’ so that at the middle of the century it was a common dictum : There is only one power in Europe and that is Rothschild. (Jews and Modern Capitalism).
Hearst’s Chicago Evening American commented, Dec. 3, 1923, “The Rothschilds can start or prevent wars. Their word could make or break empires.”
Reeves notes, “The fall of Napoleon was the rise of Rothschild.” Napoleon was later slowly poisoned to death with arsenic by a Rothschild agent. They had no need of another “return from exile”.
The New York Evening Post noted July 22, 1924, “The Kaiser had to consult Rothschild to find out whether he could declare war. Another Rothschild carried out the whole burden of the contlict which overthrew Napoleon.”
The Kaiser’s Chancellor, Bethmann-Hollweg, who actually precipitated World War I, was a member of the Frankfurt banking family, Bethmann, and a cousin of the Rothschilds.
After the fall of Napoleon, Salomon persuaded the ruler of Austria to issue patents of nobility to the five brothers. The Congress of Vienna was the emergence of the moth from its cocoon. The diktat of this Congress was a simple one – the aristocracies of Europe must submit to our will, or they are doomed. The death sentence upon the noble lines of Europe was pronounced by those who had the will to carry out their edict. It took another century to perfect the work, not because the killers were weak, but because they wished to proceed cautiously, without revealing their full strength. In combat, the decisive weapon is the one your opponent does not know about.
It was not necessary to pronounce a death sentence upon the ruling families of America, because there were none. During the 19th century, a few descendants of colonial entrepreneurs had amassed wealth, and could afford a life of leisure and travel They remained slavishly dependent upon Continental arbiters in every matter requiring personal taste and judgment. Because they had no guiding philosophy, and no program, this American “upper class” never made it to the top of the stairs. They remained “below stairs” as servants of the London princes of the World Order. Their self-abasement not only manifested itself in an unusually high rate of suicide, but also in the slower forms of self-destruction, alcoholism, drug addiction, and homosexuality. Homosexuality is not so much a type of sexual drive as it is the _expression_ of deeper needs, the desire for self-degradation, or the seeking of a partner whom one can humiliate and degrade. It could hardly be unexpected that such a “ruling class” would eagerly hail the twentieth century crusade to enthrone Communism as the vehicle of the World Order.
In their quest for wealth, the Rothschilds did not overlook either the small farmer or the stockpiling and wholesaling of grain. They developed a “farm loan” system which has been the curse of the farmers for more than a century. R.F. Pettigrew noted in the British Guardian, “This system of banking (causing the ultimate ruin of all those who cultivate the soil) was the invention of Lord Overstone, with the assistance of the Rothschilds, bankers of Europe.”
One of their greatest triumphs was the successful outcome of the Rothschilds’ protracted war against the Russian Imperial Family. The family name of the Romanovs was derived from Roma Nova, New Rome. It embodied the ancient prophecy that Moscow was to become “the New Rome.” The family originated with Prince Prus, brother of Emperor August of Rome, who founded Prussia. In 1614, Michael became the first Romanov Czar.
After the fall of Napoleon, the Rothschilds turned all their hatred against the Romanovs. In 1825, they poisoned Alexander I; in 1855, they poisoned Nicholas I. Other assassinations followed, culminating on the night of Nov. 6, 1917, when a dozen Red Guards drove a truck up to the Imperial Bank Building in Moscow. They loaded the Imperial jewel collection and $700 million gold, loot totalling more than a billion dollars. The new regime also confiscated the 150 million acres in Russia personally owned by the Czar.
Of equal importance were the enormous cash reserves which the Czar had invested abroad in European and American banks. The New York Times stated that the Czar had $5 million in Guaranty Trust, and $1 million in the National City Bank; other authorities stated it was $5 million in each bank. Between 1905 and 1910 the Czar had sent more than $900 million to be deposited in six leading New York banks, Chase, National City, Guaranty Trust, J.P. Morgan, Hanover, and Manufacturers Trust. These were the principal banks controlled by the House of Rothschild through their American agents, J.P. Morgan, and Kuhn, Loeb Co. These were also the six New York banks which bought the controlling stock in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in 1914. They have held control of the stock ever since.
The Czar also had $115 million in four English banks. He had $35 million in the Bank of England, $25 million in Barings, $25 million in Barclays, and $30 million in Lloyd’s Bank. In Paris, the Czar had $100 million in Banque de France, and $80 million in the Rothschild Bank of Paris. In Berlin, he had $132 million in the Mendelsohn Bank, which had long been bankers to Russia. None of these sums has ever been disbursed; at compound interest since 1916, they amount to more than $50 billion. Two claimants later appeared, a son, Alexis, and a daughter, Anastasia. Despite a great deal of proof substantiating their claims, Peter Kurth notes in “Anastasia” that “Lord Mountbatten put up the money for court battles against Anastasia. Although he was Empress Alexandra’s nephew, he was the guiding force behind Anastasia’s opposition.” The Battenbergs, or Mountbattens, were also related to the Rothschild family. They did not wish to see the Czar’s fortune reclaimed and removed from the Rothschild banks.
Kurth also notes “In a 1959 series on the history of the great British banks, for example, the Observer of London remarked of Baring Brothers, 'The Romanovs were among their most distinguished clients. It is affirmed that Barings still holds a deposit of more than forty million pounds that was left them by the Romanovs. Anthony Sampson editor in chief, said no protests were made. This story is generally considered to be true.”
In the early 19th century, the Rothschilds began to consolidate their profits from government loans into various business ventures, which have done very well. Fortuitous trading on the London Stock Exchange after Waterloo gave Nathaniel Mayer Rothschild a sizeable portion of the Consols which formed the bulk of the deposits of the Bank of England. Joseph Wechsberg notes in “The Merchant Bankers”, “There is the Sun Alliance life insurance company, most aristocratic of all insurance companies, founded by Nathan Rothschild in 1824; Brinco, the British Newfoundland corp., founded by the British and French Rothschilds in 1952; the Anglo-American corp.; Bowater, Rio Tinto and others.”
Not only does the bank rate of the Bank of England affect the interest rates in other nations; the price of gold also plays a crucial role in the monetary affairs of nations, even if they are no longer on the gold standard. The dominant role played by the House of Rothschild in the Bank of England is augmented by another peculiar duty of the firm, the daily fixing of the world price of gold. The News Chronicle of Dec. 12, 1938, describes this ritual : “The story of the gold-fixing has often been told. How every weekday at 11 a.m. the representatives of five firms of bullion brokers and one firm of refiners meet at the office of Messrs. Rothschild (except on Saturday) and there fix the sterling price of gold. There is, however, a great deal of activity which lies behind his final act – this centralization of the demand for, and the supply of gold in one office and the fixing of the price of gold on that basis. A price of gold is first suggested, probably by the representative of Messrs. Rothschild, who also acts for the Bank of England and the Exchange Equalization Account.”
The banking houses privileged to meet with the Rothschilds to set the world price of gold are known as “the Club of Five”. In 1958, they were : N.M. Rothschild, Samuel Montagu, Mocatta and Goldsmid, Sharps Pixley, and Johnson, Matthey.
In 1961, the London Accepting Houses operating by approval of the Governor of the Bank of England were : Barings; Brown, Shipley; Arbuthnot Latham; Wm. Brandt’s & Sons; Erlangers; Antony Gibbs & Co.; Guinness Mahon Hawkins; S. Japhet; Kleinwort & Sons; Lazard Bros.; Samuel Montagu; Morgan Grenfell; N.M. Rothschild; M. Samuel; J. Henry Schroder; and S.G. Warburg. These chosen firms rule the financial establishment in “the City” of London.
In 1961, the leading business groups in England were listed by Wm. M. Clarke as : 1. Morgan Grenfell Ltd. (Lord Bicester) the Peabody J.P. Morgan firm; 2. Jardine Mathieson; 3. Rothschild-Samuel-Oppenheimer, comprising Rio Tinto, British South Africa Co., Shell Peteroleum, Brinco (British Newfoundland Corp.); 4. Lazard Brothers-Shell, English Electric, Canadian Eagle Oil; 5. Lloyd’s Bank; 6. Barclay’s Bank; 7. Peninsular & Orient Lines; 8. Cunard; 9. Midland Group – Eagle Star – Higginson (Cavendish-Bentinck); 10. Prudential; 11. Imperial Chemical Industries; 12. Bowater; 13. Courtauld’s; 14. Unilever.
Although this list shows the Rothschild group as only one of fourteen, in fact they hold large positions or influence in the other groups of this list.
In 1982, the principal directorships held by the London Rothschilds were : Lord Rothschild – N.M. Rothschild & Sons, Arcan N.V. Curacao, chmn. Rothschild’s Continuation, and Rothschild Inc. USA. Edmund Leopold de Rothschild – N.M. Rothschild & Sons, Alfred Dunhill Ltd., Rothschild Continuation, Rothschild Trust, Rothman’s International, chmn Tokyo Pacific Holdings NV; Baron Eric Rothschild – N.M. Rothschild & Sons; Evelyn de Rothschild – chmb N.M. Rothschild & Sons, DeBeers Consolidated Mines Ltd. South Africa, Eagle Star Insurance Co., chmn The Economist Newspaper Ltd., IBM UK Ltd., La Banque Privee S.A., Manufacturers Hanover Ltd., Rothschild Continuation Ltd., chmn United Race Courses Ltd; Leopold de Rothschild – N.M. Rothschild & Sons, Alliance Assurance Co., Bank of England, The London Assurance, Rothschild Continuation Ltd; Rothschild Continuation Holdings AG Switzerland, Sun Alliance and London Assurance Co., Sun Insurance Office Ltd.
The British firms comprising the major basis of the Rothschild fortune are : Sun Alliance Assurance, Eagle Star, DeBeers, and Rio Tinto. Eagle Star’s directors include Duncan Mackinnon, of Hambro Investment Trust; Earl Cadogan, whose mother was a Hambro; Sir Robert Clark, chmn. Hill Samuel Co.; Marquess Linlithgow (Charles Hope) whose mother was a Milner – he married Judith Baring; Evelyn de Rothschild; and Sir Ian Stewart of Brown Shipley Co., who has been parliamentary private secretary to the Chancellor of the Exchequer since 1979.
DeBeers directors include Harry F. Oppenheimer, Sir Philip Oppenheimer, A.E. Oppenheimer, N.F. Oppenheimer, Baron Evelyn de Rothschild, and Sidney Spiro. Spiro is also a director of Rio Tinto, Hambros Bank, Barclays Bank, and Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce. DeBeers interlocks with Anglo-American Corp. of South Africa, of which Harry F. Oppenheimer is chairman, and Anglo-American Gold Investment Co. of which Julian Ogilvie Thompson is chairman, and Harry F. Oppenheimer director.
DeBeers interlocks with Hambros Bank, whose chmn. is Jocelyn Hambro; directors are R.N. Hambro, C.E. Hambro, Hon. H.W. Astor, Sir Ian Morrow, chmn. UKO Int. and The Laird Group, International Harvester, Rolls Royce, and the Brush Group; J.M. Clay, director of the Bank of England; Mark Weinberg, and Sidney Spiro.
Read More...
At this time, King George III was trying to put down the American Rebellion. His troops were being outfought by the hardy Americans, who were accustomed to wilderness battles. Mayer Amschel arranged for King George to hire 16,800 sturdy young Hessian soldiers from the Landgrave, a considerable addition to the Hesse’s fortune. This advantageous relationship came to a halt with the sudden death in 1785 of the Landgrave, who was only twenty-five years old. However, Mayer Amschel attained absolute influence over his successor, Elector Wilhelm I, who, like Mayer Amschel, had also been born in 1743. It was said that they were like two shoes, so well did they go together. It was a pleasant change from Mayer Amschel’s relationship with the former Landgrave, who had been a very difficult and demanding person. In fact, the Landgrave’s sudden death had luckily placed Mayer Amschel in charge of the largest fortune in Europe.
As he prospered, Mayer Amschel placed a large red shield over his door of the house in the Judengasse, which he shared with the Schiff family. He took the name “Rothschild” from his sign. In 1812, when he died, he left one billion franks to his five sons. The eldest, Anselm, was placed in charge of the Frankfort bank. He had no children, and the bank was later closed. The second son, Salomon, was sent to Vienna, where he soon took over the banking monopoly formerly shared among five Jewish families, Arnstein, Eskeles, Geymüller, Stein and Sina. The third son, Nathan, founded the London branch, after he had profited in some Manchester dealings in textiles and dyestuffs which caused him to be widely feared and hated. Karl, the fourth son, went to Naples where he became head of the occult group, the Alta Vendita. The youngest son, James, founded the French branch of the House of Rothschild in Paris.
Thus strategically located, the five sons began their lucrative operations in government finance. Today, their holdings are concentrated in the Five Arrows Fund of Curacao, and the Five Arrows Corp. Toronto, Canada. The name is taken from the Rothschild sign of an eagle with five arrows clutched in its talons, signifying the five sons.
The first precept of success in making government loans lies in “creating a demand”, that is, by taking part in the creation of financial panics, depressions, famines, wars and revolutions. The overwhelming success of the Rothschilds lay in their willingness to do what had to be done. As Frederic Morton writes in the Preface to “The Rothschilds”, “For the last one hundred and fifty years, the history of the House of Rothschild has been to an amazing degree the backstage history of Western Europe.... Because of their success in making loans not to individuals but to nations, they reaped huge profits.... Someone once said that the wealth of Rothschild consists of the bankruptcy of nations.”
In “The Empire of the City”, E.C. Knuth says, “The fact that the House of Rothschild made its money in the great crashes of history and the great wars of history, the very periods when others lost their money, is beyond question.”
On July 8, 1937, the New York Times noted that Prof. Wilhelm, a German historian, had said, “The Rothschilds introduced the rule of money into European politics. The Rothschilds were the servants of money who undertook the reconstruct the world as an image of money and its functions. Money and the employment of wealth have become the law of European life; we no longer have nations, but economic provinces.”
On June 4, 1879, the New York Times noted, “Baron Lionel N. de Rothschild, head of the world famous banking house of Messrs. Rothschild & Co. died at the age of 71. He was son of the late Baron N.M. Rothschild who founded the house in London in 1808 and died in 1836. His father came to the conclusion that in order to perpetuate the fame and power of the Rothschilds, which had already become worldwide, it was necessary that the family be kept together, and devoted to the common cause. In order to do this, he proposed that they should intermarry, and form no marital unions outside the family. A council of the heads of the houses was called at Frankfurt in 1826, end the views of Baron Nathan were approved.”
In “The Rothschilds: the Financial Rulers of Nations,” John Reeves writes, “The first occasion in which Nathan assisted the English government was in 1819, when he undertook the loan of $60 million; from 1818-1832 Nathan issued eight other loans totalling $105,400,000; he subsequently issued eighteen Government loans totalling $700 million. To the Rothschilds, nothing could have occurred more propitiously than the outbreak of the American revolt and the French Revolution, as the two enabled them to lay the foundation of the immense wealth they have since acquired. The House of Rothschild was (and is) the ruling power in Europe, for all the political powers were willing to acknowledge the sway of the great financial Despot, and, like obedient vassals, pay their tribute without murmur.... Its influence was so all-powerful that it was a saying, no war could be undertaken without the assistance of the Rothschilds. They rose to a position of such power in the political and commercial world that they became the Dictators of Europe. To the public the archives of the family, which could throw so much light upon history, are a profound secret, a sealed book kept well hidden.”
On July 27, 1844, Mazzini said, “Rothschild could be King of France if he so desired.” The Jewish Encydopedia noted (1909 edition), “In the year 1848 the Paris house (of Rothschild) was reckoned to be worth 600,000,000 francs as against 352,000,000 francs held by all the other Paris bankers.”
Prof. Werner Sombart wrote, “The principal loan floaters of the world, the Rothschilds, were later the first railway kings. The period of 1820 onwards became the 'Age of the Rothschilds’ so that at the middle of the century it was a common dictum : There is only one power in Europe and that is Rothschild. (Jews and Modern Capitalism).
Hearst’s Chicago Evening American commented, Dec. 3, 1923, “The Rothschilds can start or prevent wars. Their word could make or break empires.”
Reeves notes, “The fall of Napoleon was the rise of Rothschild.” Napoleon was later slowly poisoned to death with arsenic by a Rothschild agent. They had no need of another “return from exile”.
The New York Evening Post noted July 22, 1924, “The Kaiser had to consult Rothschild to find out whether he could declare war. Another Rothschild carried out the whole burden of the contlict which overthrew Napoleon.”
The Kaiser’s Chancellor, Bethmann-Hollweg, who actually precipitated World War I, was a member of the Frankfurt banking family, Bethmann, and a cousin of the Rothschilds.
After the fall of Napoleon, Salomon persuaded the ruler of Austria to issue patents of nobility to the five brothers. The Congress of Vienna was the emergence of the moth from its cocoon. The diktat of this Congress was a simple one – the aristocracies of Europe must submit to our will, or they are doomed. The death sentence upon the noble lines of Europe was pronounced by those who had the will to carry out their edict. It took another century to perfect the work, not because the killers were weak, but because they wished to proceed cautiously, without revealing their full strength. In combat, the decisive weapon is the one your opponent does not know about.
It was not necessary to pronounce a death sentence upon the ruling families of America, because there were none. During the 19th century, a few descendants of colonial entrepreneurs had amassed wealth, and could afford a life of leisure and travel They remained slavishly dependent upon Continental arbiters in every matter requiring personal taste and judgment. Because they had no guiding philosophy, and no program, this American “upper class” never made it to the top of the stairs. They remained “below stairs” as servants of the London princes of the World Order. Their self-abasement not only manifested itself in an unusually high rate of suicide, but also in the slower forms of self-destruction, alcoholism, drug addiction, and homosexuality. Homosexuality is not so much a type of sexual drive as it is the _expression_ of deeper needs, the desire for self-degradation, or the seeking of a partner whom one can humiliate and degrade. It could hardly be unexpected that such a “ruling class” would eagerly hail the twentieth century crusade to enthrone Communism as the vehicle of the World Order.
In their quest for wealth, the Rothschilds did not overlook either the small farmer or the stockpiling and wholesaling of grain. They developed a “farm loan” system which has been the curse of the farmers for more than a century. R.F. Pettigrew noted in the British Guardian, “This system of banking (causing the ultimate ruin of all those who cultivate the soil) was the invention of Lord Overstone, with the assistance of the Rothschilds, bankers of Europe.”
One of their greatest triumphs was the successful outcome of the Rothschilds’ protracted war against the Russian Imperial Family. The family name of the Romanovs was derived from Roma Nova, New Rome. It embodied the ancient prophecy that Moscow was to become “the New Rome.” The family originated with Prince Prus, brother of Emperor August of Rome, who founded Prussia. In 1614, Michael became the first Romanov Czar.
After the fall of Napoleon, the Rothschilds turned all their hatred against the Romanovs. In 1825, they poisoned Alexander I; in 1855, they poisoned Nicholas I. Other assassinations followed, culminating on the night of Nov. 6, 1917, when a dozen Red Guards drove a truck up to the Imperial Bank Building in Moscow. They loaded the Imperial jewel collection and $700 million gold, loot totalling more than a billion dollars. The new regime also confiscated the 150 million acres in Russia personally owned by the Czar.
Of equal importance were the enormous cash reserves which the Czar had invested abroad in European and American banks. The New York Times stated that the Czar had $5 million in Guaranty Trust, and $1 million in the National City Bank; other authorities stated it was $5 million in each bank. Between 1905 and 1910 the Czar had sent more than $900 million to be deposited in six leading New York banks, Chase, National City, Guaranty Trust, J.P. Morgan, Hanover, and Manufacturers Trust. These were the principal banks controlled by the House of Rothschild through their American agents, J.P. Morgan, and Kuhn, Loeb Co. These were also the six New York banks which bought the controlling stock in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in 1914. They have held control of the stock ever since.
The Czar also had $115 million in four English banks. He had $35 million in the Bank of England, $25 million in Barings, $25 million in Barclays, and $30 million in Lloyd’s Bank. In Paris, the Czar had $100 million in Banque de France, and $80 million in the Rothschild Bank of Paris. In Berlin, he had $132 million in the Mendelsohn Bank, which had long been bankers to Russia. None of these sums has ever been disbursed; at compound interest since 1916, they amount to more than $50 billion. Two claimants later appeared, a son, Alexis, and a daughter, Anastasia. Despite a great deal of proof substantiating their claims, Peter Kurth notes in “Anastasia” that “Lord Mountbatten put up the money for court battles against Anastasia. Although he was Empress Alexandra’s nephew, he was the guiding force behind Anastasia’s opposition.” The Battenbergs, or Mountbattens, were also related to the Rothschild family. They did not wish to see the Czar’s fortune reclaimed and removed from the Rothschild banks.
Kurth also notes “In a 1959 series on the history of the great British banks, for example, the Observer of London remarked of Baring Brothers, 'The Romanovs were among their most distinguished clients. It is affirmed that Barings still holds a deposit of more than forty million pounds that was left them by the Romanovs. Anthony Sampson editor in chief, said no protests were made. This story is generally considered to be true.”
In the early 19th century, the Rothschilds began to consolidate their profits from government loans into various business ventures, which have done very well. Fortuitous trading on the London Stock Exchange after Waterloo gave Nathaniel Mayer Rothschild a sizeable portion of the Consols which formed the bulk of the deposits of the Bank of England. Joseph Wechsberg notes in “The Merchant Bankers”, “There is the Sun Alliance life insurance company, most aristocratic of all insurance companies, founded by Nathan Rothschild in 1824; Brinco, the British Newfoundland corp., founded by the British and French Rothschilds in 1952; the Anglo-American corp.; Bowater, Rio Tinto and others.”
Not only does the bank rate of the Bank of England affect the interest rates in other nations; the price of gold also plays a crucial role in the monetary affairs of nations, even if they are no longer on the gold standard. The dominant role played by the House of Rothschild in the Bank of England is augmented by another peculiar duty of the firm, the daily fixing of the world price of gold. The News Chronicle of Dec. 12, 1938, describes this ritual : “The story of the gold-fixing has often been told. How every weekday at 11 a.m. the representatives of five firms of bullion brokers and one firm of refiners meet at the office of Messrs. Rothschild (except on Saturday) and there fix the sterling price of gold. There is, however, a great deal of activity which lies behind his final act – this centralization of the demand for, and the supply of gold in one office and the fixing of the price of gold on that basis. A price of gold is first suggested, probably by the representative of Messrs. Rothschild, who also acts for the Bank of England and the Exchange Equalization Account.”
The banking houses privileged to meet with the Rothschilds to set the world price of gold are known as “the Club of Five”. In 1958, they were : N.M. Rothschild, Samuel Montagu, Mocatta and Goldsmid, Sharps Pixley, and Johnson, Matthey.
In 1961, the London Accepting Houses operating by approval of the Governor of the Bank of England were : Barings; Brown, Shipley; Arbuthnot Latham; Wm. Brandt’s & Sons; Erlangers; Antony Gibbs & Co.; Guinness Mahon Hawkins; S. Japhet; Kleinwort & Sons; Lazard Bros.; Samuel Montagu; Morgan Grenfell; N.M. Rothschild; M. Samuel; J. Henry Schroder; and S.G. Warburg. These chosen firms rule the financial establishment in “the City” of London.
In 1961, the leading business groups in England were listed by Wm. M. Clarke as : 1. Morgan Grenfell Ltd. (Lord Bicester) the Peabody J.P. Morgan firm; 2. Jardine Mathieson; 3. Rothschild-Samuel-Oppenheimer, comprising Rio Tinto, British South Africa Co., Shell Peteroleum, Brinco (British Newfoundland Corp.); 4. Lazard Brothers-Shell, English Electric, Canadian Eagle Oil; 5. Lloyd’s Bank; 6. Barclay’s Bank; 7. Peninsular & Orient Lines; 8. Cunard; 9. Midland Group – Eagle Star – Higginson (Cavendish-Bentinck); 10. Prudential; 11. Imperial Chemical Industries; 12. Bowater; 13. Courtauld’s; 14. Unilever.
Although this list shows the Rothschild group as only one of fourteen, in fact they hold large positions or influence in the other groups of this list.
In 1982, the principal directorships held by the London Rothschilds were : Lord Rothschild – N.M. Rothschild & Sons, Arcan N.V. Curacao, chmn. Rothschild’s Continuation, and Rothschild Inc. USA. Edmund Leopold de Rothschild – N.M. Rothschild & Sons, Alfred Dunhill Ltd., Rothschild Continuation, Rothschild Trust, Rothman’s International, chmn Tokyo Pacific Holdings NV; Baron Eric Rothschild – N.M. Rothschild & Sons; Evelyn de Rothschild – chmb N.M. Rothschild & Sons, DeBeers Consolidated Mines Ltd. South Africa, Eagle Star Insurance Co., chmn The Economist Newspaper Ltd., IBM UK Ltd., La Banque Privee S.A., Manufacturers Hanover Ltd., Rothschild Continuation Ltd., chmn United Race Courses Ltd; Leopold de Rothschild – N.M. Rothschild & Sons, Alliance Assurance Co., Bank of England, The London Assurance, Rothschild Continuation Ltd; Rothschild Continuation Holdings AG Switzerland, Sun Alliance and London Assurance Co., Sun Insurance Office Ltd.
The British firms comprising the major basis of the Rothschild fortune are : Sun Alliance Assurance, Eagle Star, DeBeers, and Rio Tinto. Eagle Star’s directors include Duncan Mackinnon, of Hambro Investment Trust; Earl Cadogan, whose mother was a Hambro; Sir Robert Clark, chmn. Hill Samuel Co.; Marquess Linlithgow (Charles Hope) whose mother was a Milner – he married Judith Baring; Evelyn de Rothschild; and Sir Ian Stewart of Brown Shipley Co., who has been parliamentary private secretary to the Chancellor of the Exchequer since 1979.
DeBeers directors include Harry F. Oppenheimer, Sir Philip Oppenheimer, A.E. Oppenheimer, N.F. Oppenheimer, Baron Evelyn de Rothschild, and Sidney Spiro. Spiro is also a director of Rio Tinto, Hambros Bank, Barclays Bank, and Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce. DeBeers interlocks with Anglo-American Corp. of South Africa, of which Harry F. Oppenheimer is chairman, and Anglo-American Gold Investment Co. of which Julian Ogilvie Thompson is chairman, and Harry F. Oppenheimer director.
DeBeers interlocks with Hambros Bank, whose chmn. is Jocelyn Hambro; directors are R.N. Hambro, C.E. Hambro, Hon. H.W. Astor, Sir Ian Morrow, chmn. UKO Int. and The Laird Group, International Harvester, Rolls Royce, and the Brush Group; J.M. Clay, director of the Bank of England; Mark Weinberg, and Sidney Spiro.
Read More...
Bernie Madoff and the Watchdog That Didn't Bark or Bite
By Sherwood Ross
Perhaps the most incredible aspect of the greatest Wall Street swindle ever was that despite repeated warnings from many different sources the Securities and Exchange Commission(SEC) over a period of 16 years refused to conduct a diligent probe into the operations of fraudster securities broker Bernard Madoff. The “watchdog” Federal agency, which didn’t bark or bite, not only disregarded the repeated warnings of knowledgeable whistle-blower Harry Markopolos, a fund manager, as well as the two examiners in its own Boston office who said that Markopolos likely had it right; the SEC also disregarded reports in Barron’s and other financial publications that questioned Madoff’s legitimacy; and, perhaps most damning of all, the SEC disregarded letters from an obvious insider who revealed that Madoff was keeping two sets of books and told the SEC to find the evidence on a computer Madoff always carried on his person. Even when, toward the end of Madoff’s Ponzi scheme charade, the SEC discovered Madoff was lying to them, SEC officials didn’t care to ask the elementary questions that would have revealed he was not trading stocks at all. Incredibly, Madoff had also been lying to his investors for years, saying that he was turning a profit on the funds they gave him when he was actually paying them “profits” with monies from new depositors. On one occasion, the Assistant Director of SEC’s Office of Compliance Inspections and Examination(OCIE) asked a financial institution that Madoff claimed he used to clear his trades whether they knew of any trading done by or in behalf of Madoff during a specific time period. Despite a negative reply, the SEC official decided it did not merit any follow-up. Madoff’s career of fraud, which Federal investigators believe may have started in the 1980s, did not collapse until 2008.
Besides Markopolos, there were “plenty of others on Wall Street who went to the SEC, some anonymously or who used their names, so they had more than one warning,” says Erin Arvedlund, the reporter who broke the first Barron’s story in 2000. One inescapable conclusion of the Madoff disaster was that the SEC didn’t know and likely didn’t want to know he was running a Ponzi scheme. In 2006, for example, Madoff actually gave the SEC the number of his Depository Trust Account(DTC 646), yet its probers declined to make the phone call to this record-keeping entity that would have revealed Madoff’s claims of stock trading were a tissue of lies. The call would have revealed Madoff had only $18 million in his DTC account although Fairfield Greenwich feeder fund said he was handling $2.5 billion worth of their business. The SEC might also have checked with the National Association of Securities Dealers(NASD) to see if the stocks Madoff claimed to be trading were, in fact, actually being traded by him on the NASDAQ stock market. But Arvedlund said the SEC decided “this would have been too time-consuming for us to go through these records” so the records were never requested. Its reluctance may have had something to do with the fact that Madoff played a key role in NASDAQ’s formation. When Madoff founded his firm in 1960, he made trades using the National Quotation Bureau’s Pink Sheets. In order to compete with firms that were New York Stock Exchange members trading directly on the floor, according to Wikipedia, Madoff began using innovative computer information technology to disseminate its quotes---a development that led to the creation of NASDAQ, which swindler Madoff served as Chairman during 1990-91 and in 1993.
The SEC compounded its own malfeasance by issuing a report in 1992 saying that it found Madoff’s operations to be on the up-and-up, a finding it publicized only for this favored entity---in short, a veritable endorsement that brought investors flocking to “the lipstick building” (nicknamed for the skyscraper’s shape and color) at 885 Third Avenue in New York that was the headquarters of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC, only to be systematically parted from their money. Arvedlund said, “He used the SEC’s Good Housekeeping seal to market the fund. And I’ve talked to a lot of investors who said, ‘I knew he’d been investigated and received a clean bill of health from the SEC, and that’s why I gave them my money.’” These included Elie Wiesel, the Nobel Peace Prize laureate, who invested on behalf of a charity and Hollywood director Steven Spielberg, who invested for the Wunderkinder Foundation. Other notables taken in were real estate mogul Mortimer Zuckerman; Philadelphia Eagles owner Norman Braman, New York Mets owner Fred Wilpon, and legendary Brooklyn Dodgers pitching great Sandy Koufax. In its 1992 investigation, the SEC learned that New York accounting firm Avellino & Bienes had been raising money from clients and turning it over to Madoff to invest. The SEC ordered the funds returned to the clients and never inquired where Avellino & Bienes got the funds to do so. The SEC may have overlooked Madoff’s role as it regarded him as something of a hero for his role in developing NASDAQ in competition with the New York Stock Exchange. It even used him in an advisory capacity.
When accepting Madoff’s guilty plea to 11 counts of fraud, perjury, money laundering and theft, Judge Denny Chin termed Madoff “extraordinarily evil” and sentenced him to 150 years in prison. This, however, may have closed the window on the Ponzi scheme by which Madoff looted at least $20 billion and perhaps as much as $200 billion from the investing public. The New York Times of March 13, 2009, quoted Madoff as confessing to the packed courtroom, “I knew what I was doing was wrong, indeed criminal. When I began the Ponzi scheme, I believed it would end shortly and I would be able to extricate myself and my clients” but finding an exit “proved difficult, and ultimately impossible. I cannot adequately express how sorry I am for what I have done.”
The Times pointed out that Madoff’s guilty plea was crafted to shield his wife, Ruth, who had amassed $65 million worth of assets she claimed were her own, his brother, Peter, and his sons Mark and Andrew, all of whom denied any knowledge of the fraud. Mrs. Madoff was later required to forfeit all but $2.5 million of her assets. “As a result, those who thought his guilty plea would shed more light on Wall Street’s biggest and longest fraud left the courtroom unsatisfied and uncertain---about where their money had gone and who may have helped Mr. Madoff to steal it. Indeed, the hearing made clear that Mr. Madoff is refusing to help the government build a case against anyone else,” the Times observed.
Although no individual reportedly wrote Judge Chin a letter to mitigate his sentence by relating any good works Madoff performed in his life, the fraudster might not have been entirely unloved. He may have been the illicit love child of the Internal Revenue Service(IRS) which in June, 2004, oddly approved him as a nonbank custodian of investor funds “even though he was in gross violation of the IRS’s own regulations,” according to Lawrence Velvel, dean of the Massachusetts School of Law at Andover and a former Justice Department attorney. Velvel raises the possibility that Madoff was favored by the IRS because it collected “billions” of tax dollars on “profits” from investors he swindled when those profits were all lies. Arvedlund said the $65 billion Madoff claimed to have taken in was not the real number, which may have been closer to $20 billion, but investors paid taxes on the invented $45 billion as well, “so the IRS was actually a big winner in the Madoff case.” Velvel, who lost funds of his own invested with Madoff, interviewed reporter Arvedlund twice on his Comcast TV show “Books of Our Time,” first on her book “Too Good to be True: The Rise and Fall of Bernie Madoff,” and again after publication of the SEC Inspector General’s 457-page report on Madoff.
Arvedlund said SEC Inspector General David Kotz did “a very thorough job” and “for the most part didn’t pull any punches” in his report, which she termed a “very painstaking” examination of “how the agency screwed up.” She said the commission “was not used to going to independent third parties for information” but instead went to the source and trusted that person to tell the truth. The result, she explained: “Madoff was feeding them lies for years and they just didn’t double check.” They caught Madoff lying when he told them he stopped trading options years ago but they found sales literature from one of the big Madoff feeder funds that said he was trading “Standard & Poor 100” options. “Why didn’t that bother them enough to probe a little further?” Arvedlund asked.
When reporting for her original article, Arvedlund said “pretty much everyone on Wall Street that I talked to said they’d never done a trade with him: not Merrill Lynch, not Goldman Sachs, not Salomon Smith Barney. So they were all wondering the same thing---where’s all the trading volume coming from for this billion-dollar hedge fund? And there wasn’t any.” She believes that a bunch of very high-ranking portfolio managers may have suspected what Madoff was doing “but they were very fearful of losing their jobs.” One of the original sources for her story told her he didn’t want his name used because his boss was an investor in Madoff “and if he asked any questions or pulled his clients out, he’d probably get fired.” Alone among his peers, Madoff did not charge hedge funds the customary one or two percent annual fee that was the norm. Instead, he rewarded them handsomely for bringing him their business, in effect, a legal “kickback.” Arvedlund said Madoff was giving up perhaps $200 million a year in income---again, a sum that should have raised eyebrows. The financial writer said that Madoff had concocted “a complex (investment) strategy as a cover story, and it prevented most people from asking questions because they thought it’s too complicated to understand. They thought “it sounds very professional, so I’ll just trust that he’s doing it.” She added that Madoff would not let people on Wall Street invest with him because “he didn’t want financially savvy investors.”
The financial writer notes that the average investor also does not have the ability to subpoena or inquire, “’Does Bernie Madoff do trades with you?’ That’s the regulators’ job. That is what we pay taxes for them to do. They are acting on the customer’s behalf, or at least that is their stated mission. They are supposed to have that power, and that curiosity, on our behalf, and they didn’t.” One tell-tale indication that it was more than a lack of curiosity that stopped the SEC from exposing Madoff is the hostility it showed toward Markopolos. True, he had been warning them for more than a decade, asking how, contrary to market fluctuations, in good economic times and in bad Madoff never reported any losses but only consistent profits ranging from eight to 17 percent. For example, even when the market plunged 40 percent in 2008, taking most mutual funds with it, Madoff miraculously reported that his investments were up more than eight percent for the year. The fact is, Arvedlund believes, “The SEC didn’t like Markopolos personally. He was very smart and was impatient to reveal Madoff for the fraud that he was.” Apart from Ed Manion and Mike Garrity of the SEC’s Boston office, the SEC “took an instant dislike to him. They thought he was arrogant, and they pretty much found any reason they could to dismiss his allegations.” By contrast, the SEC had a high regard for Madoff because he was a pioneer of electronic trading. “The SEC knew Madoff very well,” Arvedlund said. “He was considered kind of a godfather around the SEC, a big advisor to the agency.”
Arvedlund said the SEC never tumbled to the fact that Madoff had two major bank accounts, one for his legitimate brokerage firm with the Bank of New York, the other with JP Morgan Chase(JPMC). This was on the phony hedge fund side, basically his “slush fund” into which he’d have new investors write checks and out of which he paid old investors, “so there was no trading ever taking place.” Yet, Arvedlund says, the examiner sent by the SEC “had no idea how the cash flows worked” and to conceal her own ignorance “didn’t ask the right questions.” If Madoff had been buying and selling stocks and stock options there would have to be wire transfers or checks in an out of the JP Morgan Chase account going to other financial houses. Arvedlund says JPMC is being sued because by 2008 it “should have had a very good idea that Madoff was not all that he seemed to be.” That bank, she said, “had a view of both sides of the House of Madoff” because in 2008 it had taken over Bear Stearns, which had a long trading relationship with Madoff. And when JPMC started asking around, “How does Madoff do it?” Bear Stearns employees replied they had no idea. “Meanwhile, over on the banking side,” Arvedlund said, JPMC “has the old Chase bank account, and they see that in ’08 the bank account’s starting to dwindle to zero, and according to one lawsuit, they pulled their money out before Madoff confessed.” By not blowing the whistle revealing the suspicions they should have had, Velvel pointed out, JPMC “permitted the fraud to continue for many years.” He noted “about $12 billion” got pulled out in the last six months as the market was collapsing and Madoff’s clients were demanding their money to pay off other people. Indeed, the reason Madoff’s Ponzi scheme collapsed was because his fund simply ran out of money. Madoff was arrested on Dec. 11, 2008; pleaded guilty in March, 2009; and was sentenced in June of that year. His firm was in liquidation as of Dec. 15, 2008.
Stock market investors supposedly are protected by the Securities Investor Protection Corp.(SIPC), which the public has thought of an insurance policy in the event of a fraud. “In fact,” Arvedlund said, “SIPC is now saying it is not an insurance agency and it’s a big mess. How they’re going to either pay back the Madoff investors, or not pay them back…is what’s at issue right now.” She noted that court-appointed Madoff trustee Irving Picard and the SIPC are arguing that investors cannot use the last statement they received from Madoff as the basis of what Madoff owed them. On the other hand, the investors’ attorneys are responding, “‘Well, if I invest on Wall Street, what else can I rely upon except the statements I get?’” What the SIPC is essentially saying, she adds, “is if you had a brokerage account at Madoff, you’ll be paid back the money that you put in---and that could have been 10 or 20 years ago---not the profits that were accrued.” If Velvel is correct, investors may have trouble getting anything back through SIPC. He’s charged that Picard is not revealing vital information in order to reduce the amount SIPC would otherwise legally have to reimburse the swindled investors. This want of information is apparent at many levels across the Madoff fraud, Velvel said, adding that Judge Chin “did us no favors by letting Madoff plead guilty instead of forcing a trial at which much would inevitably be revealed.” Velvel concluded, “I do not remember a major crime in which, at the times of plea and sentencing of the lead culprit, the details of what happened and what was done were as little known publicly as in Madoff.”
Madoff’s imprisonment dropped the curtain on his lavish lifestyle. Money swindled from charities was used for his own private pleasure. His assets were said to include a $21 million home on the Intercoastal Waterway near the Palm Beach, Fla., country club where he played golf; a beachfront home on Montauk, L.I.; as well as his primary residence in an Upper East Side co-op duplex which he purchased in 1990 for over $3 million. There were also two private planes, one a 2008 Embraer business jet registered to BLM Air Charter at Madoff’s business address and two boats valued at $11 million, one a 55-foot yacht named “Bull”. According to Kathryn Kroll, writing in a May 13, 2009, article in the Cleveland Plain Dealer, credit card records that surfaced in Manhattan Bankruptcy Court indicate Madoff and his wife ran up eye-popping bills. Just one of the credit card bills, Kroll writes, "provides a window into the lives of the Madoffs and their inner circle. A vacation to Jackson Hole, Wyoming, over the holidays shows what seemed to be a lavish ski trip: They spent thousands at the Jackson Hole Mountain Resort, hundreds more for car rentals, and ate and drank at places like a Mexican restaurant where they rang up at $2,879 bill. They also ran up a $254.38 tab at the Nikai Sushi Bar, but they left a tip on the card of only $15.”
According to newspaper accounts, Madoff was beaten up in the Federal prison in Butner, N.C., last December, and sustained a broken nose and fractured ribs at the hands of an inmate judo expert. The man did so, he claimed, because Madoff owed him money.
(The above article is by Sherwood Ross, a media consultant to the Massachusetts School of Law at Andover. This law school is purposefully dedicated to providing a rigorous, quality legal education to minority students and students from immigrant and low-income backgrounds who would otherwise be unable to obtain a legal education. The school is also dedicated to disseminating information on vital topics, which it does through its publications and Comcast broadcasts such as Books of Our Time. Reach Ross at sherwoodross10@gmail.com)
Perhaps the most incredible aspect of the greatest Wall Street swindle ever was that despite repeated warnings from many different sources the Securities and Exchange Commission(SEC) over a period of 16 years refused to conduct a diligent probe into the operations of fraudster securities broker Bernard Madoff. The “watchdog” Federal agency, which didn’t bark or bite, not only disregarded the repeated warnings of knowledgeable whistle-blower Harry Markopolos, a fund manager, as well as the two examiners in its own Boston office who said that Markopolos likely had it right; the SEC also disregarded reports in Barron’s and other financial publications that questioned Madoff’s legitimacy; and, perhaps most damning of all, the SEC disregarded letters from an obvious insider who revealed that Madoff was keeping two sets of books and told the SEC to find the evidence on a computer Madoff always carried on his person. Even when, toward the end of Madoff’s Ponzi scheme charade, the SEC discovered Madoff was lying to them, SEC officials didn’t care to ask the elementary questions that would have revealed he was not trading stocks at all. Incredibly, Madoff had also been lying to his investors for years, saying that he was turning a profit on the funds they gave him when he was actually paying them “profits” with monies from new depositors. On one occasion, the Assistant Director of SEC’s Office of Compliance Inspections and Examination(OCIE) asked a financial institution that Madoff claimed he used to clear his trades whether they knew of any trading done by or in behalf of Madoff during a specific time period. Despite a negative reply, the SEC official decided it did not merit any follow-up. Madoff’s career of fraud, which Federal investigators believe may have started in the 1980s, did not collapse until 2008.
Besides Markopolos, there were “plenty of others on Wall Street who went to the SEC, some anonymously or who used their names, so they had more than one warning,” says Erin Arvedlund, the reporter who broke the first Barron’s story in 2000. One inescapable conclusion of the Madoff disaster was that the SEC didn’t know and likely didn’t want to know he was running a Ponzi scheme. In 2006, for example, Madoff actually gave the SEC the number of his Depository Trust Account(DTC 646), yet its probers declined to make the phone call to this record-keeping entity that would have revealed Madoff’s claims of stock trading were a tissue of lies. The call would have revealed Madoff had only $18 million in his DTC account although Fairfield Greenwich feeder fund said he was handling $2.5 billion worth of their business. The SEC might also have checked with the National Association of Securities Dealers(NASD) to see if the stocks Madoff claimed to be trading were, in fact, actually being traded by him on the NASDAQ stock market. But Arvedlund said the SEC decided “this would have been too time-consuming for us to go through these records” so the records were never requested. Its reluctance may have had something to do with the fact that Madoff played a key role in NASDAQ’s formation. When Madoff founded his firm in 1960, he made trades using the National Quotation Bureau’s Pink Sheets. In order to compete with firms that were New York Stock Exchange members trading directly on the floor, according to Wikipedia, Madoff began using innovative computer information technology to disseminate its quotes---a development that led to the creation of NASDAQ, which swindler Madoff served as Chairman during 1990-91 and in 1993.
The SEC compounded its own malfeasance by issuing a report in 1992 saying that it found Madoff’s operations to be on the up-and-up, a finding it publicized only for this favored entity---in short, a veritable endorsement that brought investors flocking to “the lipstick building” (nicknamed for the skyscraper’s shape and color) at 885 Third Avenue in New York that was the headquarters of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC, only to be systematically parted from their money. Arvedlund said, “He used the SEC’s Good Housekeeping seal to market the fund. And I’ve talked to a lot of investors who said, ‘I knew he’d been investigated and received a clean bill of health from the SEC, and that’s why I gave them my money.’” These included Elie Wiesel, the Nobel Peace Prize laureate, who invested on behalf of a charity and Hollywood director Steven Spielberg, who invested for the Wunderkinder Foundation. Other notables taken in were real estate mogul Mortimer Zuckerman; Philadelphia Eagles owner Norman Braman, New York Mets owner Fred Wilpon, and legendary Brooklyn Dodgers pitching great Sandy Koufax. In its 1992 investigation, the SEC learned that New York accounting firm Avellino & Bienes had been raising money from clients and turning it over to Madoff to invest. The SEC ordered the funds returned to the clients and never inquired where Avellino & Bienes got the funds to do so. The SEC may have overlooked Madoff’s role as it regarded him as something of a hero for his role in developing NASDAQ in competition with the New York Stock Exchange. It even used him in an advisory capacity.
When accepting Madoff’s guilty plea to 11 counts of fraud, perjury, money laundering and theft, Judge Denny Chin termed Madoff “extraordinarily evil” and sentenced him to 150 years in prison. This, however, may have closed the window on the Ponzi scheme by which Madoff looted at least $20 billion and perhaps as much as $200 billion from the investing public. The New York Times of March 13, 2009, quoted Madoff as confessing to the packed courtroom, “I knew what I was doing was wrong, indeed criminal. When I began the Ponzi scheme, I believed it would end shortly and I would be able to extricate myself and my clients” but finding an exit “proved difficult, and ultimately impossible. I cannot adequately express how sorry I am for what I have done.”
The Times pointed out that Madoff’s guilty plea was crafted to shield his wife, Ruth, who had amassed $65 million worth of assets she claimed were her own, his brother, Peter, and his sons Mark and Andrew, all of whom denied any knowledge of the fraud. Mrs. Madoff was later required to forfeit all but $2.5 million of her assets. “As a result, those who thought his guilty plea would shed more light on Wall Street’s biggest and longest fraud left the courtroom unsatisfied and uncertain---about where their money had gone and who may have helped Mr. Madoff to steal it. Indeed, the hearing made clear that Mr. Madoff is refusing to help the government build a case against anyone else,” the Times observed.
Although no individual reportedly wrote Judge Chin a letter to mitigate his sentence by relating any good works Madoff performed in his life, the fraudster might not have been entirely unloved. He may have been the illicit love child of the Internal Revenue Service(IRS) which in June, 2004, oddly approved him as a nonbank custodian of investor funds “even though he was in gross violation of the IRS’s own regulations,” according to Lawrence Velvel, dean of the Massachusetts School of Law at Andover and a former Justice Department attorney. Velvel raises the possibility that Madoff was favored by the IRS because it collected “billions” of tax dollars on “profits” from investors he swindled when those profits were all lies. Arvedlund said the $65 billion Madoff claimed to have taken in was not the real number, which may have been closer to $20 billion, but investors paid taxes on the invented $45 billion as well, “so the IRS was actually a big winner in the Madoff case.” Velvel, who lost funds of his own invested with Madoff, interviewed reporter Arvedlund twice on his Comcast TV show “Books of Our Time,” first on her book “Too Good to be True: The Rise and Fall of Bernie Madoff,” and again after publication of the SEC Inspector General’s 457-page report on Madoff.
Arvedlund said SEC Inspector General David Kotz did “a very thorough job” and “for the most part didn’t pull any punches” in his report, which she termed a “very painstaking” examination of “how the agency screwed up.” She said the commission “was not used to going to independent third parties for information” but instead went to the source and trusted that person to tell the truth. The result, she explained: “Madoff was feeding them lies for years and they just didn’t double check.” They caught Madoff lying when he told them he stopped trading options years ago but they found sales literature from one of the big Madoff feeder funds that said he was trading “Standard & Poor 100” options. “Why didn’t that bother them enough to probe a little further?” Arvedlund asked.
When reporting for her original article, Arvedlund said “pretty much everyone on Wall Street that I talked to said they’d never done a trade with him: not Merrill Lynch, not Goldman Sachs, not Salomon Smith Barney. So they were all wondering the same thing---where’s all the trading volume coming from for this billion-dollar hedge fund? And there wasn’t any.” She believes that a bunch of very high-ranking portfolio managers may have suspected what Madoff was doing “but they were very fearful of losing their jobs.” One of the original sources for her story told her he didn’t want his name used because his boss was an investor in Madoff “and if he asked any questions or pulled his clients out, he’d probably get fired.” Alone among his peers, Madoff did not charge hedge funds the customary one or two percent annual fee that was the norm. Instead, he rewarded them handsomely for bringing him their business, in effect, a legal “kickback.” Arvedlund said Madoff was giving up perhaps $200 million a year in income---again, a sum that should have raised eyebrows. The financial writer said that Madoff had concocted “a complex (investment) strategy as a cover story, and it prevented most people from asking questions because they thought it’s too complicated to understand. They thought “it sounds very professional, so I’ll just trust that he’s doing it.” She added that Madoff would not let people on Wall Street invest with him because “he didn’t want financially savvy investors.”
The financial writer notes that the average investor also does not have the ability to subpoena or inquire, “’Does Bernie Madoff do trades with you?’ That’s the regulators’ job. That is what we pay taxes for them to do. They are acting on the customer’s behalf, or at least that is their stated mission. They are supposed to have that power, and that curiosity, on our behalf, and they didn’t.” One tell-tale indication that it was more than a lack of curiosity that stopped the SEC from exposing Madoff is the hostility it showed toward Markopolos. True, he had been warning them for more than a decade, asking how, contrary to market fluctuations, in good economic times and in bad Madoff never reported any losses but only consistent profits ranging from eight to 17 percent. For example, even when the market plunged 40 percent in 2008, taking most mutual funds with it, Madoff miraculously reported that his investments were up more than eight percent for the year. The fact is, Arvedlund believes, “The SEC didn’t like Markopolos personally. He was very smart and was impatient to reveal Madoff for the fraud that he was.” Apart from Ed Manion and Mike Garrity of the SEC’s Boston office, the SEC “took an instant dislike to him. They thought he was arrogant, and they pretty much found any reason they could to dismiss his allegations.” By contrast, the SEC had a high regard for Madoff because he was a pioneer of electronic trading. “The SEC knew Madoff very well,” Arvedlund said. “He was considered kind of a godfather around the SEC, a big advisor to the agency.”
Arvedlund said the SEC never tumbled to the fact that Madoff had two major bank accounts, one for his legitimate brokerage firm with the Bank of New York, the other with JP Morgan Chase(JPMC). This was on the phony hedge fund side, basically his “slush fund” into which he’d have new investors write checks and out of which he paid old investors, “so there was no trading ever taking place.” Yet, Arvedlund says, the examiner sent by the SEC “had no idea how the cash flows worked” and to conceal her own ignorance “didn’t ask the right questions.” If Madoff had been buying and selling stocks and stock options there would have to be wire transfers or checks in an out of the JP Morgan Chase account going to other financial houses. Arvedlund says JPMC is being sued because by 2008 it “should have had a very good idea that Madoff was not all that he seemed to be.” That bank, she said, “had a view of both sides of the House of Madoff” because in 2008 it had taken over Bear Stearns, which had a long trading relationship with Madoff. And when JPMC started asking around, “How does Madoff do it?” Bear Stearns employees replied they had no idea. “Meanwhile, over on the banking side,” Arvedlund said, JPMC “has the old Chase bank account, and they see that in ’08 the bank account’s starting to dwindle to zero, and according to one lawsuit, they pulled their money out before Madoff confessed.” By not blowing the whistle revealing the suspicions they should have had, Velvel pointed out, JPMC “permitted the fraud to continue for many years.” He noted “about $12 billion” got pulled out in the last six months as the market was collapsing and Madoff’s clients were demanding their money to pay off other people. Indeed, the reason Madoff’s Ponzi scheme collapsed was because his fund simply ran out of money. Madoff was arrested on Dec. 11, 2008; pleaded guilty in March, 2009; and was sentenced in June of that year. His firm was in liquidation as of Dec. 15, 2008.
Stock market investors supposedly are protected by the Securities Investor Protection Corp.(SIPC), which the public has thought of an insurance policy in the event of a fraud. “In fact,” Arvedlund said, “SIPC is now saying it is not an insurance agency and it’s a big mess. How they’re going to either pay back the Madoff investors, or not pay them back…is what’s at issue right now.” She noted that court-appointed Madoff trustee Irving Picard and the SIPC are arguing that investors cannot use the last statement they received from Madoff as the basis of what Madoff owed them. On the other hand, the investors’ attorneys are responding, “‘Well, if I invest on Wall Street, what else can I rely upon except the statements I get?’” What the SIPC is essentially saying, she adds, “is if you had a brokerage account at Madoff, you’ll be paid back the money that you put in---and that could have been 10 or 20 years ago---not the profits that were accrued.” If Velvel is correct, investors may have trouble getting anything back through SIPC. He’s charged that Picard is not revealing vital information in order to reduce the amount SIPC would otherwise legally have to reimburse the swindled investors. This want of information is apparent at many levels across the Madoff fraud, Velvel said, adding that Judge Chin “did us no favors by letting Madoff plead guilty instead of forcing a trial at which much would inevitably be revealed.” Velvel concluded, “I do not remember a major crime in which, at the times of plea and sentencing of the lead culprit, the details of what happened and what was done were as little known publicly as in Madoff.”
Madoff’s imprisonment dropped the curtain on his lavish lifestyle. Money swindled from charities was used for his own private pleasure. His assets were said to include a $21 million home on the Intercoastal Waterway near the Palm Beach, Fla., country club where he played golf; a beachfront home on Montauk, L.I.; as well as his primary residence in an Upper East Side co-op duplex which he purchased in 1990 for over $3 million. There were also two private planes, one a 2008 Embraer business jet registered to BLM Air Charter at Madoff’s business address and two boats valued at $11 million, one a 55-foot yacht named “Bull”. According to Kathryn Kroll, writing in a May 13, 2009, article in the Cleveland Plain Dealer, credit card records that surfaced in Manhattan Bankruptcy Court indicate Madoff and his wife ran up eye-popping bills. Just one of the credit card bills, Kroll writes, "provides a window into the lives of the Madoffs and their inner circle. A vacation to Jackson Hole, Wyoming, over the holidays shows what seemed to be a lavish ski trip: They spent thousands at the Jackson Hole Mountain Resort, hundreds more for car rentals, and ate and drank at places like a Mexican restaurant where they rang up at $2,879 bill. They also ran up a $254.38 tab at the Nikai Sushi Bar, but they left a tip on the card of only $15.”
According to newspaper accounts, Madoff was beaten up in the Federal prison in Butner, N.C., last December, and sustained a broken nose and fractured ribs at the hands of an inmate judo expert. The man did so, he claimed, because Madoff owed him money.
(The above article is by Sherwood Ross, a media consultant to the Massachusetts School of Law at Andover. This law school is purposefully dedicated to providing a rigorous, quality legal education to minority students and students from immigrant and low-income backgrounds who would otherwise be unable to obtain a legal education. The school is also dedicated to disseminating information on vital topics, which it does through its publications and Comcast broadcasts such as Books of Our Time. Reach Ross at sherwoodross10@gmail.com)
Blair must be arrested by John Pilger
Tony Blair must be prosecuted, not indulged like Peter Mandelson. Both have produced self-serving memoirs for which they have been paid fortunes; Blair's, which have earned him a £4.6m advance, will appear next month.
Now consider the Proceeds of Crime Act. Blair conspired in and executed an unprovoked war of aggression against a defenceless country, of a kind the Nuremberg judges in 1946 described as the "paramount war crime". This has caused, according to scholarly studies, the deaths of more than a million people, a figure that exceeds the Fordham University estimate of deaths in the Rwandan genocide.
In addition, four million Iraqis have been forced to flee their homes and a majority of children have descended into malnutrition and trauma. Cancer rates near the cities of Fallujah, Najaf and Basra (the latter "liberated" by the British) are now higher than those at Hiroshima. "UK forces used about 1.9 metric tonnes of depleted uranium ammunition in the Iraq war in 2003," the Defence Secretary, Liam Fox, told parliament on 22 July. A range of toxic "anti-personnel" weapons, such as cluster bombs, was employed by British and US forces.
Such carnage was justified with lies that have been exposed repeatedly. On 29 January 2003, Blair told parliament: "We do know of links between al-Qaeda and Iraq . . ." Last month, the former head of MI5 Eliza Manningham-Buller told the Chilcot inquiry: "There is no credible intelligence to suggest that connection . . . [it was the invasion] that gave Osama Bin Laden his Iraqi jihad." Asked to what extent the invasion exacerbated the threat to Britain from terrorism, she replied: "Substantially."
The bombings in London on 7 July 2005 were a direct consequence of Blair's actions.
Voracious greed
Documents released by the high court show that British citizens were allowed to be abducted and tortured under Blair. In January 2002, Jack Straw, then foreign secretary, decided that Guantanamo was the "best way" to ensure that UK nationals were "securely held".
Instead of remorse, Blair has demonstrated a voracious and secretive greed. Since stepping down as prime minister in 2007, he has accumulated an estimated £20m, much of it as a result of the ties he developed with the Bush administration. The Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, which vets jobs taken by former ministers, was pressured not to make public Blair's "consultancy" deals with the Kuwaiti royal family and the South Korean oil giant UI Energy Corporation. He gets an estimated £2m a year for "advising" the investment bank JPMorgan and undisclosed sums from other financial services companies. He makes millions from speeches, including reportedly £200,000 for one speech in China.
In his unpaid but expenses-rich role as "peace envoy" in the Middle East, Blair is, in effect, a voice of Israel, which has awarded him a $1m "peace prize". In other words, his wealth has grown rapidly since he launched, with George W Bush, the bloodbath in Iraq.
His collaborators are numerous. The cabinet in March 2003 knew a great deal about the conspiracy to attack Iraq. Straw, later appointed "justice secretary", suppressed the relevant cabinet minutes in defiance of an order by the Information Commissioner to release them. Most of those now running for the Labour Party leadership supported Blair's epic crime, rising as one to salute his final appearance in the Commons. As foreign secretary, David Miliband sought to cover up Britain's complicity in torture. He promoted Iran as the next "threat".
Journalists who once fawned on Blair as "mystical" and amplified his vainglorious bids now pretend they were his critics all along. As for the media's gulling of the public, only the Observer's David Rose has apologised. The WikiLeaks exposés, released with a moral objective of truth with justice, have been bracing for a public force-fed on complicit, lobby journalism. Verbose celebrity historians such as Niall Ferguson, who rejoiced in Blair's rejuvenation of "enlightened" imperialism, remain silent about the "moral truancy", as Pankaj Mishra wrote, "of [those] paid to intelligently interpret the contemporary world".
The fugitive
Is it wishful thinking that Blair will be collared? Just as the Cameron government understands the "threat" of a law that makes Britain a risky stopover for Israeli war criminals, Blair faces a similar risk in a number of countries and jurisdictions, at least of being apprehended and questioned. He is now Britain's Kissinger, who plans his travel outside the US with the care of a fugitive.
Two recent events add weight to this. On 15 June, the International Criminal Court made the landmark decision to add aggression to its list of war crimes that can be prosecuted. It defines this as a "crime committed by a political or military leader which by its character, gravity and scale constituted a manifest violation of the [United Nations] Charter". International lawyers described this as a "giant leap". Britain is a signatory to the Rome statute that created the court and is bound by its decisions.
On 21 July, Nick Clegg, standing at the Commons despatch box, declared the invasion of Iraq illegal. For all the later "clarification" that he was speaking personally, the Deputy Prime Minister had made "a statement that the international court would be interested in", said Philippe Sands, professor of international law at University College London.
Blair came from Britain's upper middle classes which, having rejoiced in his unctuous ascendancy, might now reflect on the principles of right and wrong they require of their own children. The suffering of the children of Iraq will remain a spectre haunting Britain while Blair remains free to profit.
Source
Now consider the Proceeds of Crime Act. Blair conspired in and executed an unprovoked war of aggression against a defenceless country, of a kind the Nuremberg judges in 1946 described as the "paramount war crime". This has caused, according to scholarly studies, the deaths of more than a million people, a figure that exceeds the Fordham University estimate of deaths in the Rwandan genocide.
In addition, four million Iraqis have been forced to flee their homes and a majority of children have descended into malnutrition and trauma. Cancer rates near the cities of Fallujah, Najaf and Basra (the latter "liberated" by the British) are now higher than those at Hiroshima. "UK forces used about 1.9 metric tonnes of depleted uranium ammunition in the Iraq war in 2003," the Defence Secretary, Liam Fox, told parliament on 22 July. A range of toxic "anti-personnel" weapons, such as cluster bombs, was employed by British and US forces.
Such carnage was justified with lies that have been exposed repeatedly. On 29 January 2003, Blair told parliament: "We do know of links between al-Qaeda and Iraq . . ." Last month, the former head of MI5 Eliza Manningham-Buller told the Chilcot inquiry: "There is no credible intelligence to suggest that connection . . . [it was the invasion] that gave Osama Bin Laden his Iraqi jihad." Asked to what extent the invasion exacerbated the threat to Britain from terrorism, she replied: "Substantially."
The bombings in London on 7 July 2005 were a direct consequence of Blair's actions.
Voracious greed
Documents released by the high court show that British citizens were allowed to be abducted and tortured under Blair. In January 2002, Jack Straw, then foreign secretary, decided that Guantanamo was the "best way" to ensure that UK nationals were "securely held".
Instead of remorse, Blair has demonstrated a voracious and secretive greed. Since stepping down as prime minister in 2007, he has accumulated an estimated £20m, much of it as a result of the ties he developed with the Bush administration. The Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, which vets jobs taken by former ministers, was pressured not to make public Blair's "consultancy" deals with the Kuwaiti royal family and the South Korean oil giant UI Energy Corporation. He gets an estimated £2m a year for "advising" the investment bank JPMorgan and undisclosed sums from other financial services companies. He makes millions from speeches, including reportedly £200,000 for one speech in China.
In his unpaid but expenses-rich role as "peace envoy" in the Middle East, Blair is, in effect, a voice of Israel, which has awarded him a $1m "peace prize". In other words, his wealth has grown rapidly since he launched, with George W Bush, the bloodbath in Iraq.
His collaborators are numerous. The cabinet in March 2003 knew a great deal about the conspiracy to attack Iraq. Straw, later appointed "justice secretary", suppressed the relevant cabinet minutes in defiance of an order by the Information Commissioner to release them. Most of those now running for the Labour Party leadership supported Blair's epic crime, rising as one to salute his final appearance in the Commons. As foreign secretary, David Miliband sought to cover up Britain's complicity in torture. He promoted Iran as the next "threat".
Journalists who once fawned on Blair as "mystical" and amplified his vainglorious bids now pretend they were his critics all along. As for the media's gulling of the public, only the Observer's David Rose has apologised. The WikiLeaks exposés, released with a moral objective of truth with justice, have been bracing for a public force-fed on complicit, lobby journalism. Verbose celebrity historians such as Niall Ferguson, who rejoiced in Blair's rejuvenation of "enlightened" imperialism, remain silent about the "moral truancy", as Pankaj Mishra wrote, "of [those] paid to intelligently interpret the contemporary world".
The fugitive
Is it wishful thinking that Blair will be collared? Just as the Cameron government understands the "threat" of a law that makes Britain a risky stopover for Israeli war criminals, Blair faces a similar risk in a number of countries and jurisdictions, at least of being apprehended and questioned. He is now Britain's Kissinger, who plans his travel outside the US with the care of a fugitive.
Two recent events add weight to this. On 15 June, the International Criminal Court made the landmark decision to add aggression to its list of war crimes that can be prosecuted. It defines this as a "crime committed by a political or military leader which by its character, gravity and scale constituted a manifest violation of the [United Nations] Charter". International lawyers described this as a "giant leap". Britain is a signatory to the Rome statute that created the court and is bound by its decisions.
On 21 July, Nick Clegg, standing at the Commons despatch box, declared the invasion of Iraq illegal. For all the later "clarification" that he was speaking personally, the Deputy Prime Minister had made "a statement that the international court would be interested in", said Philippe Sands, professor of international law at University College London.
Blair came from Britain's upper middle classes which, having rejoiced in his unctuous ascendancy, might now reflect on the principles of right and wrong they require of their own children. The suffering of the children of Iraq will remain a spectre haunting Britain while Blair remains free to profit.
Source
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Canada Forfeits Sovereignty Over Food & Natural Health
by Dee Nicholson
Co Executive Director
National Health Federation of Canada
Hidden in the language of Bill C-36, the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act, is a clause which makes Canadians "subject to the dictates of foreign authorities", which are undefined but could mean anything from a foreign government to a trade association like the WTO, NAFTA, CETA, etc., to the United Nations.
This direct transfer of Canadian sovereignty to an unnamed foreign agency can happen at any time, without Parliamentary or public oversight, and it has happened before. In fact, at last month's G20 conference, Prime Minister Harper admitted the surrendering of sovereignty was occurring economically, and treated it as a "fact of life"; we find this astounding, given that Harper was adamant in recent years about protecting this same sovereignty, and had until that moment not breathed a word about the fact that instead, he was giving it away without our knowledge or consent.
What does this mean to the Natural Health Industry, and to Canadian consumers?
It means that at any time, a foreign authority can force us to alter domestic law in order to comply with our "international obligations" (another of Harper's favorite phrases, of late).
Witness the changing of US corporate tax law at the order of the WTO: are Canadian laws any less vulnerable? That means that the draconian supplement regulations of the EU (which force citizens to get prescriptions for vitamins at therapeutic dosages and potencies at outrageous prices) can be forced upon us via CETA, the "Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement" between Canada and the European Union.
They call it "harmonization": we call it a hijacking of our rights, by stealth.
Not that this is confined to the Natural Health market: Canada has signed ten trade agreements since 1994, and has a dozen more in the works. Far from being "social clubs", these agreements are in fact enforceable contracts guaranteeing that Canadians will comply with whatever these groups want. In the case of the World Trade Organization, we have one vote at the table, against over 190 others. Where does the citizen's vote count then?
This industry has been hit hard by Health Canada's well-demonstrated penchant to serve the pharmaceutical industry, despite its dismal record of disease, disability and death. Any reasonable person reviewing the facts of the matter would be forced to conclude that this agency is serving its pharmaceutical masters well, while eliminating the effective natural elements provided for our natural bodies by our natural environment. There is no profit in wellness, and they cannot patent what Nature provides.
It is time that all Canadians realized the extent of the damage to their freedoms represented by these multifarious foreign entanglements, because their health freedom is not the only thing that will go the way of the dodo bird if they do not become aware of the dark side of trade groups.
Source
Co Executive Director
National Health Federation of Canada
Hidden in the language of Bill C-36, the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act, is a clause which makes Canadians "subject to the dictates of foreign authorities", which are undefined but could mean anything from a foreign government to a trade association like the WTO, NAFTA, CETA, etc., to the United Nations.
This direct transfer of Canadian sovereignty to an unnamed foreign agency can happen at any time, without Parliamentary or public oversight, and it has happened before. In fact, at last month's G20 conference, Prime Minister Harper admitted the surrendering of sovereignty was occurring economically, and treated it as a "fact of life"; we find this astounding, given that Harper was adamant in recent years about protecting this same sovereignty, and had until that moment not breathed a word about the fact that instead, he was giving it away without our knowledge or consent.
What does this mean to the Natural Health Industry, and to Canadian consumers?
It means that at any time, a foreign authority can force us to alter domestic law in order to comply with our "international obligations" (another of Harper's favorite phrases, of late).
Witness the changing of US corporate tax law at the order of the WTO: are Canadian laws any less vulnerable? That means that the draconian supplement regulations of the EU (which force citizens to get prescriptions for vitamins at therapeutic dosages and potencies at outrageous prices) can be forced upon us via CETA, the "Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement" between Canada and the European Union.
They call it "harmonization": we call it a hijacking of our rights, by stealth.
Not that this is confined to the Natural Health market: Canada has signed ten trade agreements since 1994, and has a dozen more in the works. Far from being "social clubs", these agreements are in fact enforceable contracts guaranteeing that Canadians will comply with whatever these groups want. In the case of the World Trade Organization, we have one vote at the table, against over 190 others. Where does the citizen's vote count then?
This industry has been hit hard by Health Canada's well-demonstrated penchant to serve the pharmaceutical industry, despite its dismal record of disease, disability and death. Any reasonable person reviewing the facts of the matter would be forced to conclude that this agency is serving its pharmaceutical masters well, while eliminating the effective natural elements provided for our natural bodies by our natural environment. There is no profit in wellness, and they cannot patent what Nature provides.
It is time that all Canadians realized the extent of the damage to their freedoms represented by these multifarious foreign entanglements, because their health freedom is not the only thing that will go the way of the dodo bird if they do not become aware of the dark side of trade groups.
Source
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Secret Banking Cabal Emerges From AIG Shadows: David Reilly
The idea of secret banking cabals that control the country and global economy are a given among conspiracy theorists who stockpile ammo, bottled water and peanut butter. After this week’s congressional hearing into the bailout of American International Group Inc., you have to wonder if those folks are crazy after all.
Wednesday’s hearing described a secretive group deploying billions of dollars to favored banks, operating with little oversight by the public or elected officials.
We’re talking about the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, whose role as the most influential part of the federal-reserve system -- apart from the matter of AIG’s bailout -- deserves further congressional scrutiny.
The New York Fed is in the hot seat for its decision in November 2008 to buy out, for about $30 billion, insurance contracts AIG sold on toxic debt securities to banks, including Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Merrill Lynch & Co., Societe Generale and Deutsche Bank AG, among others. That decision, critics say, amounted to a back-door bailout for the banks, which received 100 cents on the dollar for contracts that would have been worth far less had AIG been allowed to fail.
That move came a few weeks after the Federal Reserve and Treasury Department propped up AIG in the wake of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.’s own mid-September bankruptcy filing.
Saving the System
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was head of the New York Fed at the time of the AIG moves. He maintained during Wednesday’s hearing that the New York bank had to buy the insurance contracts, known as credit default swaps, to keep AIG from failing, which would have threatened the financial system.
The hearing before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform also focused on what many in Congress believe was the New York Fed’s subsequent attempt to cover up buyout details and who benefited.
By pursuing this line of inquiry, the hearing revealed some of the inner workings of the New York Fed and the outsized role it plays in banking. This insight is especially valuable given that the New York Fed is a quasi-governmental institution that isn’t subject to citizen intrusions such as freedom of information requests, unlike the Federal Reserve.
This impenetrability comes in handy since the bank is the preferred vehicle for many of the Fed’s bailout programs. It’s as though the New York Fed was a black-ops outfit for the nation’s central bank.
Read More
Wednesday’s hearing described a secretive group deploying billions of dollars to favored banks, operating with little oversight by the public or elected officials.
We’re talking about the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, whose role as the most influential part of the federal-reserve system -- apart from the matter of AIG’s bailout -- deserves further congressional scrutiny.
The New York Fed is in the hot seat for its decision in November 2008 to buy out, for about $30 billion, insurance contracts AIG sold on toxic debt securities to banks, including Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Merrill Lynch & Co., Societe Generale and Deutsche Bank AG, among others. That decision, critics say, amounted to a back-door bailout for the banks, which received 100 cents on the dollar for contracts that would have been worth far less had AIG been allowed to fail.
That move came a few weeks after the Federal Reserve and Treasury Department propped up AIG in the wake of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.’s own mid-September bankruptcy filing.
Saving the System
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was head of the New York Fed at the time of the AIG moves. He maintained during Wednesday’s hearing that the New York bank had to buy the insurance contracts, known as credit default swaps, to keep AIG from failing, which would have threatened the financial system.
The hearing before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform also focused on what many in Congress believe was the New York Fed’s subsequent attempt to cover up buyout details and who benefited.
By pursuing this line of inquiry, the hearing revealed some of the inner workings of the New York Fed and the outsized role it plays in banking. This insight is especially valuable given that the New York Fed is a quasi-governmental institution that isn’t subject to citizen intrusions such as freedom of information requests, unlike the Federal Reserve.
This impenetrability comes in handy since the bank is the preferred vehicle for many of the Fed’s bailout programs. It’s as though the New York Fed was a black-ops outfit for the nation’s central bank.
Read More
Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images
TSA's X-ray backscatter scanning with "privacy filter"
(Credit: TSA.gov)
by Declan McCullagh
For the last few years, federal agencies have defended body scanning by insisting that all images will be discarded as soon as they're viewed. The Transportation Security Administration claimed last summer, for instance, that "scanned images cannot be stored or recorded."
Now it turns out that some police agencies are storing the controversial images after all. The U.S. Marshals Service admitted this week that it had surreptitiously saved tens of thousands of images recorded with a millimeter wave system at the security checkpoint of a single Florida courthouse.
This follows an earlier disclosure (PDF) by the TSA that it requires all airport body scanners it purchases to be able to store and transmit images for "testing, training, and evaluation purposes." The agency says, however, that those capabilities are not normally activated when the devices are installed at airports.
Body scanners penetrate clothing to provide a highly detailed image so accurate that critics have likened it to a virtual strip search. Technologies vary, with millimeter wave systems capturing fuzzier images, and backscatter X-ray machines able to show precise anatomical detail. The U.S. government likes the idea because body scanners can detect concealed weapons better than traditional magnetometers.
This privacy debate, which has been simmering since the days of the Bush administration, came to a boil two weeks ago when Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced that scanners would soon appear at virtually every major airport. The updated list includes airports in New York City, Dallas, Washington, Miami, San Francisco, Seattle, and Philadelphia.
The Electronic Privacy Information Center, a Washington, D.C.-based advocacy group, has filed a lawsuit asking a federal judge to grant an immediate injunction pulling the plug on TSA's body scanning program. In a separate lawsuit, EPIC obtained a letter (PDF) from the Marshals Service, part of the Justice Department, and released it on Tuesday afternoon.
These "devices are designed and deployed in a way that allows the images to be routinely stored and recorded, which is exactly what the Marshals Service is doing," EPIC executive director Marc Rotenberg told CNET. "We think it's significant."
Read More
Legislation From Irish Government Will Allow Foreign Police On Irish Streets
by Christian Massey
The Irish Government are currently drawing up legislation that would allow Gardai (Irish Police) to be sent abroad to other E.U countries and for foreign police forces to be sent here to police Irish streets. We at the Sovereign Independent warned many times coming up to the Lisbon Treaty that this would be the situation if the treaty passed. This was denied by our Government and dismissed as conspiracy theory nonsense at the time, However as warned this is exactly what is happening now.
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/gardai-get-new-powers-to-tackle-terrorists-overseas-2281787.html
As you can see from the write up in the Irish Independent the Government and their puppet media will now try and sell this idea as a good thing i.e. in the case of a terrorist attack. However we can reveal the real reason behind this. As reported here many times before, governments around the world have long been expecting large scale public dissent as they attempt the final stages of their very old plan of setting up a New World Order.
The idea of sending our security forces abroad and using foreign forces here eliminates their fear that our own police may not follow orders to use deadly force against their own people. This is not just happening in Europe but across the World.
Kurt Nimmo of www.prisonplanet.com recently exposed how troops from Poland are training in America to confiscate guns from Americans.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/foreign-troops-training-to-confiscate-guns-of-americans.html
Here is a direct quote from Henry Kissinger for those of who are hard of thinking
“Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful,” the high level globalist minion Henry Kissinger purportedly said in an address to the Bilderbergers at Evian, France, on May 21, 1991.
Source
The Irish Government are currently drawing up legislation that would allow Gardai (Irish Police) to be sent abroad to other E.U countries and for foreign police forces to be sent here to police Irish streets. We at the Sovereign Independent warned many times coming up to the Lisbon Treaty that this would be the situation if the treaty passed. This was denied by our Government and dismissed as conspiracy theory nonsense at the time, However as warned this is exactly what is happening now.
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/gardai-get-new-powers-to-tackle-terrorists-overseas-2281787.html
As you can see from the write up in the Irish Independent the Government and their puppet media will now try and sell this idea as a good thing i.e. in the case of a terrorist attack. However we can reveal the real reason behind this. As reported here many times before, governments around the world have long been expecting large scale public dissent as they attempt the final stages of their very old plan of setting up a New World Order.
The idea of sending our security forces abroad and using foreign forces here eliminates their fear that our own police may not follow orders to use deadly force against their own people. This is not just happening in Europe but across the World.
Kurt Nimmo of www.prisonplanet.com recently exposed how troops from Poland are training in America to confiscate guns from Americans.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/foreign-troops-training-to-confiscate-guns-of-americans.html
Here is a direct quote from Henry Kissinger for those of who are hard of thinking
“Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful,” the high level globalist minion Henry Kissinger purportedly said in an address to the Bilderbergers at Evian, France, on May 21, 1991.
Source
Bay Area billboards ‘thank’ the US for Israel’s blank check
From a "California Department of Corrections" press release:
New Billboard Alterations Salute Israel Following Raid on Gaza Flotilla
The California Department of Corrections (CDC) has unveiled a new campaign of billboard alterations on behalf of the State of Israel.
On July 28, 2010 a total of nine billboards were apprehended, rehabilitated and discharged throughout San Francisco, including the intersection of Guerrero and 18th Street (see attached photo). Additional billboards were discharged into Polk Gulch, the Tenderloin, South of Market, the Mission, the Haight, Potrero Hill and Bay View/Hunters Point. The nine billboards represent the number of civilian fatalities incurred during Israel’s May 31st raid on a flotilla carrying supplies to Gaza.
The CDC released the billboards to highlight the two month anniversary of the raid. The billboards also cap the month of July which saw a White House reception for Israel’s Prime Minister followed by an Israeli military investigation of the May 31 incident. The White House visit reaffirmed America’s unbreakable bond with Israel, and the army investigation exonerated Israeli soldiers of any wrongdoing during the raid. As a compliment to these public relations activities, the CDC has contributed its specialized services to defend Israeli soldiers facing international scrutiny.
The CDC recognizes that our colleagues in the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) may require additional support and financing as they expand Israeli jurisdiction into international waters. Annual US aid to Israel will increase to only $3.15 billion by 2013. Although our Israeli allies are thankful for such generosity, the CDC believes that America can do better. In order to encourage additional tax-supported financial donations for Israel, the CDC launched the “Blank Check” billboard campaign.
The corrected billboards read, “THANKS FOR THE BLANK CHECK, AMERICA,” featuring a US Treasury bank note for $7,000,000. The amount is a daily average of America’s $2.70 billion aid package for Israel in fiscal year 2010.
Reflecting Israel’s national colors, the blue and white billboards also include the following caption along with a discreet Israeli flag:
“In May 2010, Israel was attacked by an unarmed flotilla carrying humanitarian aid for Gaza. Decisive action by Israeli soldiers stopped this assault. Though only 9 people were killed and hundreds were detained, Israeli prestige came under fire. With your support, Israel can prevent future attacks. Our troops are waiting to execute anyone entering Gaza, but the cost of ammunition will strain daily U.S. aid of $7 million. Your additional tax dollars can overcome this challenge. Please contribute generously and help us bring peace to the Middle East.”
As a private correctional facility, the CDC recognizes the need for control and security in areas under Israeli jurisdiction. Therefore, the department salutes our Israeli colleagues in their efforts to maintain Gaza as the world’s largest open air correctional institution, exposing Palestinians to the safety, efficiency and discipline found in California facilities.
The California Department of Corrections is a private institution dedicated to the alteration, rehabilitation and improvement of California’s most criminal advertising. Initiated in 1994, the department is operated by individuals who feel that California’s correctional facilities have been insufficiently managing the state’s most criminal elements.
Source
Annual Hiroshima Day poem based on John Hersey book from Sherwood Ross
Hiroshima
I am the Reverend Kiyoshi Tanimoto
A graduate of Emory College, Atlanta,
Pastor of the Methodist Church of Hiroshima
I was in a western suburb when the bomb struck
Like a sheet of sunlight.
Fearing for my wife and family
I ran back into the city
Where I saw hundreds and hundreds fleeing
Every one of them hurt in some way.
The eyebrows of some were burned off
Skin hung from their faces and hands
Some were vomiting as they walked
On some naked bodies the burns had made patterns
Of the shapes of flowers transferred
From their kimonos to human skin.
Almost all had their heads bowed
Looked straight ahead, were silent
And showed no expression whatever.
Under many houses I heard trapped people screaming
Crying for help but there were none to help
And the fire was coming.
I came to a young woman holding her dead baby
Who pleaded with me to find her husband
So he could see the baby one last time.
There was nothing I could do but humor her.
By accident I ran into my own wife
Both she and our child were alive and well.
For days I carried water and food to the wounded and the dying.
I apologized to them: “Forgive me,” I said, “for not sharing your burden.”
I am the Reverend Kiyoshi Tanimoto
Pastor of the Methodist Church of Hiroshima
I was in a western suburb when the bomb struck
Like a sheet of sunlight.
The above poem is based on the content of the book “Hiroshima” by John Hersey. Sherwood Ross is a Miami-based reporter and publicist. Reach him at sherwoodr1@yahoo.com
I am the Reverend Kiyoshi Tanimoto
A graduate of Emory College, Atlanta,
Pastor of the Methodist Church of Hiroshima
I was in a western suburb when the bomb struck
Like a sheet of sunlight.
Fearing for my wife and family
I ran back into the city
Where I saw hundreds and hundreds fleeing
Every one of them hurt in some way.
The eyebrows of some were burned off
Skin hung from their faces and hands
Some were vomiting as they walked
On some naked bodies the burns had made patterns
Of the shapes of flowers transferred
From their kimonos to human skin.
Almost all had their heads bowed
Looked straight ahead, were silent
And showed no expression whatever.
Under many houses I heard trapped people screaming
Crying for help but there were none to help
And the fire was coming.
I came to a young woman holding her dead baby
Who pleaded with me to find her husband
So he could see the baby one last time.
There was nothing I could do but humor her.
By accident I ran into my own wife
Both she and our child were alive and well.
For days I carried water and food to the wounded and the dying.
I apologized to them: “Forgive me,” I said, “for not sharing your burden.”
I am the Reverend Kiyoshi Tanimoto
Pastor of the Methodist Church of Hiroshima
I was in a western suburb when the bomb struck
Like a sheet of sunlight.
The above poem is based on the content of the book “Hiroshima” by John Hersey. Sherwood Ross is a Miami-based reporter and publicist. Reach him at sherwoodr1@yahoo.com
Rockefeller Foundation: Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development
This Rockefeller Foundation report lays out four possible scenarios for the near future. I’ll just clip a few passages from each of the four. You’ll love this.
Via: Rockefeller Foundation:
LOCK STEP – A world of tighter top-down government control and more authoritarian leadership, with limited innovation and growing citizen pushback
In 2012, the pandemic that the world had been anticipating for years finally hit. Unlike 2009’s H1N1, this new influenza strain — originating from wild geese — was extremely virulent and deadly. Even the most pandemic-prepared nations were quickly overwhelmed when the virus streaked around the world, infecting nearly 20 percent of the global population and killing 8 million in just seven months, the majority of them healthy young adults. The pandemic also had a deadly effect on economies: international mobility of both people and goods screeched to a halt, debilitating industries like tourism and breaking global supply chains. Even locally, normally bustling shops and office buildings sat empty for months, devoid of both employees and customers.
…
At first, the notion of a more controlled world gained wide acceptance and approval. Citizens willingly gave up some of their sovereignty — and their privacy — to more paternalistic states in exchange for greater safety and stability.
Citizens were more tolerant, and even eager, for top-down direction and oversight, and national leaders had more latitude to impose order in the ways they saw fit. In developed countries, this heightened oversight took many forms: biometric IDs for all citizens, for example, and tighter regulation of key industries whose stability was deemed vital to national interests. In many developed countries, enforced cooperation with a suite of new regulations and agreements slowly but steadily restored both order and, importantly, economic growth.
CLEVER TOGETHER – A world in which highly coordinated and successful strategies emerge for addressing both urgent and entrenched worldwide issues
The recession of 2008-10 did not turn into the decades-long global economic slide that many had feared. In fact, quite the opposite: strong global growth returned in force, with the world headed once again toward the demographic and economic projections forecasted before the downturn.
India and China were on track to see their middle classes explode to 1 billion by 2020. Mega-cities like Sao Paulo and Jakarta expanded at a blistering pace as millions poured in from rural areas. Countries raced to industrialize by whatever means necessary; the global marketplace bustled.
But two big problems loomed. First, not all people and places benefited equally from this return to globalized growth: all boats were rising, but some were clearly rising more. Second, those hell-bent on development and expansion largely ignored the very real environmental consequences of their unrestricted growth. Undeniably, the planet’s climate was becoming increasingly unstable.
Sea levels were rising fast, even as countries continued to build-out coastal mega-cities. In 2014, the Hudson River overflowed into New York City during a storm surge, turning the World Trade Center site into a three-foot-deep lake. The image of motorboats navigating through lower Manhattan jarred the world’s most powerful nations into realizing that climate change was not just a developing-world problem.
That same year, new measurements showing that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were climbing
precipitously created new urgency and pressure for governments (really, for everyone) to do
something fast.
…
A functioning global cap and trade system was also established. Worldwide, the pressure to reduce waste and increase efficiency in planet-friendly ways was enormous. New globally coordinated systems for monitoring energy use capacity — including smart grids and bottom-up pattern recognition technologies — were rolled out.
HACK ATTACK – An economically unstable and shock-prone world in which governments weaken, criminals thrive, and dangerous innovations emerge
Devastating shocks like September 11, the Southeast Asian tsunami of 2004, and the 2010 Haiti earthquake had certainly primed the world for sudden disasters. But no one was prepared for a world in which large-scale catastrophes would occur with such breathtaking frequency. The years 2010 to 2020 were dubbed the “doom decade” for good reason: the 2012 Olympic bombing, which killed 13,000, was followed closely by an earthquake in Indonesia killing 40,000, a tsunami that almost wiped out Nicaragua, and the onset of the West China Famine, caused by a once-in a-millennium drought linked to climate change.
Not surprisingly, this opening series of deadly asynchronous catastrophes (there were more) put enormous pressure on an already overstressed global economy that had entered the decade still in recession. Massive humanitarian relief efforts cost vast sums of money, but the primary sources — from aid agencies to developed-world governments — had run out of funds to offer. Most nation-states could no longer afford their locked-in costs, let alone respond to increased citizen demands for more security, more healthcare coverage, more social programs and services, and more infrastructure repair. In 2014, when mudslides in Lima buried thousands, only minimal help trickled in, prompting the Economist headline: “Is the Planet Finally Bankrupt?”
These dire circumstances forced tough tradeoffs. In 2015, the U.S. reallocated a large share of its defense spending to domestic concerns, pulling out of Afghanistan — where the resurgent Taliban seized power once again. In Europe, Asia, South America, and Africa, more and more nationstates lost control of their public finances, along with the capacity to help their citizens and
retain stability and order. Resource scarcities and trade disputes, together with severe economic and climate stresses, pushed many alliances and partnerships to the breaking point; they also sparked proxy wars and low-level conflict in resource-rich parts of the developing world. Nations raised trade barriers in order to protect their domestic sectors against imports and — in the face of global food and resource shortages — to reduce exports of agricultural produce and other commodities. By 2016, the global coordination and interconnectedness that had marked the post-Berlin Wall world was tenuous at best.
With government power weakened, order rapidly disintegrating, and safety nets evaporating, violence and crime grew more rampant. Countries with ethnic, religious, or class divisions saw especially sharp spikes in hostility: Naxalite separatists dramatically expanded their guerrilla campaign in East India; Israeli- Palestinian bloodshed escalated; and across Africa, fights over resources erupted along ethnic or tribal lines. Meanwhile, overtaxed militaries and police forces could do little to stop growing communities of criminals and terrorists from gaining power. Technology-enabled gangs and networked criminal enterprises exploited both the weakness of states and the desperation of individuals. With increasing ease, these “global guerillas” moved illicit products through underground channels from poor producer countries to markets in the developed world. Using retired 727s and other rogue aircraft, they crisscrossed the Atlantic, from South America to Africa, transporting cocaine, weapons, and operatives. Drug and gun money became a common recruiting tool for the desperately poor.
SMART SCRAMBLE – An economically depressed world in which individuals and communities develop localized, makeshift solutions to a growing set of problems
The global recession that started in 2008 did not trail off in 2010 but dragged onward. Vigorous attempts to jumpstart markets and economies didn’t work, or at least not fast enough to reverse the steady downward pull. The combined private and public debt burden hanging over the developed world continued to depress economic activity, both there and in developing countries with economies dependent on exporting to (formerly) rich markets. Without the ability to boost economic activity, many countries saw their debts deepen and civil unrest and crime rates climb.
The United States, too, lost much of its presence and credibility on the international stage due to deepening debt, debilitated markets, and a distracted government. This, in turn, led to the fracturing or decoupling of many international collaborations started by or reliant on the U.S.’s continued strength.
…
Makeshift, “good enough” technology solutions — addressing everything from water purification and harnessing energy to improved crop yield and disease control — emerged to fill the gaps. Communities grew tighter. Micro-manufacturing, communal gardens, and patchwork energy grids were created at the local level for local purposes. Many communities took on the aura of co-ops, some even launching currencies designed to boost local trade and bring communities closer together. Nowhere was this more true than in India, where localized experiments proliferated, and succeeded or failed, with little connection to or impact on other parts of the country — or the world.
Source
Via: Rockefeller Foundation:
LOCK STEP – A world of tighter top-down government control and more authoritarian leadership, with limited innovation and growing citizen pushback
In 2012, the pandemic that the world had been anticipating for years finally hit. Unlike 2009’s H1N1, this new influenza strain — originating from wild geese — was extremely virulent and deadly. Even the most pandemic-prepared nations were quickly overwhelmed when the virus streaked around the world, infecting nearly 20 percent of the global population and killing 8 million in just seven months, the majority of them healthy young adults. The pandemic also had a deadly effect on economies: international mobility of both people and goods screeched to a halt, debilitating industries like tourism and breaking global supply chains. Even locally, normally bustling shops and office buildings sat empty for months, devoid of both employees and customers.
…
At first, the notion of a more controlled world gained wide acceptance and approval. Citizens willingly gave up some of their sovereignty — and their privacy — to more paternalistic states in exchange for greater safety and stability.
Citizens were more tolerant, and even eager, for top-down direction and oversight, and national leaders had more latitude to impose order in the ways they saw fit. In developed countries, this heightened oversight took many forms: biometric IDs for all citizens, for example, and tighter regulation of key industries whose stability was deemed vital to national interests. In many developed countries, enforced cooperation with a suite of new regulations and agreements slowly but steadily restored both order and, importantly, economic growth.
CLEVER TOGETHER – A world in which highly coordinated and successful strategies emerge for addressing both urgent and entrenched worldwide issues
The recession of 2008-10 did not turn into the decades-long global economic slide that many had feared. In fact, quite the opposite: strong global growth returned in force, with the world headed once again toward the demographic and economic projections forecasted before the downturn.
India and China were on track to see their middle classes explode to 1 billion by 2020. Mega-cities like Sao Paulo and Jakarta expanded at a blistering pace as millions poured in from rural areas. Countries raced to industrialize by whatever means necessary; the global marketplace bustled.
But two big problems loomed. First, not all people and places benefited equally from this return to globalized growth: all boats were rising, but some were clearly rising more. Second, those hell-bent on development and expansion largely ignored the very real environmental consequences of their unrestricted growth. Undeniably, the planet’s climate was becoming increasingly unstable.
Sea levels were rising fast, even as countries continued to build-out coastal mega-cities. In 2014, the Hudson River overflowed into New York City during a storm surge, turning the World Trade Center site into a three-foot-deep lake. The image of motorboats navigating through lower Manhattan jarred the world’s most powerful nations into realizing that climate change was not just a developing-world problem.
That same year, new measurements showing that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were climbing
precipitously created new urgency and pressure for governments (really, for everyone) to do
something fast.
…
A functioning global cap and trade system was also established. Worldwide, the pressure to reduce waste and increase efficiency in planet-friendly ways was enormous. New globally coordinated systems for monitoring energy use capacity — including smart grids and bottom-up pattern recognition technologies — were rolled out.
HACK ATTACK – An economically unstable and shock-prone world in which governments weaken, criminals thrive, and dangerous innovations emerge
Devastating shocks like September 11, the Southeast Asian tsunami of 2004, and the 2010 Haiti earthquake had certainly primed the world for sudden disasters. But no one was prepared for a world in which large-scale catastrophes would occur with such breathtaking frequency. The years 2010 to 2020 were dubbed the “doom decade” for good reason: the 2012 Olympic bombing, which killed 13,000, was followed closely by an earthquake in Indonesia killing 40,000, a tsunami that almost wiped out Nicaragua, and the onset of the West China Famine, caused by a once-in a-millennium drought linked to climate change.
Not surprisingly, this opening series of deadly asynchronous catastrophes (there were more) put enormous pressure on an already overstressed global economy that had entered the decade still in recession. Massive humanitarian relief efforts cost vast sums of money, but the primary sources — from aid agencies to developed-world governments — had run out of funds to offer. Most nation-states could no longer afford their locked-in costs, let alone respond to increased citizen demands for more security, more healthcare coverage, more social programs and services, and more infrastructure repair. In 2014, when mudslides in Lima buried thousands, only minimal help trickled in, prompting the Economist headline: “Is the Planet Finally Bankrupt?”
These dire circumstances forced tough tradeoffs. In 2015, the U.S. reallocated a large share of its defense spending to domestic concerns, pulling out of Afghanistan — where the resurgent Taliban seized power once again. In Europe, Asia, South America, and Africa, more and more nationstates lost control of their public finances, along with the capacity to help their citizens and
retain stability and order. Resource scarcities and trade disputes, together with severe economic and climate stresses, pushed many alliances and partnerships to the breaking point; they also sparked proxy wars and low-level conflict in resource-rich parts of the developing world. Nations raised trade barriers in order to protect their domestic sectors against imports and — in the face of global food and resource shortages — to reduce exports of agricultural produce and other commodities. By 2016, the global coordination and interconnectedness that had marked the post-Berlin Wall world was tenuous at best.
With government power weakened, order rapidly disintegrating, and safety nets evaporating, violence and crime grew more rampant. Countries with ethnic, religious, or class divisions saw especially sharp spikes in hostility: Naxalite separatists dramatically expanded their guerrilla campaign in East India; Israeli- Palestinian bloodshed escalated; and across Africa, fights over resources erupted along ethnic or tribal lines. Meanwhile, overtaxed militaries and police forces could do little to stop growing communities of criminals and terrorists from gaining power. Technology-enabled gangs and networked criminal enterprises exploited both the weakness of states and the desperation of individuals. With increasing ease, these “global guerillas” moved illicit products through underground channels from poor producer countries to markets in the developed world. Using retired 727s and other rogue aircraft, they crisscrossed the Atlantic, from South America to Africa, transporting cocaine, weapons, and operatives. Drug and gun money became a common recruiting tool for the desperately poor.
SMART SCRAMBLE – An economically depressed world in which individuals and communities develop localized, makeshift solutions to a growing set of problems
The global recession that started in 2008 did not trail off in 2010 but dragged onward. Vigorous attempts to jumpstart markets and economies didn’t work, or at least not fast enough to reverse the steady downward pull. The combined private and public debt burden hanging over the developed world continued to depress economic activity, both there and in developing countries with economies dependent on exporting to (formerly) rich markets. Without the ability to boost economic activity, many countries saw their debts deepen and civil unrest and crime rates climb.
The United States, too, lost much of its presence and credibility on the international stage due to deepening debt, debilitated markets, and a distracted government. This, in turn, led to the fracturing or decoupling of many international collaborations started by or reliant on the U.S.’s continued strength.
…
Makeshift, “good enough” technology solutions — addressing everything from water purification and harnessing energy to improved crop yield and disease control — emerged to fill the gaps. Communities grew tighter. Micro-manufacturing, communal gardens, and patchwork energy grids were created at the local level for local purposes. Many communities took on the aura of co-ops, some even launching currencies designed to boost local trade and bring communities closer together. Nowhere was this more true than in India, where localized experiments proliferated, and succeeded or failed, with little connection to or impact on other parts of the country — or the world.
Source
High Court Trims Miranda Warning Rights Bit By Bit
(AP) WASHINGTON (AP) - You have the right to remain silent, but only if you tell the police that you're remaining silent.
You have a right to a lawyer - before, during and after questioning, even though the police don't have to tell you exactly when the lawyer can be with you. If you can't afford a lawyer, one will be provided to you. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you, which, by the way, are only good for the next two weeks?
The Supreme Court made major revisions to the now familiar Miranda warnings this year. The rulings will change the ways police, lawyers and criminal suspects interact amid what experts call an attempt to pull back some of the rights that Americans have become used to over recent decades.
The high court has made clear it's not going to eliminate the requirement that police officers give suspects a Miranda warning, so it is tinkering around the edges, said Jeffrey L. Fisher, co-chair of the amicus committee of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.
"It's death by a thousand cuts," Fisher said. "For the past 20-25 years, as the court has turned more conservative on law and order issues, it has been whittling away at Miranda and doing everything it can to ease the admissibility of confessions that police wriggle out of suspects."
The court placed limits on the so-called Miranda rights three times during the just-ended session. Experts viewed the large number of rulings as a statistical aberration, rather than a full-fledged attempt to get rid of the famous 1966 decision. The original ruling emerged from police questioning of Ernesto Miranda in a rape and kidnapping case in Phoenix. It required officers to tell suspects taken into custody that they have the right to remain silent and to have a lawyer represent them, even if they can't afford one.
The court's three decisions "indicate a desire to prune back the rules somewhat," Kent Scheidegger, the legal director of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, a victims' rights group. "But I don't think any overruling of Miranda is in the near future. I think that controversy is pretty much dead."
The Supreme Court in 2000 upheld the requirement that the Miranda warning be read to criminal suspects.
This year's Supreme Court decisions did not mandate changes in the wording of Miranda warnings read by arresting police officers. The most common version is now familiar to most Americans, thanks to television police shows: "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you?"
However, the court did approve one state version of the Miranda warnings that did not specifically inform suspects that they had a right to have a lawyer present during their police questioning.
The Miranda warning used in parts of Florida told suspects: "You have the right to talk to a lawyer before answering any of our questions. If you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one will be appointed for you without cost and before any questioning. You have the right to use any of these rights at any time you want during this interview."
Article Continues
You have a right to a lawyer - before, during and after questioning, even though the police don't have to tell you exactly when the lawyer can be with you. If you can't afford a lawyer, one will be provided to you. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you, which, by the way, are only good for the next two weeks?
The Supreme Court made major revisions to the now familiar Miranda warnings this year. The rulings will change the ways police, lawyers and criminal suspects interact amid what experts call an attempt to pull back some of the rights that Americans have become used to over recent decades.
The high court has made clear it's not going to eliminate the requirement that police officers give suspects a Miranda warning, so it is tinkering around the edges, said Jeffrey L. Fisher, co-chair of the amicus committee of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.
"It's death by a thousand cuts," Fisher said. "For the past 20-25 years, as the court has turned more conservative on law and order issues, it has been whittling away at Miranda and doing everything it can to ease the admissibility of confessions that police wriggle out of suspects."
The court placed limits on the so-called Miranda rights three times during the just-ended session. Experts viewed the large number of rulings as a statistical aberration, rather than a full-fledged attempt to get rid of the famous 1966 decision. The original ruling emerged from police questioning of Ernesto Miranda in a rape and kidnapping case in Phoenix. It required officers to tell suspects taken into custody that they have the right to remain silent and to have a lawyer represent them, even if they can't afford one.
The court's three decisions "indicate a desire to prune back the rules somewhat," Kent Scheidegger, the legal director of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, a victims' rights group. "But I don't think any overruling of Miranda is in the near future. I think that controversy is pretty much dead."
The Supreme Court in 2000 upheld the requirement that the Miranda warning be read to criminal suspects.
This year's Supreme Court decisions did not mandate changes in the wording of Miranda warnings read by arresting police officers. The most common version is now familiar to most Americans, thanks to television police shows: "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you?"
However, the court did approve one state version of the Miranda warnings that did not specifically inform suspects that they had a right to have a lawyer present during their police questioning.
The Miranda warning used in parts of Florida told suspects: "You have the right to talk to a lawyer before answering any of our questions. If you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one will be appointed for you without cost and before any questioning. You have the right to use any of these rights at any time you want during this interview."
Article Continues
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
The Art Of Resisting Zionist Terrorism
By Michael James in Germany
8-3-10
You are being murdered. You are hated and despised. You are excess to requirement.
You know this. What you don't know is that you are the willing participant in your own destruction.
Laugh not, my friend, for though you do not perceive your ultimate end by a million cuts, you are slowly bleeding to death; even though you sit there wasting your time in trivial pursuits, watching television or dulling what few vestiges are left remaining of your intellectual wherewithal in expending your last functioning brain cells in gawking at distracting mainstream media news and meaningless tittle-tattle that excites nothing more than your basest instincts.
You were created in the image of an unimaginably gracious Lightness of Being more transcendentally magnificent than you could ever dare to imagine in this fallen, materialistic, satanically Zionist world. You are a prisoner of your own volition. An addict unto your own selfish and egoistic desires.
You are consumed with worry and anxiety. Why? Because you are a consumer, not a human being. Beings who take on the form of humanity are not consumers, but creators. Creators of their own destiny. Endowed with an imagination and an ability to innovate, even beyond all of the laws of physics (for humans IN BEING are metaphysical creatures), you Yes, Sir my fellow brother who lives in a trailer on a dollar a day or who slaves around the clock for an exploitative employer for just a few quid an hour are infinitely more powerful than you would ever hope to dare.
On this planet, regardless of race, creed or colour, every man is a King and every woman a Queen.
Please allow me to reiterate: The greedy fascist bastard you work for is merely a mortal being in human form who obsesses over money, the precious fragility of his own brittle ego and, perhaps, his inability to satisfy his wife or mistress in a way commensurate with his own sexual self-perception. He is not invulnerable. He empties his bowels each evening in fear of the retribution with which he may meet lest he fails to deliver on-the-line to his major investors. He may act tough; but he is less than those he employs. Terror rules his life.
Terror, by means of a strategy of tension, rules all of our lives if we allow it so. Although I consider myself a veteran of many political struggles, most of which I won at great pain to myself and those who loved me, I would never deign to impart to you advice as to how best you may be able to avoid the pitfalls of treachery that the Kabbalist World Order has opened before every tentative step you take in your journey through life as an inquisitive, naturally loving human being. But I shall make a few humble suggestions.
My first advisory principle is this: Have no fear. The ruling classes and their elite, super-rich clients rely upon maintaining social control by instilling fear within what they regard as 'Joe and Josephine McPublic', who, as I have already stated, are ROYALTY: natural-born, self-autonomous, FREE citizens.
My second advisory principle is this: Destroy your television set, or donate it to a psychopathic brain-dead cretin. Do you really need to listen to all that 'pop' garbage that despoils and meta-forms your mind by means of radio? You may argue that it helps you in your daily tasks, providing you with a smart musical overture that glides you painlessly through the day. Have you ever asked yourself why it is that you cannot possibly clean your apartment or cook dinner for the kids without listening to pornographic 'Gangsta Rap'? Do the messages of criminal hoodlums, as mediated by their Zionist-controlled music companies, really help you to catch that last little piece of dust at the end of the window ledge?
Just take a look at all the other mind-controlling government-sponsored crap you have lying around in your living room, and ask yourself: "Do I really need this shit?"
No, of course you don't. But THEY have convinced you that a daily subscription to an mainstream media publication, one thousand channels of Zionist hell, and a constant blare of illuminati-inspired trash music are somehow essential to your ability to function as a natural BEING in human form.
Deep down inside, you already know that your addiction to comforting, self-reinforcing 'positivistic' mind control is harmful to your natural development as a FREETHINKING being in human form. But, my, oh my, how difficult it is to take a sledgehammer to that Image of the Beast. And bestiality it is: every aspect of human nature is degraded and laid bare for those receptive enough to become moulded unto this world, to become IN-formed, inwardly DE-formed.
You were born into this world, regardless, or on account of your 'social disadvantages' and 'physical handicaps' to overcome, to conquer, to set new frontiers in pushing further the horizons of all things imaginable; for those things that, in our generation are imaginable, are more possibly realised in the next.
My third advisory principle is this: Do not participate in their game by voting. Democracy is a scam. Imagine that they gave an election, and nobody came. But, lest you do so, vote for the candidate, probably an independent, who betrays the least signs of psychopathology. Never, ever, under any circumstances, vote for a candidate backed by an established Zionist or Freemason-controlled political crime syndicate, such as, in America, the Democrats or Republicans, or, in Germany, the Israeli-financed Murder-Incorporated war criminals, the CDU, CSU, FDP and the eco-fascist Green Party.
If you're British, beware of Zionist-owned political groupings, such as the British National Party, the Labour Party or the English Defence League. They serve only the interests of an illegal apartheid and deeply racist, fascist state known as 'Israel'. They are neither patriots nor romantic nationalists, but, rather a grouping of (in many cases) sincere men and women who have unwittingly allowed themselves to be profiled as future 'useful idiots' in the furtherance of a brutal One World Executive. (In the case of the virulently anti-Muslim English Defence League, we're talking about direct finance from USAID and Tel Aviv. Intelligent British lads my people brainwashed by Zionist robots who care not one jot as to their welfare.)
My fourth advisory principle is this: Release yourself of any anger you hold in your heart, whether directed against yourself or any other human being. Most of us are angry, not because we perceive flaws in those around us, but because we are singularly unable to come to terms with, or, at least, change, those aspects of ourselves that bring us the most grief.
I really despise the practitioners of 'Positive Thinking', if only because I defend the right of those who feel empowered by adopting the power of 'Negative Thinking'. The world is not paradise, and none of us can ever help to make it so; and even if it was, you can be sure that some Chosenite would come along and drop a huge turd upon the bed of our dreams.
Which brings us to the question I guess most of you have been waiting to hear: What about the Jews?
Well, what about them? Those I knew at school, college and in my profession as a freelancer in London were, to me, just as English and decent as English and decent could be. Some became my best friends. They weren't parasites or scroungers, but remembered my favours in terms of a Scotch or a much-needed cigarette. I loved the guys, and so it did not bother me in the least that most of them slid almost seamlessly into positions of executive authority into almost all divisions of the corporate UK media. I put it down to 'talent', or that universal cop-out, 'synergy'.
Article continues at Rense
8-3-10
You are being murdered. You are hated and despised. You are excess to requirement.
You know this. What you don't know is that you are the willing participant in your own destruction.
Laugh not, my friend, for though you do not perceive your ultimate end by a million cuts, you are slowly bleeding to death; even though you sit there wasting your time in trivial pursuits, watching television or dulling what few vestiges are left remaining of your intellectual wherewithal in expending your last functioning brain cells in gawking at distracting mainstream media news and meaningless tittle-tattle that excites nothing more than your basest instincts.
You were created in the image of an unimaginably gracious Lightness of Being more transcendentally magnificent than you could ever dare to imagine in this fallen, materialistic, satanically Zionist world. You are a prisoner of your own volition. An addict unto your own selfish and egoistic desires.
You are consumed with worry and anxiety. Why? Because you are a consumer, not a human being. Beings who take on the form of humanity are not consumers, but creators. Creators of their own destiny. Endowed with an imagination and an ability to innovate, even beyond all of the laws of physics (for humans IN BEING are metaphysical creatures), you Yes, Sir my fellow brother who lives in a trailer on a dollar a day or who slaves around the clock for an exploitative employer for just a few quid an hour are infinitely more powerful than you would ever hope to dare.
On this planet, regardless of race, creed or colour, every man is a King and every woman a Queen.
Please allow me to reiterate: The greedy fascist bastard you work for is merely a mortal being in human form who obsesses over money, the precious fragility of his own brittle ego and, perhaps, his inability to satisfy his wife or mistress in a way commensurate with his own sexual self-perception. He is not invulnerable. He empties his bowels each evening in fear of the retribution with which he may meet lest he fails to deliver on-the-line to his major investors. He may act tough; but he is less than those he employs. Terror rules his life.
Terror, by means of a strategy of tension, rules all of our lives if we allow it so. Although I consider myself a veteran of many political struggles, most of which I won at great pain to myself and those who loved me, I would never deign to impart to you advice as to how best you may be able to avoid the pitfalls of treachery that the Kabbalist World Order has opened before every tentative step you take in your journey through life as an inquisitive, naturally loving human being. But I shall make a few humble suggestions.
My first advisory principle is this: Have no fear. The ruling classes and their elite, super-rich clients rely upon maintaining social control by instilling fear within what they regard as 'Joe and Josephine McPublic', who, as I have already stated, are ROYALTY: natural-born, self-autonomous, FREE citizens.
My second advisory principle is this: Destroy your television set, or donate it to a psychopathic brain-dead cretin. Do you really need to listen to all that 'pop' garbage that despoils and meta-forms your mind by means of radio? You may argue that it helps you in your daily tasks, providing you with a smart musical overture that glides you painlessly through the day. Have you ever asked yourself why it is that you cannot possibly clean your apartment or cook dinner for the kids without listening to pornographic 'Gangsta Rap'? Do the messages of criminal hoodlums, as mediated by their Zionist-controlled music companies, really help you to catch that last little piece of dust at the end of the window ledge?
Just take a look at all the other mind-controlling government-sponsored crap you have lying around in your living room, and ask yourself: "Do I really need this shit?"
No, of course you don't. But THEY have convinced you that a daily subscription to an mainstream media publication, one thousand channels of Zionist hell, and a constant blare of illuminati-inspired trash music are somehow essential to your ability to function as a natural BEING in human form.
Deep down inside, you already know that your addiction to comforting, self-reinforcing 'positivistic' mind control is harmful to your natural development as a FREETHINKING being in human form. But, my, oh my, how difficult it is to take a sledgehammer to that Image of the Beast. And bestiality it is: every aspect of human nature is degraded and laid bare for those receptive enough to become moulded unto this world, to become IN-formed, inwardly DE-formed.
You were born into this world, regardless, or on account of your 'social disadvantages' and 'physical handicaps' to overcome, to conquer, to set new frontiers in pushing further the horizons of all things imaginable; for those things that, in our generation are imaginable, are more possibly realised in the next.
My third advisory principle is this: Do not participate in their game by voting. Democracy is a scam. Imagine that they gave an election, and nobody came. But, lest you do so, vote for the candidate, probably an independent, who betrays the least signs of psychopathology. Never, ever, under any circumstances, vote for a candidate backed by an established Zionist or Freemason-controlled political crime syndicate, such as, in America, the Democrats or Republicans, or, in Germany, the Israeli-financed Murder-Incorporated war criminals, the CDU, CSU, FDP and the eco-fascist Green Party.
If you're British, beware of Zionist-owned political groupings, such as the British National Party, the Labour Party or the English Defence League. They serve only the interests of an illegal apartheid and deeply racist, fascist state known as 'Israel'. They are neither patriots nor romantic nationalists, but, rather a grouping of (in many cases) sincere men and women who have unwittingly allowed themselves to be profiled as future 'useful idiots' in the furtherance of a brutal One World Executive. (In the case of the virulently anti-Muslim English Defence League, we're talking about direct finance from USAID and Tel Aviv. Intelligent British lads my people brainwashed by Zionist robots who care not one jot as to their welfare.)
My fourth advisory principle is this: Release yourself of any anger you hold in your heart, whether directed against yourself or any other human being. Most of us are angry, not because we perceive flaws in those around us, but because we are singularly unable to come to terms with, or, at least, change, those aspects of ourselves that bring us the most grief.
I really despise the practitioners of 'Positive Thinking', if only because I defend the right of those who feel empowered by adopting the power of 'Negative Thinking'. The world is not paradise, and none of us can ever help to make it so; and even if it was, you can be sure that some Chosenite would come along and drop a huge turd upon the bed of our dreams.
Which brings us to the question I guess most of you have been waiting to hear: What about the Jews?
Well, what about them? Those I knew at school, college and in my profession as a freelancer in London were, to me, just as English and decent as English and decent could be. Some became my best friends. They weren't parasites or scroungers, but remembered my favours in terms of a Scotch or a much-needed cigarette. I loved the guys, and so it did not bother me in the least that most of them slid almost seamlessly into positions of executive authority into almost all divisions of the corporate UK media. I put it down to 'talent', or that universal cop-out, 'synergy'.
Article continues at Rense
The Man with the Bullhorn is a Lying Sack of Shit.
Smoking Mirrors
Dog Poet Transmitting…….
Well… I have to say it sometime. I didn’t want to say it because the next thing you know, someone will ask me why I let Jeff Rense link me or some other crap about something that isn't real and which I knowingly appreciate. I was astounded when Michael Rivero stopped printing my work and didn’t answer my emails but I never said anything bad about Michael. I just said I didn’t understand. Readers here know that I was perplexed and some readers said I should denounce Michael, since he was probably listening to his handlers. I never believed that and Michael stayed in my links and I always went to see what he thought was important because I trusted him to be honest and real. It didn’t matter what he thought of me.
The time came, over a year later, when I saw that Michael needed money to keep going because a certain Zionist controlled entity was no longer willing to pay him for his specialty contribution. I smelled a rat but there was no way I was going to write anything about it unless I asked Michael first. I wanted to help him and it didn’t matter what he thought about me which, I thought had to do with my talking about the divine so much. He doesn’t really know if there is one or not and I think he would tell you so but he doesn’t like religion and neither do I… neither do I.
I wrote him to ask for the information and he said, basically, “Screw all of that. What do you mean by, how I feel about you? I love your wonderful writings.” I thought, WTF? It turned out that, all of a sudden, he never had gotten any of my mail and this went on for two weeks during a period when it had never happened before. My not denouncing him made me feel pretty good in the aftermath.
Then that thing happened with Rense where, all of a sudden, I wasn’t on the site again. Once again I was perplexed, except in this case, I didn’t have anything to do with being on the site in the first place. I’m a curious guy. I discussed at a much earlier time how, when I first heard Jeff Rense speak, that the tenor of his voice made me keep listening. It was as if he could not sound like he did, at least to my ears, if he weren’t real. When I was suddenly gone from his site, the only thing I said was that maybe that Chomsky quote on his page had something to do with it. Nothing happened. People told me they had written Jeff and it got forgotten. A few weeks later I got an email from a Rense reader and contributor of my work who said that the only reason I hadn’t appeared, or had disappeared was because he was on vacation. Then I got some emails from Jeff that blew my mind with his courtesy and professed appreciation. Reader’s… never burn your bridges with people just because you ego, which you think you don’t have, gets offended by something you don’t understand.
People still tell me bad things about Jeff and Michael and Rixon from the Truthseeker too. Rixon is the only one that never put me aside, no matter the reason …but Rixon also was tested here because a crazy Texas hairdresser told him I was a major drug supplier. You would think, in that case, I would have some when I wanted them (grin); such is not the reality. Rixon found out on his own and has been a strong friend and a tireless advocate of getting me out there. I sometimes question his choices of writers and sometimes I wonder at Michael and his personal windmills. I don’t know enough about Jeff to have an opinion like that but… today, I got to say something about that blowhard with a bullhorn and I try to be understanding, like I was in these other cases but I got to call it like I see it when those I know, who are doing the good work, get screwed by those presenting themselves as truth tellers.
Read More...
Dog Poet Transmitting…….
Well… I have to say it sometime. I didn’t want to say it because the next thing you know, someone will ask me why I let Jeff Rense link me or some other crap about something that isn't real and which I knowingly appreciate. I was astounded when Michael Rivero stopped printing my work and didn’t answer my emails but I never said anything bad about Michael. I just said I didn’t understand. Readers here know that I was perplexed and some readers said I should denounce Michael, since he was probably listening to his handlers. I never believed that and Michael stayed in my links and I always went to see what he thought was important because I trusted him to be honest and real. It didn’t matter what he thought of me.
The time came, over a year later, when I saw that Michael needed money to keep going because a certain Zionist controlled entity was no longer willing to pay him for his specialty contribution. I smelled a rat but there was no way I was going to write anything about it unless I asked Michael first. I wanted to help him and it didn’t matter what he thought about me which, I thought had to do with my talking about the divine so much. He doesn’t really know if there is one or not and I think he would tell you so but he doesn’t like religion and neither do I… neither do I.
I wrote him to ask for the information and he said, basically, “Screw all of that. What do you mean by, how I feel about you? I love your wonderful writings.” I thought, WTF? It turned out that, all of a sudden, he never had gotten any of my mail and this went on for two weeks during a period when it had never happened before. My not denouncing him made me feel pretty good in the aftermath.
Then that thing happened with Rense where, all of a sudden, I wasn’t on the site again. Once again I was perplexed, except in this case, I didn’t have anything to do with being on the site in the first place. I’m a curious guy. I discussed at a much earlier time how, when I first heard Jeff Rense speak, that the tenor of his voice made me keep listening. It was as if he could not sound like he did, at least to my ears, if he weren’t real. When I was suddenly gone from his site, the only thing I said was that maybe that Chomsky quote on his page had something to do with it. Nothing happened. People told me they had written Jeff and it got forgotten. A few weeks later I got an email from a Rense reader and contributor of my work who said that the only reason I hadn’t appeared, or had disappeared was because he was on vacation. Then I got some emails from Jeff that blew my mind with his courtesy and professed appreciation. Reader’s… never burn your bridges with people just because you ego, which you think you don’t have, gets offended by something you don’t understand.
People still tell me bad things about Jeff and Michael and Rixon from the Truthseeker too. Rixon is the only one that never put me aside, no matter the reason …but Rixon also was tested here because a crazy Texas hairdresser told him I was a major drug supplier. You would think, in that case, I would have some when I wanted them (grin); such is not the reality. Rixon found out on his own and has been a strong friend and a tireless advocate of getting me out there. I sometimes question his choices of writers and sometimes I wonder at Michael and his personal windmills. I don’t know enough about Jeff to have an opinion like that but… today, I got to say something about that blowhard with a bullhorn and I try to be understanding, like I was in these other cases but I got to call it like I see it when those I know, who are doing the good work, get screwed by those presenting themselves as truth tellers.
Read More...
The Social Security Scam – Why all taxpayers must file income tax returns
You have been told that Social Security is an insurance program run by the federal government. You were led to believe that your income would be taxed at a certain rate for the cost of the program. Then in times of medical emergency or upon retirement you would be eligible for Social Security benefits. On the surface, this would seem to be an equitable arrangement.
But the federal government failed to fully inform you as to all of the other ramifications of applying for a Social Security number. For instance, did you know that you became a federal employee? Well, you did - specifically you became a member of the Merchant Marine. You also became an employee of a corporation that is involved with importing to and from the U.S. possessions. Another consideration is that if FICA is based upon a percentage of your earnings, then the government has somehow been granted the right to know the amount of your income and the sources of your income – this is not a hallmark of freedom. These statements and more will be evidenced by the actual federal statutes and regulations further on this page.
Like all great magicians, the federal government has you looking at the obvious while hiding the basis of the trick that the magician is performing right in front of your eyes.
Lots of Americans have questioned the legitimacy of the personal income tax, but it seems that everyone just loves the Social Security program. Social Security is the sacred cow that no one is ever supposed to criticize. Oh, sure, some claimants of Social Security find fault with what claims are denied or only partially funded. And lots of people are now pointing out that Social Security is not going to be solvent in the near future. But up till now no one has questioned the legitimacy of the Social Security program. Well, that time has come.
Americans now live in a country with the largest government in the world. Since the Declaration of Independence is the organic law of the land and it states that “all men are created equal”, why would free, equal people need such a large government?
How did a country in which “all men are created equal” (and, of course, women) end up subservient to a multitude of federal government agencies? If all Americans are created equal, how can some bureaucrat from the EPA regulate how an American’s land is to be used? How can some bureaucrat from the FDA regulate what an American can choose for healthcare? How can some bureaucrat from the SEC regulate how an American can invest money? How can some bureaucrat from the IRS regulate how much of an American’s money the federal government can take? How can some bureaucrat within the Department of Labor dictate what an American may pay his employees? How can some bureaucrat within the Department of Education determine what an American’s children must be taught?
A real crime consists of a victim and a perpetrator. The perpetrator has either initiated force or fraud against the victim. This means that the victim’s rights have been violated. The two sides are drawn in this type of scenario and the laws against theft, murder, rape, etc. are clear. A court action may be initiated and the jury may deliberate after hearing all of the testimony. This upholds the premise that “all men are created equal”.
But when some federal government agency files a complaint against an American, what is the basis of the crime? The federal agency simply cites some regulation that the American violated – no victim is identified, no one’s rights have been violated. This does not uphold the premise that “all men are created equal”, but presumes that the federal government, through some bureaucratic agency, can force an American to do its bidding. How did this happen? The answer is buried deep in the Social Security scam. Applying for a Social Security number is tantamount to begging to be subservient to the federal government.
The following is somewhat complicated because it is the actual basis of the federal laws. After all, it’s not easy to subjugate an entire nation of free, sovereign people. But everything that I’ve written above will be legally verified and the actual basis of the regulations and statutes will be evidenced.
This site will forever end the conflict between the various “tax honesty movement” groups and the enforcement of the internal revenue laws. First of all, when dealing with the federal government of the United States, one must learn the definitions of the government’s legal “terms”. So let’s start with the definition of the term “taxpayer”.
From the regulations that implement the Internal Revenue Code, the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), are the following:
“26 CFR Sec. 2.1(m) The terms used in this section shall have the same meaning as in chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code.”
”26 CFR Sec. 2.1-1, Definitions
(a) As used in the regulations in this part, except as otherwise expressly provided -
(1) Act means the Merchant Marine Act, 1936, as amended (46 U.S.C. 27)
(2) Section means one of the sections of the regulations in this part.
(5) Taxpayer means a citizen who has established or seeks to establish a construction reserve fund under the provisions of section 511 of the Act and the regulations in this part, and may include a partnership.
(b) Insofar as the computation and collection of taxes are concerned, other terms used in the regulations in this part, except as otherwise provided, have the same meaning as in the Internal Revenue Code and the regulations thereunder.”
Now since the regulation above at 26 CFR Sec. 2.1(m) states that the terms used in this section have the same meaning as in chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code, the definition of the term “taxpayer” from 26 CFR Sec. 2.1-1(a)(5) has the same meaning as in chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code. And since 26 CFR Sec. 2.1-1(b) states insofar as the computation and collection of taxes are concerned, the definition of “taxpayer” from 26 CFR Sec. 2.1-1(a)(5) has the same meaning as in the Internal Revenue Code and the regulations that implement the Code.
The number “26″ from the cites above is the number of the title, in this case title 26 is “internal revenue”. The number before the “.” from the cites above is the part number under the title, in this case “2″. The first number after the “.” from the cites above is the section number, in this case “1″. Chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code, referenced within the first of the above regulations, has to do with income tax.
The definition of the term “taxpayer” proves that a “taxpayer” is a federal employee, specifically within the Merchant Marine. Federal employment taxes only apply to federal employees. Did you know the definition of “taxpayer”? You must understand that when the government defines a “term” it no longer has anything to do with the original definition of the word as found in a dictionary.
The only definitions of “taxpayer” within chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code are at 26 USC Sec. 1313(b) and 26 USC Sec. 7701(a)(14). Both of these definitions vaguely define a “taxpayer” as someone subject to an internal revenue tax, but what “internal revenue” itself is remains unsaid.
Read More...
But the federal government failed to fully inform you as to all of the other ramifications of applying for a Social Security number. For instance, did you know that you became a federal employee? Well, you did - specifically you became a member of the Merchant Marine. You also became an employee of a corporation that is involved with importing to and from the U.S. possessions. Another consideration is that if FICA is based upon a percentage of your earnings, then the government has somehow been granted the right to know the amount of your income and the sources of your income – this is not a hallmark of freedom. These statements and more will be evidenced by the actual federal statutes and regulations further on this page.
Like all great magicians, the federal government has you looking at the obvious while hiding the basis of the trick that the magician is performing right in front of your eyes.
Lots of Americans have questioned the legitimacy of the personal income tax, but it seems that everyone just loves the Social Security program. Social Security is the sacred cow that no one is ever supposed to criticize. Oh, sure, some claimants of Social Security find fault with what claims are denied or only partially funded. And lots of people are now pointing out that Social Security is not going to be solvent in the near future. But up till now no one has questioned the legitimacy of the Social Security program. Well, that time has come.
Americans now live in a country with the largest government in the world. Since the Declaration of Independence is the organic law of the land and it states that “all men are created equal”, why would free, equal people need such a large government?
How did a country in which “all men are created equal” (and, of course, women) end up subservient to a multitude of federal government agencies? If all Americans are created equal, how can some bureaucrat from the EPA regulate how an American’s land is to be used? How can some bureaucrat from the FDA regulate what an American can choose for healthcare? How can some bureaucrat from the SEC regulate how an American can invest money? How can some bureaucrat from the IRS regulate how much of an American’s money the federal government can take? How can some bureaucrat within the Department of Labor dictate what an American may pay his employees? How can some bureaucrat within the Department of Education determine what an American’s children must be taught?
A real crime consists of a victim and a perpetrator. The perpetrator has either initiated force or fraud against the victim. This means that the victim’s rights have been violated. The two sides are drawn in this type of scenario and the laws against theft, murder, rape, etc. are clear. A court action may be initiated and the jury may deliberate after hearing all of the testimony. This upholds the premise that “all men are created equal”.
But when some federal government agency files a complaint against an American, what is the basis of the crime? The federal agency simply cites some regulation that the American violated – no victim is identified, no one’s rights have been violated. This does not uphold the premise that “all men are created equal”, but presumes that the federal government, through some bureaucratic agency, can force an American to do its bidding. How did this happen? The answer is buried deep in the Social Security scam. Applying for a Social Security number is tantamount to begging to be subservient to the federal government.
The following is somewhat complicated because it is the actual basis of the federal laws. After all, it’s not easy to subjugate an entire nation of free, sovereign people. But everything that I’ve written above will be legally verified and the actual basis of the regulations and statutes will be evidenced.
This site will forever end the conflict between the various “tax honesty movement” groups and the enforcement of the internal revenue laws. First of all, when dealing with the federal government of the United States, one must learn the definitions of the government’s legal “terms”. So let’s start with the definition of the term “taxpayer”.
From the regulations that implement the Internal Revenue Code, the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), are the following:
“26 CFR Sec. 2.1(m) The terms used in this section shall have the same meaning as in chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code.”
”26 CFR Sec. 2.1-1, Definitions
(a) As used in the regulations in this part, except as otherwise expressly provided -
(1) Act means the Merchant Marine Act, 1936, as amended (46 U.S.C. 27)
(2) Section means one of the sections of the regulations in this part.
(5) Taxpayer means a citizen who has established or seeks to establish a construction reserve fund under the provisions of section 511 of the Act and the regulations in this part, and may include a partnership.
(b) Insofar as the computation and collection of taxes are concerned, other terms used in the regulations in this part, except as otherwise provided, have the same meaning as in the Internal Revenue Code and the regulations thereunder.”
Now since the regulation above at 26 CFR Sec. 2.1(m) states that the terms used in this section have the same meaning as in chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code, the definition of the term “taxpayer” from 26 CFR Sec. 2.1-1(a)(5) has the same meaning as in chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code. And since 26 CFR Sec. 2.1-1(b) states insofar as the computation and collection of taxes are concerned, the definition of “taxpayer” from 26 CFR Sec. 2.1-1(a)(5) has the same meaning as in the Internal Revenue Code and the regulations that implement the Code.
The number “26″ from the cites above is the number of the title, in this case title 26 is “internal revenue”. The number before the “.” from the cites above is the part number under the title, in this case “2″. The first number after the “.” from the cites above is the section number, in this case “1″. Chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code, referenced within the first of the above regulations, has to do with income tax.
The definition of the term “taxpayer” proves that a “taxpayer” is a federal employee, specifically within the Merchant Marine. Federal employment taxes only apply to federal employees. Did you know the definition of “taxpayer”? You must understand that when the government defines a “term” it no longer has anything to do with the original definition of the word as found in a dictionary.
The only definitions of “taxpayer” within chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code are at 26 USC Sec. 1313(b) and 26 USC Sec. 7701(a)(14). Both of these definitions vaguely define a “taxpayer” as someone subject to an internal revenue tax, but what “internal revenue” itself is remains unsaid.
Read More...