Eagle

Home

News
Behind the Headlines
Two-Cents Worth
Video of the Week
News Blurbs

Short Takes

Plain Talk

The Ryter Report

DONATIONS

Articles
Testimony
Bible Questions

Internet Articles (2015)
Internet Articles (2014)
Internet Articles (2013)
Internet Articles (2012)

Internet Articles (2011)
Internet Articles (2010)
Internet Articles (2009)
Internet Articles (2008)
Internet Articles (2007)
Internet Articles (2006)
Internet Articles (2005)
Internet Articles (2004)

Internet Articles (2003)
Internet Articles (2002)
Internet Articles (2001)

From The Mailbag

Books
Order Books

Cyrus
Rednecker

Search

About
Comments

Links

 

Openings at $75K to $500K+

Pinnaclemicro 3 Million Computer Products

Startlogic Windows Hosting

Adobe  Design Premium¨ CS5

Get Your FREE Coffeemaker Today!

Corel Store

20 years

 

very year on January 1, millions of working class Americans make a million New Year's Resolutions that they will break before they break a sweat to keep them. Resolutions to stop smoking. Resolutions to lose weight. Resolutions to get along with the in-laws. Resolutions not to be a sport's nut TV couch potato. Resolutions to change any number of bad life choices. But few, if any, resolutions to be a better citizen are made—or kept. Nor are there any resolutions to be more watchful of, or more vocal about the misdeeds of corrupt political leaders who have sold their souls to the bribe-merchants of K Street, or the arrogance of corporate fat cats and the elite bureaucrat partisans who see themselves as the owners of this land and the managers of its people who, themselves. And, by extension, since they feel they are, we—the people—are no longer construed to be citizens with inalienable, inherent rights. Rather, we "the people" are now regarded as "commodities-of-the-rich."

New Year's Eve should be, but isn't, a time of consequential contemplation by serious thinkers speculating how best to correct the mistakes of history in order to make our world a better place. Sadly, New Year's Eve is nothing more than a gala of global pagan revelry to celebrate the death of the old year and the birth of a new one with the most memorable part of the event being the severity of the hangover the following day.

New Year's Eve is the last day on the Georgian calendar. Throughout modern times, New Year's Eve has been celebrated around the world with parties and festivals. In the United States, over a million revelers cram into Times Square every year to watch a 1,415 pound ball outfitted with more than 9,500 light-emitting diodes drop from a flagpole atop the One Times Square Building at midnight. Anything, I guess, justifies a party. Glitzy parties everywhere in the world precede the countdown to the New Year as more and more people in the growing global society join the revelry to celebrate the passing of time.

Increasingly, more American cities are cracking down on the revelry which includes pointless celebratory gunfire and even more pointless excessive drinking. More cities are cracking down on the excessive drinking with more sobriety checkpoints designed to keep drunk drivers off the road as the nation goes mad with headline-making risqué conduct that is increasingly reminiscent of Sodom and Gomorrah. The punkish arrogance of today's revelers evidences the moral decay of the nation, and the world.

If we're still awake at midnight (with the odds of that happening being only about 50/50), my wife and I toast the New Year and watch the human sardines crammed into Times Square as the ball drops, glad that we had the sanity not to be there. Unlike the revelers milling around Times Square wearing sparkling, funky 2009 eyewear, equally festive dunces caps, and tooting noisy little horns, we actually take a few minutes and contemplate the year which has just passed into history. And, if we are awake enough, we actually think about the ramifications the events which happened in what is now last year will have in the new year. If not, the morning papers will usually capsulate the doom and gloom of 2008 so we know what to expect in 2009. Nothing bodes well for 2009. Goodbye, 2008. Welcome, 1929.

Anyone older than the X-Box generation who was paying attention in the latter half of 2008 realizes that we just relived 1929. The X-Box generation needs to be reminded that following the Great Stock Market Crash of 1929 was the decade-long Depression of the 1930s. Americans largely believes the Crash of 1929 and the ensuing Depression were economic anomalies that were no one's fault. They just happened. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Economist James P. Warburg, who agrees with that point-of-view, in writing The West In Crisis (Doubleday © 1953, pg. 20) said: "...History is written more by accident than design, often by the wholly irrational acts of madmen," Franklin D. Roosevelt who participated in several conspiracies during his 12-plus years in the White House, observed: "In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, it was planned to happen."

It is difficult for a casual observer to grasp the fact that catastrophic events like the Stock Market Crash of 1929, the banking collapse and the Great Depression might actually have been planned, and that actions that adversely impacted millions of people could have been deliberately staged, or that such power actually existed then—and still exists within our society today. Poll 100 people today and 99 of them will tell you such power does not exist. They are wrong. It does. And, since 1995 that power has been manipulating the economies of the industrialized world to covertly transfer the industrial wealth of the United States to the emerging nations of the world where tomorrow's consumers, the human capital of the corporate cartel, lives waiting for the US jobs that will make them the primary consumers of the 21st century.

The foundation for the Stock Market Crash of 1929 was laid in 1907 when investment banker John Pierpont Morgan passed a rumor to the New York Times that the Knickerbocker Bank in New York was insolvent, starting a run not only on the Knickerbocker Bank but on other banks as well, first in New York and then across the country. In Life Magazine's April 25, 1949 issue, Life writer Frederick Allen wrote that Morgan financial interests took advantage of "...unsettled conditions that existed in the fall of 1907 to precipitate the [Bank] Panic [of 1907], guiding it shrewdly as it progressed..." in order, Allen supposed, to kill rival banks and consolidate their holdings under the banner of J.P. Morgan & Company. The chroniclers of the deed failed to grasp Morgan's motive for the Bank Panic of 1907, but at least he properly identified the culprit who instigated it. But, in 1907, nobody would have believed that one of America's most important bankers could, or would, deliberately precipitate a banking crisis that would cost millions of working class depositors billions of dollars. Or that its purpose was to remove the United States and the industrial nations of Europe from the gold standard in order to create a global fiat monetary system controlled by the whims of the world's bankers, industrialists and merchant princes.

Morgan's manipulation in 1907 resulted in Congress enacting three resolutions to amend the Constitution of the United States. The proposed 16th Amendment would allow the federal government to legislate a national tax on incomes. The proposed 17th Amendment would remove control of the US Senate from the States. The proposed 18th Amendment, which was soundly defeated in the US Senate, would have removed the US monetary system from the gold standard.

Prior to the ratification of the 17th Amendment on April 8, 1913, the State legislatures elected their US Senators and controlled how they voted on Capitol Hill. Removing that power from the States was needed to successfully create a permanent central bank in the United States since the US Senate defeated every attempt to legislate a new central bank since President Andrew Jackson killed an attempt to recharter the Second Bank of the United States in 1835. Jackson denounced central banks as an engine of corruption. Defying the money powers under the control of Second Bank president Nicholas Biddle, President Jackson promised to veto any banking bill enacted by Congress, telling the media that "...if Congress has the right under the Constitution to issue paper money, it was given to them to use by themselves, not to be delegated to individuals or corporations." Jackson successfully killed Biddle's central bank.

In return for Jackson's killing the Second Bank, Biddle hired an unemployed house painter to assassinate him. On Jan. 30, 1835 while Jackson was attending a congressional funeral in the Capitol Building, Richard Lawrence attempted to shoot him with two pistols. Both misfired. At his trial, Lawrence confessed that he was hired by Biddle to kill Jackson. The jury chose to believe that Lawrence was deranged. He died in an insane asylum in Washington, DC in 1861. From 1836 to 1913 the United States did not have a central bank.

According to Milton Friedman, "The Federal Reserve System [was] established to prevent what actually happened. [The Fed was theoretically] set up to avoid a situation in which you would have to close down banks, in which you would have a banking crisis. And yet, under the Federal Reserve System, you had the worst banking crisis in the history of the United States. There's no [better] example...of a government measure which produced so clearly the opposite results that were intended." Had the American people been good stewards of democracy and students of history, the Federal Reserve System would not exist because the American people would have fired the corrupt Congressmen and Senators who enacted the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and they would have impeached an even more corrupt President Thomas Woodrow Wilson for signing the legislation into law on Dec. 23, 1913.

Very clearly, Thomas Jefferson warned the public that: "If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and the corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered...The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs. The modern theory of the perpetuation of debt has drenched the Earth with blood and crushed its inhabitants under burdens ever accumulating." Too bad the US school system—whose curriculum is largely funded by federal grants and the nation's wealthiest foundations owned by the world's wealthiest families and implemented by the National Education Association, a US congressional corporation. Missing from today's public school curriculum are the writings of America's Founding Fathers and the constitutional history of the United States. Taught instead is history from a globalist perspective.

When Americans failed to comprehend the legal majesty of the Bill of Rights that protected them from the prostitutes of government, and when they failed to understand how the Constitution of the United States applied to them, they found themselves at the mercy of an increasingly totalitarian government that had spent 100 years abridging the rights of both the people and the States.

But the American people were too busy enjoying the good life to pay attention to the prostitutes of Pennsylvania Avenue. Ask any American male who won the Super Bowl last year and nine out of ten will correctly say the New York Giants. Half of them can tell you the storyline of at least one commercial they saw during the game, but less than half of them can give you the names of their US senators, their Congressman and the name of their Assemblyman or Delegate to the State legislature. And, as hard as it is to believe, less than 20% of them can tell you the name of their local mayor. They know virtually nothing about the politicians they elect to public office, least of all if he or she is honest.

ABC News correspondent John Stossel, writing a syndicated column that appeared on Dec. 28. 2008 in the Manchester Union Leader noted that President-elect Barack Hussein Obama has the same deeply-rooted arrogant character-flaws found in Franklin Delano Roosevelt. FDR used a banker-instigated recession to completely remake the US economy from 1933 to 1939, replacing a constitutional republic with a constitutional democracy. Obama plans to use the Recession of 2008 to complete the constitutional renovations started by Roosevelt in 1933. When he's done, the government of the United States will look the governments of any of the other subservient nation-states of Europe just before they were sucked into the political black hole of the European Union.

Barack Hussein Obama, the unconstitutional non-citizen president who has no emotional ties to this nation, will serve as the funeral director in the soon-coming demise of the United States of America as we knew it on New Year's Eve, 2008. Stossel noted that Obama plans to use the Recession of 2008 to remake the US economy, quoting Obama, who said: "Painful crisis also provides us with an opportunity to transform our economy, to improve the lives of ordinary people." Obama promised change throughout his campaign. Sadly, no one asked him what type of change he had in mind. Had they asked, and had he answered them honestly, Barack Hussein Obama would not have won a single State or a single electoral vote. Illinois Congressman Rahm Emanuel [D-IL], Obama's designated Chief-of-Staff was more honest in his observation of the opportunity before them. "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste," he said.

No one understood that quip better than FDR. He, also, had no intention of letting the Recession of 1929 go to waste. Like Obama and scores of other contemporary politicians who have found themselves squeezed by the money Mafia, Roosevelt believed he could manipulate the economic and societal structure of America in order to create a utopian democracy in which, he believed, all men would equally share the cornucopia of the land of plenty.

As noted in his diaries and private papers, the change FDR wanted to make could not take place in a republican form of government. Roosevelt's "New Deal" would alter, for all time, the form of government created by our Founding Fathers. Obama's "change" will complete the transformation. What Roosevelt needed was a national banking crisis so catastrophic that he could justify mandating a bank holiday, followed by a proclamation that would allow the Secretary of the Treasury to seize all of the gold that backed the nation's monetary system and, finally, the removal of the US monetary system from the gold standard without a constitutional amendment. The central banks of the world were removing the world's money supply from the gold standard and creating a global fiat monetary system. But that would not work if the US dollar remained on the gold standard.

The Federal Reserve's loose money policies in the 1920s provided the recipe for disaster. Not only did the Fed loosen the money supply by 44% to provide over $10 billion in mortgage money for the nation's returning doughboys, home from the war; but private investors led by JP Morgan and John D. Rockefeller, Jr. poured $286 billion into Wall Street to finance the working class' venture into the stock market where they were encouraged to share in the great American dream.. To hook the working class, Wall Street utilized a new tool to entice novice investors to speculate in the market. It was called "buying on margin." With a modest 10% down payment, with the balance financed by credit supplied by the broker from a money pool supplied by private investors, everyone was getting rich—on paper. Home owners pledged their mortgages and deeds on their homes against the loans taken on their retirement nest egg portfolios.

For the first time in the history of the New York Stock Exchange [NYSE] hordes of common, working class investors were "in the market." It became commonplace to see blue collar workers on the subway reading the financial page instead of the sports page. Housewives used their milk money to buy penny stocks. Factory workers who had been betting the ponies now bet on the market. Overnight, ladies' bridge clubs became investment clubs. Taxi drivers provided their fares with the latest stock market tips. Buying was easy. Working class investors were led to believe the day of reckoning would never come. On paper, America had more millionaires from 1921 to 1929 than during any other period in the history of the market. However, the real wealth was owned by the Wall Street bankers who financed the debt and assumed none of the risk. When the final crash toppled the market on Black Tuesday, October 29, 1929, they would own the collateral that was pledged against the margin calls none of the working class investors ever thought would happen. America was bust, but America's wealthy elite became even richer as they picked up the bargains lost by novice investors who panicked and sold, or could not make their margin calls and lost everything—even their mortgaged homes.

Does any of this sound familiar? Take a moment and compare the parallels between the consumer economics of 1921-1929 and those of 2001-2009. Today, almost every company in America that offers their employees a retirement program invests—or rather, allows their employees to invest—their 401K contributions in the stock market. The risks are assumed by the employee and not the company. Add putting the working class investor back into the stock market as they were in the Roaring 20s with the 2001 housing boom in which a half-trillion dollars worth of high-risk, subprime mortgages were sold and you have 1929 all over again. Only, this time around, the bankruptcy laws were "updated" with the Bankruptcy Abuse and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 [BACPA] to make sure this decade's debtors can't escape the debt they created.

Even if they go "bust," the likelihood is that they will continue to owe their creditors a part of their debt [the principle of the debt minus the interest] since today's bankruptcy laws make it more difficult to file Chapter 7. Only the "true poor," (those below or near the poverty level can safely file Chapter 7 and discharge their debts.) Prior to 2005, any debtor could file Chapter 7 bankruptcy. All that was needed was that their debts exceeded their net worth.

Now, that's no longer enough for middle class consumers who lost their jobs and no longer have the income to discharge their debts. The Bankruptcy Abuse and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 establishes a new method for calculating the debtor's median income in the debtor's State. If the debtor earns more than the median average in his or her State, a "mean test" is then applied to determine if the debtor has abused spending "norms" for consumers of average means in his State. The spending "norms"are determined by IRS guidelines (which were calculated over four decades ago and were never adjusted for inflation. That means virtually no one qualifies for debt elimination bankruptcy today.) Today, the odds are that the Chapter 7 filing will be converted by the Bankruptcy Referee into a Chapter 13 filing and a bankruptcy court will determine what portion of the outstanding debt must be paid to the creditor. BACPA also requires debtors to take classes in debt management.

There was a time before the lawyers of quid pro quo lobbyists on K Street in Washington, DC began writing the bills to tailor legislation like the Bankruptcy Abuse and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 to specifically benefit their clients—the banking and credit card industry—that regulatory checks and balances existed which controlled corporate behavior on Capitol Hill. Ethics seems to have vanished in Washington. Laws that punish both corporate donors seeking quid pro quos for their million dollar "campaign contributions" and ethically-bankrupt politicians with freezers full of money have been weakened dramatically over the last 100 years as quid pro quo politics has been legalized as long as both parties observed certain rules that politicians crafted to surreptitiously erase the underpinnings of political ethics in America.

When he was running for office, FDR climbed into bed with the AFL-CIO. He took their money, and he took the sweat equity of thousands of union workers who donated their time to the Roosevelt Campaign for a decade, embedding the AFL-CIO into Democratic politic, and giving unions the strength to strangle the competitiveness of US industry in a global economy—which is why so many US corporations have now completely fled from the United States. During the Roaring 20s, America largely ignored war-torn Europe except to sell it goods and services. The leaders of Europe pleaded for America to open its markets to tariff-free goods while demanding the right to impose stiff tariffs on US goods.

The utopians in the small feudal States of Europe who joined the League of Nations to forge a United Europe similar to the United States, believed the solution to ending war for all time was to outlaw war by outlawing the manufacturing of weapons of war. The League of Nations was to create a global economy using a global monetary system, regulated by a global legislature. The League failed during the Roaring 20s, but the globalists were determined to create a catastrophic financial crisis so severe that the only solution would be the tutorial world government already headquartered in the Hague in Brussels, Belgium.

On Black Tuesday, Oct. 29, 1929 England's Chancellor of the Exchequer Winston Churchill, who had just resigned after a bitter fight with Britain Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin over his decision to temporarily restore the British Pound Sterling to the gold standard, was financier Bernard Baruch's guest on the floor of the NYSE. Baruch wanted to prove to Churchill, a popular political figure in England, that even a gold and silver-backed monetary system could not withstand the whims of the lords of industry, the barons of banking and the merchant princes. Churchill was to be a witness to the deliberate, well-staged collapse not only of the financial infrastructure of the United States, but the insolvency of the American dollar that was fed by the demands of transnationalists exchanging their fiat monetary investments in America for gold.

The Stock Market Crash of 1929—like all major market slides—was a carefully-staged dichotomy. To market watchers, two thoroughly unrelated events came into play simultaneously guaranteeing what happened would happen. First, there was a major sell-off by the nation's largest investors who sold the bulk of their portfolios and moved their money to the foreign gold markets. (Since the price of gold was artificially-depressed by the United States government, the bellwether that tells the world that the money barons are manipulating the market did not work.) Left in the portfolios of the money managers were enough remnant shares to prime the suction pump for a second run and trigger the collapse of the market. First, on Thursday and Friday, Oct. 24-25, 1929, thousands of small investors all over the country beat a path to their local banks to withdraw years of savings to meet the margin calls from Thursday. This caused a massive drain on the cash reserves of the local banks, making new loan requests on Tuesday, Oct. 29, under the Fed's fractional reserve system regulations, impossible. Compounding the problem, when they should have eased reserve requirements and eased the strain on the market, the Fed increased reserve requirements and shrank the money supply. The action was deliberate and calculated to accomplish precisely what happened.

On Tuesday, Oct. 29 the "dump" order to key brokers across the country came from the investment bankers. As the money barons dumped the balance of their stock, prices plummeted. Brokers all over the country began calling in 24-hour demand notes. Panic set in as blue collar investors who had pledged their homes on Main Street, America to live the Great American Dream on Wall & Broad Streets suddenly discovered they were living the Nightmare on Elm Street.

Middle class investors who had enough liquidity to meet the margin calls on Thursday, Friday and Monday, discovered on Tuesday that they were broke. Their savings were gone. Their homes were gone. Soon their jobs would also be gone. When he wrote "The Great Crash, 1929," John Kenneth Galbraith commented that he believed nobody "...was responsible for the great Wall Street Crash...Nothing could have been more ingeniously designed to maximize the suffering, and also to insure that as few as possible escaped the common misfortune...The man with the smart money money, who was safely out of the market when the first crash came, naturally went back in to pick up bargains." (Mariner Books © 1955, pg. 11)

While Galbraith, an establishment journalist, conveniently found no one to blame for the Great Crash of 1929, Congressman Louis McFadden [R-PA], head of the powerful House Banking Committee until the Republcains lost control of Congress in 1933, did. On May 23, 1933 McFadden submitted Articles of Impeachment against the Fed Chairmen into the Congressional Record, charging them with not only deliberately creating the Depression, but with unlawfully and arbitrarily raising and lowering the money supply of the United States to financially benefit private interests. In his tirade against the private interest bankers, McFadden charged "...them with having taken over $80 billion from the United States government in 1928. I charge them...with having arbitrar[il]y and unlawfully raised and diminished the volume of currency in circulation for the benefit of private interests...I charge them...[with]...having conspired to transfer to foreigners and international money lenders title to, and control of, the financial resources of the United States." McFadden argued that the Great Crash of 1929 and the Depression which resulted from the Stock Market crash, was not an accident nor was it the mishap of the free enterprise system. "It was a carefully contrived occurrence," McFadden insisted. "The international bankers sought to bring about a condition of despair here so that might emerge as the rulers of us all." (Congressional Record, May 23, 1933.)

The US banking system, which was complicit in the collapse of the stock market in 1929, and which instigated the bank holiday of March 6, 1933 using President Franklin D. Roosevelt as their change-agent because President Herbert Hoover had too much integrity and refused to steal the wealth of the working class in an unconstitutional form of theft—replacing their gold and silver certificates with a debt-backed fiat scrip with no inherent value. Roosevelt, who promised the working class a "new deal," gave them the "raw deal" instead. He stole their wealth and replaced it with an I.O.U. monetary system that would allow the bankers to arbitrarily reduce the worth of the money in their pocket on any bankers' whim.

Roosevelt's "new deal" promised the American citizen a "fair shake." While he did create a myraid of public works projects (at the expense of the middle class), the jobs were artificial—and temporary. FDR provided workers with a paycheck through the Works Project Administration, building roads, bridges and dams. He planted forests. But he did not grow the economy, World War II did that. The New Deal Roosevelt delivered was the globalist vision of world government with the recasting of the European League Nations to make it look like a brand new "Made in the USA" political entity with a New York address when it fact it remained the League of Nations with a red, white and blue suit of clothes. While it gets its US mail at 760 United Nations Plaza, New York, NY 10017, its global mail goes to the Residence Palace, Rue de la Loi, Wetstraat 155, 1040 Brussels, Belgium. The UN has regional office centers in the capitals of the 63 most important industrial cities in the world, but Brussels not New York, is its home.

FDR's New Deal and Barack Hussein Obama's promised "change" are the result of orchestrated economic and financial strife by the global industrialists and bankers who financed the campaigns of those candidates. Just as the voters in the 2008 presidential election saw a very likable and treacherously charismatic Senator promising change without ever detailing precisely what type of change he would implement, FDR promised the working class a new deal—a fair shake—without ever giving the voters so much as an inkling that the change he planned was to legislate was an economic dictatorship with all power on all matters coming from the Oval Office.

Obama's "change," promised to the NAACP in July, 2008 when he spoke at their 99th Annual Conference, is the planned redistribution of wealth from the white middle class to the minority underclass which he believes society left behind. In a 2001 National Public Radio interview, Illinois State Senator Barack Obama revealed what type of "change" he would implement at the national level. "If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples so that I would have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at a lunch counter and order, and as long as I could pay for it, I'd be okay. But," he added, "the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And, to that extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted. And, the Warren Court interpreted in the same way that the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the States can't do to you. It says what the federal government can't do to you. But it doesn't say what the federal government or the State government must do on your behalf. And that hasn't shifted. One of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was [that it] became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change."

Make no bones about it. Obama's planned "change" is the socialist redistribution of wealth in the United States. When he addressed the NAACP 99th Annual Conference at Cincinnati's Fountain Square on July 14, pledged to expand the Earned Income Credit that impacts almost 95% of the minority families (but only impacts about 33% of white families), he made it clear that the redistribution of wealth in America was his core objective, and was the "change" he was promising. "Social justice," he told the NAACP, "is not enough. It matters little if you have the right to sit at the lunch counter if you can't afford the lunch." Obama then assured his audience that he would return for their 100th Annual Conference in 2009 as the President of the United States after having achieved social and economic justice for all.

Like Roosevelt in 1933, Obama will have enough of a majority in both Houses of Congress that any piece of far left legislation he wants to enact will get enacted. In the 73rd Congress in 1933, the Democrats had a strong enough majority that they could dispense with the reading of any piece of legislation—most of which had never been seen by any Congressman or Senator before they were forced to vote on them.

When Congress convened at noon on March 9, 1933 the the 73rd Congress was greeted by a very weighty piece of legislation—the Emergency Banking Relief Act—waiting for immediate passage. No member of the House or Senate had ever seen the bill before that day since it was written by the Roosevelt Brain Trust and the Fed bankers. Had they been able to read the measure,Congress would have learned that [a] it legalized Roosevelt's bank holiday, [b] it legalized Roosevelt's seizure of all gold coins and gold certificates, [c] made it a criminal act to possess either gold coins or gold certificates, and finally [d] by amending the the Trading With the Enemy Act of Oct. 6, 1917 (40 Stat.L 411) FDR reclassified the American people enemies of its own government. But, Congress never read it, and had no idea what was in it. Before midnight Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the bill into law. (Without ever seeing or reading the legislation, on December 23, 1913 the 63rd Congress enacted the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 the same way. The bill was written on Jekyll Island by Sen. Nelson Aldrich [R-RI] (John D. Rockefeller, Jr.'s father-in-law; Abraham Piatt Andrews, assistant Secretary of the Treasury; Henry P. Davidson, senior partner at JP Morgan's First National Bank of New York; Benjamin Strong, president of Bankers' Trust; Frank Vanderlip, the president of the Rockefeller-owned National City Bank, and Paul Moritz Warburg, the senior partner of Kuhn, Loeb & Co.) No Congressman or Senator ever read the legislation.

Also never read by Congress were the Agricultural Adjustment Act of May 12, 1933 and the Gold Reserve Act of 1934. Title 3 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act (the Thomas Amendment) gave the federal government the authority to create fiat money that was not backed by gold. The Gold Reserve Act of 1934 authorized Federal Reserve Notes as the lawful currency of the land. Bypassed by the super majority controlled by FDR was the Constitution of the United States which mandates a gold and silver-backed monetary system. Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt tried to amend the Constitution to remove the United States from the gold standard. Both failed. But, when you control the ideological slant of the high court, you can pretty do whatever you want to do under the guise of social justice.

As Roosevelt began legislating the socialist New Deal the Supreme Court began, just as quickly, dismantling it. The third New Law, the Agricultural Adjustment Act was the first FDR law to be found to be unconstitutional by the high court. What brought the Agricultural Adjustment Act before the court was not the provision that allowed the government to create a fiat monetary system, but a provision that nationalized farming by allowing the White House to control not only the production of agricultural products in the United States, but the prices of farm products as well. Next was the National Industrial Recovery Act that gave labor collective bargaining rights and allowed Roosevelt to determine "codes of fair competition" in the marketplace. For that reason, the National Industrial Recovery Act was also found to be unconstitutional. One by one, nine old men were destroying the New Deal almost as fast as Congress legislated it. Roosevelt was not a happy camper.

But FDR got the message. Not even "extraordinary circumstances" would allow a president to expand his constitutional authority. The high court was not impressed with Roosevelt's claim to increased authority under Wilson's Act of Oct. 6, 1917 as amended on March 9, 1933. On Jan. 20, 1937, Roosevelt began his second term (as the first president inaugurated on that date). Fifteen days later, on Feb 4, Roosevelt decided to move on the high court. In a meeting with the House and Senate majority leadership and the chairmen of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, Roosevelt demanded legislation to force any Justice over the age of 70 to retire. When that argument failed, he demanded legislation to add anywhere from 3 to 6 more justices to the high court. FDR thought since Congress would not let him fire the justices who were dismantling the New Deal, he would simply dilute their vote by adding his own men to the court. (Read about this battle in Chapter 14 of my book, Whatever Happened to America?) In the end, Congress refused to give in to the White House, but Roosevelt rattled the high court. To give FDR the crumbs he wanted, Congress passed a law allowing federal judges to retire at full pay. The justices, fearful of what Roosevelt might do, suddenly accepted the Solicitor General's arguments on the constitutionality of five New Deal laws. Roosevelt did what his 31 predecessors never attempted. He policitized the Supreme Court of the United States. From that point on, Supreme Court justices would be vetted based on their ideological pedigrees rather than their knowledge of Constitutional law.

Which brings us back to President-elect Barack Hussein Obama, America's first unconstitutional socialist, non-US citizen president. In his 2001 NPR interview, and again when he addressed the NAACP in July, 2008, Obama noted that the US Supreme Court refused to address the need to redistribute the wealth of America. Harvard graduate Obama knows if you want the high court to deal with an issue you must appoint high court judges who feel some ownership to the issue. With the far left having close to a super majority in the US Senate (which consents on all Judicial appointments), expect to see a rash of far left judges appointed to all federal judgeships for the next four years. Expect either Bill or Hillary Clinton to be among early Obama picks for the Supreme Court—but not to replace 89-year old John Paul Stevens or 76-year old Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Should 73-year old Anthony Kennedy, whose father died from a sudden-death heart attack in 1963, and who reportedly suffers from heart problems, either die or be forced to step down from the bench for health reasons, Bill Clinton would be the likely pick to replace him since the Democratic leadership believes that Republican moderates would vote for his confirmation. In any event, Obama knows that the key to making the high court take up the issue of redistribution is to put judges on the bench who believe redistribution is necessary to create income parity in America.

It is now 2009. But, we are on the cusp of March, 1933. This is not a good time for America. It's going to get worse. A lot worse. How much worse? Find a history book. Make sure it was copyrighted before 1960. Flip to the 1920s and read to 1941. (If you haven't read Whatever Happened To America? buy a copy or borrow one from a friend. Think of Obama as a black Roosevelt. Both are socialists. Both helped perpetuate the economic and financial strife that made their presidencies possible, and both recognized that, in crisis, there are opportunities. President George W. Bush, who will be remembered by history as the president who inherited the strongest economy in 28 years and made it the weakest in eight, will become Obama's Herbert Hoover. And, as the US collapses within the next two years as Obama tinkers with utopian Rooseveltian solutions that did not work in the 1930s either, we will be the witnesses of the formal birth of the New World Order's North American Union. Auld Lang Syne.

 

 

Just Say No
Copyright 2009 Jon Christian Ryter.
All rights reserved
.