Internet Articles (2015)
hen Sen. Barack Hussein Obama started campaigning for the White House in December, 2007, he promised the voters two things. Universally, he promised change. He never specified what that promised change was going to be, or who would benefit from it. But change of any type seemed to be good enough for an electorate—Democrats and Republicans alike—since everyone seemed to be tired of eight years of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Second, when he addressed the 99th Annual Conference of NAACP on July 14, 2008 Obama told the assembled audience: "Social Justice is not enough. It matters little if you have the right to sit at the lunch counter if you can't afford the lunch. But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issue of redistribution of wealth and...[the]...issue of political and economic justice in this society...[T]he Supreme Court interpreted in the same way that the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the States can't do for you. It says what the federal government can't do to you. But it doesn't say what the federal government or State government must do on your behalf." Obama then promised to return to the NAACP's 100th Anniversary Conference to declare that the redistribution of wealth was taking place.
I'm not quite sure the NAACP is particularly pleased with the type of the redistribution that has taken place thus far since that's not exactly what they had in mind when Candidate Obama talked about sitting at the lunch counter but not having the price of a meal. The redistribution they had in mind would be more like robbing the taxpayers to provide affluence to the have-nots—particularly the have-nots whose ancestors may have been slaves.
Instead, the first act of Obama's "change," like the final curtain call of Bush-43's low-rated 8-year run of The Court Jestor, opened the door at the US Treasury and invited the US auto industry to drive-through and pick up a $25 billion low-interest loan, followed by the corporate begfest in which the Big Three returned for an additional $25 billion "stimulus" to keep them from going bankrupt.
In the end, Congress shelled out $15 billion more for a total of $40 billion. Pocket change. From our pockets to the pockets of the princes of industry and the barons of banking. Congress, acting like Robin Hood, used a reverse form of theft with their accomplices in the banking community who played the role of the Merry Men, robbing the poor to benefit the rich. Obama added a new dimension to the concept of corporate welfare by demanding partial ownership (i.e., nationalization) of those corporations that accepted any stimulus money (i.e., corporate welfare). In the case of the banks who received taxpayer money, Obama forced them to collateralize their "loans" with nonvoting high yield preferred stock.
The Treasury is now demanding that the banks who received the bailout money exchange the preferred stock they put up as collateral for voting shares. Obama wants a voice in the management of the nation's 19 largest banks. The reason? Obama personally wants to control who sits on the boards of those banks. Why should that be important to him? Because the bankers and the politicians control the price of everything. During the turbulent 1920s joblessness in Germany grew from 2.25 million in 1930 to 6 million in 1932. The value of the mark collapsed. In 1918 a pound of potatoes in Germany cost 1/8th of a Mark. In Nov. 1923 that same pound of potatoes cost 50 billion Marks. One egg that cost 1/4th of a Mark in 1918 cost 80 billion Marks in 1923. Butter was a luxury that only the rich could afford in 1923. One pound of butter cost 3 Marks in 1918. It took a wheelbarrow containing 6 trillion Marks to buy a pound of butter in Nov., 1923.
The American banking system, which managed to weather Obama's first tsunami—an attempt on his part to wrest managerial control of the banks from the bankers by insisting they switch the high dividend-yield, nonvoting preferred stock they pledged as collateral for the bailout loans into common stock which pays no dividends but is voting stock. With the shares the government "owns" until the loans are repaid, they will virtually control who sits on the boards of these banks.
On Thursday, May 7, the Treasury announced the results of the government's hypothetical stress test on the financial well-being of the nation's 19 largest commercial banks. All of them, according to the government, will need billions of additional dollars of funding in the first couple years of the next decade if economic conditions worsen in the United States. In their hypothetical, the government predicted a 25% credit card default rate when the worst five year credit default rate (during the Carter Era) was 5%. Clearly, the government's worse case scenario was structured to make all of these banks appear to be in much worse shape than they actually are. And the banks are troubled by what he's doing. Increasingly, the bankers are beginning to fear Obama. The reason? It appears that Obama is determined to coerce the bankers into signing on to the his economic agenda—whatever it is. But, when the White House begins to threaten the bankers who helped put him in office, it should be starting to dawn on the working class voters that it won't be good for them.
In 1921, former army corporal, political opportunist and wallpaper hanger Adolph Hitler was known only by a handful of political dissidents in Austria. Less than 3% of the disgruntled voters in 1928 voted for the National Socialist Party in Germany. No one viewed Hitler as anyone who could solve the difficult economic issues of the day. And, that was after seven years of what was almost blitzkreg-level propagandizing by the Nazis. Hitler's only followers came from the far right in Germany and Austria. Only those who felt completely disenfranchised and utterly disillusioned by the Weimar Republic chose to follow Hitler, believing his promise of change, but never questioning what types of change he would make. Like the American far right today, Hitler exploited the backward-looking ultra-conservatism of a bygone era with that magic word—"change." Those who followed Hitler, like the far left that follows socialist Obama, saw and heard what they wanted to see and hear in the messianic message of der Fuehrer. Change meant whatever each starry-eyed follower wanted it to mean.
After struggling for political power as an insignificant fringe party candidate in the turbulent '20s, Hitler realized that to wrest power from the rich gentry, he needed the secure the support of those he intended to overthrow. Particularly the bankers and the industrialists who controlled both money and jobs. Hitler, like Obama, came to power in turbulent times (even though the crisis that brought Obama to power was contrived by greedy, graft-infected politicians, industrialists and bankers for the express purpose of toppling not only a nation but the monetary systems of the world's failing nation states). But unlike Obama who has a Congressional super majority at his beck-and-call, Hitler's Nazi Party was a minority in the Reichstag. But, he had a plan how to parlay his seat in the Reichstag to the presidency of Germany. Banker Hjalmar Schacht who, as Germany's Commissioner of Currency was tasked, in 1923 with creating a solvent new currency to replace the Reichsmark that was being decimated by the hyperinflation that destroyed the German economy.
Schacht, believed to be the best monetary mind in Germany, wanted to head the Reichsbank. However, during World War I, as the Army's banking commissioner for occupied Belgium, Schacht funneled Belgium notes of remittance worth 500 million francs to his former employer, the Dresdner Bank. Gen. Ludwig von Lumm fired him and, when the job as head of the Reichsbank opened in 1923, von Lumm killed Schacht's chances of getting it. Hitler promised Schacht the job if he became President of Germany. Schacht became Hitler's money bagman, leading other bankers and their money to the Nazis. One by one, Germany's most important banking families threw their support behind Hitler. Next came the industrialists. (Schacht was tried for war crimes in Nuremberg in 1946 but his guilt was not established beyond a reasonable doubt and he was not convicted of war crimes. Photo of Schacht [above] was taken during the Nuremberg war crimes tribunal.)
Those who are watching close enough cannot fail to see the historic parallel. When Obama decided to coalesce with the leaders of the failing US auto industry—the only group desperate enough to take taxpayer money with strings of steel they would never be able to break, he did what Hitler did when he made his historic deal with Georg von Schnitzler, an ambitious member of I.G. Farben's board of directors. Schnitzler became the proverbial scapegoat that led other German industrialists into the Nazi fold. Under Hitler, Schnitzler quickly became CEO of Farben and was among the first to greedily exploit the human capital in the concentration camps. (Schnitzler, industrialists Otto Wolf, August Rosterg, and Albert Voegler of United Steel Works, were among the early industrialists that supported Hitler with their checkbooks—and their influence. They were among 22 industrialists who faced war crimes charges for using the slave labor in the concentration camps.) Schnitzler, who became the Third Reich's Economic Minister, was an SA officer and Nazi Party official. Yet, he served only 2.5 years of his five year prison sentence at the end of the war. Hitler could not have achieved absolute, dictatorial power in Germany without the help and influence of the industrialists and bankers. Think about that when you watch the White House waltz with the bankers and industrialists. When government sticks its authoritarian hand into the free enterprise system, expect a recession, a depression...or worse.
Obama has already begun to move in that direction. In the privacy of the Oval Office Obama has not hesitated to threaten to destroy the careers of the bankers and auto industry executives who interfere with the White House's plans for those who accepted bailout money. Tom Lauria, a lawyer for one of the hedge fund creditors of Chrysler, Perella Weinburg, told ABC News that Steve Rattner, the head of Obama's auto industry task force threatened to destroy the career of his client, an investment banker who opposed writing off most of Chrysler's debt. When the story broke, the White House denied it. On the talk show circuit, Lauria insisted that Rattner called Weinburg and warned him that if he did not lower his expectations of what his company was entitled to expect from a bankrupt Chrysler, the White House Press Corps would destroy him—and his bank. When Rattner hung up, Weinburg backed off his initial demands that Chrysler pay its debt to his company, leaving his lawyer with egg on his face. The law firms used by America's investment bankers are not loose cannons who go on political talk shows and make spurious statements about the White House. Mistakes like that are career-enders. Why is the White House using Gestapo tactics? First, Obama promised the United Auto Workers controlling interest in Chrysler and GM. Even though the union denies it, they will get a 55% stake in Chrysler including a seat on the restructured company. Control of 55% of the voting stock allows the UAW to pick the officers of the company. If rank and file UAW members feel good about this scenario, they need to rethink what is about to happen. Their advocates for increased wages and benefits will have become the adversary in the negotiations for increased benefits demands. The UAW and the other unions that represent GM employees around the world will get 39% of the stock of General Motors. In both auto companies, the unions will partner with management. Rhetoric aside, even if it looks like a sweetheart deal to rank and file union members today, ultimately, the only adversary left the corporate partnership of labor and management to fight will be the workers. Clearly, this deal happens only if the bankruptcy court agrees. And, that will only happen if the auto industry creditors agree.
Obama, the community activist, is using the tools of civil rights activism to leverage some of the nation's most powerful corporate entities. Industry. Banking. Labor. Obama is doing, in 2009, what Hitler did in 1932. it took Hitler 28 days to abrogate Germany's written Constitution, suspend all civil rights, eliminate all forms of personal liberty and create one of the three most deadly totalitarian dictatorships in the history of the modern world.
Obama is a student of history. Unlike most of us who study history to learn from the mistakes man has made in the past in order not to repeat them, history is a political playbook for Obama. He uses it as a "how-to" learning tutorial from the despots of the past. He has studied the historic events that led to their rise, together with the political and economic mistakes that led to their downfalls and eventual demise. Obama, who thinks with the mind of a Kenyan raised in Indonesia, does not think like the patriots of history who led this nation to greatness. The foundational platform Obama is casting in stone suggests he was selected by the money barons of the New World Order as the architect who will dismantle the United States of America. When that happens, Obama will become the auctioneer who sells the assets of a failed society to the emerging economic centers of the world. If anyone needs a reason why the Founding Fathers crafted into the Constitution that anyone running for the highest office in the land must be a natural born citizen of the United States, this is the reason. The Founding Fathers knew they could not risk placing someone in the White House whose inherent loyalties to this nation might be suspect.
The American presidents Obama appears to admire most are Franklin D. Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln. Why? Because they successfully sidestepped the Constitution, virtually suspended the Bill of Rights, and ruled as dictators until their deaths. From the subtle nuances of political tartuffism, it appears that the European leader Obama chose to emulate is Adolph Hitler. During his campaign—even as he called for the creation of a civilian army controlled by the White House—Obama's scheming hypocrisy was shrouded by his messianic campaign mimicry that, through change, he would save the American people from themselves. The American people, so desperate for something other than George W. Bush, failed to check the ingredients in the recipe already simmering on the back burner of the cookstove on Capitol Hill.
Hitler assumed power as Chancellor of the constitutionally-protected Weimar Republic on Jan. 30, 1933. In the late evening hours of Feb. 27, 1933, Hitler's "Brown Shirts" (the Sturmabteilung or "storm detachment," paralleling Obama's private "citizen army") torched the Reichstag. The fire was blamed on communists. Using the terrorist act as a catalyst, on Feb. 28 Chancellor Hitler forced ailing President Paul von Beneckendorf Hindenburg to issue a decree suspending all seven sections of the German constitution which guaranteed individual and civil liberties.
In exactly one month, or more precisely, 28 days, even without a Nazi majority in the Reichstag, Hitler managed to suspend civil liberties in Germany. Personal liberty no longer existed in the Weimar Republic. On March 5, 1933 Germany held its last democratic election during the lifetime of Adolph Hitler. Despite rampant intimidation of the population by Hitler's Brown Shirts (Hitler's civilian army), the majority of the voters in Germany resoundingly rejected the Nazis. Hitler's goons convinced some 5.5 million voters to cast their votes for the Nazi Party by making them feel that the threat to civil liberty came from the communists and the Jews. Yet, Hitler fell far short of a majority.
Using every form of vote fraud possible, the National Socialist Party won 17,277,180 votes—44% of the total votes cast. The Socialists, who were framed for the Reichstag fire, still received 4,848,058 votes. The Social Democrats, the second largest party in Germany, won 7,181,629 votes. The politically conservative Center Party took 4,424,900 votes and the Catholic Bavarian Party took 5.5 million votes. Yet, without a consensus to govern, Hitler was able to suspend the Constitution and assume limited dictatorial powers. At 9 a.m. on Aug. 2, 1933 von Hindenburg died, two months shy of his 87th birthday. No autopsy was done to determine if the aging ruler was assisted on his trip into eternity. At noon on Aug. 2, Hitler announced that on the previous day the German cabinet, meeting with Hindenburg and Hitler, combined the offices of President and Chancellor according to a special law enacted that day. Hitler found an easy way to get rid of the burdensome elections. He simply suspended the Constitution and the rule of law, and proclaimed himself President for life.
A year earlier in the United States, Franklin Delano Roosevelt became the willing puppet of the utopian industrialists, bankers and the merchant princes who were determined to complete the task they began in 1914—the creation of world government. The Utopians believed war would become a memory of a soon-forgotten past if they could create a unified, functional world government—providing they could force the United States to join the League of Nations. They tried in 1920, but the US Senate—which, at that time, was still reading legislation before signing it—didn't like the clause in the Treaty of Versailles which said that all signatory nations would surrender their sovereignty to the League of Nations and would become vassal states in a global nation.
A decade earlier, in 1924, the 3-year old Nazi Party formed the Grossdeutsche Jugendbewegung—the Greater German Youth Movement. Two years later it was renamed Hitler Jugend der deutschen Arbeiterjugend—Hitler Youth League of German Worker Youth. At that time, the Hitler Youth League became an integral part of the Nazi Party and what Hitler believed would be a generational political movement that would sweep, first, across Germany, then Europe, then the world. Hitler, like Stalin before him, recognized that by capturing the minds of the youth at an impressionable age, governments could indoctrinate them at will and avoid countless revolutions and attempted coups in the future.
In 1924 there were less 5 thousand Hitler Youths. At the end of 1932 when Hitler came to power, the Hitler Youth League totaled about 108 thousand. By the end of 1933 when Hitler assumed dictatorial power, the Hitler Youth League had over 2.3 million members, with each boy in Germany being required to attend what amounted to "boot camp" each year for further indoctrination. In Dec. 1936, membership became mandatory for all boys, 10 years of age or older. By 1940 there were over 8 million members in the Hitler Youth organization. Hitler was creating a new civilian army of ultra-loyal Aryans who would protect the Third Reich from all threats, domestic or foreign. History still provides tyrants with the best blueprint for conquest.
On March 9, 2009, Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy [D-NY] with 37 Democratic co-sponsors introduced what the Democrats (and the mainstream media) called a bipartisan piece of legislation entitled the Generations Invigorating Volunteerism & Education Act of 2009 [GIVE] in the House. The bill was designed to amend the National Community Service Act of 1990 and the Domestic Volunteer Act of 1973 by making "volunteerism" mandatory for anyone in the United States who applies for, or receives, school loans or grants, or any other funds from the federal government to serve at least 3 months in what is now being dubbed "Obama's Youth Brigade." It is unclear if the boot camp each inductee will be forced to attend is construed to be part of the mandatory three months of service, or if its inclusive. But the parallels between Obama's agenda and that of Hitler are simply too similar to be construed as historic coincidences. Obama is too much of a student of history not to have observed these things about Hitler, and quickly grasped the reality that Hitler's foundational planning would benefit a community activist from Chicago on his quest for power.
The far left Senate picked up McCarthy's bill, dubbing it the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act of 2009, ostensibly to honor Ted Kennedy, but probably just as much to keep conservative legislation watchers from realizing that regardless what it was called, the Generations Invigorating Volunteerism & Education Act of 2009 is now law. The measure was passed in the House on March 18, 2009 by a vote of 275 to 149 (quoted as 321 to 105 elsewhere). Two hundred forty-nine Democrats and 26 Republicans voted for the bill. One hundred forty-nine Republicans voted against it. The Senate voted on March 26. The measure passed 79 to 19. Obama signed it into law on April 21, 2009.
Obama, if you recall, had all of the religious icons in Gaston Hall at the Catholic Georgetown University before he would speak there. His chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, who represents the Oval Office in Joint Conference to make sure whatever bill Congress presents to the Resident to sign into law is acceptable to the White House.
Strangely, for the most Christian nation in the world, Section 125 of the Generations Invigorating Volunteerism & Education Act was amended to prohibit anyone covered by the bill from engaging in any form of religious instruction, conducting worship services or constructing or operating facilities devoted to religious instruction, or maintaining facilities which are used primarily for religious instruction or worship. The only reason HR 1388 received any GOP support at all was because of a deal struck with the Democrats to pull Sec. 125 from the bill. The offensive section was deleted and a handful of Republicans kept their word and voted for the measure. However, in typical far left sleight-of-hand, in Joint Conference, Section 125 was reinserted in the legislation that would be signed into law as Sec. 132A. The Obama Youth Brigade was very important to the White House. Is there any doubt why?
The Trifecta of Blame
Before the Election of 2008 I communicated with hundreds of conservative supporters of lost causes, urging them to vote for John McCain not because I thought McCain was an acceptable presidential candidate, but solely because [a] as a major party candidate, with enough support, he could win; and [b] because he wasn't as bad as the alternative. Anyone with a reasonable mind knew that. Given a super majority in Congress, the ultra-far left Obama was going to implement a socio-fascist government. But it seemed that every Don Quixote conservative was using the same far right patriotic talking points from the same far right broadcast email. I was repeatedly told that they would cast their vote for integrity even though they knew their candidate (whether it be Congressman Ron Paul, pastor Chuck Baldwin or former Congressman Bob Barr) couldn't win. No third party candidate in US politics enters a presidential race with illusions that they can win. Because they can't. That's why its called a "two-party system." Third party candidates are "scrapbook candidates." They are in the race for two reasons. First, so they can tell their grandchildren they were once candidates for President of the United States. And, finally, if they are party affiliated, they are seeking matching funds so they can continue chasing windmills in the next election cycle.
To collect matching funds, major party candidates (i.e., Democrats and Republicans) need only collect at least $100 thousand in total contributions from donors in at leasts 20 States. Third party candidates must take at least 5% of the vote and collect over $100 thousand total in at least 20 different States. (In 2008, Joe Biden, Christopher Dodd, John Edwards, Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo, and Dennis Kucinich collected matching funds for their abortive campaigns.[Obama and McCain each received $21,025,000, which was the maximum allowed in 2008.] Strange is that third party candidate Ralph Nader, who took slightly more than a half of 1% of the vote [0.56%], was awarded $411 thousand in matching funds by the FEC. The last third party candidates to meet the 5% threshold and qualify for matching funds was Pat Buchanan who hijacked the Reform Party in 2000 with 5% of the vote through a fluke. The Reform Party split, with Buchanan keeping the Party name. Reform Party dissident John Hagelin renamed his segment of the Reform Party the Natural Law Party. Buchanan's Reform Party took 4% of the vote. Hagelin's Reform Party/Natural Law Party, took 1% of the vote. The FEC combined the totals and decided the Reform Party met the 5% threshold and awarded matching funds.)
You should be grasping the stark reality of our political system. As I said, it's called a two-party system for a reason. Third party candidates can't get elected. Ever. They aren't supposed to. They are the spoilers used by the overlords of the major parties to guarantee that the candidate the barons of banking and business and princes of industry have picked to lead the nation wins the election. In 2008, it was clear from early on that Sen. John McCain was the designated loser. It was unclear until New Hampshire whether the winner was supposed to be Hillary Rodham Clinton or Barack Hussein Obama. On the eve of the New Hampshire primary as Hillary was racking up her first important win, the money barons pulled their support from her and gave the blank check to Obama. A man without a constitutional right to run, and a man who could never have won more than 35% of the vote in an honest election—if he was eligible to run—Sen. Barack Obama, was picked to win.
Why? As a "man of the world," the money barons knew Obama has no ethical or patriotic loyalty to the United States. The transnationalists knew Obama would not hesitate to sell out this nation to the globalists in the Hague.
Referring to the Tea Party Movement (what I prefer to call a real John Doe Movement what amounts to the little punks taking back their country from the big skunks), Fox News talk show host Glenn Beck noted on his May 5 program that both the Republican and Democratic Parties are shrinking, and the ranks of nonaligned conservative independents is rising. Beck noted that the voters did the quintessential American thing. We said, "enough," and put in the other guy. And now what's happened," Beck observed, "people on both sides are saying, 'Haven't I seen this movie before?'" That's why I like the movie "Meet John Doe." In that movie, the people win. Why? Because, in the movie, the people were smart enough to realize they can pick the candidates within the party that actually win the nominations. Why within the party and not another party? Once again, no third party has the organizational structure necessary to get their candidates on the ballot in every county in every State in the nation. And no third party has the money to actually get the voters out to vote. Change must come from within the two major parties. They cannot be swamped by the tsunami of mass defections from the major parties described by Beck because when the disenfranchised desert, they join fringe groups—each promoting their own candidate.
While those defined as Reagan Republicans made up about 80% of the potential voting block in the 2008 primaries, when their votes were split between nine candidates, the vote was diluted so much that McCain became the GOP nominee with a plurality of 22%. Once again, that happened because conservatives refused to coalesce around the most winnable candidate in the field. In that race, the candidate that should have won the nomination and would have won the election, was Gov. Mitt Romney. Anti-tax conservatives decided to play games with the multiplicity of straw polls throughout the primary season, repeatedly voting for Ron Paul, or voting once and shooting off email after email to others on their email lists to get them to vote for the OB-Gyn from Texas. As a result, Ron Paul's numbers were grossly exaggerated, suggesting there were thousands of supporters for his campaign that simply didn't exist. This anomaly between fact and fiction caused thousands of solid conservative votes that might have kept the House of Representatives from falling into the hands of the watermelons, to never be cast as disillusioned conservatives decided neither candidate was worth their vote.
And, that's why we ended up with "22% John MCain" in 2008. With 11 contestants vying for the GOP nomination, the Rockerfeller-Republican vote (about 30% of the GOP voters) would be divided between Sen. McCain and former New York mayor Rudy Guiliani, with McCain pulling about 93% of those voters. The Reagan-Republican vote was divided between nine GOP hopefuls: Governors Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Jim Gilmore and Tommy Thompson; Senators Sam Brownback and Fred Thompson; and Congressmen Tom Tancredo, Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter. Get the picture? Without the John Doe "little punks" coalescing around one candidate who would be supported by the majority of the voters—and, most of all, had the ability to win, the liberal institution's candidate always wins because there are fewer liberals in the candidate field to split the minority liberal votes (which means the percentage of votes will generally be larger when fewer candidates are vying for that segment's votes). That will always happen because the money barons know, historically, how the John Does of the world think and act. They know the John Does would rather sit out the election than vote for the lesser of two evils.
Glenn Beck viewed the John Doe exodus from the major parties as a good thing. It's not. Once outside the major parties, the John Does can no longer influence the outcome of any national election—except to elect the greater of two evils. Remember the first rule of the two party system. Third party candidates are spoilers who are used by the money barons to assure the election of the "designated winner."
Beck, like the John Does themselves, believe that raw numbers mean something. They don't. If they did, every National election would be won by a Democrat. Elections are always won or lost by the votes of the John Does of America. But I have to agree with Glenn Beck about one thing. When I started digging into the philosophical make-up of Obama last year, I was convinced I had found a closet clone of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini—a socialist Muslim. I was wrong. He is a socio-fascist Muslim. (In fairness to Beck, he only referred to Obama as a fascist and not a Muslim.) The wellspring of Obama's mind appears to be a patchwork quilt of what worked under communism and fascism. He appears to have blended those world views and spiced them with the best of Roosevelt and Lincoln.
America went into the Election of 2008 with an easy-to-solve financial problem that was caused, fully and completely, by the far left with the assistance of then presidential candidate Barack Hussein Obama during his days as a Chicago community activist and as an Illinois State Senator. The media blamed George W. Bush. So did the American working class because the problem impacted the consumers on his watch. In fact, they blamed every Republican—but not the Democrats who actually legislated the Clinton-era law that forced US banks to ignore the creditworthiness of minority home buyers even to the extent of allowing welfare payments to be construed as real wages and the welfare system as their employer, in order to qualify for mortgages even though, historically, the credit history of the buyer made it clear that the mortgage holder had a poor history of paying rent and utilities regardless where the household "income" came from.
In the free enterprise system, mortgage foreclosures have always been with us. What hasn't been is something called "mark-to-market." Mark-to-market is a very bad bookkeeping rule imposed on commercial banks by the Federal Reserve. It is used to arbitrarily reduce the net worth of collateral assets to what tax appraisers in the local markets consider those assets to be worth if someone wanted to buy them today. In other words, let's assume there are an above the average amount of home foreclosures in Detroit, Michigan or Glendale, Arizona. Under mark-to-market, the banks holding any home mortgages sold in Detroit or Glendale are forced to reduce the ledger worth of those collateral assets to the collective current market value of all properties in those markets even though none of those mortgages are in trouble. Now, multiply the problem in Detroit and Glendale to every city in every State in the nation and you have an idea of how the problem happened.
The Fed rule flipflopped the asset-to-debt ratios in the nation's commercial banks, reducing the banks liquidity on paper and, under the fractional reserve system, dramatically reducing the amount of money the banks can loan to local consumers. Mark-to-market shut down the credit markets in the United States and led to the crisis that required a four trillion dollar bank bailout. It was a deliberate move by the Fed to stall the economy and create a massive financial crisis that appeared severe enough to require extreme intervention by government.
Americans have always been poor custodians of liberty. We carelessly assume that liberty cares for itself. Furthermore, we blindly assume that those we elect will not violate our trust because they spend every election campaign assuring us that while everyone on the other side of the aisle lack a morsel of integrity, they are bastions of piety.
The architects of the New World Order have been working on their own piety plan for over a hundred years. It began with JP Morgan and Thomas Woodrow Wilson. During the Election of 1912—which William Howard Taft should have won 55% to 45%—Morgan convinced Teddy Roosevelt to enter the race and challenge Taft. The polls showed that Roosevelt would take 25% of the vote. He took 37% and came in second. Wilson, who should have handily lost, won with 42.9% of the popular vote. From their 1912 experience, the money barons learned they could buy whatever election outcome they wanted. It's simply a matter of balancing a designated winner and a designated loser with a failsafe third party candidate to syphon enough votes from the designated loser to guarantee that the designated winner actually wins.
Roosevelt was the bankers' choice in 1932 to complete the job started in 1920 when the US Senate rejected the League of Nations. The Fed once again set the stage for a crisis. FDR also used a fabricated national emergency to seize all of the privately-owned gold coins and gold certificates. Refusal to surrender gold coins and gold certificates became a federal crime punishable by a fine of $10,000 and a 10-year prison sentence. The national emergency, fanned to crises levels by the bankers themselves, began with a well-staged collapse of the Stock Market that was blamed on amateur investors when, in fact, it was a strategic dichotomy of events designed to do the maximum amount of damage to the working class investor in order to generate enough public hysteria that the people would demurely accept a solution that would begin with the 73rd Congress reclassifying them as enemies of the United States in order for FDR to seize their gold and silver-backed money, replacing it with fiat scrip—and then, in Feb., 1934, devaluing that elastic dollar by 59¢, leaving the US consumers with a dollar bill with 41¢ buying power as durable goods, which had not been devalued, continued to rise in price.
We are now enmeshed in our third Fed-fabricated financial crisis. First Wilson and then Roosevelt. Now the community activist and political piranha, Barack Obama. Obama, like his predecessors, was picked by the international money barons because they saw him as a man with no moral compass who, without any qualms, would obediently lead the United States into a New World Order from which there will be no escape. If we haven't done so yet, this would be a good time to ask the question: "How did we arrive at this point?"
Sadly, the voters—and the couch potatoes who never vote but are always quick to tell you what's wrong with our government—are either very gullible or just stupid. They appear not to care that once politicians are elected into the US House of Representatives, most become morally bankrupt after three terms. And many of those the voters place in the US Senate lose their moral compass after one term. The electorate blindly trusts the politicians they elect because the party machines, the union bosses, and the liberal media tell them they should. We have become like sheep being led to the slaughter. We follow the droppings of the rich who profit from the sweat equity of the working class that built the United States into the greatest nation on Earth, with our hands out, like paupers. Yet, we buy the slave labor goods of the third world as the closed factories of America become the mortuaries of the US economy. Americans needs to learn to say "no." If it isn't made here, it won't be sold here. This is something we must absolutely do if we expect to survive as a independent nation beyond the middle of the next decade.
The media has done a bang-up job of duping the voters into believing that politicians can take millions of dollars in contributions from special interest groups who actually write the legislation that the politicians in their pockets introduce on the floor of Congress as their own. The politicians then fight to push through Congress bills they themselves have never read which specifically benefit the special interest groups that wrote them. And, they do it with a pious, straight face as though what they are doing is not wrong. There's nothing wrong only because they enacted laws that make that type of bribery legal. Any Congressman or Senator who advocates on behalf of, or votes in favor of any legislation that profits a contributor or the company or organization of a contributor, that politician should be summarily removed from office, tried in federal court for accepting a bribe, and imprisoned. And those who paid the bribe should likewise be imprisoned. Voters naive enough to believe that political donors give millions of dollars to politicians and political parties without the expectation of getting something worth far more in return should have their voter registration cards revoked.
Sadly, even as they watched the mass exodus of jobs from the United States over the last decade and a half, and stood by as social progressive politicians placed social progressive judges on the benches of our federal courts with the expectation that they would "modernize" the archaic document known as the Constitution of the United States. It's hard to believe that, due largely to our apathy, the political system under which we live is not the same political system that was created by our Founding Fathers.
Nor is it the same political system under which our grandparents lived and prospered before the fraudulent ratification of the 16th and 17th Amendments. Nor is it even the same nation our parents lived under in the 1940s and 1950s before the Supreme Court realized it could legislate new laws from the bench by combining portions of old ones—without getting impeached for violating the separation of powers. The legislative branch lacks the power to adjudicate the law and the judicial branch lacks the authority to legislate law.
Frankly, none of those patriots who signed the Constitution of the United States—not even those who would have preferred a stronger central government—would have signed any document that granted a federal oligarchy the type, or degree, of power that has been unconstitutionally conferred on the Executive, Legislative, or Judicial Branches of government by themselves. But then, far too few Americans care. Far too many of us, for far too long, have taken liberty for granted. It is, after all, an inherent right. Yet, without as much as a whimper of outrage, the American people have watched the elitists among us erase the Constitutional protection we enjoy, one clause at a time. And, slowly and meticulously, we dismissively watched as the far left revised the history of this great nation by rewriting the textbooks used by our children. Most people fail to realize that to change the destination at the end of the path into the future it is only necessary to change the historical archive of that nation's past. The revisionists have craftily edited the history of the 20th century to fit the emerging realities of the 21st.
The die is cast. Those who are determined to build the New World Order on the ashes of the United States are now too deeply entrenched in the governments of the world to be stopped. Although world government now appears to be inevitable, the timeline for its implementation can still be delayed if the American people wake up very quickly, stop chasing windmills, and take their government back in 2010. But make no mistake, world government is the reality of the 21st century. Yet, with all of the talk about global utopia, it matters little who you talk to anywhere in the world, nobody anywhere on Earth want to be merged with every other nation in a seamless global nation state that stifles liberty and controls the independent thoughts men think. Global government is the vision of a handful of the most powerful money barons on Earth.
Sadly, when America and its citizen warriors are effectively disarmed, the walls of national sovereignty will fall like children's building blocks all around the globe, and a one world economic, political and religious system will rise from the rubble. And the souls of the martyrs of America's past will cry out in anguish.