Democratic Party Adds Gay Marriage to Platform; As Attacks Continue, Chick-fil-A Getting Plenty of Support for Its Christian Values

The Democratic Party has added new language endorsing gay marriage in its platform draft, the Washington Blade reports. Sen. Harry Reid said in May that he believed the party would alter its platform in favor of gay marriage, after President Obama spoke out that month in favor of same-sex couples' right to marry. The Republican Party's platform calls for a constitutional amendment that would ban all same-sex marriages, even in states that allow them. [Source]

As Attacks Continue, Chick-fil-A Getting Plenty of Support for Its Christian Values

July 28, 2012

New American - While Chick-fil-A has determined to move past the controversy raised by its president’s recent comments on family, Christian values, and same-sex marriage, homosexual activists and their fellow travelers seem to have found an object worthy of their irrational rage. In mid-July, Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy told a Baptist publication that the restaurant chain his father, Truett Cathy, founded in the 1940s has always been run on strong Christian and traditional family values. He later told a nationally syndicated radio program that America was in danger of God’s judgment for its arrogant and anti-Christian embrace of same-sex marriage.

The resulting national backlash from the homosexual activist community — which, among other actions, encouraged a boycott of Chick-fil-A restaurants — prompted the restaurant chain to remind the public that it exists to sell chicken sandwiches, not fight political battles.

In a July 19 statement the chain said that it would “leave the policy debate over same-sex marriage to the government and political arena,” and that its restaurants would continue to focus on treating “every person with honor, dignity and respect — regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation, or gender.”

Supporters of homosexual marriage, however, have been unable to leave the issue and “agree to disagree.” Nothing less than the public shunning and humiliation — and, if at all possible, the total destruction — of the successful Christian business will do. Thus, along with the continued requisite Change.org boycott of the restaurant have come high-profile and politically motivated attacks in major cities where Chick-fil-A is quietly trying to conduct its business.

On July 19 Boston Mayor Thomas Menino got some free publicity by announcing that he would try to block the restaurant chain’s attempt to open a store in his town.

“Chick-fil-A doesn’t belong in Boston,” Menino announced to the Boston Herald. “You can’t have a business in the city of Boston that discriminates against a population. We’re an open city, we’re a city that’s at the forefront of inclusion.”

Responding to rumors that Chick-fil-A was looking into opening a restaurant somewhere along the city’s Freedom Trail, a 2.5-mile brick path that commemorates the American Revolution and the nation’s quest for independence, Menino tried to correlate America’s own monumental founding with the attempts by homosexuals to normalize their aberrant lifestyle.

“That’s the Freedom Trail,” intoned the mayor as he co-opted America’s rich heritage for his own politics. “That’s where it all started right here. And we’re not going to have a company, Chick-fil-A or whatever the hell the name is, on our Freedom Trail.”

In similar fashion, Chicago’s aggressively political Democratic machine mounted its own assault of the Christian company. On July 25 the Chicago Tribune reported that the city’s First Ward alderman, Poco “Joe” Moreno, would attempt to block Chick-fil-A’s attempts to open a restaurant in his neighborhood.

“If you are discriminating against a segment of the community, I don’t want you in the 1st Ward,” Moreno told the Tribune. Referring to Cathy’s reasonably Christian comments as “bigoted” and “homophobic,” Moreno complained that “because of this man’s ignorance, I will now be denying Chick-fil-A’s permit to open a restaurant in the 1st Ward.”

Chicago’s mayor, Obama apparatchik Rahm Emanuel, attempted to ride the undercurrent of Moreno’s slavishly pro-homosexual comments, issuing a statement assuring Chicagoans that:

Chick-fil-A’s compassionate Christian values “are not Chicago values.” Emanuel insisted that Christian values “disrespect our fellow neighbors and residents” and would be “a bad investment” for the city.

As Moreno and Emanuel were posing as friends of the homosexual lobby, a more tolerant Chicago politician, Alderman Howard Brookins, Jr., said he would welcome Chick-fil-A to his 21st Ward.

“People’s personal beliefs, unless they are way out of bounds, should not go into the decision as to whether a company should come into a particular area,” Brookins told the Chicago Tribune. Alderman Brendan Reilly of the 42nd Ward, where Chicago’s only current Chick-fil-A is located, agreed with Brookins’ assessment, saying that unless there is evidence that the chain is actively discriminating against someone, the best philosophy is to live and let live. “If citizens find the corporation’s views distasteful, they can vote with their feet,” Reilly said.

Which is what the Jim Henson Company, owner of the “Muppets” franchise, has decided to do with regards to its contract with Chick-fil-A. According to the Los Angeles Times, the company responsible for Kermit the Frog, Miss Piggy, Ernie and Bert, and a host of other puppets that have enchanted children for over 30 years, had in recent months been working with Chick-fil-A to create toys for the restaurant chain’s kids meals. But the Jim Henson Company has now decided to pull the plug on the Chick-fil-A. The company took to its Facebook page to assure one and all that the

“Jim Henson Company has celebrated and embraced diversity and inclusiveness for over fifty years,” and to announce that it had “notified Chick-Fil-A that we do not wish to partner with them on any future endeavors.”

In order to leave no doubts that it eschews the values embraced by Chick-fil-A and embraces the values of America’s minority homosexual community, the company added that

“Lisa Henson, our CEO, is personally a strong supporter of gay marriage and has directed us to donate the payment we received from Chick-Fil-A to GLAAD” — the aggressively homosexual Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation.

Of course, those Americans whose hearts and minds resonate with the Christian values embraced by Chick-fil-A have been doing some voting as well. As the restaurant chain was absorbing the non-stop attacks of pro-homosexual groups and their backers, conservative radio talk-show host Mike Huckabee suggested that supporters of traditional values celebrate a Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day, launching an I Support Chick-fil-A Facebook page where people could register their support for the company. According to Baptist Press News, by July 25 over 200,000 people had signed on to the page to say that they would support the cause by eating at Chick-fil-a on August 1.

“Let’s affirm a business that operates on Christian principles and whose executives are willing to take a stand for the Godly values we espouse by simply showing up and eating at Chick-Fil-A on Wednesday, August 1,” Huckabee wrote on the page. “Too often, those on the left make corporate statements to show support for same-sex marriage, abortion, or profanity, but if Christians affirm traditional values, we’re considered homophobic, fundamentalists, hate-mongers, and intolerant.”

Huckabee emphasized that “there’s no need for anyone to be angry or engage in a verbal battle. Simply affirm appreciation for a company run by Christian principles by showing up on Wednesday, August 1 or by participating online — tweeting your support, or sending a message on Facebook.”

Apparently, someone with access to the inner workings of Facebook’s online machine couldn’t tolerate the success of the campaign. On July 24 the “I Support Chick-fil-A” page disappeared from Facebook for 12 hours, prompting Huckabee to comment when it finally re-appeared:

“We caught a 12-hour bug — apparently it hits when large numbers of Christians support something and post about it on Facebook!”

Huckabee later wrote that Facebook had “decided to censor and delete the entire event page, and it was down for over 12 hours until they finally decided that maybe that wasn’t really smart.”

Meanwhile, Dan Cathy and the management of Chick-fil-A have determined that they will concentrate on keeping business as usual their main focus.

“From the day Truett Cathy started the company, he began applying biblically-based principles to managing his business,” the company said in a statement as it attempted to distance itself from the ongoing fray. “For example, we believe that closing on Sundays, operating debt-free, and devoting a percentage of our profits back to our communities are what make us a stronger company and Chick-fil-A family.”

The company said that its “mission is simple: to serve great food, provide genuine hospitality, and have a positive influence on all who come in contact with Chick-fil-A.”

The Rothschilds: the First Barons of Banking

In early July 2008, Baron Rothschild said that his family's business would be involved in bankruptcy restructurings in the U.S., a franchise they predicted would see a lot more activity in the months ahead. Rothschild believes that there is a New World Order. In his opinion, banks will deleverage and there will be a new form of global governance. The Rothschilds have worked for centuries: quietly, without fuss, behind the scenes. "We have had 250 years or so of family involvement in the finance business," says Rothschild. "We provide advice on both sides of the balance sheet, and we do it globally." By the 19th century, they ran a financial institution with the power and influence of a combined Merrill Lynch, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley and perhaps even Goldman Sachs and the Bank of China today. The Rothschilds have been helping the British government -- and many others -- out of a financial hole ever since they financed Wellington’s army and thus victory against the French at Waterloo in 1815. In the 1820s, the Rothschilds supplied enough money to the Bank of England to avert a liquidity crisis. There is not one institution that can save the system in the same way today; not even the U.S. Federal Reserve. So how did the Rothschilds manage to emerge relatively unscathed from the financial meltdown? "You could say that we may have more insights than others, or you may look at the structure of our business," he says. "As a family business, we want to limit risk. There is a natural pride in being a trusted adviser."



Rockefeller-owned Exxon had a net income of $11 billion in the first quarter of 2011. During the same quarter, Shell's profit rose 60 percent to about $9 billion. France's Total SA made about $5.8 billion, up 50 percent. ConocoPhillips' earnings rose 43 percent. Chevron's net income rose 36 percent to $6.21 billion.

Every penny increase at the pump takes $4 million per day from the American consumer. So a 10-cent increase is $40 million a day (or $14.6 billion per year). [A $10 increase in the price of a barrel of oil translates into roughly a 25 cent increase in retail gasoline prices.]

The Federal Reserve Board, a group of private bankers (including the Rothschild and Rockefeller families) prints money out of thin air and loans it at interest to the U.S. government. In June 2012 alone, U.S. taxpayers paid $104 billion in interest to this tiny group of elite bankers.

The Netaid organization says that with just $13 billion a year the basic health and food needs of the world's poorest people could be met. [Source]

The investment banks (Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, etc.) used to lend money to Merchants Producers End Users and Speculators (companies/individuals that use the resources to make products using commodities), which allowed supply and demand to work. But in 2000 Congress passed laws that allowed the investment banks to trade commodities for themselves, so they bought warehouse storage tanks, leased ships themselves, etc. [the law, also known as the 'Enron loophole', also opened the door to unregulated trading of credit default swaps, the financial instruments blamed, in part, for the current economic meltdown]. The Federal Reserve, which is owned by a group of private bankers, gave them unlimited funds with which they now control the markets. The people are getting screwed by this arrangement and it must end. The Glass Steagall Act must be brought back along with contract limits on positions, and the Volker Rule must be enforced or THE BANKSTERS will rob us all. The banksters need JAIL TIME NOW. [William H., Oil Speculation Imposes “the Most Insidious Tax” on Americans]

Since passage of The Commodity Futures Modernization Act (which was approved in December 2000, just before Bill Clinton’s term as president ended—beware of Santa's secret legislation), financial speculators now account for more than 60% of some agricultural futures and options markets, compared to just 12% 15 years ago. Runaway inflation on food and gas prices will be a reality in the future (the Bible tells us this will be the case near the end). Financial speculators have flooded food commodity markets, creating massive inflation and sudden price spikes. In the past five years, the total assets of financial speculators in these markets have nearly doubled, from $65 billion in 2006 to $126 billion in 2011. [Source]

Eliminate the Fed (and the oil barons and Wall Street) and repeal the 'Commodity Future Modernization Act of 2000'. The fix is that simple. But the power seekers, the tiny elite who run the world, want the money and power for themselves; and our politicians and bureaucrats have sold us out to the power seekers for their own self preservation.

Flashback: Baron David de Rothschild Sees a New World Order in 'Global Banking Governance'

Originally published on July 11, 2008, before the global financial crisis came to the forefront of the business world and world media in September 2008.

UAE National - Among the captains of industry, spin doctors and financial advisers accompanying British prime minister Gordon Brown on his fund-raising visit to the Gulf this week, one name was surprisingly absent. This may have had something to do with the fact that the tour kicked off in Saudi Arabia. But by the time the group reached Qatar, Baron David de Rothschild was there, too, and he was also in Dubai and Abu Dhabi.

Although his office denies that he was part of the official party, it is probably no coincidence that he happened to be in the same part of the world at the right time. That is how the Rothschilds have worked for centuries: quietly, without fuss, behind the scenes.

"We have had 250 years or so of family involvement in the finance business," says Baron Rothschild. "We provide advice on both sides of the balance sheet, and we do it globally."

The Rothschilds have been helping the British government -- and many others -- out of a financial hole ever since they financed Wellington’s army and thus victory against the French at Waterloo in 1815.

According to a long-standing legend, the Rothschild family owed the first millions of their fortune to Nathan Rothschild’s successful speculation about the effect of the outcome of the battle on the price of British bonds. By the 19th century, they ran a financial institution with the power and influence of a combined Merrill Lynch, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley and perhaps even Goldman Sachs and the Bank of China today. In the 1820s, the Rothschilds supplied enough money to the Bank of England to avert a liquidity crisis.

There is not one institution that can save the system in the same way today; not even the U.S. Federal Reserve. However, even though the Rothschilds may have lost some of that power -- just as other financial institutions on that list have been emasculated in the last few months -- the Rothschild dynasty has lost none of its lustre or influence.

So it was no surprise to meet Baron Rothschild at the Dubai International Financial Centre. Rothschild’s opened in Dubai in 2006 with ambitious plans to build an advisory business to complement its European operations. What took so long? The answer, as many things connected with Rothschilds, has a lot to do with history. When Baron Rothschild began his career, he joined his father’s firm in Paris. In 1982 President Francois Mitterrand nationalised all the banks, leaving him without a bank. With just $1 million in capital, and five employees, he built up the business, before merging the French operations with the rest of the family’s business in the 1990s.

Gradually the firm has started expanding throughout the world, including the Gulf.

"There is no debate that Rothschild is a Jewish family, but we are proud to be in this region. However, it takes time to develop a global footprint," he says.

An urbane man in his mid-60s, he says there is no single reason why the Rothschilds have been able to keep their financial business together, but offers a couple of suggestions for their longevity.

"For a family business to survive, every generation needs a leader," he says. "Then somebody has to keep the peace. Building a global firm before globalisation meant a mindset of sharing risk and responsibility. If you look at the DNA of our family, that is perhaps an element that runs through our history. Finally, don’t be complacent about giving the family jobs."

He stresses that the Rothschild ascent has not been linear -- at times, as he did in Paris, they have had to rebuild. While he was restarting their business in France, his cousin Sir Evelyn was building a British franchise. When Sir Evelyn retired, the decision was taken to merge the businesses. They are now strong in Europe, Asia especially China, India, as well as Brazil. They also get involved in bankruptcy restructurings in the U.S., a franchise that will no doubt see a lot more activity in the months ahead.

Does he expect governments to play a larger role in financial markets in future?

"There is a huge difference in the Soviet-style mentality that occurred in Paris in 1982, and the extraordinary achievements that politicians, led by Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy, have made to save the global banking system from systemic collapse," he says. "They moved to protect the world from billions of unemployment. In five to 10 years those banking stakes will be sold -- and sold at a profit."

Baron Rothschild shares most people’s view that there is a New World Order. In his opinion, banks will deleverage and there will be a new form of global governance.

"But you have to be careful of caricatures: we don’t want to go from ultra liberalism to protectionism."

So how did the Rothschilds manage to emerge relatively unscathed from the financial meltdown?

"You could say that we may have more insights than others, or you may look at the structure of our business," he says. "As a family business, we want to limit risk. There is a natural pride in being a trusted adviser."

It is that role as trusted adviser to both governments and companies that Rothschilds is hoping to build on in the region.

"In today’s world we have a strong offering of debt and equity," he says. "They are two arms of the same body looking for money."

The firm has entrusted the growth of its financing advisory business in the Middle East to Paul Reynolds, a veteran of many complex corporate finance deals.

"Our principal business franchise is large and mid-size companies," says Mr Reynolds. "I have already been working in this region for two years and we offer a pretty unique proposition. We work in a purely advisory capacity. We don’t lend or underwrite, because that creates conflicts. We are sensitive to banking relationships. But we look to ensure financial flexibility for our clients."

He was unwilling to discuss specific deals or clients, but says that he offers them "trusted, impartial financing advice any time day or night." Baron Rothschilds tends to do more deals than their competitors, mainly because they are prepared to take on smaller mandates.

"It’s not transactions were are interested in, it’s relationships. We are looking for good businesses and good people," says Mr Reynolds. "Our ambition is for every company here to have a debt adviser."

Baron Rothschild is reluctant to comment on his nephew Nat Rothschild’s public outburst against George Osborne, the British shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer. Nat Rothschild castigated Mr Osborne for revealing certain confidences gleaned during a holiday in the summer in Corfu.

In what the British press are calling "Yachtgate," the tale involved Russia’s richest man, Oleg Deripaska, Lord Mandelson, a controversial British politician who has just returned to government, Mr Osborne and a Rothschild. Classic tabloid fodder, but one senses that Baron Rothschild frowns on such publicity.

"If you are an adviser, that imposes a certain style and culture," he says. "You should never forget that clients want to hear more about themselves than their bankers. It demands an element of being sober."

Even when not at work, Baron Rothschild’s tastes are sober. He lives between Paris and London, is a keen family man -- he has one son who is joining the business next September and three daughters -- an enthusiastic golfer, and enjoys the "odd concert." He is also involved in various charity activities, including funding research into brain disease and bone marrow disorders.

It is part of Rothschild lore that its founder sent his sons throughout Europe to set up their own interlinked offices. So where would Baron Rothschild send his children today?

"I would send one to Asia, one to Europe and one to the United States," he said. "And if I had more children, I would send one to the UAE."

• Lord Rothschild fund joins World Gold Council to put £12.5m into BullionVault
• Family Fortunes - 1/3rd of the Top 500 Firms are Family-controlled
• Rothschild Launches Carbon Credit Investment Fund
• Rothschild Australia to Take the Lead in the Global Carbon Trading Market
• Rothschild Investment Banking Posts Record Results
• The Rothschilds Want Iran’s Banks
• Rothschild Bankers Looting Nations Through World Bank and IMF
• Rockefeller-owned Exxon Made $11 Billion in First Quarter 2011
  
• What the 25 Top U.S. Companies Pay in Taxes
• Bank of China Buys Into Rothschild Bank
• The Rothschilds Are on a Roll
• Rothschild Investment Banking Posts Record Results
• Rockefeller-owned Exxon Shatters U.S. Profit Record
• U.S. Economy Shrinks By Nearly 4% as Exxon Posts Record-breaking $45.2 Billion Profit
• Exxon and Chevron Make $6 Million an Hour Amid Record Profits
• Edmond de Rothschild Buys BMW and Shares of Microsoft, Chinese Health-care Companies
• Chinese Buying Up New Book About Rothschild Banking Conspiracy
• Exxon Mobil Now Supports Carbon Tax, But Is It All That Surprising?

The Start of the Global Financial Crisis (2008)

Timeline of Events in September 2008 Causing the Global Recession

Originally Published on January 4, 2009

Suited101.com - The global financial crisis came to the forefront of the business world and world media in September 2008, with the failure and merging of a number of American financial companies. It was not a surprise -- many business journals had been commenting on the stability of the leading American and European financial firms following the Sub-Prime Mortgage Crisis. Much of the American economy is built on credit with firms borrowing money from other firms and the general consumer borrowing money for homes and cars. Many people were taking advantage of the housing boom in the US when it ended, leaving both investors and mortgage companies in trouble.

Timeline of Events Leading to the Global Financial Crisis

On 7 September 2008, it was announced that two firms, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, would be nationalised to try to ensure the financial stability of the two firms.

One week later, on the 14th September 2008, it came to light that the financial services firm, Lehman Brothers, would file for bankruptcy after being denied support by the Federal Reserve Bank. Later the same day, the Bank of America announced that it would be purchasing Merrill Lynch.

Due to the above factors, there was major instability on the global stock markets with major decreases in market value between the 15th and 17th of September 2008.

On the 16th September, the American International Group (AIG), which suffered due to its credit rating being reduced, was helped by the Federal Reserve which created an $85 billion credit facility to stop it from collapse.

Over the next two weeks, more banks failed and the two remaining banks-Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley converted into 'bank holding companies' so that they had more access to market liquidity. Numerous plans were put forward with intent to solve the crisis and in the end President George W. Bush and the Secretary of the Treasury announced a $700 billion financial aid package intented to limit the damage that the previous few week's events caused. The plan was received well by investors on Wall Street and around the world.

On 28th September it was announced that Fortis, a large banking and finance firm would be semi-nationalized with Luxembourg, Belgium and the Netherlands investing over 11 billion Euros into the company. On Monday 29th September, it was announced that the US bank Wachovia would be bought up by Citigroup (this deal fell through in early October 2008 and Wachovia opted for a more favourable offer from Wells Fargo) and stock market values fell dramtically in both the US and Europe. Later that day, Iceland nationalized the Icelandic lender Glitnir.

Finally, on Tuesday 30th September 2008, stock markets begain to rise again, although the credit markets remained very tight. It was also announced that 9 billion Euros was being made available for the bank Dexia by France, Belgium and Luxembourg.

Consumer spending has fallen, and banks are much less likely to approve loans, and with many countries now in a recession, there will me more hard times ahead.

The events described above started a plethora of problems in the economic and political world and continued through the end of 2008 into the beginning of 2009 and is likely to continue effect the world for months and years to come.

Read more here and here...

A Nation of Government Dependents Welcomes Wealth Redistribution

Shocking Video of Howard Dean Declaring That It Is the Job of the Government to Redistribute Our Wealth

February 9, 2011

The Economic Collapse - In the shocking video you are about to watch, Howard Dean declares that it is the job of the government to redistribute our wealth. Not only that, he says it in such a way that indicates that he believes that such a notion should be obvious to anyone with half a brain.

Well, while it is true that the United States has become a highly socialized nation, the reality is that this is not what the founding fathers intended. The founders intended for us to live in a land where we would have enough freedom and enough liberty to be able to work hard and enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They did not intend for a gigantic federal government to take huge amounts of money from one group of people and give it to another group of people.

In any nation where a large scale redistribution of wealth is happening, the incentive to work goes right out the window. Pretty soon you end up with an entire class of people that have learned how to "make a living" by being a parasite of the government, and that is not good for any economy.

If our founding fathers were alive today, they would be horrified by what we have turned into. In 1816, Thomas Jefferson wrote the following....

“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”

The sad truth is that democracy starts to break down once people start realizing that they can vote themselves money out of the national treasury. In fact, that is a very large part of what politics in America is all about today. Politicians are constantly promising what they are "going to do" for various groups of people.

Benjamin Franklin once stated the following....

“When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”

Not that our founding fathers were against charity. In fact, they believed in it very much. It is just that they did not believe in repressive taxation by a huge national government and they did not believe in large scale redistributions of wealth.

With all of that in mind, watch this shocking video of Howard Dean declaring that it is the job of the government to redistribute our wealth....

Obviously Howard Dean envisions an “America” that is very different from the one that our founding fathers intended.

But does that mean that all government welfare programs are bad? Of course not. In fact, if we were to cut them all off today we would have millions of people starving in the streets.

A very large percentage of Americans today don’t even know how to take care of themselves. If we pulled away all government support all of a sudden there would be chaos and anarchy in the streets.

The sad reality is that we have tens of millions of Americans that are now deeply dependent on the socialist system that we have established. Unfortunately, this is what socialism does – it turns people into pets of the government. Our society should be teaching people to be self-sufficient, but instead we are teaching people to allow the government to take care of them from the cradle to the grave.

So does that mean that our founding fathers would be in favor of the rampant corporate greed that we are witnessing today?

Of course not.

As I have written about previously, the founding fathers were against all large concentrations of power. During the Boston Tea Party, it was the tea of perhaps the most powerful corporation in the entire world at the time (the East India Trading Company) that our founders dumped into the harbor.

If you study early American history, you soon come to realize that corporations were generally very limited in scope and size for many, many years. The era of the giant corporation is relatively new, and our founding fathers never intended for our society to be dominated by gigantic international corporations.

So when the Democrats argue that we should give more power to the federal government and the Republicans argue that we should give more power to the big corporations, they are both wrong.

Our founding fathers did not intend for our federal government to have nearly so much power, and they did not intend for big, wealthy corporations to have so much power either.

Fortunately, many Americans today are getting back in touch with those principles. There is a growing dissatisfaction with the size of government and, according to Gallup, two-thirds of Americans are now dissatisfied with the size and influence of major corporations in America today.

However, it is one thing to discuss the finer points of political and economic philosophy, but it is another thing altogether to deal with the reality of tens of millions of people that cannot feed themselves. As I have mentioned many times before, there are over 43 million Americans on food stamps today. So what are we going to do with all of them? Allow them to starve? Almost 53 million Americans receive Social Security payments. What are we going to do – cut off Social Security and watch millions of elderly and disabled people freeze to death in their own homes? Of course not. [The largest-ever federal payroll hit 2.15 million people in 2011, which does note include Department of Defense employees and all members of the military; the true size of the federal government, including contractors, is much larger: it is estimated to be 15 million or more.]

But we have got to start swinging the pendulum back in the other direction. Right now one out of every six Americans is enrolled in some kind of anti-poverty program run by the federal government.

How many Americans being taken care of by the federal government will be too much?

One out of five?

One out of four?

One out of three?

Eventually the entire system crumbles when there are too few people still willing to work hard.

If you ever get the chance to visit a communist country you should. You will notice that nobody really works very hard. That is because there is no incentive to work hard. Very little real wealth gets produced and everyone suffers for it.

So does that mean the U.S. system works?

Of course not.

What we have in the United States today is not real capitalism. It is more aptly called “corporatism”. The big corporations and the big financial institutions have accumulated an absolutely stunning amount of economic power and over the decades they have gotten the government to tilt all of the rules of the game in their favor.

In America today, it is really hard for the average person to start a successful business. The big, powerful international corporations that dominate our economy are everywhere.

So most Americans today have to rely on working for an employer. Unfortunately, the big employers have started to realize that they can make much larger profits by shipping our jobs overseas. That is really bad news for the U.S. middle class.

Well, can’t we just tax all of these big corporations like crazy and even everything out? Unfortunately it just does not work that way in today’s global society.

As I have written about previously, the ultra-wealthy and many of the biggest corporations have figured out how to “minimize” their tax burdens. While you and I are being taxed into oblivion, the global elite have figured out how to move their money around to escape taxation as much as possible. In fact, it is estimated that today approximately a third of all the wealth in the world is held in “offshore” tax havens.

Ultra-wealthy individuals and mega-powerful corporations can call just about anywhere “home” in today’s global economy. That is just the way the world works now.

In order to “tax the rich”, you first must get legal jurisdiction over their money.

Our tax system has become entirely unfair and it simply does not work. The whole thing needs to be scrapped.

But as we discuss tax policy, there are tens of millions of Americans that are living in poverty.

So what are we going to do about the growing number of Americans that cannot even feed themselves without government help? Well, the truth is that what they really need is not more handouts. If you give people handouts, they will just need more handouts tomorrow.

No, what all of these Americans really need are good jobs. Unfortunately, there are a whole lot less good jobs in America today than there were ten years ago.

Our politicians have stood by as the giant corporations have moved thousands of facilities over to places such as China and India where they can legally pay people slave labor wages.

Since 2001, over 42,000 U.S. factories have closed down for good, and that number is going to continue to increase unless someone stops it.

But nobody is.

Virtually all of our politicians are just standing off to the side with their hands in their pockets.

So now we have 19.3 percent of the workforce that is either unemployed or underemployed.

Our entire economic system is breaking down. Millions of Americans families are scrambling to find some way to survive. Over the past two years, U.S. consumers have withdrawn $311 billion more from savings and investment accounts than they have put into them.

Other Americans are going very deep into debt because they don’t have any other options. When they finally can’t keep up with all the debt, many of these families are losing their cars and their homes.

We are in the middle of an economic nightmare that is absolutely unprecedented. “Redistributing the wealth” would just be like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic at this point. It would not fix a darn thing.

When our politicians promise that a little “change” here or a little “tweak” there will get our economy back to normal, they are lying to you, and most of them know it.

What we need is a comprehensive overhaul of our entire economy. Basically what we need to do is to go back to the blueprint (the U.S. Constitution) and essentially start over.

But most Americans are not ready for that. Most Americans are still enjoying the tremendous prosperity that the biggest debt binge in the history of the world has purchased for us. Most Americans still do not believe that an economic collapse is really coming.

But a massive economic collapse is coming. This whole thing is going to come crashing down and it is not going to be pretty.

Editor's Note: Americans are the most charitable people in the world. When government taxes the people, it takes from them a portion of their wealth with which they could contribute to charitable causes of their choosing. This is how a government redistributes wealth and, in turn, creates a society of dependents who will vote for whomever promises them the most benefits from the public treasury.

Related:

• 2010 'Citizens United' Decision Made Corporations and Unions Political Powers
• The Great Global Debt Prison
• Collective Bargaining Gives Enormous Political Power to Public Sector Unions
• Manufacturing vs. Service Economy
• Federal Employees' Database of Salaries

Russia Criticizes 'Western Partners' for Encouraging, Supporting and Directing the Armed Fight Against Syria's Regime

Russia Blames West and Syria's Neighbors for Bloodshed

July 28, 2012

Reuters - Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov warned on Saturday that international support for Syrian rebels would lead to "more blood" and the government could not be expected to willingly give in to its opponents.

Lavrov, whose country has vetoed three U.N. Security Council resolutions intended to increase pressure on Syria's government to end 16 months of violence, said Western and Arab nations should exert more influence on rebels to stop fighting.

He said "tragedy" could be imminent in the Syrian city of Aleppo, but indicated rebels would be at least partly to blame.

"Pressure must be put on everyone," Lavrov said at a joint news conference with Japanese Foreign Minister Koichiro Gemba after talks in the Black Sea resort of Sochi, President Vladimir Putin's summer base.

"Unfortunately, our Western partners prefer to do something a bit different and essentially, along with some countries neighboring Syria, encourage, support and direct the armed fight against the regime," he said.

"The price of all this is still more blood."

In the wake of the Security Council vetoes by Russia and China, the United States has said it will seek ways to tackle the crisis outside the U.N.

Gemba said it was "very serious moment" in Syria and it was primarily up to the government to stop the bloodshed.

"The position of the Russian side has great influence, and there is also the voice of the international community. We are counting on a constructive Russian position," he said, speaking through an interpreter.

Lavrov said Russia was calling on the government to "take the first steps" but that the rebels should not take advantage of any such government actions by occupying cities and towns.

"The city of Aleppo is occupied by the armed opposition and the next tragedy is brewing there, as I understand it," he said.

"Well-armed opposition groups are occupying cities, intending to create some sort of buffer zones for a transitional government. How can one expect that the Syrian government will say, 'Yes, go ahead, overthrow me,'" he said.

"This is unrealistic - not because we are holding onto the regime but because it just doesn't work," he said.

Ebola Virus Outbreak in Uganda Kills 14

Ebola spreads by contact when you contact each other physically... avoid shaking of hands, because that can cause contact through sweat, which can cause problems. Do not take on burying somebody who has died from symptoms that look like Ebola -- instead call health workers because they know how to do it... avoid promiscuity because this sickness can also go through sex. "I appeal to you to first of all report all cases which appear to be like Ebola, and these are high fever, vomiting, sometimes diarrhoea, and with bleeding," Uganda's president Museveni said. "When you handle this case well you can eliminate Ebola quickly."

According to experts, despite being extremely virulent the disease is containable because it kills its victims faster than it can spread to new ones. It has a fatality ratio of between 23 and 90 percent, according to the WHO.

The rare haemorrhagic disease, named after a small river in DR Congo, killed 37 people in western Uganda in 2007 and at least 170 in the north of the country in 2000. However, Museveni said that the virus had not been immediately identified this time, resulting in a delay. "The bleeding which normally accompanies Ebola did not take place initially among these patients," he said, adding that health workers at first did not therefore realise what the problem was. "Because of that delay the sickness spread."

Ebola is characterised by the sudden onset of fever, intense weakness, muscle pain, headache and sore throat, often followed by vomiting, diarrhoea and in some cases, both internal and external bleeding, according to the WHO. It spreads by direct contact with the blood or other body fluids of infected persons. [Source]

Officials: Ebola Breaks Out in Uganda

July 28, 2012

AP - The deadly Ebola virus has killed 14 people in western Uganda this month, Ugandan health officials said on Saturday, ending weeks of speculation about the cause of a strange disease that had many people fleeing their homes.

The officials and a World Health Organization representative told a news conference in Kampala Saturday that there is "an outbreak of Ebola" in Uganda.

"Laboratory investigations done at the Uganda Virus Research Institute...have confirmed that the strange disease reported in Kibaale is indeed Ebola hemorrhagic fever," the Ugandan government and WHO said in joint statement.

Kibaale is a district in mid-western Uganda, where people in recent weeks have been troubled by a mysterious illness that seemed to have come from nowhere. Ugandan health officials had been stumped as well, and spent weeks conducting laboratory tests that were at first inconclusive.

On Friday, Joaquim Saweka, the WHO representative in Uganda, told The Associated Press that investigators were "not so sure" it was Ebola, and a Ugandan health official dismissed the possibility of Ebola as merely a rumor. It appears firm evidence of Ebola was clinched overnight.

Health officials told reporters in Kampala that the 14 dead were among 20 reported with the disease. Two of the infected have been isolated for examination by researchers and health officials. A clinical officer and, days later, her 4-month-old baby died from the disease caused by the Ebola virus, officials said.

The officials urged Ugandans to be calm, saying a national emergency taskforce had been set up to stop the disease from spreading far and wide.

There is no cure or vaccine for Ebola, and in Uganda, where in 2000 the disease killed 224 people and left hundreds more traumatized, it resurrects terrible memories.

Ebola, which manifests itself as a hemorrhagic fever, is highly infectious and kills quickly. It was first reported in 1976 in Congo and is named for the river where it was recognized, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Scientists don't know the natural reservoir of the virus, but they suspect the first victim in an Ebola outbreak gets infected through contact with an infected animal, such as a monkey.

The virus can be transmitted in several ways, including through direct contact with the blood of an infected person. During communal funerals, for example, when the bereaved come into contact with an Ebola victim, the virus can be contracted, officials said, warning against unnecessary contact with suspected cases of Ebola.

Foreign Troops to Confiscate American Guns Under UN Treaty

Delegations from around the world failed on July 27, 2012, to agree on a landmark U.N. arms-trade treaty to regulate the more than $60 billion industry, opting for further talks and a possible U.N. General Assembly vote by the end of the year. More than 170 countries have spent the past month in New York negotiating a treaty, which needed to be adopted by consensus, so any one country effectively could have vetoed a deal. Instead, no decision was taken on a draft treaty... One of the reasons this month's negotiations are taking place is that the United States, the world's biggest arms trader accounting for over 40 percent of global conventional arms transfers, reversed U.S. policy on the issue after Barack Obama became president and decided in 2009 to support a treaty. But U.S. officials say Washington insisted in February on having the ability to veto a weak treaty. It wanted to protect U.S. domestic rights to bear arms - a sensitive issue in the United States that has been back in the national spotlight after a gunman opened fire in a movie theater a week ago, killing 12 people and wounding 58 other. A U.N. arms trade treaty would not "interfere with the domestic arms trade and the way a country regulates civilian possession," the U.N. Office for Disarmament Affairs has said. The other five top arms suppliers are Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia. [Source]

Foreign Troops to Confiscate American Guns Under UN Treaty

“Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order … tomorrow they will be grateful.” -Attributed to Henry Kissinger during the 1991 Bilderberg meeting

July 27, 2012

Infowars.com - For those who’ve been wondering how the domestic gun grabbers or the United Nations think they’re going to get away with gun control here at home, one need look no further than Article 15 of the UN’s Arms Trade Treaty.

Many American troops are patriots who understand their oaths to uphold the Constitution, so they can’t be counted upon to confiscate guns. But foreign troops are another story.

Article 15 of the UN Arms Trade Treaty, if ratified, provides for foreign “assistance to implement the Treaty,” and mandates that nations who can provide requested support must do so if requested by member nations. That includes legal, financial, technical as well as “material” assistance to enforce a treaty that declares “recreational, cultural, historical and sporting activities” to be the “exclusively” recognized reasons for lawful private ownership, and which further recognizes the “inherent rights” of the State (i.e. nations under the treaty) to self-defense, but makes no mention of the rights of the individual.

Read the language of Article 15 for yourself:

Article 15
International Assistance

In fulfilling the obligation of this Treaty, States Parties may seek, inter alia, legal assistance, legislative assistance, technical assistance, institutional capacity building, material assistance or financial assistance. States, in a position to do so, shall provide such assistance. States Parties may contribute resources to a voluntary trust fund to assist requesting States Parties requiring such assistance to implement the Treaty.

States Parties shall afford one another the widest measure of assistance, consistent with their respective legal and administrative systems, in investigations, prosecutions and judicial proceedings in relation to the violations of the national measures implemented to comply with obligations under of the provisions of this Treaty.

Each State Party may offer or receive assistance, inter alia, through the United Nations international, regional, subregional or national organizations, non-governmental organizations or on a bi-lateral basis. Such assistance may include technical, financial, material and other forms of assistance as needed, upon request.

Will foreign troops be going door-to-door to ensure compliance with new gun registry policies, imposed limits on ammunition and magazines, or in enforcing outright confiscation? Joint training exercises conducted between U.S. armed forces and various foreign armies have trained to do just that.

In 2010, the Infowars crew covered Operation Vigilant Guard, a joint training exercise in Chicago, in which U.S. troops drilled with Eastern bloc troops to partner in stopping terrorism, dealing with meth dealers and WMDs, as well as in gun confiscation. Countless other exercises have taken place on U.S. soil involving similar joint operations for a martial law occupation with the participation of foreign troops.

Foreign Troops Training To Confiscate Guns of Americans

American troops were ordered to conduct door-to-door gun confiscation sweeps after Hurricane Katrina, and while it has emerged that at least one unit stood down and refused the order, many more carried out the unconstitutional mission. That precedent has been followed by other exercises training American soldiers for gun seizures, along with other martial law measures.

Infowars Nightly News co-host Rob Dew underscored the history of training to take American guns in his recent viral report:

Troops Ordered To Kill All Americans Who Do Not Turn In Guns

Meanwhile, the United Nations itself has forcibly disarmed numerous African nations using foreign troops, and the vacuum of power has led in several cases to genocidal atrocities as a direct result of taking away arms. The genocide in Rwanda was enabled by forcible disarmament. As Republic Magazine writes,

The mass murder was “carried out by government-aligned Hutu tribal militias against a targeted ethnic population – the Tutsis – who had been disarmed with the help of UN “peacekeeping” forces under the supervision of future UN Secretary General Kofi Annan.”

The Darfur crisis in Sudan also has its roots in UN-led population disarmament, as does the Burma (Myanmar) massacre, again the result of disarmament. Armed troops representing international interests including the World Bank burned down homes and killed children in effort to forcibly evict some 40,000 Ugandans on the basis of conserving lands to combat climate change.

Indeed, genocide and disarmed populations go hand-in-hand through history– just look at the history of Democide (death by government). R.J. Rummel at the University of Hawaii is the leading academic on the subject, and has estimated that more than 262 million unnatural deaths in the 20th Century alone were caused by government, and most were at the hands of despots preying upon their helpless peoples. From Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia, to Turkey, Armenia and beyond, gun bans have created a shift in the balance of power towards the state, creating an atmosphere of victim disarmament.

Blue helmets or foreign uniforms have no place on foreign soil, yet the UN Arms Trade Treaty text reveals a mechanism to impose just that type of control– even in America.

Read the treaty text for yourself and see our report from yesterday: Bombshell: Leaked UN Treaty Does Ban Guns

Related:

• The Feds' Plan for the 'Round Up' of Americans During a 'National Emergency'
• Obama Establishes Council of Governors to Take Over When Martial Law is Declared
  
• Indefinite Military Detention of U.S. Citizens without Charge or Trial - The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) - Signed into Law on December 31, 2011
• Will the U.S. Military Fire Upon U.S. Citizens?

Midwest Crops, Fish, Water Supply Punished by Drought

Midwest Crops, Fish, Water Supply Punished by Drought

July 27, 2012

Reuters - Temperatures heading north of 100 degrees Fahrenheit and scarce rain portended another blistering weekend for much of the U.S. Midwest, where the most extensive drought since 1956 is devastating crops, evaporating rivers, and threatening to push world food prices higher.

Violent storms brought rain to the extreme eastern portions of the corn belt in Ohio on Thursday night, but moisture was sparse further west.

The mercury soared in Missouri, where St. Louis was expected to reach 101 degrees F (38 Celsius) on Friday. Drought is afflicting nearly all of east-central Missouri, central and western Illinois and much of Iowa, all major corn and soybean producing states.

Farther west in Kansas City, temperatures were expected to move back over 100 degrees on Sunday as residents looked for ways to conserve water.

In Missouri, more than 600 farmers have applied for state funds to drill new wells, deepen existing wells or expand irrigation systems under a program for livestock and crop farmers severely hit by drought, Governor Jay Nixon said.

In Kansas, Governor Sam Brownback objected to federal officials releasing water from three Kansas reservoirs to keep the Missouri River navigable and protect endangered birds. A spokesperson said Brownback preferred to keep the reservoirs as high as possible to conserve water for farmers and communities drawing from them.

A year ago, the Missouri River flooded parts of Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas and Missouri, tearing up levees and roads and inundating fields.

After flooding last year, the Mississippi River is now so low that barge operators must lighten loads to avoid getting stuck.

FISH DYING, FOWL MAY BE NEXT

Extreme conditions are killing fish by the thousands in lakes and rivers and could pose a problem for migrating ducks and other waterfowl if the drought stretches into the fall, officials said.

Nationwide, fishing losses could run from tens of millions to hundreds of millions of dollars depending on how long the drought lasts and how widespread it is, said Dan Stephenson, an Illinois state fisheries biologist.

Damage to corn, soybean and wheat crops is expected to push food prices higher in the United States and around the world. The United States is the world's largest exporter of corn, soybeans and wheat.

At the Chicago Board of Trade on Friday, corn for September delivery was up 2.2 percent, August soybeans up 1.7 percent and September wheat up about 1.6 percent.

Over the next week, soaring temperatures and little rain were in store for crops in most of Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas and Missouri, said Don Keeney, an MDA EarthSat Weather meteorologist.

"Crops will continue to deteriorate. The corn crop is already gone. and in the north and east, beans will improve some but not in the southwest," Keeney said.

Showers and cooler temperatures were expected to bring some relief to eastern parts of the Midwest on Friday, and on Saturday and Sunday in the northwest part of the region, Keeney said.

Farmers planted corn and soybeans earlier than usual this year after a warmer than normal winter, but conditions have rapidly deteriorated.

Trade sources said on Friday that Informa Economics had cut its estimate for 2012 U.S. corn yields per acre and production and its projection for U.S. soybean yields per acre and overall production.

Corn yield prospects in central and northeast Iowa were highly variable, scouts on a U.S. Midwest crop tour said.

Some plants have withered and died in the worst drought in 56 years, some have thin stalks and small ears, and others are mostly green, but visibly stressed.

All of Iowa was in severe drought or worse, according to the weekly U.S. Drought Monitor for the week ending July 24 issued by climatologists, and almost 30 percent of the nine-state Midwest was suffering extreme drought.

California City Proposes One Cent Tax on Sodas to Provide Badly Needed Revenue

Drink Lobby Gears Up to Fight Soda Tax Plan in California City

July 27, 2012

Reuters - Beverage industry groups are planning ways to oppose a proposed soda tax in the California city of El Monte because of fears other U.S. cities across America might adopt similar taxes on sugary drinks.

The El Monte city council on Tuesday approved a measure that would add a 1 cent tax for every ounce of "sugar sweetened" drinks. The proposal is scheduled to be voted on by city residents in November's election.

El Monte's mayor said the tax would provide badly needed revenue for a city that has been forced to slash its workforce to save money, and would help fight obesity in a city where half the children have weight problems.

Industry groups quickly said they will marshal forces to kill off the measure. They already are fighting a similar tax proposed two months ago by the city of Richmond, California.

"Even if those don't pass in November, there could certainly be the potential of future tax threats in other cities," Karen Hanretty, vice-president of public affairs for the American Beverage Association, said.

"We will support any 'no' campaign," Hanretty said.

Rising deficits have forced three California cities to file or plan bankruptcy petitions since June. The city council of San Bernardino voted on July 19 to seek Chapter 9 protection.

"This tax is a sign of the times," said Bob Achermann, executive director of the California/Nevada Soft Drink Association, said. "City governments are looking for revenue. We think this is a misguided approach."

El Monte's mayor, Andre Quintero, said his city is not facing bankruptcy and had managed to balance its budget for fiscal year 2013.

But in a city with 13.7 per cent unemployment, far exceeding the national average of 8.1 per cent, El Monte cut its workforce from 420 employees to 290 in the past four years.

"We have long-term challenges," Quintero said. "We need the revenue."

With more Americans concerned about obesity, especially in children, the campaign against soft-drinks is gaining momentum from coast to coast.

In New York City, Mayor Michael Bloomberg has proposed a ban on large sodas, the first of its kind in the nation, which New York's Board of Health is expected to pass in September.

Bloomberg's proposal would limit servings of sugary drinks to 16 ounces (473 ml) at most restaurants, theaters, delis, vending carts and stadium concessions.

A state-wide soda tax proposal last year by Democratic Californian assemblyman Bill Monning failed after vigorous opposition from a broad coalition including the California Chamber of Commerce and the California Restaurant Association.

Repeal of Glass-Steagall Act in 1999 Allowed the Big Banks to Create the Financial Crisis

Former Citicorp CEO John Reed apologized in 2009 for his role in building Citigroup and said banks that big should be divided into separate parts. Weill said today he altered his view about the industry because “the world changes.” He has been thinking about it a lot over the last year, he said. “The world we live in now is not the world we lived in 10 years ago,” Weill said. “Good things are simple.” Former President Bill Clinton said when he signed the repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1999 that it was “no longer appropriate” for the economy. “The world is very different,” Clinton said at a White House signing ceremony. [Source]

Ex-Citigroup CEO Sandy Weill: ‘Split up’ the big banks

July 25, 2012

The Ticket - In a remarkable policy shift, former Citigroup chairman and chief executive Sandy Weill now thinks that Wall Street should break up its big banks in an effort to regain the public's trust.

"What we should probably do is go and split up investment banking from banking," Weill said on CNBC's "Squawk Box" on Wednesday. "Have banks be deposit takers, have banks make commercial loans and real estate loans, have banks do something that's not going to risk the taxpayer dollars, that's not too big to fail."

"I'm suggesting that they be broken up so that the taxpayer will never be at risk, the depositors won't be at risk, the leverage of the banks will be something reasonable, and the investment banks can do trading," he said.

Weill essentially called for the return of the Glass-Steagall Act, CNBC said. The 1933 Depression-era legislation separated investment and commercial banking activities in the wake of the 1929 stock market crash and commercial bank failure, according to Investopedia. It was repealed in 1999 during the Clinton administration.

Weill was one of the architects of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which helped repeal Glass-Steagall. (In his former office, Weill proudly displayed a large wooden sign with the words "The Shatterer of Glass-Steagall" etched into it.)

The 79-year-old Wall Street legend also called for complete transparency in the banking industry.

"There should be no such thing as off balance sheet," he said. "I want to see us be a leader, and what we're doing now is not going to make us a leader."

The Hypocrites Who Wrecked American Finance

July 25, 2012

Philly.com - Sandy Weill, who paid himself hundreds of millions of dollars as a reward for persuading President Clinton and the Republican-led U.S. Senate and Federal Reserve to retroactively bless his acquisition of Citibank by his Travelers insurance and high-risk loan conglomerate, now says the policy was a mistake.

“What we should probably do is go and split up investment banking from banking, have banks be deposit takers, have banks make commercial loans and real estate loans, have banks do something that’s not going to risk the taxpayer dollars, that’s not too big to fail,” Weill said this morning on CNBC’s “Squawk Box.”

Highlights:

"He essentially called for the return of the Glass–Steagall Act, which imposed banking reforms that split banks from other financial institutions such as insurance companies," and which Clinton, aides Larry Summers and Robert Rubin (later a Citi executive), Fed head Alan Greenspan, U.S. Sen Phil Gramm and others endorsed after lobbying by Weill and his banking allies.

“I’m suggesting that they be broken up so that the taxpayer will never be at risk, the depositors won’t be at risk, the leverage of the banks will be something reasonable, and the investment banks can do trading, they’re not subject to a Volker rule" breaking up hybrid giant banks. "They can make some mistakes, but they’ll have everything that clears with each other every single night so they can be market-to-market,” Weill told CNBC.

Banks "should be split off entirely from investment banks, he added. That would make them "much” more profitable, he said, citing the example of "regional banks" (like PNC, Citizens, TD).

Weill's top collaborators have also recanted, notes Bloomberg here: "Richard Parsons," the ex-TimeWarner boss "who earlier this year ended a 16-year tenure on the board of Citigroup, said in April that the 1999 repeal of the Glass-Steagall law made the business more complicated and ultimately helped cause the financial crisis.

"Former Citicorp CEO John Reed," who cut the Weill merger deal in the first place, "apologized in 2009 for his role in building Citigroup and said banks that big should be divided into separate parts."

Gotta hand it to them for admitting policies that were so profitable for them personally are evil for American finance.

But none of them, so far as we have heard, are promising to give back the fortunes they cashed in from Citigroup stock grants before the 2008 blow-up that proved the bankruptcy of the Weill business model and the failure of Clinton, Gramm, Greenspan, Summers and Rubin to protect Americans from the government-financial complex.

Shareholders, taxpayers, borrowers and laid-off staff paid to make these power-lobbying bankers rich. No penalty? No shame?

Without the Federal Reserve, We Wouldn’t Have Inflation

"Money responds to the law of supply and demand just as everything else does. When the supply of dollars goes up, the value of each individual dollar falls, and prices rise to compensate. That's inflation. Inflation isn't rising prices. Inflating the money supply causes rising prices. As prices rise, people become poorer and they demand relief. The politicians stop injecting money, people have less to spend, and business slows down, often causing a recession. The shakeout can be very painful, depending on how long the inflation has lasted and how many new dollars have been injected into the economy. What is generally overlooked is the fact that the Federal Reserve has been inflating the money supply almost without pause ever since the Fed was created 94 years ago. So, underpinning the most recent seven years of injections and malinvestment, we have the residual from the previous 87 years. In America's schools and colleges, the whole population has been taught that the government has the duty to create prosperity. If the government, led by Obama, doesn't inflate us out of this, he will be in very deep trouble. I think a whole new crop of multi-millionaires is about to be grown. The reason is, the dollar is the world's reserve currency, meaning the preferred medium for trade and savings. Trillions of dollars are held in foreign hands, and these foreigners absolutely do not want any further decline in the value of their dollars. If Washington inflates heavily to stop the recession, the foreigners will dump their dollars, possibly triggering a global monetary crisis in which the dollar would be completely rejected, becoming worthless. To prevent this, Washington must give the dollar some kind of backing that will make it trusted and desirable. I think it's safe to say it will be something that cannot be created on a printing press. Most likely it will be a basket of globally traded raw materials, perhaps copper, gold, silver, lumber, wheat, tin, iron, oil, and a lot of other things. Or, perhaps just one thing, gold. Until the 1970s, when this insane experiment with the paper US dollar as the reserve currency began, gold had been valuable for six thousand years. It worked so well it was the only reserve currency the world had ever known. There is nothing else so trusted. I don't know exactly what Washington will use, but I think gold will be in the mix." - An Interview with Richard Maybury, Author of 'Whatever Happened to Penny Candy'

Without the Federal Reserve, We Wouldn’t Have Inflation

June 25, 2012

Pete Ostapchuk, The Elkhart Truth - Many people believe that inflation, like sales tax, is a fact of life that has always been around. Inflation did not exist until after the Constitution was written. Otherwise, dollar amounts could not have been stated in the Constitution (see Article One, Section Nine).

The gold standard was why we had no inflation (see Article One, Sections Eight and 10). Around the beginning of World War I, the tag team of the Federal Reserve and the IRS came into being. A friend who survived the D-Day landing told me that you cannot have inflation until you can print money out of thin air. The perpetrators of the Federal Reserve system have left us with paper money. I can’t tell you who has our gold and silver. The Fed has the blessing of Congress to print paper money to increase the amount of money in circulation, which in turn causes inflation.

When you were young, you bought the lot next door for $5,000. When you needed money for retirement, you sold it for $50,000. Because of inflation, $50,000 now has no more buying power than $5,000 did back then, so you broke even. So far so good, until the IRS comes along and says you made $45,000 on the deal. The IRS wants you to pay income tax on the profit even though you just broke even.

Where is that government of the people, by the people and for the people? It only appeared that you made money because the Fed printed bogus money.

Jim Lichkay (“the word ‘capitalism’ does not appear in the Constitution”) wrote May 8 that the word “capitalism” does not appear in the Constitution, which it should not as it is the Constitution of our government, not our industry. But why does “Federal Reserve” not appear there?