Earth Day, Happy 420!!!

People from all over the nation are celebrating Earth Day. Earth Day means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. Some people it flies under their radar, others it's a day to celebrate the earth in addition to a green way of living. For others it's a day of marijuana appreciation in promotion of its universal love and legalization. In reverence of 420 and Earth Day we will keep this article short. We wish the best to all of our people of all races, creeds and religions. May we all come together as one in observance of a power greater than ourselves. BLESS UP!

Earth Day, Happy

Is simplifying the tax code enough?

Today President Barack Obama has made several statements in relation to simplifying our tax code. These comments came in light of today's file or else tax deadline. My question today is; is it enough to appease the American people? With various so-called tea parties running rampant across the nation. Will simplifying the tax code be enough to douse the flame?

Obama said at a White House event Wednesday that he's working toward "a simpler tax code that rewards work and the pursuit of the American dream." He went on to say, "For too long, we've seen taxes used as a wedge to scare people into supporting policies that increased the burden on working people instead of helping them live their dreams," Obama said. "That has to change, and that's the work that we've begun."

The president noted that he's asked his economic advisers to thoroughly review how to simplify the tax code and report back to him by year's end. By years end are you crazy? That's right before the next tax season, leaving him & us little time to thoroughly review such complicated measures.

The president incidently admits this later stating, "We need to simplify a monstrous tax code that is far too complicated for most Americans to understand, but just complicated enough for the insiders who know how to game the system,"

He added: "It will take time to undo the damage of years of carve-outs and loopholes. But I want every American to know that we will rewrite the tax code so that it puts your interests over any special interest. And we will make it quicker, easier, and less expensive for you to file a return, so that April 15 is not a date that is approached with dread each year."

I got a fair tax for you President Obama. Impose a fair tax on international trade and domestically purchased goods. A universal federal/state tax that does not vary from state to state. One flat rate clean across the board. That way there would be no such thing as tax evasion. That along with this fake war on drugs are merely additional methods of incarcerating your own fellow citizens. The ultimate slap in the face is that we are not suppose to be taxed on our income anyway! My last question is: Is it fair that ultimate slap will continue?

What's wrong with these "Tea Parties"

Protesters are popping up all over the country, converging on Capitol Hill in protest of Tax Day which marks the deadline of this years tax filing season. People have made signs aligning their movement to the Boston Tea Party of 1773. Going as far as to wear colonial revolutionary costumes. I mean people of all ages from kids to seniors are participating. A lot of the funding for these rallies are being funded by right-wing organizations. So Independents and Democrats alike are have been chanting it is a right wing conspiracy to thwart President Obama and Congresses agenda.

While in many ways that may be true, to an extent. There actually are a lot of people who are not satisfied with the bailouts and the way our money has been spent in the stimulus for that matter, regardless of who was at fault for those companies demise. The Obama administration has to realize that although this may be a crisis handed to him. There is a level of responsibility for the actions taken to correct it and that responsibility Mr. President ends with you. You signed off on the bailouts and played the pawn of a banking industry that was holding you hostage. From what has happened to others on power who have dissented, I can completely understand.

However to be frank at some point you have to grow some balls. Regardless of what anyone says you knew this job was dangerous when you took it. I bet you never thought it would be the international banking system do be the actual dangers you would have to worry about. Or did you? International bankers lobbied Presidential candidate Woodrow Wilson before the election of 1912 with their support in exchange for him to sign the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. Who's to say Obama was not approached in a similar manner to win the presidency.

Obama had defended his actions of placing the money into the banks hands versus directly in the hands of the consumer, mentioning that for every $1 given the to the banks it will open up $8 in credit for the consumer. Versus the dollar for dollar scenario of placing that money in citizens hands. That might work if you had the authority to make them lend it and you don't and you knew you didn't. It would've symbolically meant so much to the American people too. For example I have a friend that just bought a fairly new Mercedes Benz much nicer that his old 94' Lincoln Town Car. When this car speaks of which one he would choose in the event of financial hardship he would prerer to keep the lincoln. Not because of the potential resale value of the Mercedes being greater but because the Lincoln may be less in dollar value but higher in sentimental value and you missed out on a rare opportunity to establish that type of value Mr. President.

In the end the responsibility soley lies in his as well as congresses hands. Not just Democrats who are in power right now but the Republicans that fostered this situation as well. Don't be disillusioned with Republican Tea Party promoters who act all of a sudden so disgusted with these policies. These are the very people that fought for the deregulation that led to this madness. Just as well do not be disillusioned by the Democrats saying they understand that and they are going to clean it up, because they are not. They are going to add to it. However it may not be because they want to.

The financial sector according to President Franklin D. Roosevelt has owned the goverment since the days of Andrew Jackson. Imagine the young budding politician, full of hope and life. Imagine them in their passion to change the system and winning an election. All to find out that if you don't give into bankers and the extremely wealthy's hand, they can cause economic hardship so tough in your district, it will cause chaos and anarchy in the streets. Imagine them threatening every industry or select industries to out right destroy altogether, leaving the make a change young politician to clean up the mess. If that is an extremely cold scenario to you then buckle your seat belts and do something about it because that is what's going on right now.

As we speak there is rising dissent in intentionally created scenarios to tear us apart. We as citizens can not let that happen. We must inform ourselves of the hidden education recquired to stand behind our President. Let him know we understand who the real perpetraters are and we will not let them influence us through their market manipulations. We will fight with you and protect you from those that have infiltrated our CIA, Secret Service, FBI and any other entity agents of their ideaology are embedded.

If you are one of the people that wonder why nothing ever changes and consistently get's worse is because none of you all have been equiping yourselves to understand who the enemy is. When people who are in the know attempt to inform you or society writes them off as crazy or uninformed, leaving them to stand on the frontline by themselves as easy prey. In some cases classified information has been released by the CIA or FBI admiting to all sorts of crimes against United States citizens. Since these issues seemed to not have affected the purchase of that new car, vacation or wardrobe it all went in one ear and out the other. That is until it did affect the home owner, stock holder, car buyer you name it. Now all these hands are in a fuss.

Right now the protesters at these tea parties largely seem misguided. Throwing out politically judgemental labels such as Socialist, Faschist, Communist. You name it and the Obama Administration has been attacked for it recently. My message to the protesters is that we all feel the same plight you do. But don't be used as puppets by factions you don't even understand. Do your research, educate yourselves and learn who the real culprits are and how to fight them. Arm yourselves with knowledge and give all of us leverage by utilize your power as a consumer. Boycott these banking systems.

Don't stop spending money you earn, but pay in cash. Don't use credit and request our government return our money back to the gold standard. Don't place yourselves in a box by disagreeing with one side of congress versus another. Understand they are birds of a feather. Let them and our congress know that no matter how hard the times these bankers want to impose on us that we will stand with them and fight. That we will not go crazy and kill eachother in the streets. That we are strong enough to handle the truth of the information. We will end our dependence on the banking system as a whole and no longer allow our global policy to be held hostage again. That's the fight we should be hearing not moronic name-calling that changes no policy and simply shows how ignorant you are, taking away the legitimacy of the argument.

Boycott the Banks! End Credit Slavery!

From my understanding with the intricate breakdown of how the banks essentially paid themselves in receiving bailout funds, there are a few still left in the wind in  terms of information overload as to how it all broke down. So here is a simplified version of what happened and is happening right now.

Major national banks such as Bank of America or Wells Fargo are all stock holders by law of the Federal Reserve Banks and under their regulation. These same banks that were giving multi-million dollar bonuses to their corporate elite, were also loosely regulated in corporate performance based payout structure by obligations to "stockholders."  These are the same banks that lobbied Congress to use tax-payer money to finance the same type back door broker deals they could have done amongst & for themselves to remain financially solvent. Bear in mind it's virtually impossible for banks to misallocate the funds available to them when they are only allowed to keep a certain amount on hand anyway, by way of Federal Reserve regulation. Unless the Fed actually were the ones who instigated and sanctioned it.

1. DOG EAT DOG THE STRONG SURVIVE
Major banks have access to "short term loans" to cover any temporary insufficiencies through the Federal Reserve. Virtually all lenders have in place some type of credit lending insurance that will either fully or partially reimburse lenders on loans defaulted by their clients. The last resort would be to lobby Congress for tax-payer money right? You all know the cut-throat ways of business, the sink or swim mentality. It's a financial food chain either you grow to become viable enough for some larger entity to acquire you or you start off puny, scrawny and never get a chance at life. The strong survive and the weak are prey.

With all that said wherein the motto of most cases we would generally stand back and watch the former giants crumble to usher in a new era of titan. Alternatively we have also witnessed old giants stay strong, achieve steady growth and swallow young budding titans whole. Either way we would watch as some major corporations fell and some merged in buyouts. The large swallow the small. Through all that we have witnessed, we have never witnessed these entities seeking US the average citizen to pay for their mergers, buyouts, bonuses and greed! The question is not why did it happen, it's why did WE let it happen?

2. THE AFTERMATH & EXCUSE
They received the money from the bailout and several of these entities merged any way! Bank of America acquiring Merrill Lynch or CountryWide for example. So what was the difference? Sure it was put in a nice sale package for you....Oh it's to open credit lines back up, avoid market crashes, save jobs and anything else they can throw at you to play on your fear. Your 401k's & IRA's are dropping, funds may be lost above $250,000, toxic assets, I mean the list goes on and on. So back to the question, forget the sales pitch. Think about the difference. What was the difference in them facilitating deals on their own within the ever broad international financial sector versus asking you and me to foot the bill?

Ah hah, ah hah....just asking that sentence to yourself out loud will answer it for you. Reminding of a line I would offer a very inquisitive soul. "Your answer is always in your question."

3. THEIR REMEDY
The answer is actually the biggest slap in the face. They are going to merge, kill the competition, liquidate major assets, acquire larger ones, using OUR hard earned money to do it! They are having me and you pay for them to purchase mass real estate and corporations for pennies on the dollar by way of "self-generated market manipulation."

They over extend credit with fluctuating interest rates, that rise and fall at their request. This one action can affect so many areas of your life from housing bubbles, to purchasing autos or repossession thereof, to stocks, price inflation, increased bankruptcies, liens & foreclosures. You name it and their innocent sounding credit is last to receive the blame.

Once all property value decreases across the board, they can literally grab land in quantity for less than a fourth then they would've paid otherwise! At the same time clamping on credit, denying credit and lowering credit lines for others. Making even concerted efforts to pool money a task easier said than done the average person. As consumer spending falls and confidence in the economy waiver stocks take a plunge, devaluing corporations making them easy to acquire of easy to get rid of. As debt grows inflation is inevitable to cure deficits. Paying homage to the saying, "Everything seems to go up but my pay." Forcing mass bankruptcies and liquidation of assets to once again be handed to the banks!

4. THE RESULT
Every situation is a win, win for them even in the past where it seemed it was an occasional win for us. The primary power you all have RIGHT NOW is to realize the stranglehold they have on society and stop helping them in their advancement.

They have taken YOUR money. Money that you indirectly owe them interest on anyway. Used your money to amass more wealth. Used your money to pay for the debt incurred by these purchases. And will receive a 6% annual return on all the profits made by the banking system through the Federal Reserve. A 6% return on the profit that drove America deeper into debt. That's crazy! Me & U would never see a 6% return on money WE squander. When are we going to stand up and say enough is enough?

Literally these banks got paid 4 times over. Once through their initial squander. Second by the bailouts. Third by the investments & acquisitions made and Fourth by the automatic 6% return from the FED. With all of them being member banks of the FED that meant HUGE profit margins for the FED, all on the backs of the people like YOU & ME!

5. THE SOLUTION:
Go right now and RIP UP all of your credit cards, not until you have maxed them all to their limit. They shouldn't have been dumb enough to give away money anyway. Charge them to the max and don't pay them one filthy red cent. If you have a car with a car note that you love I suggest you keep it. However for those of us that love our car and hate our excessive car notes, stop paying immediately on those and keep your car. Same thing with houses and property, in protest stop paying on your mortgages now. Good luck in them having the resources to repossess every car in the nation, every home. Good luck in them suing every consumer that stiffed them on the whole. We owe it to them, the way they owe it to us.

If you can't join in protest with your home or auto then join in the maxing and cutting off your credit cards. Spread the word to do away with any credit cards and as many relations to banks that we have. Banks are not a necessary part of life. If you all recall the initial idea of banks was that it was safer to keep your money in the bank then under your bed. I don't know about you all but I'm gonna give it a shot under my bed. It can't be any worse.

Stop Paying on All of your Credit!

I was listening to Ktalk 1150am a couple of days ago and felt compelled to call into The Nancy Skinner Show as she was asking the people what we would do about Chrysler being held hostage by JP Morgan Chase on a loan taken out in 2007 by the U.S. automaker. I understood this to be a very intricate issue of great importance. Yet did not feel it's full impact was being relayed nor the scheduled protests mentioned being enough to bring about the awareness needed. As this was my first time calling a talk radio host I was not prepared to summarize everything in one sentence. Having me disconnected as it was taking me too long to break it all down and in the rush was not as coherent as I would have liked. Before disconnecting she had requested that I e-mail the info it was taking so long to spill out, stating that I was off topic of the show and she would really like to stick to it. By the way Nancy, no hard feelings there are definitely not enough hours in the day. So below is the response that I sent to show her just how relevant the point I was making actually was. Enjoy!

The main point I was attempting to reach was that I do agree with shutting down your Chase accounts (Nancy Skinner). However I don't think it should stop there. We are at a time very similar to that of the pre - Great Depression era. Where some of the largest shifts in power of the financial sector had taken place. I'm sure we agree in the mistake made in passing The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. It was this bold and calculated deregulation that fostered the current financial crisis that we are in. My suggestion for us all at this point is to look at how all of these bailouts correlate to eachother. I understand this point was a tad too broad for the topic of your show that day. However it is definitely more relevant than most of us would choose to think. There is also cause for great concern, if consumers do not use the sole power they have as consumers we all will all fall victim to bureaucratic vices. I also understand that may be a whole lot to fathom from a mere caller so below I have included quotes from what one would say are more credible sources warning of these perils.

Before I do so I would like to mention that JP Morgan & Chase have no allegiance to the American public or any American business, including Chrysler. Naturally it makes more sense to them to attempt to retrieve 100% of their money versus the 33 cents on the dollar the Obama administration had requested they take. If they have credit default swaps in place then it is incumbent to ask ourselves why are they not more willing to help save the 300,000 jobs that will be lost as a result of Chrysler filing bankruptcy and forced to liquidate? If I were a board member in association with Chase I would not like to accept pennies on the dollar either after I just had to press for a $25 billion bailout for ourselves, due to our own financial hardship. Which is why we have to ask and inquire more into the underlying issues. I can guarantee you that the bailouts were all carefully orchestrated plans to force the hand of governments and tax-payers to pay money they would never agree to pay under any other circumstances.

I would not be the first to point out how all this works & ties together. However I may be the first in this context, so bear with me. Their is an economic war on the people taking place as we speak and although many have seen documentaries pointing this out such as Zeitgeist, it doesn't really seem like any of us had done any follow up research on our own to see how that information relates to our current economic equation. In order to fully understand what has been going on the past couple of years really requires time, patience, and a refresher course on economic political history. Merely accepting the official roles and official statements of these dealings are unacceptable as any purveyor of the last century would see the history repeating itself. Not just in the sense that we are leading to a depression but more so the circumstances behind it.

Even with deregulation there are still over-site entities to serve as watch dogs over these banking institutions, namely the Federal Reserve Bank and the FDIC. Just so we are both clear on how they operate. The Board of Governors is the part of the Federal Reserve System that is responsible for supervising the private banks. The Board also plays a major role in the supervision and regulation of the U.S. banking system. It has supervisory responsibilities for state-chartered banks that are members of the Federal Reserve System, bank holding companies (companies that control banks), the foreign activities of member banks, the U.S. activities of foreign banks, the Edge Act and agreement corporations (limited-purpose institutions that engage in a foreign banking business). The Board under delegated authority through the Federal Reserve Banks, supervise approximately 900 state member banks and 5,000 bank holding companies. Other federal agencies also serve as the primary federal supervisors of commercial banks; the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency supervises national banks.

Some regulations issued by the Board apply to the entire banking industry, whereas others apply only to member banks, that is state banks that have chosen to join the Federal Reserve System and national banks, which by law must be members of the System. The Board also issues regulations to carry out major federal laws governing consumer credit protection , such as the Truth in Lending, Equal Credit Opportunity, and Home Mortgage Disclosure Acts. Many of these consumer protection regulations apply to various lenders outside the banking industry as well as to banks.

The FDIC has the authority to regulate and supervise state non-member banks; it extended federal oversight to all commercial banks for the first time, and prohibited banks from paying interest on checking accounts. President Franklin D. Roosevelt was personally opposed to insurance because he thought it would protect irresponsible bankers, but yielded when he saw Congressional support was overwhelming. The Federal Deposit Insurance Act of 1950 gave the FDIC the authority to lend to any insured bank in danger of closing if the operation of the bank is essential to the local community, and authorized the FDIC to examine national and state member banks for their insurance risk. Funny how state non-member banks don't seem to asking for bailouts....Hmmm!

As an independent institution, the Federal Reserve System has the authority to act on its own without prior approval from Congress or the President. Each reserve bank is organized much like a private corporation so that it can provide the necessary revenue to cover operational expenses and implement the demands of the board. Member banks are privately owned banks that must buy a certain amount of stock in the Reserve Bank within its region to be a member of the Federal Reserve System. This stock "may not be sold, traded, or pledged as security for a loan" and all member banks receive a 6% annual dividend. The dividends paid by the Federal Reserve Banks to member banks are considered partial compensation for the lack of interest paid on the required reserves.

The board of directors of each Federal Reserve Bank District also have regulatory and supervisory responsibilities. For example, a member bank (private bank) is not permitted to give out too many loans to people who cannot pay them back. This is because too many defaults on loans will lead to a bank run. As a result of the current economic and financial crisis, over 30 U.S. banks have become insolvent and have been taken over by the FDIC since 2008. Combined, these banks held over $55 billion in deposits, and the takeovers cost the federal government an estimated $17 billion?

There has been considerable debate over a lack of transparency as to what is discussed in Federal Open Market Committee meetings. Since the FOMC sets monetary policy, which affects the entire U.S. economy, many people feel myself included that it is important to know what the FOMC is doing. They consult with both the U.S. Treasury and the Fed about funding the budget deficit and implementing monetary policy. Between them, these dealers purchase the vast majority of the U.S. Treasury Securities sold at auction, and resell them to the public Arguably, this group's members are the most influential and powerful non-governmental institutions in world financial markets.

The primary dealers form a worldwide network that distributes new U.S. government debt. For example, Daiwa Securities and Mizuho Securities distribute the debt to Japanese buyers. BNP Paribas, Barclays, Deutsche Bank, and RBS Greenwich Capital (a division of the Royal Bank of Scotland) distribute the debt to European buyers. Goldman Sachs, and Citigroup account for many American buyers. Nevertheless, most of these firms compete internationally and in all major financial centers.

The 19th century economy of the United States was characterized by occasional bank panics, with corresponding economic downturns and unemployment. Sound familiar? Although deposit security measures were adopted over time at the state level, the federal government chose to establish the Federal Reserve System in 1913. This combined state-federal system failed to prevent a bank panic in 1933. The panic saw 4,004 banks closed, with an average of $900,000 in deposits. Under the Federal Reserves supervision, these banks were merged into stronger banks. Sound familiar? This at the time was the largest money grab in history as established international bankers that not only caused the panic but were also board members, founders and stockholders of the Federal Reserve Bank and purchased these banks for pennies on the dollar! Nothing happens without the knowledge or the okay of the federal reserve and their policies.

We should do away with the Federal Reserve which is not an actual department of government and pay our taxes directly to the Dept of treasury. As these taxes simply pay only for the interest we accumulate from the borrowed money the Federal Reserves loans to us. The entire private member banking system is making money hand over fist by their mastery of market manipulation. Critics argue that the Fed lacks accountability and transparency, and that there is a culture of secrecy within the Reserve. They criticized the Federal Reserve System’s expansionary monetary policy in the 1920s, arguing that the policy allowed misallocations of capital resources and supported a massive stock price bubble.

The Fed produces the money through the U.S. Mint at interest before we touch it. The member banks issue the money and extend credit through the economy. These same member banks produce bank runs by intentionally loaning money to the not-so-credit worthy. Not only creating inflation but the devaluation of major corporations, creating opportunities for well-off bond holders of these member banks to literally steal these business for what? Pennies on the dollar! What corporations are not purchased are forced into bankruptcy and assets liquidated to repay the debt they owe the same member banks that caused the market shift to begin with. For example five notable changes have occurred in 2008. Countrywide Securities Corporation was a member of the Fed removed on July 15 due to its acquisition by Bank of America, who is also a member of the Fed. Lehman Brothers Inc. an original stockholder of the Fed was removed on September 22 due to bankruptcy. Bear Stearns & Co. Inc. was removed from the list on October 1 due to its acquisition by J.P. Morgan Chase. On February 11, 2009, Merrill Lynch Government Securities Inc. was removed from the list due to its acquisition by Bank of America. These were huge power grabs.

In times of market instability consumers cut spending, banks tighten on credit lending, stock prices plummet, trade slows, foreclosures & repossessions rise as people can not sustain simultaneous inflation with job cuts and pay cuts. Businesses fold or lose considerable value as they also can not sustain simultaneous inflation with drastic drops in consumer spending, rising insurance costs and the inability to borrow money to cover payroll. Forcing mass lay-offs, reduction of locations and the banks make their money anyway it goes, either through payment or liquidation combined with credit default insurance. In most cases it is better for people to default than to pay as the payments made before the default are unrecoupable and and the banks still reap the value of the liquidation. Essentially doubling the money they normally would've collected. Hence the reason and benefit of the housing bubble created throughout the last couple of years. It's simply astonishing the amount of influence the banking system has over our lives.

Needless to say the inflation that will be taking place in the face of all this will have a staggering affect on the economy and tax payer as a whole. Lenders lose because they will be repaid with dollars that aren't worth as much. Causing them to increase interest rates to off set losses. Price inflation makes workers worse off if their incomes don’t rise as rapidly as prices. Pensioners living on a fixed income are worse off if their savings do not increase more rapidly than prices. Savers lose because the dollar they save today will not buy as much when they are ready to spend it. Businesses and people will find it harder to plan and therefore may decrease investment in future projects. Owners of financial assets suffer. Interest rate-sensitive industries, like mortgage companies, suffer as monetary inflation drives up long-term interest rates and Federal Reserve tightening raises short-term rates. Since one of the stated goals of monetary policy is maximum employment, the unemployment rate is a sign of the success or lack thereof of the Federal Reserve System.

Which brings me to the bailouts. JP Morgan and Chase are stockholders of the Federal Reserve. Every national bank including Bank of America and Wells Fargo are member banks and by default stockholders as well the receive an annual 6% payout from the Fed and required to pay 3% of their earnings to fund the Fed. Now keep in mind that the money in circulation is loaned to us at interest before we touch it. Through deregulation the banking system over extended itself credit wise, intentionally lessening the value of sky rocketing home prices, stocks and other lending institutions, merging with those of value to them and dissolving the competition of lenders not affiliated in the network. Right there in that last sentence I named 3 major industries affected by their abuse of market manipulation. Not including the auto sales affected, major retail chains affected and huge state/national deficits created.

As state and federal funding lessens our social, health care and education programs are the first affected. It's just an ongoing ripple effect that continues to worsen in a non-stop downward spiral. These bankers have been legally embezzling the profits their companies produce through bonuses, fixing the books to assume debt on the left-over profits and are using the tax-payer to pay for them to do it again. Giving them as individuals additional financial power to foster immense wealth in short periods of time.

The funds used in the bailout will allow them to purchase considerable amounts without using their own money. When you really look at it, it's brilliant. If it weren't so cunning and damaging to our society it would be intellect to be praised. Hence the mentality of the bonus structure having to keep the greatest minds around. Mainstream media and public look at these people as buffoons who didn't know what they were doing, not worthy of any praise. And they're not, however the power grab of the Great Depression pales in comparison to this one. Which would force the respect of any intellectual in the know.

Holding stock in a Federal Reserve bank is not however, like owning publicly traded stock. The stock cannot be sold or traded. Member banks receive a fixed, 6 percent dividend annually on their stock, and they do not directly control the applicable Federal Reserve bank as a result of owning this stock. They do, however, elect six of the nine members of Reserve banks’ boards of directors! Thus potentially giving them that power anyway. Every national bank in any State shall, upon commencing business or within ninety days after admission into the Union of the State in which it is located, become a member bank of the Federal Reserve System by subscribing and paying for stock in the Federal Reserve bank of its district in accordance with the provisions of this chapter and shall thereupon be an insured bank under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act.

Once again keep in mind that our money is loaned to us at debt and the only way we can re-pay that debt is to produce more money, which produces more debt and more debt and more debt! The major banks that received bailout funds will receive a 6% annual return on all the profit produced by money distributed through the Federal Reserve. The Fed supplied the bail out funds, which must be re-paid by the tax-payer, essentially tacked on to the already existing deficit. In addition to receiving the bailout money and the normal revenues accumulated in business, these banks will also receive a 6% annual pay out on the profits produced by the Fed on all the money generated to pay for the bailouts.

So in reality they are even making money on borrowing money, whereas everyone else is forced to the opposite. We can only borrow money that we pay back in interest. However by not only borrowing but repaying the debt they stand to make money! They single handily have the power to bankrupt our entire nation. So they are holding the whole United States of America and virtually the world at hostage, not just Chrysler. They have the complete potential to not only influence the market or economy but the power to influence policy as well with these capabilities. Which is simple yet too complex to break down in one sentence. In which I was attempting to do for your show. I realize it wasn't presented too fluently. You would be surprised at how many of these institutions are also corporate members of the Council of Foreign Relations as well.

I urge you to look in these matters and help spread the word for people to do the same. Britain's who have the same monetary system and banks controlling their lives, took to the streets in protest of these banks at the G20 Summit last week (4/3/09). I have a detailed article on the subject you can find on my web-site entitled, "What Happened at the G20 Summit?" The only way we as a people will be able to bring these bankers down to our level in a non-violent manner would be to utilize our powers as consumers and citizens to form a non-violent protest promoting that people stop paying on any credit debt they possess immediately. Good luck to these banks foreclosing on millions of houses, repossessing millions of cars and suing everyone in court! The likelihood of a protest of this magnitude must become a reality to get some kind of grip on our lives and national foreign policy. It's necessary to battle the widespread corruption in our politics and also necessary to stabilize our economy.

The Fed holds at least $515 billion of the national debt. The fact that our Treasury itself is in debt to the Fed The $46.7 billion in Treasury liabilities shows that the Treasury Department does not use private banks but rather uses the Fed directly. The Federal Reserves job is to protect the credit rights of consumers, to manage the nation's money supply stable prices, including prevention of either inflation or deflation. To maintain the stability of the financial system and contain systemic risk in financial markets. I ask you have they done any of that? To strengthen U.S. standing in the world economy, I ask you have they done that? It is much easier to give money to yourself than it would be for you to take money from yourself. Hence the reason you see banking institutions not having any problems in receiving their own bailout but you will definitely see a problem in relation to future help for any other types of organizations that are not directly affiliated with the Council of Foreign Relations, or the Federal Reserve.

My argument would be that the Federal Reserve is an unnecessary and middleman, counterproductive interference in the economy and if not completely done away with it needs to at least be revamped. The natural laws of supply and demand can regulate interest rates on their own. Bank of America raising rates, eliminating customers, tightening credit after receiving a $45 billion bailout? What's wrong with this picture? That's exactly the position Chrysler is in right now.

Some critics state that the Federal Reserve System is unconstitutional because Congress is empowered by the Constitution to coin money, and is not empowered to print money. One reason why I may agree with you in needing to keep the Fed would be that in times of surplus they do contribute billions of dollars to the Treasury, however I'm sure they are other ways of compensating for such. On a good note Ben Bernanke agreed that the Fed had made the Great Depression worse, saying in a 2002 speech:

"I would like to say to Milton [Friedman] and Anna [J. Schwartz]: Regarding the Great Depression. You're right, we did it. We're very sorry. But thanks to you, we won't do it again."

Oops looks like we done it again huh Ben?

Milton Friedman (1912-2006), a prominent figure within the Chicago School , argued that the Federal Reserve System made the Great Depression worse by contracting the money supply at the very moment that markets needed liquidity. Since its entire existence was predicated on its mission to prevent events like the Great Depression, it had failed in what the 1913 bill had tried to achieve.

"I am the most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is now controlled by a system of credit. We are no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men." Pres. Woodrow Wilson-1919 (six years after signing the Federal Reserve Act)

Peter Jaworski (The Journal, Queen's University, March 15, 2002—Issue 37, Volume 129) Friedman said well before any bailouts that ideally he would "prefer to abolish the federal reserve system altogether" rather than try to reform it, because it was a flawed system in the first place. He also said he would like to "abolish the Federal Reserve and replace it with a computer."

"The United States Constitution grants to Congress the authority to coin money and regulate the value of the currency. The Constitution does not give Congress the authority to delegate control over monetary policy to a central bank. Furthermore, the Constitution certainly does not empower the federal government to erode the American standard of living via an inflationary monetary policy." -Congressman Ron Paul -

Dennis Kucinicich, addressing Congress during the January 2009 session stated, "The Federal Reserve is no more federal than Federal Express....If we could take that (money-issuing) power back and place the Federal Reserve under Treasury, we start to be in a position of being able to control monetary policy on behalf of the United States people."

"The financial system has been turned over to the Federal Reserve Board. That Board administers the finance system by authority of a purely profiteering group. The system is Private, conducted for the sole purpose of obtaining the greatest possible profits from the use of other people's money." (R). Charles Lindbergh

Congressman Louis McFadden, Chairman of the House Committee on Banking and Currency from 1920–31, accused the Federal Reserve of deliberately causing the Great Depression. In several speeches made shortly after he lost the chairmanship of the committee, McFadden claimed that the Federal Reserve was run by Wall Street banks and their affiliated European banking houses. On June 10, 1932, McFadden said: In 1933, he introduced House Resolution No. 158, Articles of impeachment for the Secretary of the Treasury, two assistant Secretaries of the Treasury, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, and the officers and directors of its twelve regional banks. There were two attempts on McFadden's life, a failed shooting and an apparent poisoning that made him "violently ill" after attending a political banquet in Washington. In 1936, McFadden attended a banquet in New York, and died shortly after, what could possibly be a third and successful attempt of assassination.

"Mr. Chairman, we have in this country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks. The Federal Reserve Board, a Government board, has cheated the Government of the United States and the people of the United States out of enough money to pay the national debt. These twelve private credit monopolies were deceitfully and disloyally foisted upon this country by the bankers who came here from Europe and repaid us for our hospitality by undermining our American institutions...The people have a valid claim against the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks." - (R) Louis McFadden

"The real truth of the matter is that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government since the days of Andrew Jackson." Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt-1933

"If you want to remain slaves of the bankers and pay for the costs of your own slavery let them continue to create money and control the nation's credit." Sir Josiah Stamp- (1880-1941)

"A world banking system was being set up here...A super state controlled by international bankers...Acting together to enslave the world for their own pleasure. the fed has usurped the government." Congressman Louis McFadden-1913 (After passage of Federal Reserve Act)

"Under the Federal Reserve Act panics are scientifically created. The present panic is the first scientifically created one, worked out as we figure a mathematical equation." Congressman Charles Lindbergh-1921

"It was a carefully contrived occurrence international bankers sought to bring about a condition of despair so that they may emerge the rulers of us all." Congressman Louis McFadden-1929 (Right before the Great Depression)

"Give me control of a nation's money supply, and I care not who makes it's laws." Mayer Amschel Rothschild- (1744-1812)

I thank you for your time in reading this correspondence and I humbly beg of you to YouTube JFK's warning on the Illuminati and secret societies recorded just weeks before his death in his state of the union speech.

Here's one quote I forgot to include for Nancy:

For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as "internationalists" and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure — one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.

—David Rockefeller, "Memoirs" autobiography (2002, Random House publishers), page 405

Taxation Without Representation!

There was once a great story told of the American Revolution's infamous Boston Tea Party. This revolt had come about due to the tax imposed on colonists Dec 16, 1773. Not only was this due to the Tea Act 0f 1773. It was also due to other acts passed at the time such as the Stamp Act of 1765, the Coercion Act of 1774 all passed by an unpopular British Parliament. These Acts lay low on the radar of people nowadays, as other Acts have passed and they seem to have minor significance in modern times.

Those who believe that is true are placed in the best perspective by Benjamin Franklin stating, "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." We must as a society understand the principles which lead to the positions colonists took toward British rule at the time. Understanding the mentality at the time will allow for us to better understand the background of the constitutional rights we were given and many have died for.

Right now as we speak millions of people are either at work, on their way to work, or their way back from work. All of these people you and I included work in return for compensation. Legally that compensation can not be taken without our permission (sale/purchase of goods). We are currently taxed on not only our income but our sale and purchase of goods as well. In many states that impose a state tax citizens are being taxed 3 separate ways. This is lunacy! California for example has recently raised their sales tax a full 1% from 8.25% to 9.25% and many products including gas and tobacco impose not only a local and state tax but a federal tax as well. When taken into account these people have already been involuntarily taxed on their income and other taxes imposed, they are easily being taxed an astounding 4 times on each sicle income in the state.

How we stay oblivious to this stuff is amazing to me. Colonists were initially upset over the Tea Act due to the dangers of additional taxes being imposed on other products as well. So at this time we were not even being taxed on every product purchased. The reality of the Tea Act actually lessened the already existing tax on tea, saving the colonist money. So why did they become so enraged? They were only getting taxed once. Not on their income but on their purchase of tea. An alarm was sounded several years before that with the Stamp Act in which Governors were forced to resign as a result of colonial protests. These colonists saw the same wolf in a sheep's clothing and came together in revolt in the face of madness. They were upset at being taxed at all without having their voices heard in Parliament.

The initial protests were not meant to be violent. They were simply meant to boycott the import of the tea. Although thousands were in agreement over the no taxation without representation slogan, only 80-130 colonists participated in the actual destruction of the tea. Their were attempted concessions to repay the value of the destroyed tea that were turned down by the British Parliament. As a desperate attempt to maintain control of the colonies the British Parliament passed the Coercive Acts all of which were designed to punish settlers and re-establish authority.

The Coercive Acts also known as the Intolerable Acts were as follows:

The Boston Port Act which shut down the port of Boston until the East India Company that supplied the tea had been repaid and until the king was assured order had been restored. This upset the colonists who felt the many was being punished for the acts of the few.

The Massachusetts Government Act created even more outrage than the Port Act because it unilaterally altered the government of Massachusetts to bring it under control of the British government. Almost all positions in the colonial government were to be appointed by the governor or the king and also severely limited the activities of the town meetings in Massachusetts. Colonists outside Massachusetts feared that their governments could now also be changed by the legislative fiat of Parliament.

The Administration of Justice Act allowed the governor to move trials of accused royal officials to another colony or even to Great Britain if he believed the official could not get a fair trial in Massachusetts. George Washington called this the "Murder Act" because he believed that it allowed British officials to harass Americans and then escape justice.


The Quartering Act was the least controversial of the acts as it was to allow for Governors to accommodate British soldiers housing quarters in the event colonies had not individually done so. Some protested that housing was taken for soldiers from private occupies homes.

The Quebec Act was unrelated to the events in Boston, but the timing of its passage led colonists to believe that it was part of the program to punish them. The act enlarged the boundaries of the
Province of Quebec and instituted reforms generally favorable to the French Catholic inhabitants of the region, although denying them an elected legislative assembly. Many feared the establishment of Catholicism in Quebec, and that the French Canadians were being courted to help oppress British Americans.


These Acts were the last ditch effort of the British to keep grips on the colonies. If you look at the scope of what lead to the American Revolution you will see that a lot less was tolerated by colonists then common modern day citizens now. There was an understanding that there was a risk involved and nonetheless maintained an agenda of freedom. One reason the so-called powers that be do the very things that frustrate us as a public is because no one is going to do anything about it. They can rely on the fact that the most you all will do is privately complain, make signs and march. In most cases the marches hurt us more than them in lost wages attending the rallies. There has to be some kind of way of uniting on issues.


There are so many people satisfied with their current situation it is hard for those to stand up in protest to simply be left alone by conformists completely disengaged from issues that affect their daily lives. Our media doesn't help much when they would rather provide spin than speak on the issues from the informed citizen's view. So essentially to break it all down our paid representatives often times are completely out of touch with their constituent's wishes. Our media is out of touch, with our televised news programming being largely state-controlled. The corporate structure profits along the way, cutting benefits and jobs daily. Everyone is happy except for us and we are the only ones scared to say it!


What is going on? When is enough, enough? The founding fathers of the United States fought and protested the tax of individual products as a whole. Fearful of the violation of their constitutional and natural rights as man. We get taxed on everything but oh well I guess that's okay. Our income is taxed as well. Once again oh well I guess that's okay. We have no control over the dispersal of our tax payer dollars. Oh well I guess that's okay!

I urge all of us to come together in solution to this ever massive problem and bringing awareness to the forefront. Protest the banks that received our money by withdrawing every dollar from their institutions. If you owe money on credit cards refuse to pay. Everyone stop paying your car notes. Stop paying your mortgages and give yourselves some leverage to be respected. Lobby your congressman to re-apply the regulations once placed on financial institutions. Lobby them to eradicate the private stock in the Federal Reserve Bank. Or eradicate the Fed altogether. Dismantle or restructure the IRS and suggest paying a fair tax directly to the Dept of Treasury. Promote a universal fair tax as a solution to providing collectible taxes for government use of public programs, institutions and infrastructure. While you are reading this you are being taxed. Why so excessive? And what are you going to do about it?

Read more >> Options >>

Protest the Banks!

All international banks involved in the bail out and some that were not part all played a part one way or another in the global catastrophe we face, if that makes any sense. Bankers have long since been financiers of anything major in the world. Not only in the private sector but the Federal as well. They can influence the outcome of wars simply by funding one side greater than another or recalling the loans on one versus another. Bankers do indeed finance wars, terrorism, state programs....you name it they fund it. But at what price though?

The price we pay is automatic manipulation of the circumstance. Automatic manipulation and control of policy. This is a remarkable feat. Bankers decide who wins wars, who loses and why.
Not only physical combative wars but economical wars as well. Right now we are all apart of an economic war of the classes. The uninformed rich people of America feel they are on the same side of the struggle these bankers and capitalists fall on. Not fully understanding that they are apart of the global grab for power and may also fall victim to the largest robbery to ever take place in the history of the world.

In previous articles I had written about similar robberies of the Great Depression era and how it related to us now. This article is part of that continuing effort to have people see the instances of manipulation as they happen.

A couple of days ago the Wall Street Journal reported that big banks resist the call to help Chrysler who has recently been seeking a bailout to help them avoid bankruptcy. JP Morgan/Chase had merged not too long ago. In 2007 Chrysler a privately held company had borrowed a large sum of money secured by the assets of the company. The Government has asked bond holders to write down the debt to 33 cents on every dollar owed. Although this bank has just received a bail out of its own to prevent systemic failure and spare us little guys some pain. They also have credit default swaps in place, which is insurance on the loss of what would be recouped in Chrysler's liquidation. Basically saying that in the event the secured assets do not amount to what is owed, this money will be covered by this credit default swap.

The sad part about what is going on right now is the fact that the American auto industry is on the verge of collapse and the same banks that have essentially already laced their pockets in Federal bailout money now are monetarily holding Chrysler hostage in financial black mail. Obviously if receiving a bailout to begin with these banks need money as their bad investments nearly squandered peoples entire life savings. Hence the bailout, so why don't they take the bailout take the pennies on the dollar and help an auto giant avoid bankruptcy. Simple business reason actually if they can force Chrysler into Bankruptcy, Chrysler would have to sell the assets to cover 100% of the debt owed or in worst case scenario recover a large portion and the rest in the credit default swap.

However they can still recover the credit default swap even if they took pennies on the dollar from Chrysler. It has been rumored that AIG is the actual insurance company that is covering the credit default swap and had received their own bail out as of recently. They have no patriotic loyalty to the U.S. or the U.S. automaker and would rather see them fall at the most inopportune time. So let's return the favor. Now we don't owe Chrysley anything as they had made inferior products for so long. However there is an overwhelming 300,000 jobs that will be lost as result.

Let's loose the grips the international bankers have on all of our policy and financial situations.
They have long been able to manipulate our economy keeping us in a state of slavery. Let's reverse the tide and give ourselves the leverage we need to create economic sustainability for ourselves and manipulate their economic situation in return to bring them down to our level an manifest a more even playing field. My question to you all is if we don't who will?

What happened at the G20 Summit?

Police officers in riot gear scuffle with demonstrators near the Bank of England in London April 1, 2009. Thousands of demonstrators converged on London's financial district on Wednesday, chanting "abolish money" and "storm the banks" in a heavily policed protest to coincide with the G20 summit of world leaders.

REUTERS/Andrew Winning (BRITAIN POLITICS BUSINESS CONFLICT SOCIETY)

In his post G-20 conference U.S. President Barack Obama made several statements. Overall he had been well received by his counterparts and remained very confident in stating his positions. There were a couple of comments made I didn't necessarily agree with. One being, "In America, there's a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world," Obama said. He further stated, "Instead of celebrating Europe's dynamic union and seeking to work with you, there have been times where America's shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive. But in Europe, there is an anti-Americanism that is at once casual, but can also be insidious. Instead of recognizing the good that America so often does in the world, there have been times where Europeans chose to blame America for much of what's bad," Obama said.

Athough I do agree with the anti-americanism statement. I did not agree with how he perceives our view of Europe and our supposed arrogance. When the whole concept of the word including it's origin came from Europe exclusively.

He added: "On both sides of the Atlantic, these attitudes have become all too common. They are not wise. They do not represent the truth." I whole heartedly agree with this statement because none of this nonsense either way seems to really represent any truth at all. With so much secrecy in the world today it's hard whether to know if your coming or going from one day to the next. Confusion creates dissention and the fact that the public suffers from a lack of information, these attitudes would be common. However in the prior claim of arrogance on behalf of the U.S. I would have rather him be more specific and say the arrogance of the George Bush Administration. I don't believe anyone can disagree with that.

During the summit Obama also encouraged Europe to support his new Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy.

"I understand there's doubt about this war in Europe," Obama said. "There's doubt even in the United States."

But he said the United States and its allies must continue to work to defeat the "terrorists who threaten all of us." And, he said Europeans and Americans had to look past disagreements over Iraq.

Obama opposed the Iraq war, which divided America from many of its traditional allies and was the source of bitter relations between the U.S. and Europe.

"We got sidetracked by Iraq and we have not fully recovered that initial insight that we have a mutual interest in ensuring that organizations like al-Qaida cannot operate," he said. "I think it is important for Europe to understand that even though I am president and George Bush is not president, al-Qaida is still a threat."

In Germany, Merkel said her country wants to bear its share of the responsibility in Afghanistan, and Obama thanked her for what Germany already has done.

But Obama also said: "We do expect that all NATO partners are going to contribute. They have thus far, but the progress in some cases has been uneven." He added, "We're going to refocus the strategy and then make sure the resources are there to do it."

Earlier in France, the president said he wants to look back at his tenure and know his work drastically lessened the threat of terrorism, particularly nuclear terrorism.

"We can't reduce the threat of a nuclear weapon going off unless those that possess the most nuclear weapons — the United States and Russia — take serious steps to reduce our stockpiles," Obama said. "So we want to pursue that vigorously in the years ahead."

On a good note President Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev earlier this week pledged a new effort to reduce both nations' nuclear arsenals.

The U.S. President also was not afraid to touch on topics controversial in Europe. Obama promoted his decision to close the U.S. prison camp at Guantanamo Bay within a year, and said "without equivocation that the United States does not and will not torture."

Earlier, in a symbolic gesture, French President Nicolas Sarkozy told Obama that France would accept a prisoner from the detention center where terrorist suspects are held if that would facilitate its closing.

Saying that he was determined to "speak the truth," Sarkozy said that Guantanamo "was not in keeping with U.S. values." He said democratic states have a responsibility to speak honestly and do what they say, and that Guantanamo was a contradiction in that standard.

Obama said the U.S. needs help in finding a place to send those held at the center. He thanked Sarkozy for "being good to his word."

About 240 detainees are still held, some without charge at the Guantanamo Bay prison, which was set up after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to hold so-called "enemy combatants" accused of links to the al-Qaida terror network or the Taliban. Spain and Portugal have already said they could accept prisoners, while Germany and others remain tightlipped whether they will accept non-nationals or not.

The following are quotes from leaders at the summit:

RUSSIAN PRESIDENT DMITRY MEDVEDEV

"Twenty or 25 years ago it would be impossible to imagine a situation when so different nations, with so different economies, various mentalities and historical traditions could sit down at the same table and be able to agree on how to act in such a complicated situation, and to do it fairly fast!"

"The speed with which we are acting at least makes me think that many of the decisions we are taking will be pretty effective."

SOUTH AFRICAN PRESIDENT KGALEMA MOTLANTHE

Crisis measures: "We are all concerned about the fact that the bottom of the crisis is not visible yet and therefore are aware and alive to the fact that the decisive and courageous steps that have been taken to stem the freefall may not be adequate to address the full impact of this crisis."

SPANISH PRIME MINISTER JOSE LUIS ZAPATERO

"This summit contributes to confidence ... and will facilitate recovery" "We have set in motion the greatest concerted plan of fiscal expansion in history. it is unprecedented. it reaches 5 trillion.....This amount will contribute in a decisive way to facilitate a recovery of the world economy and to preserve millions of jobs"

JAPANESE PRIME MINISTER TARO ASO

On another G20 summit: "It would be the easiest for countries to gather during the U.N. General Assembly in New York. Plus, New York is where it (the crisis) started. The United States and others have proposed New York and we think this is a good idea."

ITALY PRIME MINISTER SILVIO BERLUSCONI

Trade: "On the Doha trade round we decided we will look more closely at the issue and fix a meeting at Maddalena to make a final decision."

EU PRESIDENT JOSE MANUEL BARROSO

"It is an historic moment, a defining moment for our global response to the crisis...We took the right decisions," he told the BBC.

Trade: "Many participants underlined the importance of the Doha trade talks for promoting economic recovery. For Europe it's the cheapest way of doing it as you are not creating debt.

US: "The fact that President Obama showed a willingness to engage, it's a very good signal that we may reach that agreement during this year."

THAI PRIME MINISTER ABHISIT VEJJAJIVA, REPRESENTING ASEAN

"We are pleased that the communique covered a lot of ground and responded to our needs. The stimulus package is now clearly focussed on jobs and growth. And we are doing it through global financial institutions, not just individual country efforts. The various reforms in terms of the global financial institutions and the new facilities again respond better to the needs of emerging and developing economies. We are not losing sight of medium and longer term goals in terms of development."

Obviously optimism is brighter for some than others. There is a certain amount of skepticism in the outcome of steps being taken. However overall it would seem the general consensus was extremely positive in the eyes of world leaders.

In the meantime the U.S. jobless rate jumped to 8.5 percent. The highest since late 1983, as a wide range of employers eliminated a net total of 663,000 jobs in March. In Germany, Obama called the new unemployment report a "stark reminder" of the nation's woes.

Thousands of G-20 protesters jammed downtown London on Wednesday and some tried to storm the Bank of England, pelting police with eggs and fruit and rocking the barricades designed to control them. Hmmm I wonder why?

The answer was spoken very loudly as demonstrators shouted "Abolish Money!" and clogged streets in the financial district known as "The City" even as Prime Minister Gordon Brown and President Barack Obama held a news conference elsewhere in the British capital.

Demonstrators hoisted effigies of the "four horsemen of the apocalypse," representing war, climate chaos, financial crimes and homelessness.

At least eight people were reportedly arrested for having police uniforms. One police officer lost his helmet and demonstrators tossed it around like a trophy and chanted slogans.

Helicopters hovered above the protests and some buildings were boarded up in case the protests turned ugly. Many banks had extra security and hundreds of police officers lined the streets.

Despite the pushing and shoving along the police barricades, there were no reported injuries.

Protesters included anarchists, anti-capitalists, environmentalists, students, unionized workers, unemployed workers and others hurt by the global financial crisis.

Fearing they would be targeted by protesters, some bankers swapped their pinstripe suits for casual wear and others stayed home. Bolder financial workers leaned out their office windows Wednesday, taunting demonstrators and waving 10 pound notes at them. Many banks in the capital brought in extra security, and several streets were closed off entirely. Especially in Britain, bankers have been lambasted as being greedy and blamed for the recession that is making jobless ranks soar.

"It seems like everything is in a mess," said protester Steve Johnson, 49, an unemployed construction worker. "You get bankers getting massive bonuses, and the MPs (British lawmakers) are lining their own pockets."

Musician and political activist Billy Bragg said the time was now to make a difference. "It's better than sitting down shouting at the television at these bankers," he said. "We cannot go back to the way things were before to the million-dollar bonus culture."

"The greed that is driving people is tearing us apart," said Steve Lamont, 45, flanked by his family and protesters who were banging on bells, playing drums and blowing whistles.

"Every job I apply for there's already 150 people who have also applied," said protester Nathan Dean, 35, who lost his information technology job three weeks ago. "I have had to sign on to the dole (welfare) for the first time in my life. You end up having to pay your mortgage on your credit card and you fall into debt twice over."

Wow what a week! This is our reality!

Michelle Obama hugs the Queen!

Oh no everybody run! The queen has just been touched! The queen has just been touched! Get out of here with that nonsense. The queen obviously didn't mind and was actually the first to extend her arm around the first lady. So what's all the fuss about?

It never ceases to amaze the worthless amount of time spent on such trivial matters by our mainstream media. Do any of us really care if there was any unofficial protocol broken? Do we really care if the queen were to be offended? I would have to believe that most peoples answer would be a resounding "no". None of us care about this type stuff because it really doesn't make any of us money or affect our lifestyle at all. We have big bills that require all of our attention. As well as domestic issues that deserve more attention than just a wag of the tail.

Mainstream media is so utterly repulsive at times with the topics and stories covered, making their overall function at times seem like a waste of time. The attention that a simple gesture between two prominent ladies had received is a terrible waste of time, making the top of every news reel around the globe. As if there is no real stories to cover. Media seems to have watered down over the past several years.

No one asks the tough question anymore. The semi-tough questions that do arise have no follow up questions from reporters after their initial questions receive either vague or no answers at all. Some media pundits afraid to go against the grain in their line of question in fear their media pass maybe revoked. So what do these people do? They produce sugar-coated politically correct stories, with partisan views and a lust for quantitative ratings versus quality journalism. I'm sure somewhere in the world there is a story of better substance and value than two peoples casually touching one another. Or is there?

People Just Don't Seem to Believe!

Well it seems as if there has come a question into my credibility on the topics I have been discussing as of recently. I am simply a person that has taken the time to study in observance of the current events around us on a daily basis for the past 23 years. In the same manor some child prodigies take up ballet or piano I had a strong interest in global politics.

I can recall a time when I was on my way to school and had witnessed on live television the failure of NASA's Challenger mission and the emotion that came along with it. I can recall Reagonomics effect on already impoverished communities. I can recall the presidential debates my elders had no interest in watching that as a child, just as well as an interest to vote in elections they cared not to.

I am one of the victims. Just the same as billions of others like me. Your race or creed has no place here. In the hearts of the free our color knows no bounds. Our previous generation realized this very thing all to fall to struggle and forget that struggle must go on. The fight must continue as only meager concessions have been waged, driving us deeper into a systematic industrialized form of slavery. For every concession made on behalf of the government we have had to pay ten-fold. These people pop out of nowhere as representatives and people would like to question what I know. My statement to you all is that it's not so much that I know but more so that I pose the question. The evidence is the evidence. It is not my place to make a decision for you either way.

However when confronted with the truth there will be 98% of us that reject that truth and there will 2% of us that except that truth. Believe it or not our 2% will be stronger than the 98% percent although we are so heavily outnumbered. 98% of the people are fake, 2% are true. 1% look out for self and 1% look out for themselves and you. Whether family, friend, stranger, associate, to indiscretionary people you have met and not met. This universal rule stays the same.

I went to school averaging a 3.6 GPA, majored in Psychology in college since the local college in my area did not offer Public Relations as a major. I had to take classes geared toward PR to substitute for their lack thereof(psych, human relations, speech, PR). My Father wasn't fully involved at that time and my Mother had moved away not long before i graduated high school. She made too much money and claimed me on her taxes holding up the funding I needed for school. With the immediate need for a roof over my head being imminent, I attained a full time job and dropped out of school to maintain a one-bedroom apartment I was blessed with.

Where a lot of my peers had to learn at the pace of the teachers whose class they took. I actually had the advantage of going to the library all day everyday to soak up the plethora of knowledge available to me. I had acquired various jobs primarily sales positions and experienced my ups and downs like everyone else. Even at my worst I always represented the top 2% of my sales force in every company I was employed, creating a short track record for short term sustainable income. Growing up I have lived in the ghettos to the valleys, worked in every environment from restaurants to corporate offices overlooking the beach.

I literally began from the bottom, above where some people have the opportunity to start. I was resilient and worked very hard to seek higher business oriented goals and achieved them on many fronts in a relatively short period of time. In a span of a few years I had earned not only more money than I had earned in all my previous life but also more money than most people make in 5-10 years, legally. Not only specializing in consumer sales but business-to-business sales as well. Regardless of my professional resume in which of course there is plenty more. I am a person who is and has taken time to understand what is going on around us though constant study and research.

I have no religious belief, although I do believe in God and his power. I am completely bi-partisan in race, gender, creed, or political background. I stand for truth, honor and God's way. I simply pose the questions to spark the food for the brain that will seek the appropriate answers. The world is not truly ready for the beliefs that I have as of yet. When it seems as if they run from the truth every convenience they get. I am a sane man who lives vicariously through the hope of life and freedom for our children. A freedom falsely realized by previous generations that may be universal for future generations if we do our job now.

Our job is to become comfortable with the subjects and topics that are most uncomfortable for us. Our job is to lobby for the rights our fore fathers have died for. Our job is to be the smart, great people we can be without fear of repercussion. This is the time we learn what will hold value to us in the event there is no money. Do you know what you value? I know what I value. So before doubting the information you see, prove it wrong. Don't take just one story for it but look at it from all available perspectives. Be wise enough to understand if the multiple perspectives are really one of the same.

Feel free to contact me with anything you don't understand, before assuming it doesn't interest you or you simply just doubting my credibility on the matter. I will at anytime provide you with multiple sources to answer your multiple questions. So God bless and wake up!

The G-20 Summit is this week!

The G20 conference is this week. What does it mean to you? This is not only an annual meeting of the industrial powers of the world. It's more so an ongoing institution that confers on a regular basis. Consisting of the U.S., UK & EU, china, Australia, France, Germany, Russia, Japan, South Africa, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Canada, Italy, Mexico, India, Korea, Brazil, Argentina and Turkey. Since it's inception in 1999 there has been many disputes over it's overall intentions of globalization, stealing the spotlight for the previously targeted G7.

The difference between the two is as follows, with this description coming directly from the G20 web-site: The G-7 was established in 1976 as an informal forum of seven major industrial economies: Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States of America. The G-7 conducts dialogue and seeks agreement on current economic issues on the basis of the comparable interests of those countries. The G-20 was established in 1999 and reflects the diverse interests of the systemically significant industrial and emerging-market economies. (see: About the G-20). It has a high degree of representativeness and legitimacy on account of its geographical composition (members are drawn from all continents) and its large share of global population (two-thirds) and world GNP (around 90 per cent). The G-20's broad representation of countries at different stages of development gives its consensus outcomes greater impact than those of the G-7.

In 1980 the G7 accounted for roughly 50% of the purchasing power parity valuation of the world's total GDP. With the rise in emerging market economies which are countries who once were insignificant in terms of global trade and total world output, the percentage of global GDP represented by the original g7 fell to 42% by 2005. As countries like China grew an outstanding 500% in that 25 year period from 3% to 15% of the global GDP. India rose from 3% to 6% with the remaining EME's (emerging market economies) growing 1% from 9% to 10%. Essentially saying that in a growing global economy growth these EME's have grown industrially to attain a larger share of the global market. In 25 years the total GDP had grown from $12.8 billion to a little over $61 billion annually between 1980-2005. So basically the inception of the G20 had been put in place to account for the rising representation of these EME's in the global market place and solidify a larger percentage of the total GDP by forging in depth marketing strategies with these emerging countries. Thus offsetting the 42% of the G7's GDP to represent over 85% of the globe's total GDP through this one group. Leaving it fairly obvious to see the advantage of them doing so, as larger market shares means a greater chance at changing or shaping International economic policies.

Groups such as these have always amounted a certain paranoia over concerned citizens fearful of globalization and bureaucratic policies. This past week has had an even greater effect as thousands poured into the streets throughout Western Europe in protest over the annual meeting of the G20. People are frustrated over a failing global economy in which the G20 represents almost 90% of its GDP, insufficient healthcare and environmental policies. With the global economy in such a bad state the turnout of protesters this past weekend has been unprecedented, expecting to rise in number throughout the week as world leaders converge to discuss these issues.

Rightfully so that these people protest. Upon researching the G20 web-site I had found that as group the G20 was fully aware of the harmful policies in the financial sector that has led to our recent economic downfall as early as 2006. The following excerpts have been taken directly from a PDF file on their web-site entitled, THE ROLE OF THE G-20 IN THE GLOBAL FINANCIAL ARCHITECTURE: "In response to the concern that international institutions have been insufficiently responsive to the changing structure of the global economy, the G-20 placed a priority on improving the legitimacy and credibility of the international financial institutions, especially the IMF."

The document further states , the growing economic weight of the EMEs is both a consequence and a driver of the globalisation of economic activity. As many people have noted, including the Lowy Institute, the world is becoming more integrated. There has been rapid expansion in cross-border economic activity in the past 25 years-including expanding trade, broad liberalisation and deregulation of domestic markets and institutions, growth of multinational enterprises and increasing mobility of people.

So right there they have basically just told us that they were aware of the effects of our recent growth and deregulation in advance, feeling the necessity to establish legitimacy of these practices. Naturally this document wasn't initially made readily available to the public, as most are not. However it is the aftermath of all this that seems to enrage people the most. Policy makers seem to always have the right answer until something goes wrong in our eyes and all of a sudden these same policy makers play ignorant to these happenings, claiming to have no knowledge of how these things came about.....funny!

Some major media outlets simply write the summit up as simply an annual meeting of world leaders to discuss economic issues and partnerships in an informal fashion. When in actuality as explained below that there is a lot more to it than that. None of it which do we need a college degree to understand either.

Each G-20 host year culminates in the meeting of Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors, usually toward the end of the year. But there are also a number of supporting meetings during the host year. The critical point about the meeting structure for the G-20 is that discussions are underpinned by a strong analytical framework, thus ensuring they are of high quality. The framework is advanced through workshops (up to three per year), where the best thinkers from around the world address issues of importance to the G-20 with officials, and two deputies' meetings, which refine the policy issues to be discussed by Ministers and Governors. This means that Ministers and Governors are provided with contemporary analysis and insights, which better informs their consideration of policy challenges and solutions.

The G-20 has processes which ensure a smooth transfer of functions between host countries. The management of the G-20 is shared by a ‘troika’ of current, past and future chairs (currently Australia, China and South Africa). While the current chair country is ultimately responsible for the policy agenda and logistical preparations for its host year, the troika ensures continuity across host years by overseeing policy development and logistical preparations.

In addition to the management continuity provided by the troika, there is continuity in the policy themes discussed in each host year. Typically, a policy theme might be discussed over several years, providing many opportunities to get to grips with the various implications of that theme at a detailed level. An example is demographic change, which has been on the G-20 agenda since 2004. This issue has been considered from several angles, including the implications of ageing populations for domestic economic policy, the role of migration and migrant remittances from both a demographic and development perspective and, this year, the financial market implications of demographic change.

The meetings are relatively informal, with only small delegations allowed in the meeting room; deputies’ meetings are limited to a finance ministry and central bank representative and one senior official from each organisation; the G-20 meeting is limited to the minister, the governor and one senior official from each member country.

Through early engagement, we can influence the direction and progress of economic development and build closer linkages with important emerging market countries. This is where the G-20 can play a major role by giving a voice to these emerging economic powers and exposing them to the types of policies pursued by successful market economies.

I have argued that the G-20's structure and institutional features give it a unique degree of legitimacy and influence over the management of the global economy. In fact, the G-20 has already established a track record as an effective forum which promotes open and constructive dialogue that secures practical outcomes. To sum up, I believe the G-20 has a key role in shaping global economic policy.

In contrast to many of the more mature international forums, the G-20 brings together the key global economic players of the 21st century and is structured to encourage open and effective policy dialogue. The fact that its agenda can be shaped by, and the group chaired by, China, Australia, South Africa and a (yet to be determined) South American4 economy in a given four-year period is testament to the changing global and economic power distribution.

With all that said it would seem there is sufficient reason to believe there may be more to these informal meetings that meet the eye. All of which accumulated with the recent economy woes has prompted over 35,000 to protest in the streets of London, with Scotland Yard is expecting a greater challenge on Wednesday 1 April, dubbed "Financial Fools Day", with a series of protests aiming to cause disruption in the Square Mile and elsewhere. Milton McKenzie, 73, from Essex, had said: "How the hell can we have a situation here in Britain where we have people out of work and the bankers just cream it off and are helped by the government."

The director of the the Adam Smith Institute, Dr Eamonn Butler, said governments have caused the economic crisis. This nearly universal sentiment has taken root in other places as well. In Berlin, thousands of protesters have also taken to the streets with a message to the G20 leaders: "We won't pay for your crisis". Another march took place in the city of Frankfurt. The demonstrations attracted as many as 20,000 people. Banners accused the Germany government of being too willing to spend billions bailing out financial institutions and too slow to protect ordinary workers, the BBC's Steve Rosenberg said from Berlin. In Rome, protesters threw red paint, egg and smoke bombs at banks, insurance companies and estate agencies in their protest. Students and left-wing activists were among those who took part in the march, which organizers said had drawn around 6,000 people. In Vienna, at least 6,500 people, according to the police, marched to protest about the effects of globalisation.

Several hundred demonstrators turned out in Paris, where they erected and demolished a model of an island symbolizing a tax haven. Hundreds also attended an anti-globalization protest in Madrid. U.S. Vice President Joe Biden, meanwhile, called for protesters to give governments a chance to tackle the economic crisis at a conference of center-left politicians in Chile. "I would hope that the protesters give us a chance, listen to what we have to say and hopefully we can make it clear to them that we're going to walk away from this G20 meeting with some concrete proposals," he said.

A group of fewer than 200 anarchists joined the march and were kept isolated and surrounded by police. Chants of "Burn the bankers!" were the closest anyone came to any show of aggression despite a heavy police presence and a few buildings along the route, including the Ritz Hotel, boarding up their windows. As protesters passed the gates of Downing Street, there were chants and shouts of "Enjoy the overtime".

Chris Knight, the anthropology professor suspended from the University of East London last week for suggesting that bankers might be lynched, was wandering the march alone. "I just met a copper and I said to him, 'Is this the revolution?' He said: 'No, this is the dry run, the revolution starts on Wednesday. Midweek is when we will really start to dance'."

There have been fears that banks and other financial institutions could be the focus for violent protests. A huge security operation is under way in the run-up to the G20 summit, at which world leaders will discuss the glooming global financial crisis and other issues.
A protester told the Observer he believed the protest marked "the start of a grassroots movement". He added: "This is a moment. This is the first time people have had a chance to come out on to the streets in a big way." Commander Simon O'Brien, one of the senior command team in charge of policing security, said: "It's fair to say that this [the march] is one of the largest, one of the most challenging and one of the most complicated operations we have delivered.

"G20 is attracting a significant amount of interest from protest groups. There is an almost unprecedented level of activity going on."

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who will host the G20 summit in East London, said over the weekend: "The action that is happening in London today I understand and will respond to it at the G20."

Claire Melamed of ActionAid said the organizers of the protests were delighted with the turnout. "We're really pleased. We are hearing every day about people losing jobs and not being able to feed their children as this economic crisis deepens. We want the G20 to listen to us - this began as a financial crisis and it's turning into a humanitarian one."

The previous march will be followed by a series of protests on Wednesday and Thursday by a variety of coalitions and groups campaigning on a range of subjects, from poverty, inequality and jobs to war, climate change and capitalism.

for more info on the role of the G20: http://www.g20.org/Documents/role_g20_global_fin_arch_091006.pdf

or http://www.g20.org