Spitzer: Federal Reserve is ‘a Ponzi scheme, an in

[655321]

The Federal Reserve — the quasi-autonomous body that controls the US’s money supply — is a “Ponzi scheme” that created “bubble after bubble” in the US economy and needs to be held accountable for its actions, says Eliot Spitzer, the former governor and attorney-general of New York.

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/07/25/spitzer-federal-reserve-is-a-ponzi-scheme-an-inside-job/

[rodin]

Well well. Elliot Spitzer is Jewish. He was previously brought low by the elite. Now he joins the fight the Fed camp. Let's hope this marks a real movement of decent people who happen to have been born into the cult of the Talmud away from the Satanists/Amoralists.

When Henry Makow gives webtime to Eustace Mullins you have to think there may be something positive happening.

[runciter]

makow's article on mullins' book:

Banking Cartel is the Cause of Humanity's Woes

June 26, 2002

"The Secrets of the Federal Reserve" by Eustace Mullins

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies." ---Thomas Jefferson

In November 1949, Eustace Mullins, 25, was a researcher in Washington DC when friends invited him to visit the famous American poet Ezra Pound, who was confined at St. Elizabeth's Mental Hospital and listed as a "political prisoner."

A leading figure in Modern English literature, Pound was the editor and critic who introduced the world to James Joyce, W.B. Yeats and T.S. Eliot. During the Second World War, he was charged with treason for broadcasts on Rome Radio that questioned the motives behind America's involvement.

Pound commissioned Mullins to examine the influence of the banking establishment on U.S. policy. Mullins spent every morning for two years in the Library of Congress and met with Pound every afternoon. The resulting manuscript, "The Secrets of the Federal Reserve" proved too hot for any American publisher to handle. Nineteen rejected it. One said, "you'll never get this published in New York." When it finally appeared in Germany in 1955, the U.S. Military Government confiscated all 10,000 copies and burned them.

Thanks to the American Patriot Friends Network, this book is freely available on line. (http://www.apfn.org/apfn/reserve.htm) (I recommend you save it on your desktop, as I did.) Why is it so (excuse the pun) inflammatory?

Essentially it paints a picture of the world, and the role of the United States, which is radically different from the one we are given in school or in the media.

"Notwithstanding the war of independence against England," writes Mullins, "we remained an economic and financial colony of Great Britain." Between 1865 and 1913, he says London bankers led by the Rothschilds used agents such as J.P. Morgan and J.D. Rockefeller to gain control of American industry and organize it into cartels.

Where did these bankers get the money? For over 200 years, European bankers have been able to draw on the credit of their host countries to print it!

In the Seventeenth Century, the moneylenders and the aristocracy made a pact. If the king would make paper currency a liability of the state, the moneylenders would print as much as he liked! Thus the Banks of England, France and the Reichsbank came into being but they were all private corporations and remain so today.

According to this nefarious pact, the moneylenders got to charge interest on assets they created out of thin air. The aristocracy all took shares in the central banks plus they got to finance a burgeoning government and to wage costly wars.

This piece of chicanery is at the heart what plagues humanity.

The bankers have a vested interest in the state (i.e. the people) incurring as much debt as possible. They are behind the Marxist, socialist and liberal movements which call for big government and social spending. They are behind the catastrophic wars of the last century. The Warburgs financed the Bolshevik Revolution. The Bank of England financed the rise of Hitler. Prescott Bush (W's grandfather) was head of Brown Brothers Harriman, which financed the construction of the Nazi war machine.

Naturally if you can create money out of thin air, your first instinct is to buy tangible assets with it. There is a powerful impulse to use debt to control nations and take over their real assets. This is the essence of the so-called Third World Debt crisis. Dedicated to owning all wealth and enslaving humanity, an irresistible vampire has been unleashed upon the world.

Much of Mullins book is devoted to the subterfuge by which the United States was drawn into its lethal embrace. In 1913, the Owen-Glass Bill gave mostly foreign-controlled banks (posing as "the Federal Reserve") the right to create currency based on the credit of the United States government and to charge it interest for doing it!

To accomplish this, the bankers had to rig the election of 1913 in order to get Woodrow Wilson elected. Then their stooges in Congress passed the legislation on December 22 after their opponents had gone home for Christmas.

"This act establishes the most gigantic trust [cartel] on earth," Congressman Charles Lindbergh said at the time. "When the President signs this bill; the invisible government by the Monetary Power will be legalized. The people may not know it immediately but the day of reckoning is only a few years removed."

Mullins explains that the legislation passed just in time for the American people to finance World War One. After maintaining standing armies for 50 years, European powers no longer could afford the luxury of another war. But the U.S. was relatively debt free and made the whole thing possible.

What would WWI have been without Germany? Apparently Germany was not self-sufficient in food and would have had to sit out this war. In the nick of time, the bankers organized something called "The Belgium Relief Committee" which channeled billions of dollars worth of U.S. meat and potatoes not to Belgium but to Germany. When Edith Cavell, an American working in a Belgium hospital pointed this out, British intelligence had the Germans arrest and execute her.

Mullins makes a convincing case that every U.S. President since Wilson has been a lackey of the bankers. J.F. Kennedy was assassinated because he started to print his own U.S. government-backed currency. This is also the transgression that led to the murders of Presidents Abraham Lincoln and James Garfield.

Last year alone, the American people paid $360 billion in interest to the bankers. To maintain this massive fraud, the bankers enforce an iron grip on the political and cultural organs of the nation. According to Mullins, "The New York Times" is owned by the Kuhn Loeb while "The Washington Post" is owned by Lazard Freres. In Europe the Rothschilds own Reuters as well as the French and German news services.

I presume US publishers, TV networks and movie producers are similarly beholden. Rockefellers, Carnegies and the Fords endow the nations' libraries and universities. Journalists and professors dutifully parrot fantasies about democracy and freedom. Mind control laboratories run by the CIA and the British army (TheTavistock Institute) dream up ways to manipulate and undermine the population. The psychological sterilization of the human female ("feminism") is an example.

The "War on Terror" is part of the banking cabal's plan to consolidate its grip on humanity in a friendly (or not so friendly) fascist "New World Order." They want to secure their political, economic and social grip on the obstreperous Muslim world, as well as build up a security apparatus in case the docile populations of the West become restive.

Well, at least the cosmic battle between Good and Evil is out in the open at last!

http://www.henrymakow.com/260602.html

[anthony65]

"Well, at least the cosmic battle between Good and Evil is out in the open at last!"

Team Evil is a lot more open about its actions! :(

The good guys must be out there somewhere, but their profile is really low sometimes.

[real6]

Maybe someone can help me here. I remember reading an article a few months back. Cant find it, but they said the reason they brought Spitzer down was because he had info on AIG and was going to bring them down or one of these hugh companies so they had no choice but to frame him.

Anyone know about this?

[real6]

Was Eliot Spitzer Taken Out Because He Was Going to Bust AIG?

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/132547/was_eliot_spitzer_taken_out_because_he_was_going_t o_bust_aig/


America is known for its great second acts, and we may be witnessing the curtain rising on Spitzer's.



Eliot Spitzer is back and he's talking. The thought of this, no doubt, brings a small shiver to the boardrooms of some of the perps walking around trying to figure out how to hide the money this week. Today Edward Liddy testified that there have been death threats made to or about executives who received bonuses, so no names will be put on the record, but these anonymous players must know that the jig is up in the land of easy-money. Isn't what to do a no-brainer for these great Americans?


Spitzer may be as "disgraced" as any anonymous sex loving Republican loser, but America is known for its great second acts, and we may be witnessing the curtain rising on Spitzer's.

Today in Slate Eliot Spitzer has a short op-ed that speaks volumes about what is going on, and indirectly, if you follow the money, what happened to him. Plainly stated, Spitzer brings the AIG Ponzi Scheme one step closer to the revered establishment when he explains how the bailout money was funneled straight into the top players, with Goldman Sachs being the name that comes up again and again. These top players already got bailout money, and Goldman is looking at zero losses at this point, while regular Americans are being asked to make concessions or just plain losing everything. here are the biggest financial entities in the world, making billions on what appears to have been nothing but air traded back and forth, and having gutted the American people they are walking away with 100% return to their stockholders. In return AIG seems to think that its appropriate to pay themselves bonuses with the leftover funds. This leaves AIG still a wobbly shell with no plan of how to go forward, and the threat of the collapse of all of the world's financial markets still up in the air. So, what was all that bailout money for? Apparently to make sure that no one at Goldman or the other few top firms in the hand-out-line lost anything!


The relationship between AIG and Goldman goes back long enough that one would think that Goldman would know, having bought so much of this "insurance" or whatever it was, whether the "products" were ...er...real or feasible at all. Indeed, Goldman and AIG almost merged a few years ago, but Spitzer notes that the unknown black hole of AIG's business practices were probably what prevented it. Still, that didn't stop the incestuous dealings; it almost makes one think that this whole thing was a setup.

This is country that Spitzer is familiar with; he has been a terrible liability to entities that, under the Bush administration, were allowed to literally gut the country and its citizens. All of this seems to have been part of the Bush Administration's own Ponzi Scheme, which figured that the illusion of an ownership society, terrified of the "terraism" and steeped in the me, me, me, culture would look the other way while they finished clearing out the vault. Beyond that, it's clear that the media hyped housing bubble encouraged the house flip mentality and the idea that anyone could be rich. The idea of the lottery dropping on our own heads made us more protective of the rich, because we might one day be one....or look, we could be one with no money down, if we could just balance that on this, and flip that house!!


Every week came a new offer from our bank or credit card to just put the enclosed check into the bank for a $50,000 loan, unsecured and with a low APR!! Who would know that those same banks would go out of their way to cause a day or week default by changing the cycle or stopping refusing cards that went over-limit, in order to charge fees and raise the rates. Who could know that the fine print on all those little fliers talking about privacy rights and how they are selling all of our information, also said that by-the-way the interest rate is now 25% and the minimum payment has tripled! Default on that and likely AIG has sold insurance to your lending institution that should repay them for making the bad loan in the first place....no money down mortgages? No problem....its the same story. This is the ownership society and we all need to own alot of stuff. It is... what did he say?...uniquely American!


Spitzer was questioning this back in February 2008 when he wrote his Valentine to predatory lenders in the Washington Post. He detailed that Attorneys General across the country had entered into litigation in an attempt to protect the people of their states from predatory lending. The response from the federal government was astounding!

What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge? As Americans are now painfully aware, with hundreds of thousands of homeowners facing foreclosure and our markets reeling, the answer is a resounding no.


Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye.


snip


In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative. The OCC also promulgated new rules that prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection laws against national banks. The federal government's actions were so egregious and so unprecedented that all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules.


But the unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter, or even slow, the Bush administration in its goal of protecting the banks. In fact, when my office opened an investigation of possible discrimination in mortgage lending by a number of banks, the OCC filed a federal lawsuit to stop the investigation.



Now, they will say that they fought the consumer protection laws to actually protect the consumers and assure that they could get credit in the future. But actually, Americans could get credit; just credit that they were able to handle and could, by reasonable standards, pay back. This was just more of the same in hindsight. Looking back that all that the Bush administration has done, the beginnings of this disaster looks almost quaint, and not like an institutionalized foray into the dirty underside of criminal activity. There were quotas passed by the government as to who got the loans and the focus was on certain populations who would be helped into homeownership even if they couldn't maintain the credit. It was treated as some sort of fulfillment of the American Dream for people to own something, but really had more to do with the insurance on the loans than the people involved. The American dream is dead, as we well know, but what it was, way back then, was that people could

afford

to own a house and put their kids in college!



AIG sold insurance to the biggest entities in the financial world to cover the proliferation of bad loans. This insurance became so common that it was impossible that the lions of finance didn't somehow have an inkling that something was wrong. Didn't Goldman and the rest of these huge firms know something about the stability of an impossible business plan? Hadn't Goldman gone over everything in their bid to merge? And what of the government and their mandating of certain loans that were bound to go bad. There were people involved in these things, and its not like regular people understand the ins and outs of the financial industry. They rely on brokers to explain it to them. But these brokers were being forced to see a certain product to an unqualified population. How could they? Why would they? Those are questions for another time.



Spitzer has been fighting these guys and asking questions all along

. Coincidentally, right after the WSJ editorial appeared on Valentine's Day 2008, Spitzer was caught up in what was an extremely unusual sting. So unusual is an investigation like this that it seems almost like it was a set-up; and considering where it all came from and how it all came down, it might well have been.



It seems that Spitzer's bank was investigating expenses under the auspices of the newer Homeland Security laws of the Bush administration.

Greg Palast

wrote about this compellingly, and in light of how the whole thing is shaking out now, and what Spitzer said back then about this financial mess and what he tried to

DO

about it, Palast had a pretty good early grasp on what had gone down. So now, with Spitzer poking his head up from the underground of "healing his family," at this most compelling of moments, its probably worthwhile for Americans to screw their heads on straight and forget the details of the hooker, and look at what Spitzer was working on when he was taken down. We might all find ourselves wanting to thank the egotistical crime fighter who cant keep it in his pants.



I am no apologist for breaking the law, and usually its the highest and mightiest that fall the hardest. But when the mainstream is showing us the shiny object, we must resist the temptation to succumb to our base natures and try to see the bigger picture. There was never a real case against Eliot Spitzer, and no charges were filed. The release of embarrassing personal information was at the discretion of the Bush Administration's Justice Department.



Why was this information released? It wasn't that he was a crusader against such crimes, because many who have been caught were exactly the same and their information has been kept quiet. It wasn't that the press is all so great in their investigative journalism, either...because we know they're loathe to get off their asses if they can just read a talking point; as is evidenced by the reportage on this case.



Palast

:



Not all crimes lead to federal bust or even public exposure. It’s up to something called “prosecutorial discretion.”


Funny thing, this ‘discretion.’ For example, Senator David Vitter, Republican of Louisiana, paid Washington DC prostitutes to put him in diapers (ewww!), yet the Senator was not exposed by the US prosecutors busting the pimp-ring that pampered him.

Naming and shaming and ruining Spitzer – rarely done in these cases - was made at the ‘discretion’ of Bush’s Justice Department.


Or maybe we should say, 'indiscretion.'

Bush's Justice Department.

Its clear to me that all things being equal, this was at the very least, not a transsexual streetwalker a la Hugh Grant, and it was all very ho-hum and quiet. So, whatever the problem that leads to this sort of behavior, I don't want to know about it...its personal, so just walk on by...nothing to see here.



Welcome back Eliot Spitzer. I hope we hear more from you very soon...your voice is needed in this matter.









Some one posted this in the comments:

All roads seem to come back to... GOLDMAN SACHS.

In October, I think it was, AIG paid out $13 BILLION to Goldman Sachs -- by far the largest recipient of the AIG payouts.

This amounts to a "backdoor bailout" for Goldman. WHY DID THIS HAPPEN?

We all know about Paulson's ties to Goldman Sachs, but there is also Neel Kashkari, the under secretary of the treasury who is in charge of doling out the TARP money, who was a Senior Vice President for Goldman Sachs when Paulson was the CEO.

Then there's Mark Patterson, chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, who was registered to lobby as recently as last year for financial giant Goldman Sachs.

Not to mention Robert Rubin and all his acolytes.

Goldman-Sachs. It's the answer.

[decim]

This is Alan Grayson on MSNBC with Dylan Ratigan and Eliot Spitzer discussing Hank Paulson and the bailouts. Grayson said about former Treasury Secretary and former Goldman Sachs CEO Hank Paulson who presided over the bailout while owning hundreds of millions in Goldman stock:

"Hank Paulson never should have had that job in the first place. He had a $700 million conflict of interest and everything that he did while he was Treasury Secretary, every single thing that he did, has one explanation - what's good for Hank Paulson?"

Grayson also discusses the Federal Reserve's secret trillion dollar bailout, Ron Paul, and why transparency is necessary.

Rep. Alan Grayson: "Hank Paulson Had a $700M Conflict of Interest" - YouTube