Can you help me debunk this economic conspiracy theory? Rare Carroll Quigley interview - 1974

Can you help me debunk this economic conspiracy theory?  Rare Carroll Quigley interview - 1974: http://youtu.be/bbFXJrmoElM

Get to minute 25 and listen to him speak about how an elite group of godfathers at the roundtable group worked to federate the english speaking world, international bankers, were working to establish a THREE POWER WORLD ORDER.  

Its a balance of power military strategy, stateless dynasties in control of the world powers playing the 99% off each other while organizing a multi bloc world.  World domination.  Very interesting social engineering game that leads to violence, bankruptcy and death in some cases.  While the power elite, the superclass, get ultra wealthy and consolidate power.

This was Cecil Rhodes idea and his followers continue to this day.

Sure seems like some of these people ought to go to court and prison before things get out of hand.  A hot war with Syria and Iran appears possible and imminent.

Whether you are TeaParty oriented or Occupy oriented, or still a faithful Democratic or Republican party members, you are part of the 99%, not the 1%.  

So therefore you should help expose their lies by sharing this "conspiracy theory".  Believe it or Not. Let the reader do his own research and make up his own mind.

Clinton Knows Who is IN and Who is OUT. Google: Bilderberg WTC7 #PeaceRevolution #NWO

Peace Revolution episode 073: First Principles of an Autonomous Philosophy peacerevolution.podomatic.com/entry/2013-05-… #PeaceRevolution #TragedyandHope
— Tragedy and Hope (@tragedyandhope) May 27, 2013

Carroll Quigley's research is alive and well.  The R&D is happening at the Tragedy and Hope community.

Join tragedyandhope.com and Join the #PeaceRevolution


To learn more READ the BEST BOOK on the SUBJECT of TWISTED POLITICS, that never made the New York Times Best Seller list!  or

LISTEN to the best podcast, voted number one in higher education on podomatic.

Convergence of Adversaries, Fighting a One World Power #NWO

Globalization Creates a New Worry: Enemy Convergence - NYTimes.com

Convergence.

"That is the new term of choice in national security circles for the coming together of previously unrelated adversaries, who not only might combine in operations, but also share resources, know-how, weapons and technology and personnel.

This is really the dark end of the spectrum of globalization."

You see, the only thing that allows the few to rule the many is divide and conquer. We must be ideologically divided to fall. That means Republican, Democrat, Independent, TeaParty, Occupy, and the greatest threat to mankind, the apathetic. They care of nothing more than their own portfolio. They are the working middle class that can't be bothered to learn what's really going on in the world.  They vote for whomever seems like the least evil, they feed strictly on mass media news, they scoff at the suggestion of conspiracy.

The National Security Council dominated by Council on Foreign Relations members will continue to control the White House and NATO, along with their RIIA brethren; powerhouses of the global elite, manipulating the 99%.

Citizens Brainwashed By Government Controlled Corporate Media

You are being brainwashed by government controlled corporate media.  Do your own research instead of listening to the nonsense of mainstream media (left or right).

Just do a few searches for these incidents and include the word "false flag" or "cover-up"

• Lincoln assassination
• USS Maine
• Lusitania
• Pearl Harbor
• USS Liberty
• Operation Northwoods
• Kennedy assassination
• Gulf of Tonkin
• Oklahoma City FBI building bombing
• 9/11 - WTC1, WTC2, WTC7, Pentagon, Shanksville
• Newtown CT school massacre
• Boston Marathon bombing

More Reason to Support the Restoration of #GlassSteagall - Derivitives, FDIC, and Cyprus

From Paul Craig Robert's blog:

According to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency’s fourth quarter report for 2011, about 95% of the $230 trillion in US derivative exposure was held by four US financial institutions: JP Morgan Chase Bank, Bank of America, Citibank, and Goldman Sachs.

Prior to financial deregulation, essentially the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act and the non-regulation of derivatives–a joint achievement of the Clinton administration and the Republican Party–Chase, Bank of America, and Citibank were commercial banks that took depositors’ deposits and made loans to businesses and consumers and purchased Treasury bonds with any extra reserves.

With the repeal of Glass-Steagall these honest commercial banks became gambling casinos, like the investment bank, Goldman Sachs, betting not only their own money but also depositors money on uncovered bets on interest rates, currency exchange rates, mortgages, and prices of commodities and equities.

These bets soon exceeded many times not only US GDP but world GDP. Indeed, the gambling bets of JP Morgan Chase Bank alone are equal to world Gross Domestic Product.

Bloomberg reports that Bank of America (BAC) has shifted about $22 trillion worth of derivative obligations from Merrill Lynch and the BAC holding company to the FDIC insured retail deposit division. Along with this information came the revelation that the FDIC insured unit was already stuffed with $53 trillion worth of these potentially toxic obligations, making a total of $75 trillion.

Derivatives are highly volatile financial instruments that are occasionally used to hedge risk, but mostly used for speculation. They are bets upon the value of stocks, bonds, mortgages, other loans, currencies, commodities, volatility of financial indexes, and even weather changes. Many big banks, including Bank of America, issue derivatives because, if they are not triggered, they are highly profitable to the issuer, and result in big bonus payments to the executives who administer them. If they are triggered, of course, the obligations fall upon the corporate entity, not the executives involved. Ultimately, by allowing existing gambling bets to remain in insured retail banks, and endorsing the shift of additional bets into the insured retail division, the obligation falls upon the U.S. taxpayers and dollar-denominated savers.

Imagine the exposure to the FDIC? Do you think your savings will be used to bail out the banks like in Cyprus?

Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and the Hope of #GlassSteagall

Listen to this podcast. Paul Craig Roberts talks about his new book and the failure of Keynesian economics. He talks about the need for #GlassSteagall to be restored, and at this very moment bills are sitting in the house (hr129) and senate (sb985).

From the Corbett Report website:

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts joins us once again to discuss his latest book, The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West. We talk about the failure of outdated macroeconomic theories to describe the current economic context. We also debate the role of deregulation in the current economic crisis and discuss the political and social dissolution that American society is experiencing.

Here is a link to the new book on kindle.

President Obama’s National Security Speech Marks a Shift to Homegrown Terrorism

Once you watch this video, then read Obama's latest security and terrorism speech.  Understand what "false flags" are and you will know that Obama's shoft to defend us against homegrown terrorism means the war of terror is coming here!  Our own government have been responsible for the greatest acts of terror we've seen in the 21st century.  There is ample proof.  You just have to be willing to hear the facts, learn their tactics, and look past the propaganda.

President Obama’s May 23 speech on national security

President Obama delivered remarks on national security on May 23, 2013, at National Defense University in Washington, D.C. Below are excerpts from his speech.

...

Finally, we face a real threat from radicalized individuals here in the United States. Whether it’s a shooter at a Sikh Temple in Wisconsin; a plane flying into a building in Texas; or the extremists who killed 168 people at the Federal Building in Oklahoma City (this was a false flag - watch a Noble Lie) ...That pull towards extremism appears to have led to the shooting at Fort Hood (US military involved were on psychotropic drugs), and the bombing of the Boston Marathon (veterans were used, and the so called perpetrators had connections to the CIA and FBI YEARS before the event).

Lethal yet less capable al Qaeda affiliates. Threats to diplomatic facilities and businesses abroad. Homegrown extremists. This is the future of terrorism. We must take these threats seriously, and do all that we can to confront them. But as we shape our response, we have to recognize that the scale of this threat closely resembles the types of attacks we faced before 9/11. ...

Nevertheless, this ideology persists, and in an age in which ideas and images can travel the globe in an instant, our response to terrorism cannot depend on military or law enforcement alone. We need all elements of national power to win a battle of wills and ideas. So let me discuss the components of such a comprehensive counter-terrorism strategy.

First, we must finish the work of defeating al Qaeda and its associated forces.

In Afghanistan, we will complete our transition to Afghan responsibility for security. Our troops will come home (but not our contractors). ..

Beyond Afghanistan, we must define our effort not as a boundless ‘global war on terror’ – but rather as a series of persistent, targeted efforts to dismantle specific networks of violent extremists that threaten America. In many cases, this will involve partnerships with other countries. ...In Somalia, we helped a coalition of African nations push al Shabaab out of its strongholds. In Mali, we are providing military aid to a French-led intervention to push back al Qaeda in the Maghreb, and help the people of Mali reclaim their future (by taking their access to oil).

...But despite our strong preference for the detention and prosecution of terrorists, sometimes this approach is foreclosed. Al Qaeda and its affiliates try to gain a foothold in some of the most distant and unforgiving places on Earth. They take refuge in remote tribal regions. They hide in caves and walled compounds (yet they escape our constant bombing and the most sophisticated military the world has ever seen). They train in empty deserts and rugged mountains.

In some of these places – such as parts of Somalia and Yemen – the state has only the most tenuous reach into the territory. In other cases, the state lacks the capacity or will to take action. It is also not possible for America to simply deploy a team of Special Forces to capture every terrorist. And even when such an approach may be possible, there are places where it would pose profound risks to our troops and local civilians– where a terrorist compound cannot be breached without triggering a firefight with surrounding tribal communities that pose no threat to us, or when putting U.S. boots on the ground may trigger a major international crisis.

To put it another way, our operation in Pakistan against Osama bin Laden cannot be the norm. The risks in that case were immense; the likelihood of capture, although our preference, was remote given the certainty of resistance; the fact that we did not find ourselves confronted with civilian casualties, or embroiled in an extended firefight, was a testament to the meticulous planning and professionalism of our Special Forces – but also depended on some luck. And even then, the cost to our relationship with Pakistan – and the backlash among the Pakistani public over encroachment on their territory – was so severe that we are just now beginning to rebuild this important partnership.

It is in this context that the United States has taken lethal, targeted action against al Qaeda and its associated forces, including with remotely piloted aircraft commonly referred to as drones. As was true in previous armed conflicts, this new technology raises profound questions – about who is targeted, and why; about civilian casualties, and the risk of creating new enemies; about the legality of such strikes under U.S. and international law; about accountability and morality.

Let me address these questions. To begin with, our actions are effective. Don’t take my word for it. In the intelligence gathered at bin Laden’s compound, we found that he wrote, “we could lose the reserves to the enemy’s air strikes. We cannot fight air strikes with explosives.” Other communications from al Qaeda operatives confirm this as well. Dozens of highly skilled al Qaeda commanders, trainers, bomb makers, and operatives have been taken off the battlefield. Plots have been disrupted that would have targeted international aviation, U.S. transit systems, European cities and our troops in Afghanistan. Simply put, these strikes have saved lives.

Moreover, America’s actions are legal. We were attacked on 9/11. Within a week, Congress overwhelmingly authorized the use of force. Under domestic law, and international law, the United States is at war with al Qaeda, the Taliban, and their associated forces. We are at war with an organization that right now would kill as many Americans as they could if we did not stop them first. So this is a just war – a war waged proportionally, in last resort, and in self-defense.

And yet as our fight enters a new phase, America’s legitimate claim of self-defense cannot be the end of the discussion. To say a military tactic is legal, or even effective, is not to say it is wise or moral in every instance. For the same human progress that gives us the technology to strike half a world away also demands the discipline to constrain that power – or risk abusing it. That’s why, over the last four years, my Administration has worked vigorously to establish a framework that governs our use of force against terrorists – insisting upon clear guidelines, oversight and accountability that is now codified in Presidential Policy Guidance that I signed yesterday.

...

Beyond the Afghan theater, we only target al Qaeda and its associated forces. Even then, the use of drones is heavily constrained. America does not take strikes when we have the ability to capture individual terrorists - our preference is always to detain, interrogate, and prosecute them. America cannot take strikes wherever we choose – our actions are bound by consultations with partners, and respect for state sovereignty. America does not take strikes to punish individuals – we act against terrorists who pose a continuing and imminent threat to the American people, and when there are no other governments capable of effectively addressing the threat. And before any strike is taken, there must be near-certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured – the highest standard we can set.

This last point is critical, because much of the criticism about drone strikes – at home and abroad – understandably centers on reports of civilian casualties. There is a wide gap between U.S. assessments of such casualties, and non-governmental reports. Nevertheless, it is a hard fact that U.S. strikes have resulted in civilian casualties, a risk that exists in all wars. For the families of those civilians, no words or legal construct can justify their loss. For me, and those in my chain of command, these deaths will haunt us as long as we live, just as we are haunted by the civilian casualties that have occurred through conventional fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq.

But as Commander-in-Chief, I must weigh these heartbreaking tragedies against the alternatives. To do nothing in the face of terrorist networks would invite far more civilian casualties – not just in our cities at home and facilities abroad, but also in the very places –like Sana’a and Kabul and Mogadishu – where terrorists seek a foothold. Let us remember that the terrorists we are after target civilians, and the death toll from their acts of terrorism against Muslims dwarfs any estimate of civilian casualties from drone strikes.

Where foreign governments cannot or will not effectively stop terrorism in their territory, the primary alternative to targeted, lethal action is the use of conventional military options. As I’ve said, even small Special Operations carry enormous risks. Conventional airpower or missiles are far less precise than drones, and likely to cause more civilian casualties and local outrage. And invasions of these territories lead us to be viewed as occupying armies; unleash a torrent of unintended consequences; are difficult to contain; and ultimately empower those who thrive on violent conflict. So it is false to assert that putting boots on the ground is less likely to result in civilian deaths, or to create enemies in the Muslim world. The result would be more U.S. deaths, more Blackhawks down, more confrontations with local populations, and an inevitable mission creep in support of such raids that could easily escalate into new wars.

...

This is not to say that the risks are not real. Any U.S. military action in foreign lands risks creating more enemies, and impacts public opinion overseas. Our laws constrain the power of the President, even during wartime, and I have taken an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States. The very precision of drones strikes, and the necessary secrecy involved in such actions can end up shielding our government from the public scrutiny that a troop deployment invites. It can also lead a President and his team to view drone strikes as a cure-all for terrorism.

For this reason, I’ve insisted on strong oversight of all lethal action. After I took office, my Administration began briefing all strikes outside of Iraq and Afghanistan to the appropriate committees of Congress. Let me repeat that – not only did Congress authorize the use of force, it is briefed on every strike that America takes. That includes the one instance when we targeted an American citizen: Anwar Awlaki, the chief of external operations for AQAP.

This week, I authorized the declassification of this action, and the deaths of three other Americans in drone strikes, to facilitate transparency and debate on this issue, and to dismiss some of the more outlandish claims. For the record, I do not believe it would be constitutional for the government to target and kill any U.S. citizen – with a drone, or a shotgun – without due process. Nor should any President deploy armed drones over U.S. soil.

But when a U.S. citizen goes abroad to wage war against America – and is actively plotting to kill U.S. citizens; and when neither the United States, nor our partners are in a position to capture him before he carries out a plot – his citizenship should no more serve as a shield than a sniper shooting down on an innocent crowd should be protected from a swat team

...

Going forward, I have asked my Administration to review proposals to extend oversight of lethal actions outside of warzones that go beyond our reporting to Congress. ...

I believe, however, that the use of force must be seen as part of a larger discussion about a comprehensive counter-terrorism strategy. Because for all the focus on the use of force, force alone cannot make us safe. We cannot use force everywhere that a radical ideology takes root; and in the absence of a strategy that reduces the well-spring of extremism, a perpetual war – through drones or Special Forces or troop deployments – will prove self-defeating, and alter our country in troubling ways.

So the next element of our strategy involves addressing the underlying grievances and conflicts that feed extremism, from North Africa to South Asia. ..

This means patiently supporting transitions to democracy in places like Egypt, Tunisia and Libya – because the peaceful realization of individual aspirations will serve as a rebuke to violent extremists. We must strengthen the opposition in Syria, while isolating extremist elements – because the end of a tyrant must not give way to the tyranny of terrorism. We are working to promote peace between Israelis and Palestinians – because it is right, and because such a peace could help reshape attitudes in the region. And we must help countries modernize economies, upgrade education, and encourage entrepreneurship ...

Success on these fronts requires sustained engagement, but it will also require resources. I know that foreign aid is one of the least popular expenditures ... is fundamental to our national security, and any sensible long-term strategy to battle extremism. 

...Over the past decade, we have strengthened security at our Embassies, and I am implementing every recommendation of the Accountability Review Board which found unacceptable failures in Benghazi. I have called on Congress to fully fund these efforts to bolster security, harden facilities, improve intelligence, and facilitate a quicker response time from our military if a crisis emerges.

...And in balancing the trade-offs between security and active diplomacy, I firmly believe that any retreat from challenging regions will only increase the dangers we face in the long run.

Targeted action against terrorists. Effective partnerships. Diplomatic engagement and assistance. Through such a comprehensive strategy we can significantly reduce the chances of large scale attacks on the homeland and mitigate threats to Americans overseas. As we guard against dangers from abroad, however, we cannot neglect the daunting challenge of terrorism from within our borders.

...But technology and the Internet increase its frequency and lethality. Today, a person can consume hateful propaganda, commit themselves to a violent agenda, and learn how to kill without leaving their home. To address this threat, ...

Indeed, thwarting homegrown plots presents particular challenges in part because of our proud commitment to civil liberties for all who call America home. That’s why, in the years to come, we will have to keep working hard to strike the appropriate balance between our need for security and preserving those freedoms that make us who we are. That means reviewing the authorities of law enforcement, so we can intercept new types of communication, and build in privacy protections to prevent abuse. That means that – even after Boston – we do not deport someone or throw someone in prison in the absence of evidence. That means putting careful constraints on the tools the government uses to protect sensitive information, such as the State Secrets doctrine. ... I believe we must keep information secret that protects our operations and our people in the field. To do so, we must enforce consequences for those who break the law and breach their commitment to protect classified information. But a free press is also essential for our democracy. I am troubled by the possibility that leak investigations may chill the investigative journalism that holds government accountable.

Journalists should not be at legal risk for doing their jobs. Our focus must be on those who break the law. That is why I have called on Congress to pass a media shield law to guard against government over-reach. ... And that is why I intend to engage Congress about the existing Authorization to Use Military Force, or AUMF, to determine how we can continue to fight terrorists without keeping America on a perpetual war-time footing.

...Unless we discipline our thinking and our actions, we may be drawn into more wars we don’t need to fight, or continue to grant Presidents unbound powers more suited for traditional armed conflicts between nation states. ...

And that brings me to my final topic: the detention of terrorist suspects.

To repeat, as a matter of policy, the preference of the United States is to capture terrorist suspects. When we do detain a suspect, we interrogate them. And if the suspect can be prosecuted, we decide whether to try him in a civilian court or a Military Commission. ...

The original premise for opening GTMO – that detainees would not be able to challenge their detention – was found unconstitutional five years ago. ...

As President, I have tried to close GTMO. I transferred 67 detainees to other countries before Congress imposed restrictions to effectively prevent us from either transferring detainees to other countries, or imprisoning them in the United States. ...

I have asked the Department of Defense to designate a site in the United States where we can hold military commissions. ...

Even after we take these steps, one issue will remain: how to deal with those GTMO detainees who we know have participated in dangerous plots or attacks, but who cannot be prosecuted – for example because the evidence against them has been compromised or is inadmissible in a court of law. 

...by using our constitutional compass, we have overcome slavery and Civil War; fascism and communism. 

...And long after the current messengers of hate have faded from the world’s memory, alongside the brutal despots, deranged madmen, and ruthless demagogues who litter history – the flag of the United States will still wave from small-town cemeteries, to national monuments, to distant outposts abroad. And that flag will still stand for freedom.

Thank you. God Bless you. And may God bless the United States of America.

While Most Distrust Mass Media, Few Know Who CONTROLS It and WHY

The secret lies in the top of the pyramid, not the minions that work the streets trying to write good stories.  Look at the Council on Foreign Relations for a CONSISTANT media stories across the so called left and right spectrum.

The CFR is an organization sister to the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Britain), both founded in 1921 right after World War I when the League of Nations idea failed. The sole purpose of such organizations is to condition the public to accept a Global Governance which today is the United Nations. This is the true face of the so-called Globalists, and Centralized Power is what they are really after.

From 1989 to 1993, during the administration of Skull & Bones George H.W. Bush, with the exception of Vice President Dan Quayle, Secretary of State James A. Baker III, and Health Human Services Secretary Louis W. Sullivan, ALL Cabinet members were of the ultra-secretive CFR. 

From 1993 to 2000, in the Bill Clinton administration, with the exception of Secretary of Defense William Perry, ALL Cabinet members were of the CFR.

From 2001 to 2009, in the George W. Bush administration, ALL CABINET MEMBERS were CFR operatives:
Vice President Dick Cheney
Sec. of State Collin Powell (2001-2005)
Sec. of State Condoleeza Rice (2005-2006)
Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld (2001-2006)
Sec. of Defense Robert Gates (2006-2009)
Sec. of Labor Elaine Chao (2001-2009)
EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman

From 2009 on, in the Barack Obama administration, we see the following:
Sec. of State Hillary Clinton - Bilderberg Group (a step up from, but just as bad as the CFR)
Sec. of Defense Robert Gates - CFR
Sec. of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano - CFR
Sec. of Commerce Bill Richardson - CFR
UN Ambassador Susan Rice - CFR
National Security Advisor James Jones - CFR
Sec. of Treasury Timothy Geithner - CFR
Director of National Economic Council L.H.Summers - CFR
Economic Advisor Paul Volcker - CFR

This is a video on NEWS FABRiCATiON and also about the powers that REALLY run the big media. 
A closer look at what the CFR is all about.

More Hope than Tragedy Awaits Us All if Glass-Steagall is Passed

Mine is signature 113,188 on this Petition to Reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act http://t.co/WfxCB9q1as via @moveon #GlassSteagall
— Sarah Reynolds (@Sarah__Reynolds) July 7, 2013

Background

Despite all the tragedy filling the airwaves these days, there is a glimmer of hope.  After many years of obvious deception, fraud, and blatant theft both by investment and commercial bankers, lawyers, and accountants, there could be a restoration of the banking sector to its original purpose and scale.

Paving the Way for Economic Crises

The Glass-Steagall Act was repealed in 1999 under pressure from Wall Streetbankers trafficking in bundled subprime mortgages, derivatives, collateralized debt obligations, credit default swaps and the like. Inventing evermore exotic investment vehicles, the money movers pumped up a global financial bubble that eventually burst.

Officially it was blandly named the Banking Act of 1933 but around the world it is better known as Glass-Steagall, the ground-breaking piece of legislation that prevented commercial banks which took deposits from embarking on risky trading activities.

Carter Glass and Henry Steagall were the revolutionaries of the time. The years after the Great Depression sparked a debate in the US about how to prevent such devastation hitting the economy again, after nearly 5,000 banks collapsed.

Glass-Steagall forced commercial and investment banks to separate. Commercial banks were not allowed to underwrite the sales of stocks and bonds, while investment banks could not take in deposits from customers.

It remained in place for half a century before it was repealed in 1999 through the Financial Services Modernisation Act, again better known by the names of the politicians who promoted the legislation – Gramm, Leach and Bliley.

Since 1999, banks have been allowed to use commercial deposits and assets as fuel for securities trading on the derivatives market. Because commercial and speculative assets are so heavily comingled, the government is forced to protect the assets of banks making risky bets through near perpetual bailouts and purchasing of toxic debt.  It was the derivatives bubble that blew up the system and bankrupted the US banks in the 2007-2008 crash. 

Restoring Proper Financial Regulation 

Glass-Steagall forces separation of commercial from investment banks, it ends Too Big To Fail, bars government bailouts, and will stop the onset of hyperinflation.

On Friday Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Ia.) introduced Senate Bill 985 (#SB985) to reinstate Glass Steagall. While the full text of the Harkin bill has not yet been posted by the Library of Congress, the fact that there is now a Senate bill to reinstate full separation of commercial banking from all other brokerage and speculative activities is a dramatic development. The fight for Glass Steagall has now moved to a new level.

This comes at a very precise and fortunate time.  Earlier this year, Rep. Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio, introduced HR 129 to restore Glass-Steagall, saying, “The response of Congress to the 2008 financial crisis has been completely inadequate.”  Currently #HR129 – The Return to Prudent Banking Act– has 60 bipartisan co-sponsors in the House.  Four states have passed resolutions calling for reimplementation of Glass-Steagall, and a dozen other legislatures, including Virginia’s, are considering similar measures.


Specifically, the draft legislation has four components:

1. Commercial Banking institutions have one year to divest themselves of all non-commercial banking units, with no cross management or ownership between commercial and non-commercial units.

2. Commercial Banks are barred from using more than 2% of its capital for the creation, sale, or distribution of securities (certain bank-qualified securities are exempted)

3. Prevents Commercial Banks from loaning their commercial deposits into such vehicals as would support the creation and circulation of securities.

4. No securities of low or potentially low value can be placed by a bank into its insured commercial bank units. * Adds provision stating Glass-Steagall is the preeminant regulator of the banks, limiting banks from putting its depositors and shareholders at risk.

What is important about this legislation over all others is that there would be absolutely no room for loopholes.  There can be no accidental oversight or negligence.  Investment banking would be completely separated from commercial banking.   

This is NOT to be confused with the red herring that Obama supported earlier in his first term, known as the "Volcker rule" named after former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker .  That was a more complicated piece of legislation meant to stall real effective rules.  There is a reason for that.  Obama has received millions of dollars from investment banks, just like Romney, Bush, and all other presidential candidates.  The banks always hedge their bets and play both sides against the other.  DO NOT BE DECEIVED THIS TIME!

Additional Commentary

If you need more details on the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 and why it is important to restore, watch this video.  Max Keiser is an excellent financial news reporter that does not hold back any punches for any banker fraud and conspiracy.

And in case you need still more reason to support restoring Glass-Steagall, hear what Elizabeth Warren has to say about it.  Remember she was warning us all of the impending doom from 2005-2008 as the housing bubble and financial crisis was bubbling.

If you want to know more about who was responsible for repealing Glass-Steagall, watch this video and look to Alan Greenspan.

More Reasons to Support the Restoration of Glass-Steagall

Whether you identify with the Democrats, the Republicans, the Tea Party, the Occupy Movement, the Green Party, or none at all, you are the 99% like the rest of us, and therefore, you should consider the restoration of Glass-Steagall as a way to restore some sense of balance of power to the country, and the world for that matter.

Barack Obama - The Case for Impeachment [SCG News 5.15.2013]

If this was a Republican, Liberals Democrats would be up in arms, but still not do anything.  Republicans and Conservatives, are you so weak you won't step up to the plate? Isn't it time American so-called "representative" government be held accountable for the crimes they are committing?

If so, DO SOMETHING about it! Something positive that will capture attention and get the point across.  Non-violent of course.  Remember, he's got drones and a license to kill.

One World Trade Center, 1776 Feet, A Stamp of the Illuminati

First watch this video.  It is nearly a 40 year old recording but an excellent description and connection of key groups, events, and people that have manipulated the world into debt and wars.  Reflect on what is happening now since 9/11.

Following the holocaust of the World Trade Center attack of September 11, 2001, a new tower has been erected.

Now circle back to what you learned in the first video and take a second look at the new One World Trade Center, inaugurated May 10, 2013 at 1776 feet.

Did the Justice Department Spy on Associated Press to Eavesdrop on the Rothschilds?

What is the Associated Press and why would the Justice department want to spy on them?

According to their website, it is neither privately owned nor government-funded, the AP is a not-for-profit news cooperative, owned by its American newspaper and broadcast members. They elect a board of directors that directs the cooperative" from their web site.

We know that all major news in the world comes from less than 10 major media companies, most of them appear to have interlocking directorates with big oil, big banks, and major defense contractors, all but ensuring perpetual war for profit and control.

As Kent Cooper, a former head of Associated Press, noted "international bankers under the House of Rothschild acquired an interest in the three leading European [news] agencies." The Rothschild group purchased Reuters in London, Havas in France, and Wolf in Germany to monopolize the news creation nexus and information-dissemination business in Europe and around the world. Today's global corporate media empire is simply an extension of this trend to control information and assure capital's propaganda remains both dominant and ubiquitous." - http://publiccentralbank.com/

This would be the same Rothschild dynasty that fixes the price of gold in London, that CREATED the international government bond market, and is believed to be the wealthiest family in the world.  Watch the "Ring of Power" to learn more.

And now today we hear this:

Justice Department Spied For Months On Associated Press Reporters

And so the final curtain falls on the myth of what was supposed to be, in its own words, the "most transparent administration" in history.

As it turns out, the big Friday story of Bloomberg journalists snooping on its clients was just amateur hour compared to what the AP was about to serve. In fact, the Watergate affair may soon appear like a walk in the park compared to the First Amendment shitstorm that is about to be unleashed following the just reported news that the US Department of Justice had "secretly obtained two months of telephone records of reporters and editors for The Associated Press in what the news cooperative's top executive called a "massive and unprecedented intrusion" into how news organizations gather the news."

First amendment? Freedom of speech and press? Surely not when it comes to the Nobel-peace prize winning President and those who dare to expose his secret ways.

And what's worst, is that the AP breach has all the makings of a spiteful hack driven by personal vengeance against one of America's premier news outlets.

We can't wait to see the rest of the not so conservative media stands up in arms and defend one of their peers against an administration whose utter disdain for all checks and balances puts Stalinist Russia to shame. Or perhaps it will be merely a case of "first they came for AP's reporters, and we said nothing..."

And while it has long been known that the NSA actively intercepts and records every single form of electronic communication, the unspoken truth is that the government can do anything it wants as long as it doesn't get caught. It just did, and not only in Benghazi, or the IRS fiasco, but in making a complete mockery of the First Amendment.

As the NSA whistleblower told Wired Magazine over a year ago, “we are this far from a turnkey totalitarian state", all we can add is "we are now in a full-blown totalitarian state."

And nobody cares.

The AP story which must be read to be believed:

The Justice Department secretly obtained two months of telephone records of reporters and editors for The Associated Press in what the news cooperative's top executive called a "massive and unprecedented intrusion" into how news organizations gather the news.

The records obtained by the Justice Department listed incoming and outgoing calls, and the duration of each call, for the work and personal phone numbers of individual reporters, general AP office numbers in New York, Washington and Hartford, Conn., and the main number for AP reporters in the House of Representatives press gallery, according to attorneys for the AP.

In all, the government seized those records for more than 20 separate telephone lines assigned to AP and its journalists in April and May of 2012. The exact number of journalists who used the phone lines during that period is unknown but more than 100 journalists work in the offices whose phone records were targeted on a wide array of stories about government and other matters.

In a letter of protest sent to Attorney General Eric Holder on Monday, AP President and Chief Executive Officer Gary Pruitt said the government sought and obtained information far beyond anything that could be justified by any specific investigation. He demanded the return of the phone records and destruction of all copies.

"There can be no possible justification for such an overbroad collection of the telephone communications of The Associated Press and its reporters. These records potentially reveal communications with confidential sources across all of the newsgathering activities undertaken by the AP during a two-month period, provide a road map to AP's newsgathering operations, and disclose information about AP's activities and operations that the government has no conceivable right to know," Pruitt said.

The government would not say why it sought the records. U.S. officials have previously said in public testimony that the U.S. attorney in Washington is conducting a criminal investigation into who may have leaked information contained in a May 7, 2012, AP story about a foiled terror plot. The story disclosed details of a CIA operation in Yemen that stopped an al-Qaida plot in the spring of 2012 to detonate a bomb on an airplane bound for the United States.

In testimony in February, CIA Director John Brennan noted that the FBI had questioned him about whether he was AP's source, which he denied. He called the release of the information to the media about the terror plot an "unauthorized and dangerous disclosure of classified information."

Prosecutors have sought phone records from reporters before, but the seizure of records from such a wide array of AP offices, including general AP switchboards numbers and an office-wide shared fax line, is unusual and largely unprecedented.

In the letter notifying the AP received Friday, the Justice Department offered no explanation for the seizure, according to Pruitt's letter and attorneys for the AP. The records were presumably obtained from phone companies earlier this year although the government letter did not explain that. None of the information provided by the government to the AP suggested the actual phone conversations were monitored.

Among those whose phone numbers were obtained were five reporters and an editor who were involved in the May 7, 2012 story.

The Obama administration has aggressively investigated disclosures of classified information to the media and has brought six cases against people suspected of leaking classified information, more than under all previous presidents combined.

Justice Department published rules require that subpoenas of records from news organizations must be personally approved by the attorney general but it was not known if that happened in this case. The letter notifying AP that its phone records had been obtained though subpoenas was sent Friday by Ronald Machen, the U.S. attorney in Washington.

Spokesmen in Machen's office and at the Justice Department had no immediate comment on Monday.

The Justice Department lays out strict rules for efforts to get phone records from news organizations. A subpoena can only be considered after "all reasonable attempts" have been made to get the same information from other sources, the rules say. It was unclear what other steps, in total, the Justice Department has taken to get information in the case.

A subpoena to the media must be "as narrowly drawn as possible" and "should be directed at relevant information regarding a limited subject matter and should cover a reasonably limited time period," according to the rules.

The reason for these constraints, the department says, is to avoid actions that "might impair the news gathering function" because the government recognizes that "freedom of the press can be no broader than the freedom of reporters to investigate and report the news."

News organizations normally are notified in advance that the government wants phone records and enter into negotiations over the desired information. In this case, however, the government, in its letter to the AP, cited an exemption to those rules that holds that prior notification can be waived if such notice, in the exemption's wording, might "pose a substantial threat to the integrity of the investigation."

It is unknown whether a judge or a grand jury signed off on the subpoenas.

The May 7, 2012, AP story that disclosed details of the CIA operation in Yemen to stop an airliner bomb plot occurred around the one-year anniversary of the May 2, 2011, killing of Osama bin Laden.

The plot was significant because the White House had told the public it had "no credible information that terrorist organizations, including al-Qaida, are plotting attacks in the U.S. to coincide with the (May 2) anniversary of bin Laden's death."

The AP delayed reporting the story at the request of government officials who said it would jeopardize national security. Once government officials said those concerns were allayed, the AP disclosed the plot because officials said it no longer endangered national security. The Obama administration, however, continued to request that the story be held until the administration could make an official announcement.

The May 7 story was written by reporters Matt Apuzzo and Adam Goldman with contributions from reporters Kimberly Dozier, Eileen Sullivan and Alan Fram. They and their editor, Ted Bridis, were among the journalists whose April-May 2012 phone records were seized by the government.

Brennan talked about the AP story and leaks investigation in written testimony to the Senate. "The irresponsible and damaging leak of classified information was made ... when someone informed the Associated Press that the U.S. Government had intercepted an IED (improvised explosive device) that was supposed to be used in an attack and that the U.S. Government currently had that IED in its possession and was analyzing it," he said.

He also defended the White House's plan to discuss the plot immediately afterward. "Once someone leaked information about interdiction of the IED and that the IED was actually in our possession, it was imperative to inform the American people consistent with Government policy that there was never any danger to the American people associated with this al-Qa'ida plot," Brennan told senators.

Ah... the illusion of "freedom"

And below is a stock photo of a very busy Eric Holder. Well, at least busy when he is spying on the 4th estate. Not so busy when he is avoiding investigating and prosecuting Too Big To Prosecutve bankers for being instrumental in some $15 trillion in global asset transfers from the middle to the upper classes (and counting at a pace of $160 billion per month).

* * *

Finally, in parallel news, following a FOIA request by the ACLU to learn more about the government’s practice of reading people’s email, text messages, social networking feeds and other private electronic communications without a warrant, here is one of "informative" responses the ACLU received back from the "most transparent" Department of Justice.

Is Fidelity Investments a Player in the New World Order?

New World Order Fidelity Investments

Posted by: Administrator on January 17, 2013

Welcome to the New World Order. It is not coming, it is here. The NWO is not complete, but so well established that it's totalitarian state is but a matter of a few more years.

Fidelity investments is a major player. The pyramid logo is a symbol used by the company, is consistent with nwo participants. Fidelity was first brought to my attention as the early cest a que trust investigators found a method of accessing individuals trust accounts in the fidelity website. The link was disabled shortly after discovery, but a simple look into promotional material on their website, indicates strong evidence of eugenics and other atrocities.

Thingbig.fidelity.com has 4 topics all of which deal with mining personal data, dna experiments, and global water supply. These things are the up and coming tools in control and manipulation of the masses.

Deep mining of personal information through data collection and the interchanging amongst institutions of that data will give a detailed map of an individuals entire life, and habits, and physical movement.

DNA experiments to blueprint each human in the fetal state and PREscribe an array of drugs to TUNE that human into an acceptable specimen of being.

Water will be the next oil. Take every news event on oil from the last several decades and substitute the word Oil with the word Water, and you will have a definite indication of the future existence in a water based economy.

New Evidence on Benghazi - Obama, Patraeus, Clinton, Stevens, Hicks

First, The Big Picture

Whatever the scope of the CIA’s operation in Benghazi – and whatever the real reason for the resignation of the CIA chief – the key is our historical and ongoing foreign policy.

For decades, the U.S. has backed terrorists for geopolitical ends. For decades, the U.S. has backed the most radical, fundamentalist, violent Muslims.

The U.S. government has been consistently planning regime change in Syria, Libya and Iran for 20 years, and dreamed of regime change – using false flag terror – for 50 years.

Obama has simply re-packaged Bush and the Neocons’ “war on terror” as a series of humanitarian wars.

Liberals rightfully lambast Bush for getting us into the disastrous Iraq war.

But Obama has in fact launched wars in Libya, Syria, Yemen, Pakistan … and up to 35 African nations (and see this).

Obama – citing a Nixon administration official’s justification for invading Cambodia – has claimed his power extends into every country in the world … well beyond those where we are engaged in hostilities.

Obama has dramatically escalated the use of drone assassinations, which are  creating many more terrorists than they are killing.  The former chief military prosecutor at Guantanamo says that Obama’s drone surge is as damaging to our country as Bush’s torture program. I think he’s actually underestimating damage from the program, as drones have become the number 1 recruiting tool for Al Qaeda (especially since children are now being targeted for drone assassination … Oh, and torture is still happening on Obama’s watch; background).

And the Obama administration has probably supported even more terrorists – in Libya, Syria and elsewhere – than Bush. See this, this, this, thisand this.

In other words, both GOP and Dem politicians are supporting destability, terrorism and war.

Those are the deeper truths regarding Benghazi.

Now the New Evidence

The Administration announced after the Benghazi attack that a protest by Muslims had turned violent.

The Administration also stated that there was nothing which could have been done to save the people killed within the consulate.

But the number 2 American official in Libya – Deputy Chief of Mission in Libya Gregory Hicks, who became the Chief of Mission after Ambassador Christopher Stevens was killed  – says everyone who worked at the Benghazi consulate thought it was a terrorist attack from the get-go:

Similarly, Democratic Congressman Stephen Lynch agrees that the U.S. talking points after the Benghazi attack were false:

Congressman Daryl Issa notes that the U.S. ignored requests for more security, and theorized that the motive was to underplay the danger from terrorism:

 

More disturbing are tales of the lack of assistance from the U.S. As CBS News reports:

Throughout the night, sources say Americans on the ground in Libya at times felt helpless and abandoned.

“We relied on Washington for dispassionate assessment,” one eyewitness told CBS News. “Instead, they [Washington officials] were asking us what help we needed. We answered: ‘Send reinforcements!’ ”

But they were told immediate help wasn’t available.

Embassy personnel say they repeatedly asked the Defense Attache on site in Tripoli for military assistance.

“Isn’t there anything available?” one Embassy official says he asked. “But the answer was ‘no.’”

“What about Aviano?” the official pressed, referencing the NATO air base with US assets in northeastern Italy. “No,” was the answer.

Two of the four Americans killed that night died hours after the first attack began…

***

Counterterrorism sources and internal emails reviewed by CBS News express frustration that key responders were ready to deploy, but were not called upon to help in the attack. National Security Council Spokesman Tommy Vietor told CBS News the CSG was not needed.

But most devastating of all is Hicks’ testimony that the U.S. prevented rescuers from reaching Benghazi. As CBS News reports:

The deputy of slain U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens has told congressional investigators that a team of Special Forces prepared to fly from Tripoli to Benghazi during the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks was forbidden from doing so by U.S. Special Operations Command Africa.

***

Hicks told investigators that SOCAFRICA commander Lt. Col. Gibson and his team were on their way to board a C-130 from Tripoli for Benghazi prior to an attack on a second U.S. compound “when [Col. Gibson] got a phone call from SOCAFRICA which said, ‘you can’t go now, you don’t have the authority to go now.’ And so they missed the flight … They were told not to board the flight, so they missed it.”

***

Hicks told congressional investigators that if the U.S. had quickly sent a military aircraft over Benghazi, it might have saved American lives. The U.S. Souda Bay Naval Base is an hour’s flight from Libya.

“I believe if we had been able to scramble a fighter or aircraft or two over Benghazi as quickly as possible after the attack commenced, I believe there would not have been a mortar attack on the annex in the morning because I believe the Libyans would have split. They would have been scared to death that we would have gotten a laser on them and killed them,” Hicks testified. Two Americans died in the morning mortar attack.

The Real Story at Benghazi

The U.S. supported opposition which overthrew Libya’s Gadaffi was largely comprised of Al Qaeda terrorists.

According to a 2007 report by West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center’s center, the Libyan city of Benghazi was one of Al Qaeda’s main headquarters – and bases for sending Al Qaeda fighters into Iraq – prior to the overthrow of Gaddafi:

The Hindustan Times reported in 2011:

“There is no question that al Qaeda’s Libyan franchise, Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, is a part of the opposition,” Bruce Riedel, former CIA officer and a leading expert on terrorism, told Hindustan Times.

It has always been Qaddafi’s biggest enemy and its stronghold is Benghazi.

Al Qaeda is now largely in control of Libya. Indeed, Al Qaeda flags were flown over the Benghazi courthouse once Gaddafi was toppled.

(Incidentally, Gaddafi was on the verge of invading Benghazi in 2011, 4 years after the West Point report cited Benghazi as a hotbed of Al Qaeda terrorists. Gaddafi claimed – rightly it turns out – that Benghazi was an Al Qaeda stronghold and a main source of the Libyan rebellion. But NATO planes stopped him, and protected Benghazi.)

CNN, the Telegraph, the Washington Times, and many other mainstream sources confirm that Al Qaeda terrorists from Libya have since flooded into Syria to fight the Assad regime.

Mainstream sources also confirm that the Syrian opposition is largely comprised of Al Qaeda terrorists. (Indeed, the New York Times reported last week that virtually all of the rebel fighters are Al Qaeda terrorists.)

The U.S. has been arming the Syrian opposition since 2006. The post-Gaddafi Libyan government is also itself a top funder and arms supplier of the Syrian opposition.

This brings us to the murder of ambassador Stevens …

The Wall Street Journal, Telegraph and other sources confirm that the US consulate in Benghazi was mainly being used for a secret CIA operation.

They say that the State Department presence in Benghazi “provided diplomatic cover” for the previously hidden CIA mission. (WND alleges that it was not a real consulate.)

Reuters notes that the CIA mission involved finding and repurchasing heavy weaponry looted from Libyan government arsenals.

Business Insider reports that Stevens may have been linked with Syrian terrorists:

There’s growing evidence that U.S. agents—particularly murdered ambassador Chris Stevens—were at least aware of heavy weapons moving from Libya to jihadist Syrian rebels.

In March 2011 Stevens became the official U.S. liaison to the al-Qaeda-linked Libyan opposition, working directly with Abdelhakim Belhadj of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group—a group that has now disbanded, with some fighters reportedly participating in the attack that took Stevens’ life.

In November 2011 The Telegraph reported that Belhadj, acting as head of the Tripoli Military Council, “met with Free Syrian Army [FSA] leaders in Istanbul and on the border with Turkey” in an effort by the new Libyan government to provide money and weapons to the growing insurgency in Syria.

Last month The Times of London reported that a Libyan ship “carrying the largest consignment of weapons for Syria … has docked in Turkey.” The shipment reportedly weighed 400 tons and included SA-7 surface-to-air anti-craft missiles and rocket-propelled grenades.

***

Reuters reports that Syrian rebels have been using those heavy weapons to shoot down Syrian helicopters and fighter jets.

The ship’s captain was “a Libyan from Benghazi and the head of an organization called the Libyan National Council for Relief and Support,” which was presumably established by the new government.

That means that Ambassador Stevens had only one person—Belhadj—between himself and the Benghazi man who brought heavy weapons to Syria.

Furthermore, we know that jihadists are the best fighters in the Syrian opposition, but where did they come from?

Last week The Telegraph reported that a FSA commander called them “Libyans” when he explained that the FSA doesn’t “want these extremist people here.”

And if the new Libyan government was sending seasoned Islamic fighters and 400 tons of heavy weapons to Syria through a port in southern Turkey—a deal brokered by Stevens’ primary Libyan contact during the Libyan revolution—then the governments of Turkey and the U.S. surely knew about it.

Furthermore there was a CIA post in Benghazi, located 1.2 miles from the U.S. consulate, used as “a base for, among other things,collecting information on the proliferation of weaponry looted from Libyan government arsenals, including surface-to-air missiles” … and that its security features “were more advanced than those at rented villa where Stevens died.”

And we know that the CIA has been funneling weapons to the rebels in southern Turkey. The question is whether the CIA has been involved in handing out the heavy weapons from Libya.

In other words, ambassador Stevens may have been a key player in deploying Libyan terrorists and arms to fight the Syrian government.

Other sources also claim that the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was mainly being used as a CIA operation to ship fighters and arms to Syria.

Many have speculated that – if normal security measures weren’t taken to protect the Benghazi consulate or to rescue ambassador Stevens – it was because the CIA was trying to keep an extremely low profile to protect its cover of being a normal State Department operation.

That is what I think really happened at Benghazi.

Was CIA Chief David Petraeus’ Firing Due to Benghazi?

CIA boss David Petraeus suddenly resigned, admitting to an affair. But Petraeus was scheduled to testify under oath the next week before power House and Senate committees regarding the Benghazi consulate.  Many speculate that it wasn’t an affair – but the desire to avoid testifying on Benghazi – which was the real reason for Petraeus’ sudden resignation.