Posts
Welcome to 9-11 Movies
-
The idea behind this site is to present the most rudimentary, simplified,
common-sense information about the anomalies that fuel our doubts about the
offic...
Showing posts with label John F. Kennedy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John F. Kennedy. Show all posts
Sunday, April 29, 2012
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
How to Start a War: The American Use of War Pretext Incidents.
Global Research
Richard Sanders
The following article by Richard Sanders published in May 2002, prior to the onslaught of the Iraq war, carefully documents the History of War Pretext Incidents.
This historical review raises an important issue: Is the Pentagon seeking to trigger military confrontation in the Persian Gulf with a view to providing a pretext and a justification to waging an all out war on the Islamic Republic of Iran?
As documented by Richard Sanders, this strategy has been used throughout American military history.
With regard to the confrontation in the Persian Gulf, is the Obama administration prepared to sacrifice the Fifth Fleet based in Bahrain with a view to triggering public support for a war on Iran on the grounds of self-defense.
Those opposed to war must address the issue of the "pretext"and "justification" to wage war.
Of relevance, the "Responsibility to Protect under a NATO "humanitarian" mandate has also been used as a thematic pretext to wage war (Yugoslavia, Libya, Syria),
The 911 Attacks and the "Global War on Terrorism" (Afghanistan, Somalia, Pakistan,...) not to mention the alleged "Weapons of Mass Destruction" (Iraq) have also been used to justify military intervention. Both 9/11 and WMD are being heralded as a justification for waging war on Iran, based on allegation that Iran was behind the 9/11 attacks and that Iran possesses nuclear weapons.
In the words of Richard Sanders [2002]:
Like schoolyard bullies who shout ‘He hit me first!’, war planners know that it is irrelevant whether the opponent really did ‘throw the first punch.’ As long as it can be made to appear that the attack was unprovoked, the bully receives license to ‘respond’ with force. Bullies and war planners are experts at taunting, teasing and threatening their opponents. If the enemy cannot be goaded into ‘firing the first shot,’ it is easy enough to lie about what happened. Sometimes, that is sufficient to rationalize a schoolyard beating or a genocidal war.
Such trickery has probably been employed by every military power throughout history. During the Roman empire, the causes of war -- cassus belli -- were often invented to conceal the real reasons for war. Over the millennia, although weapons and battle strategies have changed greatly, the deceitful strategem of using pretext incidents to ignite war has remained remarkably consistent.
Pretext incidents, in themselves, are not sufficient to spark wars. Rumors and allegations about the tragic events must first spread throughout the target population. Constant repetition of the official version of what happened, spawns dramatic narratives that are lodged into public consciousness. The stories become accepted without question and legends are fostered. The corporate media is central to the success of such ‘psychological operations.’ Politicians rally people around the flag, lending their special oratory skills to the call for a military “response.” Demands for “retaliation” then ring out across the land, war hysteria mounts and, finally, a war is born.
Every time the US has gone to war, pretext incidents have been used. Upon later examination, the conventional perception of these events is always challenged and eventually exposed as untrue. Historians, investigative journalists and many others, have cited eyewitness accounts, declassified documents and statements made by the perpetrators themselves to demonstrate that the provocative incidents were used as stratagems to stage-manage the march to war.
Here are a few particularly blatant examples of this phenomenon.
1846: The Mexican-American War
CONTEXT After Mexico’s revolution in 1821, Americans demanded about $3,000,000 in compensation for their losses.1 Mexico abolished slavery in 1829 and then prohibited further U.S. immigration into Texas, a Mexican state. In 1835, Mexico tried to enforce its authority over Texas. Texans, rallying under the slogan "Remember the Alamo!”, drove Mexican troops out of Texas and proclaimed independence. For nine years, many Texans lobbied for US annexation. This was delayed by northerners who opposed adding more slave territories to the US and feared a war with Mexico.2
In 1844, Democratic presidential candidate, James Polk, declared support for annexing Texas and won with the thinnest margin ever.3 The following year, Texas was annexed and Mexico broke off diplomatic relations with the US. Polk sent John Slidell to Mexico offering $25 million for New Mexico, California and an agreement accepting the Rio Grande boundary. Mexican government officials refused to meet the envoy.4
PRETEXT John Stockwell, a Texan who led the CIA’s covert 1970s war in Angola, summed up the start of Mexican American war by saying “they offered two dollars-a-head to every soldier who would enlist. They didn't get enough takers, so they offered a hundred acres to anyone who would be a veteran of that war. They still didn't get enough takers, so [General] Zachary Taylor was sent down to parade up and down the border -- the disputed border -- until the Mexicans fired on him.... And the nation rose up, and we fought the war.”5
President Polk hoped that sending General Taylor’s 3,500 soldiers into Mexico territory, would provoke an attack against US troops.6 “On May 8, 1846, Polk met with his Cabinet at the White House and told them that if the Mexican army attacked the U.S. forces, he was going to send a message to Congress asking for a declaration of war. It was decided that war should be declared in three days even if there was no attack.”7
When news of the skirmish arrived, Polk sent a message to Congress on May 11: “Mexico has passed the boundary of the U.S. and shed American blood on American soil.”8 Two days later Congress declared war on Mexico.9
RESPONSE Newspapers helped the push for war with headlines like: “‘Mexicans Killing our Boys in Texas.’10
With public support secured, U.S. forces occupied New Mexico and California. US troops fought battles across Mexico and stormed their capital. A new more US-friendly government quickly emerged. It signed over California and New Mexico for $15 million and recognized the Rio Grande as their border with the US state of Texas.11
General Taylor became an American war hero and he rode his victory straight into the White House by succeeding Polk as president in 1849.
REAL REASONS The US secured over 500,000 square miles from Mexico, including Texas, Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, California and parts of Colorado and Wyoming.
The war was a boon to US nationalism, it boosted popular support for a very weak president and added vast new territories to the US where slavery was allowed.
1898: The Spanish-American War
CONTEXT Cubans fought several wars to free themselves from Spanish colonial rule, including 1868-1878, 1879-1880 and 1895-1898.12 In 1898, Cubans were on the brink of finally winning their independence. The US government agreed to respect Cuba’s sovereignty and promised they would not step in.
"On January 24, [1898] on the pretext of protecting the life and safety of Mr. Lee, U.S. consul in Havana, and other U.S. citizens in the face of street disturbances provoked by Spanish extremists, the Maine battleship entered the bay of Havana.”13
PRETEXT On February 15, 1898, a huge explosion sank the USS Maine killing 266 of its crew.14
Richard Sanders
This historical review raises an important issue: Is the Pentagon seeking to trigger military confrontation in the Persian Gulf with a view to providing a pretext and a justification to waging an all out war on the Islamic Republic of Iran?
As documented by Richard Sanders, this strategy has been used throughout American military history.
With regard to the confrontation in the Persian Gulf, is the Obama administration prepared to sacrifice the Fifth Fleet based in Bahrain with a view to triggering public support for a war on Iran on the grounds of self-defense.
Those opposed to war must address the issue of the "pretext"and "justification" to wage war.
Of relevance, the "Responsibility to Protect under a NATO "humanitarian" mandate has also been used as a thematic pretext to wage war (Yugoslavia, Libya, Syria),
The 911 Attacks and the "Global War on Terrorism" (Afghanistan, Somalia, Pakistan,...) not to mention the alleged "Weapons of Mass Destruction" (Iraq) have also been used to justify military intervention. Both 9/11 and WMD are being heralded as a justification for waging war on Iran, based on allegation that Iran was behind the 9/11 attacks and that Iran possesses nuclear weapons.
In the words of Richard Sanders [2002]:
"It is vitally important to expose this latest attempt [9/11] to fraudulently conceal the largely economic and geostrategic purposes of war. By asking who benefits from war, we can unmask its pretense and expose the true grounds for instigating it. By throwing light on repeated historical patterns of deception, we can promote skepticism about the government and media yarns that have been spun to encourage this war.
The historical knowledge of how war planners have tricked people into supporting past wars, is like a vaccine. We can use this understanding of history to inoculate the public with healthy doses of distrust for official war pretext narratives and other deceptive stratagems. Through such immunization programs we may help to counter our society’s susceptibility to “war fever.” "Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, January 9, 2012
“Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive!” Sir Walter Scott, Marmion. Canto vi. Stanza 17
Pretext n. [Latin praetextum, pp. of praetextere, to weave before, pretend, disguise; prae-, before + texere, to weave], a false reason or motive put forth to hide the real one; excuse.
Stratagem [Gr. Strategema, device or act of a general; stratos, army + agein, to lead], a trick, scheme or device used for deceiving an enemy in war.Throughout history, war planners have used various forms of deception to trick their enemies. Because public support is so crucial to the process of initiating and waging war, the home population is also subject to deceitful stratagems. The creation of false excuses to justify going to war is a major first step in constructing public support for such deadly ventures. Perhaps the most common pretext for war is an apparently unprovoked enemy attack. Such attacks, however, are often fabricated, incited or deliberately allowed to occur. They are then exploited to arouse widespread public sympathy for the victims, demonize the attackers and build mass support for military “retaliation.”
Like schoolyard bullies who shout ‘He hit me first!’, war planners know that it is irrelevant whether the opponent really did ‘throw the first punch.’ As long as it can be made to appear that the attack was unprovoked, the bully receives license to ‘respond’ with force. Bullies and war planners are experts at taunting, teasing and threatening their opponents. If the enemy cannot be goaded into ‘firing the first shot,’ it is easy enough to lie about what happened. Sometimes, that is sufficient to rationalize a schoolyard beating or a genocidal war.
Such trickery has probably been employed by every military power throughout history. During the Roman empire, the causes of war -- cassus belli -- were often invented to conceal the real reasons for war. Over the millennia, although weapons and battle strategies have changed greatly, the deceitful strategem of using pretext incidents to ignite war has remained remarkably consistent.
Pretext incidents, in themselves, are not sufficient to spark wars. Rumors and allegations about the tragic events must first spread throughout the target population. Constant repetition of the official version of what happened, spawns dramatic narratives that are lodged into public consciousness. The stories become accepted without question and legends are fostered. The corporate media is central to the success of such ‘psychological operations.’ Politicians rally people around the flag, lending their special oratory skills to the call for a military “response.” Demands for “retaliation” then ring out across the land, war hysteria mounts and, finally, a war is born.
Every time the US has gone to war, pretext incidents have been used. Upon later examination, the conventional perception of these events is always challenged and eventually exposed as untrue. Historians, investigative journalists and many others, have cited eyewitness accounts, declassified documents and statements made by the perpetrators themselves to demonstrate that the provocative incidents were used as stratagems to stage-manage the march to war.
Here are a few particularly blatant examples of this phenomenon.
1846: The Mexican-American War
CONTEXT After Mexico’s revolution in 1821, Americans demanded about $3,000,000 in compensation for their losses.1 Mexico abolished slavery in 1829 and then prohibited further U.S. immigration into Texas, a Mexican state. In 1835, Mexico tried to enforce its authority over Texas. Texans, rallying under the slogan "Remember the Alamo!”, drove Mexican troops out of Texas and proclaimed independence. For nine years, many Texans lobbied for US annexation. This was delayed by northerners who opposed adding more slave territories to the US and feared a war with Mexico.2
In 1844, Democratic presidential candidate, James Polk, declared support for annexing Texas and won with the thinnest margin ever.3 The following year, Texas was annexed and Mexico broke off diplomatic relations with the US. Polk sent John Slidell to Mexico offering $25 million for New Mexico, California and an agreement accepting the Rio Grande boundary. Mexican government officials refused to meet the envoy.4
PRETEXT John Stockwell, a Texan who led the CIA’s covert 1970s war in Angola, summed up the start of Mexican American war by saying “they offered two dollars-a-head to every soldier who would enlist. They didn't get enough takers, so they offered a hundred acres to anyone who would be a veteran of that war. They still didn't get enough takers, so [General] Zachary Taylor was sent down to parade up and down the border -- the disputed border -- until the Mexicans fired on him.... And the nation rose up, and we fought the war.”5
President Polk hoped that sending General Taylor’s 3,500 soldiers into Mexico territory, would provoke an attack against US troops.6 “On May 8, 1846, Polk met with his Cabinet at the White House and told them that if the Mexican army attacked the U.S. forces, he was going to send a message to Congress asking for a declaration of war. It was decided that war should be declared in three days even if there was no attack.”7
When news of the skirmish arrived, Polk sent a message to Congress on May 11: “Mexico has passed the boundary of the U.S. and shed American blood on American soil.”8 Two days later Congress declared war on Mexico.9
RESPONSE Newspapers helped the push for war with headlines like: “‘Mexicans Killing our Boys in Texas.’10
With public support secured, U.S. forces occupied New Mexico and California. US troops fought battles across Mexico and stormed their capital. A new more US-friendly government quickly emerged. It signed over California and New Mexico for $15 million and recognized the Rio Grande as their border with the US state of Texas.11
General Taylor became an American war hero and he rode his victory straight into the White House by succeeding Polk as president in 1849.
REAL REASONS The US secured over 500,000 square miles from Mexico, including Texas, Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, California and parts of Colorado and Wyoming.
The war was a boon to US nationalism, it boosted popular support for a very weak president and added vast new territories to the US where slavery was allowed.
1898: The Spanish-American War
CONTEXT Cubans fought several wars to free themselves from Spanish colonial rule, including 1868-1878, 1879-1880 and 1895-1898.12 In 1898, Cubans were on the brink of finally winning their independence. The US government agreed to respect Cuba’s sovereignty and promised they would not step in.
"On January 24, [1898] on the pretext of protecting the life and safety of Mr. Lee, U.S. consul in Havana, and other U.S. citizens in the face of street disturbances provoked by Spanish extremists, the Maine battleship entered the bay of Havana.”13
PRETEXT On February 15, 1898, a huge explosion sank the USS Maine killing 266 of its crew.14
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Jackie Kennedy Believed Lyndon Baines Johnson Killed JFK As Evidence Of Johnson’s Complicity Continues To Mount
Federal Jack
Popeye
(POPEYE & ALEX THOMAS of THE INTEL HUB) Former First Lady Jackie Kennedy believed Lyndon Baines Johnson and a cabal of Texas tycoons had a hand in the assassination of her husband.
These revelations, first reported by The Daily Mail, were apparently secretly recorded just months after the JFK assassination. Famed historian Arthur Schlesinger Jnr recorded the secret tapes which had been sealed in a vault at the Kennedy Library in Boston ever since.
This new evidence further strengthens the testimony and evidence that is already available that points to Johnson’s involvement in the Dallas assassination of JFK.
In 2007 notorious CIA agent E. Howard Hunt released a book that suggested that LBJ was involved in the murder.
“LBJ had the money and the connections to manipulate the scenario in Dallas and is on record as having convinced JFK to make the appearance in the first place,” wrote Hunt in his book American Spy: My Secret History in the CIA, Watergate & Beyond.
Starting in October 1988, a 9 part documentary series aired in the United Kingdom. The 9th and final part of this outstanding documentary series focused on Lyndon Johnson and his complicity in the Kennedy assassination.
Following outcry from Johnson’s family, the series was pulled from television.
The ninth documentary in the series, titled “The Guilty Men”, directly implicating former U. S. President Lyndon B. Johnson, created an outcry among Johnson’s surviving associates, Johnson’s widow, Lady Bird Johnson, journalist Bill Moyers, ex-President Jimmy Carter, Jack Valenti (longtime president of the Motion Picture Association of America), and the last-living (at the time of the outcry) Warren Commission commissioner and ex-President Gerald R. Ford, who lodged complaints of libel with the History Channel.
They subsequently threatened legal action against Arts & Entertainment Company, owner of the History Channel.
The History Channel responded by assembling a panel of three historians, Robert Dallek, Stanley Kutler, and Thomas Sugrue. On a program aired April 7, 2004 called “The Guilty Man: A Historical Review”, the panel agreed that the documentary was not credible and should not have aired.
The History Channel issued a statement saying, in part, “The History Channel recognizes that ‘The Guilty Men’ failed to offer viewers context and perspective, and fell short of the high standards that the network sets for itself. The History Channel apologizes to its viewers and to Mrs. Johnson and her family for airing the show.”
Conspiracy author Barr McClellan, interviewed in the documentary, complained that while the historians examined the evidence, they did not interview him or Turner.
All three new documentaries by Turner (“The Guilty Men,” “The Smoking Gun” and “The Love Affair”) were then permanently withdrawn by the History Channel, though they were originally slated to be viewed at least annually on the History Channel until the 50th anniversary of the Kennedy assassination (November, 2013). This is the 9th episode titled The Guilty Men, it shows Lyndon Johnson’s direct involvement in JFK’s assassination.
In an article titled, The LBJ-CIA Assassination of JFK , Robert Morrow wrote about the extensive documentation that points to Johnson’s complicity, along with the CIA, in the murder of JFK.
Jack Ruby was even quoted as saying the answer lies with the man in Office today.
Robert Kennedy, who was later assassinated under highly suspicious circumstance himself, reportedly asked LBJ why he killed his brother.
Groundbreaking Interview With Lee Harvey Oswald’s Girlfriend Judyth Vary Baker
MLK, JFK, RFK and the Unspeakable
THE MEN WHO KILLED KENNEDY – PT 7 (THE SMOKING GUNS)
THE MEN WHO KILLED KENNEDY – PT 8 (THE LOVE AFFAIR)
http://theintelhub.com/2011/08/08/jackie-kennedy-believed-lyndon-johnson-killed-jfk-as-evidence-of-johnson-complicity-continues-to-mount/
Popeye
(POPEYE & ALEX THOMAS of THE INTEL HUB) Former First Lady Jackie Kennedy believed Lyndon Baines Johnson and a cabal of Texas tycoons had a hand in the assassination of her husband.
These revelations, first reported by The Daily Mail, were apparently secretly recorded just months after the JFK assassination. Famed historian Arthur Schlesinger Jnr recorded the secret tapes which had been sealed in a vault at the Kennedy Library in Boston ever since.
 |
| The man to the left in the bowtie is Congressman Albert Thomas, winking at LBJ as he is sworn is as President. |
This new evidence further strengthens the testimony and evidence that is already available that points to Johnson’s involvement in the Dallas assassination of JFK.
In 2007 notorious CIA agent E. Howard Hunt released a book that suggested that LBJ was involved in the murder.
“LBJ had the money and the connections to manipulate the scenario in Dallas and is on record as having convinced JFK to make the appearance in the first place,” wrote Hunt in his book American Spy: My Secret History in the CIA, Watergate & Beyond.
“He further tried unsuccessfully to engineer the passengers of each vehicle, trying to get his good buddy, Gov. [John] Connolly, to ride with him instead of in JFK’s car – where…he would have been out of danger,” writes Hunt.
Hunt concludes, “Having Kennedy liquidated, thus elevating himself to the presidency without having to work for it himself, could have been a very tempting and logical move on Johnson’s part.”
LBJ’s Mistress and mother of one of his children, Madeleine Brown, claims to have seen LBJ the night before the Kennedy assassination and that LBJ told her, “After tomorrow those god damn Kennedy’s will never embarrass me again.”
Following outcry from Johnson’s family, the series was pulled from television.
The ninth documentary in the series, titled “The Guilty Men”, directly implicating former U. S. President Lyndon B. Johnson, created an outcry among Johnson’s surviving associates, Johnson’s widow, Lady Bird Johnson, journalist Bill Moyers, ex-President Jimmy Carter, Jack Valenti (longtime president of the Motion Picture Association of America), and the last-living (at the time of the outcry) Warren Commission commissioner and ex-President Gerald R. Ford, who lodged complaints of libel with the History Channel.
They subsequently threatened legal action against Arts & Entertainment Company, owner of the History Channel.
The History Channel responded by assembling a panel of three historians, Robert Dallek, Stanley Kutler, and Thomas Sugrue. On a program aired April 7, 2004 called “The Guilty Man: A Historical Review”, the panel agreed that the documentary was not credible and should not have aired.
The History Channel issued a statement saying, in part, “The History Channel recognizes that ‘The Guilty Men’ failed to offer viewers context and perspective, and fell short of the high standards that the network sets for itself. The History Channel apologizes to its viewers and to Mrs. Johnson and her family for airing the show.”
Conspiracy author Barr McClellan, interviewed in the documentary, complained that while the historians examined the evidence, they did not interview him or Turner.
All three new documentaries by Turner (“The Guilty Men,” “The Smoking Gun” and “The Love Affair”) were then permanently withdrawn by the History Channel, though they were originally slated to be viewed at least annually on the History Channel until the 50th anniversary of the Kennedy assassination (November, 2013). This is the 9th episode titled The Guilty Men, it shows Lyndon Johnson’s direct involvement in JFK’s assassination.
In an article titled, The LBJ-CIA Assassination of JFK , Robert Morrow wrote about the extensive documentation that points to Johnson’s complicity, along with the CIA, in the murder of JFK.
Lyndon Johnson made a dirty deal with CIA Republicans to murder John Kennedy in the 1963 Coup d’Etat. (People like Clint Murchison Sr., H.L. Hunt, Nelson Rockefeller, David Rockefeller, top Nelson Rockefeller aide Henry Kissinger, George Herbert Walker Bush and Gen. Edward Lansdale all are excellent candidates for elite sponsorship.)
Lyndon Johnson and Allen Dulles may very well have been co-CEOs of the JFK assassination; with the CIA in charge of the killing of JFK, and Lyndon Johnson and (his close friend and neighbor of 19 years in Washington, DC) FBI director J. Edgar Hoover in charge of the cover up.
The Rose Cheramie story is a historical tale of the a supposed crazy women who actually predicted that JFK would be killed days before his death.
Robert Kennedy, who was later assassinated under highly suspicious circumstance himself, reportedly asked LBJ why he killed his brother.
Groundbreaking Interview With Lee Harvey Oswald’s Girlfriend Judyth Vary Baker
MLK, JFK, RFK and the Unspeakable
THE MEN WHO KILLED KENNEDY – PT 7 (THE SMOKING GUNS)
THE MEN WHO KILLED KENNEDY – PT 8 (THE LOVE AFFAIR)
http://theintelhub.com/2011/08/08/jackie-kennedy-believed-lyndon-johnson-killed-jfk-as-evidence-of-johnson-complicity-continues-to-mount/
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Dear Mr. Obama - Setting The Record Straight
Michael Rivero
Dear Barack
I was rather amazed to see an article earlier today in which you state your belief that 80% of Americans want higher taxes in order to reduce the government's debt. Either your staffers are misrepresenting the polling data to you, the polls are flawed, or you are driven to delusional hallucinations by the realities of the government's fiscal position. Possibly all three. But I felt it was my duty to send you this open letter correcting what appear to be several misperceptions you have regarding the present situation and how We The People truly feel about it. Because your present course risks invocation of the 25th Amendment for mental incompetence.
TAXES
First off, We The People do NOT want more taxes. We cannot afford the taxes we have now, as the epidemic of non-compliance reported by the IRS must have indicated to any unbiased observer. History has already shown that every time taxes are increased to "deal with the debt" the US government goes on a spending spree and plunges even deeper into debt. Agreeing to increases in taxes to deal with government debt is like fighting a forest fire with gasoline.
THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
It is time to face the fact that under the present private-central banking system that loans the public currency at interest, that the government debt crisis is intentional and by design unpayable. The moment that first Federal Reserve Note went into circulation, more money was owed to the Federal Reserve than actually exists. Anything you or the bankers do to increase the money supply only increases the debt to that much greater degree. Even a child knows that if you put ten marbles into a can you can only take ten marbles out. Yet the Federal Reserve System operates on the theory that they can put ten marbles (dollars) into the tin can (the nation) and take eleven marbles out. This makes the Federal Reserve dumber than a small child, and you, Mr. Obama, dumber than both for searching through the pockets of Americans to find that eleventh marble that does not and never did exist.
The Founders of this nation recognized that such a system cannot help but drive a populace into poverty, and fought a war against Great Britain to free themselves from the Currency Act of King George III, which ordered the Colonies to only use currency borrowed at interest from the Bank of England. The Currency act had reduced the population to poverty which fueled the rage that led to revolution. Following the revolution, one of the more "revolutionary" ideas the new United States had was for the government itself to issue a value-based currency interest-free, which rapidly turned the United States into an economic power-house and created the highest living standard of any nation on Earth for its citizens. Throughout history, however, bankers, terrified that the people of other nations would wish to follow the American example, have sought to return the American people to the slavery of an interest-bearing currency. Thanks to corrupt Congresses and corrupt Presidents, the bankers have succeeded three times, with the First and Second Banks of the United States, and then the Federal Reserve System, which despite its name is still a private bank issuing the public currency at interest (It is no more "Federal" than Federal Express). Those men who sold us back into the slavery of a private banking system issuing the public currency at interest are traitors to the founding fathers of this nation, selling the free economy purchased with the blood of patriots for thirty pieces of silver.
Fortunately, America counts among its greatest Presidents men with the vision to see the trap laid by the private central bankers and the courage to free the American people from slavery.
"Gentlemen, I have had men watching you for a long time and I am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter, I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and by the Eternal God, I will rout you out." -- Andrew Jackson
Two of America's greatest Presidents, Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy, both worked to free the American people from private bankers by invoking Article 1 section 8 of the Constitution, which authorizes the US Government to create and issue debt-free currency into circulation. Lincoln did it with his Greenbacks, and Kennedy did it with EO. 11110 and his United States Notes.
Mr. Obama, is your eagerness to go on borrowing money at interest from a private central bank that prints it up out of thin air purely because you lack the courage of a Lincoln or a Kennedy? Or is there some other darker motive? Because you and I know you could solve the nation's liquidity crisis with a single phone call across the street. You would not need Congress' approval. Nor would you need to try to blackmail Americans into agreeing to more debt with threats to withold Social Security payments (which you are not legally allowed to do anyway).
The fact is, Mr. Obama, that your present course is a failure. The American economy was wrecked by the mortgage-backed securities fraud; the biggest financial swindle in history, even greater than Tulip Mania, or the Great South Seas Company Bubble. Globalism spread the financial contagion unchecked across borders, turning an American crisis into a global catastrophe. Iceland had the right idea on how to deal with the situation, which was to jail the bankers whose greed and recklessness crashed their system and Iceland's economy today is unique in the western world in that it has clearly recovered and is growing steadily. You may not have heard much about it, since the new Icelandic government has refused to re-entangle itself with the IMF and hence is seen as a poor example to hold up for public view by the US media.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
