Media Threat to Cannabis

[Hash Zeppelin]

As cannabis growers Rupert Murdoch is one of our arch enemies. Has major Financial interest in all of cannabis's enemies. Big Pharma, Big Tobacco, etc. Murdoch must be stopped at any cost. He is a fascist, and The modern day Joseph Goebbels.

http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/13051-obamas-fcc-set-to-give-rupert-murdoch-a-media-monopoly

FCC Set to Give Rupert Murdoch a Media Monopoly

Unsatisfied with his media empire in the UK and Australia and his several media holdings in the United States like TheWall Street Journal, the New York Post, and Fox News, Rupert Murdoch wants more. He wants a media monopoly.

Murdoch is currently jockeying to buy the Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune, which just so happen to be the largest newspapers in the nation’s second and third largest cities. That will add to his current media empire in the United States, which includes the most watched cable news network in the nation, Fox so-called News, and the most circulated newspaper in the nation, The Wall Street Journal.

The only thing standing in Murdoch’s way of full-spectrum media domination in America are Federal Communication Commission rules that forbid one company from owning both a newspaper and a television station in one community. Murdoch already owns local television stations in both Chicago and Los Angeles.

But according to sources within the FCC, Chairman Julius Genachowski is quietly planning to scrap those rules. Under pressure from major media moguls like Murdoch, who see big bucks and huge political power in a consolidated national and local media, Genachowski circulated a new order to other FCC Commissioners that would allow for cross-ownership of TV and newspapers in the nation’s twenty biggest media markets.

A similar effort was made in 2007 by George W. Bush’s FCC, but it was shot down after the Senate voted to repeal it and a federal court blocked it. Not to mention, 99% of the public comments the FCC received opposed that media consolidation effort.

But, undeterred, Murdoch and other media moguls kept lobbying, and now President Obama’s FCC is expected to consider these rule changes again in December. And if Americans don’t get involved in this issue and pressure the FCC to say “no,” then Murdoch and his billionaire buddies will likely get what they want, which is complete domination of our news media.

In fact, as Ben Bagdikian points out in his book, The New Media Monopoly, the United States is already dangerously close to falling victim to a complete media monopoly. Today, only five corporations – one of which is Rupert Murdoch’s NewsCorp – own the majority of all the media seen, read, or listened to by Americans. If the FCC gets completely out of the way, then further consolidation will follow suit.

Which is a huge problem for democracy. If there’s one monopoly that’s more dangerous than all of the others, it’s a media monopoly. A democratic republic hinges on a well-informed electorate, and if one corporation – or one eccentric billionaire – owns the means of information, they can hijack the public debate and bend it toward their will.

For example, consider what happened in Italy.

You remember Silvio Berlusconi? He started out as a cruise boat lounge singer and small-time hustler. But then he bought a newspaper, then a small television station, then a radio station, then another TV station, then another newspaper, then another radio station, then another TV station, then another newspaper, then a radio network, then a TV network, and suddenly Berlusconi ended up owning about 95 percent of all the media seen, heard, or read in Italy.

And with control of the information in Italy, Berlusconi decided to run for Prime Minister, and wouldn’t you know it – he won!

With an iron grip on the media, Berlusconi served as Prime Minister of Italy for three separate terms totaling nearly a decade, despite the fact that he was accused of nearly every crime you can imagine, including tax fraud, false accounting, corruption, bribery, perjury, mafia collusion, aiding terrorist organization, and having sex with minors at his infamous “Bunga Bunga” parties. That’s how crucial a media monopoly is to political power and legal immunity from prosecution.

In the meantime, Berlusconi oversaw the downgrade of Italy’s press freedoms, as documented by the organization Freedom House, which demoted Italy’s press from “Free” like the rest of Europe and the developed world to only “Partly Free.” A main reason for the demotion was Berlusconi’s ability to completely manipulate the state media, which, according to Freedom House, was “a conflict of interest among the most blatant in the world.”

Only the technocrats of Europe were able to eventually force Berlusconi out of office in 2011.

Ultimately, if the FCC approves these rule-changes and allows Murdoch to gobble up more and more of our media, then we could be facing our own Silvio Berlusconi situation.

Rupert Murdoch is widely considered a kingmaker in the Republican Party and has even put prominent Republican politicians on his payroll, both before and after they’ve achieved electoral success, most notably Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, and John Kasich. With an enlarged media empire (and maybe even a monopoly in the future), Murdoch will be able to hand-pick politicians and use his massive Conservative media complex to win elections Silvio Berlusconi-style.

This should scare the hell out of all of us. And it should scare the hell out of President Obama, who has authority over the FCC. Unfortunately, we can’t depend on him to act, so we have to do it ourselves. Go to FreePress.net and join the campaign against Murdoch’s media power grab.

Murdoch must be stopped at any cost. He is a fascist, and The modern day Joseph Goebbels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Goebbels

Joseph Goebbels

Paul Joseph Goebbels (help·info) (German: [ˈɡœbəls];[2] 29 October 1897 – 1 May 1945) was a German politician and Reich Minister of Propaganda in Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945. As one of Adolf Hitler's closest associates and most devout followers, he was known for his zealous orations and anti-Semitism.

Goebbels earned a Ph.D. from Heidelberg University in 1921, writing his doctoral thesis on 19th century romantic drama; he then went on to work as a journalist and later a bank clerk and caller on the stock exchange. He also wrote novels and plays, which were rejected by publishers. Goebbels came into contact with the National Socialist German Worker's Party (NSDAP) or Nazi Party in 1923 during the French occupation of the Ruhr and became a member in 1924. He was appointed Gauleiter (regional party leader) of Berlin. In this position, he put his propaganda skills to full use, combating the Social Democratic Party of Germany and Communist Party of Germany and seeking to gain their working class supporters. Goebbels hated capitalism, viewing it as having Jews at its core, and he stressed the need for the Nazis to emphasize both a proletarian and national character.[3] By 1928, he had risen in the party ranks to become one of its most prominent members.

Goebbels rose to power in 1933 along with Hitler and the Nazi Party and he was appointed Propaganda Minister. One of his first acts was the burning of books. He exerted totalitarian control over the media, arts and information in Germany.

From the beginning of his tenure, Goebbels organized attacks on German Jews, commencing with the one-day boycott of Jewish businessmen, doctors, and lawyers[4] on April 1, 1933.[5] His attacks on the Jewish population culminated in the Kristallnacht (Night of Broken Glass) assault of 1938, an open and unrestrained pogrom unleashed by the Nazis all across Germany, in which scores of synagogues were burned and hundreds of Jews were assaulted and murdered.[6] Further, he produced a series of anti-Semitic films (most notably Jud Süß). Goebbels used modern propaganda techniques to ideologically prepare the German people for aggressive warfare.

During World War II, Goebbels increased his power and influence through shifting alliances with other Nazi leaders. By late 1943, the tide of the war was turning against the Axis powers, but this only spurred Goebbels to intensify the propaganda by urging the Germans to accept the idea of total war and mobilization. Goebbels remained with Hitler in Berlin to the end. After Hitler's suicide, Goebbels succeeded him as Chancellor. Goebbels along with his wife Magda killed their six young children, and then committed suicide. The couple's bodies were burned in a shell crater, but owing to the lack of petrol, the burning was only partly effective.

^Click the link to the wiki page and read more.

 

[Hash Zeppelin]

The reason this is a media threat to cannabis is because Murdoch is very anti-cannabis. Why? because he has large interests in big Pharma. His son James Murdoch even sits on board of GSK, manufacturer of Pandemrix.

“ Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past. ”

— George Orwell

WATCH THIS
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/psywar/

^PsyWar

This film explores the evolution of propaganda and public relations in the United States, with an emphasis on the elitist theory of democracy and the relationship between war, propaganda and class.

Includes original interviews with a number of dissident scholars including Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Michael Parenti, Peter Phillips (Project Censored), John Stauber (PR Watch), Christopher Simpson (The Science of Coercion) and others.

A deep, richly illustrated study of the nature and history of propaganda, featuring some of the world’s most insightful critics, Psywar exposes the propaganda system, providing crucial background and insight into the control of information and thought.

 

[Hash Zeppelin]

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/donald-gutstein/2011/07/murdoch’s-ties-big-tobacco

Murdoch's ties to Big Tobacco

Rupert Murdoch's phone-hacking problems have been all over the news in recent days, but it wasn't too long ago his media properties were providing a supportive environment for Big Tobacco that went largely unreported.

Murdoch's connection to Philip Morris Co. was revealed through secret industry documents made public as a result of the landmark 1998 U.S. tobacco industry settlement.

The 1981 publication of a Japanese study suggesting that non-smoking wives of smoking husbands were more likely than wives of non-smokers to get lung cancer shocked the industry. Big Tobacco realized that second-hand smoke would be the greatest threat it had encountered, more potentially damaging than earlier studies linking smoking with lung cancer, heart disease and other illnesses.

When the victim is the smoker, the industry was able to argue-successfully-that harm caused by smoking was regrettable, but is, after all, a result of personal choice. The individual knows the risks when she smokes. If a person gets cancer even though he doesn't smoke, but is simply in the presence of smokers, then that is a different matter. Smoking leaps from individual choice to major public policy issue. The industry "calculated bans in work places, aircraft, restaurants and other venues would result in a dramatic plunge in the number of cigarettes smoked," the South China Morning Post reported after an investigation of industry tactics in Southeast Asia. "People would have less time to puff. And that would lead to billions of dollars in lost revenue."

To stave off this catastrophe, the industry used every available channel of persuasion and propaganda to cast doubt on the link between second-hand smoke and disease. The channels included supportive media like Murdoch's News Corp.

A 1985 draft speech for Philip Morris's CEO for a marketing meeting noted that the media company was already onside. "We plan to build similar relationships to those we now have with Murdoch's News Limited with other newspaper proprietors," the memo said. "Murdoch's papers rarely publish anti-smoking articles these days."

A second document for the same meeting created two days later asked the question: "how can we change the public's view towards smoking?" After outlining various strategies to turn back the tide, the memo makes the point that

... we are not using our very considerable clout with the media. A number of media proprietors that I have spoken to are sympathetic to our position -- Rupert Murdoch and Malcolm Forbes are two good examples. The media like the money they make from our advertisements and they are an ally that we can and should exploit.

In most societies in the world today public opinion is formed, to a significant extent, by the news media and I believe we should make a concerted effort in our principal markets to influence the media to write articles or editorials positive to the industry position on various aspects of the smoking controversy.

Philip Morris and News Corp. drew together during the 1970s, driven by ideology, money and a hatred of government, except for those of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. In 1975, the companies worked with Australia's Liberal Party to overthrow the Whitlam Labor government, which had a policy of restricting tobacco advertising. In 1989, Murdoch was invited to join the Philip Morris board, where he remained for a dozen years. And Murdoch invited a succession of company executives to sit on his board. One observer called it "a cozy relationship all around." It was a coup for Philip Morris, giving the company access to broadcast and print editorial pages and a platform from which to disseminate its view of the benefits of smoking.

Hamish Maxwell, who had worked for Philip Morris since the first studies linking smoking and cancer were publicized in the early 50s, was appointed to the News Corp board three years after Murdoch joined the Philip Morris board. Maxwell helped develop PM's international tobacco business, which, as director of marketing, he shaped into a major growth engine.

Maxwell left the News Corp. board in 1998, and the following year another senior Philip Morris executive joined it. Like Murdoch, Geoffrey Bible was an Australian. Like Maxwell, Bible was a long-time PM employee. When Bible retired he was treated to an "obsequious valedictory" in Murdoch's Weekend Australian. No thought was given to the estimated 20.7 million people who would die from the company's products by 2050. (In 1999, Bible received US $21.2 million from the company, about a dollar for each tobacco death.) Instead, Weekend Australian correspondent Rodney Dalton effused, Bible's thoughts would be struggling with what he should do: ski in Switzerland where he owned a chalet, swim in Bermuda where he owned a house, or head to the golf course for another lesson? Bible's friend Murdoch said in the article that Bible had "the single toughest and worst job in America." But Bible, who was still on the News Corp. board, was "honourable," Murdoch insisted.

And when Bible left News Corp. in 2004, he was replaced by Peter Barnes, another Australian and former president of Philip Morris Asia. Like Maxwell and Bible, Barnes' expertise was consumer marketing. "Peter was a senior executive in virtually all of the key markets in which News Corp. operates," Murdoch said in praising the appointment. Barnes was still on the board in 2011.

Philip Morris senior ranks were crowded with Australians who were friends or relatives of Murdoch. Bill Murray was a close friend of Murdoch's and, as PR monitor SourceWatch claimed, "chief architect of the company's dirty tricks and science-corruption campaigns." Murray was instrumental in promoting Bryan Simpson, who happened to be Murdoch's nephew by marriage. Simpson later was picked to head Infotab, the international tobacco institute.

The intimate relationship between the companies paid dividends for many years. In 2000, an individual named Steven Milloy became "science columnist" for News Corp. subsidiary FoxNews.com. Milloy had no science background, but wrote columns attacking scientific studies that found links between second-hand smoke and lung cancer. The first piece attacked a study which found that women living with smokers had higher levels of chemicals associated with the risk of lung cancer, accusing it of being nothing more than spin. He also attacked the landmark 1993 Environmental Protection Agency study that linked health risks and second-hand smoke.

In a second column Milloy dismissed 20 years of research on the effects of exposure to second-hand smoke: "Secondhand smoke is annoying to many non-smokers. That is the essence of the controversy and where the debate should lie -- the rights of smokers to smoke in public places versus the rights of non-smokers to be free of tobacco smoke."

Milloy didn't reveal that he was on the Philip Morris payroll when he wrote the columns, under contract to monitor tobacco studies. But science reporter Paul Thacker exposed the connection in The New Republic. Milloy received $92,500 for fees and expenses from PM in each of 2000 and 2001 when he wrote his FoxNews.com columns. Fox News didn't seem to care about the conflict of interest when it found out.

The Murdoch empire continues to support the industry's claim that the link between second-hand smoke and disease remains unproven. Murdoch's New York Post, with a long history of industry support, is the attack dog of choice. In the late 1970s, the Post was likely the only newspaper to run "almost daily, cigarette ads in color on its back page ... and in its main news section."

When New York City brought in a ban on smoking in bars in 2001, the Post fulminated that the "Nicotine Nazis" were basing the ban on the "Big Lie." When Mayor Michael Bloomberg proposed extending the ban to all bars and restaurants, he was accused of being an elitist zealot, spouting nonsense and engaging in a puritanical righteous crusade. "Next he'll ban smoldering incense at St. Paul's Cathedral," the paper snorted.

As recently as 2010, the Post was still raging on about a proposal to extend smoking bans to all parks, beaches and pedestrian plazas in the city. "This ban is not so much about public health as it is another heavy-handed behavior modification scheme cooked up by a fellow who is incapable of minding his own business," a September 19, 2010 editorial ranted.

As the phone-hacking scandal leaps the Atlantic and settles on Fox News, further connections between the Murdoch empire and Big Tobacco are coming to light.

Former Fox News executive Dan Cooper claims that Fox News chief Roger Ailes had him design a "brain room" deep in the bowels of 1211 Avenue of the Americas, the Fox News head office, to house a counter-intelligence and black ops office in which hacking phone records would be "easy pie." Ailes brought in Scott Ehrlich to run the brain room, Cooper alleges.

Before Ailes set up Fox News for Murdoch in the mid-90s, he ran his own political consulting firm and Ehrlich was a top lieutenant. Ailes helped put Republican candidates into office, most notably Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

He also had a string of corporate clients, including the Tobacco Institute, Philip Morris and RJ Reynolds.

Surgeon General Everett Koop's 1986 report, "The health consequences of involuntary smoking," decisively portrayed second-hand smoke not just as an annoyance but as a quantifiable health risk. It was estimated that passive smoking contributed to 50,000 deaths a year in the U.S.

The next year Congress banned smoking on all domestic flights under two hours and extended it to all domestic flights two years later. The Environmental Protection Agency was working towards placing passive smoke on its list of major carcinogens.

In response, the Tobacco Institute launched a massive "Enough is Enough" campaign, playing on many people's concerns that government was reaching too far into their lives.

Roger Ailes and Scott Ehrlich were members of a tobacco industry group tasked with beating back the tide of regulation. Their job was to go after the Clinton administration's health care reform, which was to be funded in part by a dollar-a-pack tax on cigarettes. Big Tobacco paid Ailes to produce ads highlighting the plight of "real people" affected by higher taxes.

In one confidential memo to Philip Morris, Ehrlich proposed an "underground attack" option following a major Hillary Clinton speech. It would be costly, he wrote, but would be "designed to hit hard at the key [Representatives and Senators] through their soft underbelly, while attempting to stay under the radar of the national news media."

Three years later, Ailes was working for Murdoch, creating what Rolling Stone calls "the most profitable propaganda machine in history." And Ehrlich, fresh from his dirty tricks for Big Tobacco, was allegedly running Murdoch's brain room.

Murdoch will have no problem shuttering his British newspapers, which contribute only three percent of News Corp.'s $32 billion in revenue. But Fox News is another matter altogether, responsible for nearly a fifth of the corporation's $5 billion in profit.

With FBI and Department of Justice investigations under way, further Fox News revelations will likely follow. Big Tobacco's murderous rampage is on the wane, at least in North America. Will Murdoch go down too?

 

[Hash Zeppelin]

Dan Rather explains how this is a threat to all people.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...as_to_be_an_honest_broker_of_information.html

 

[Hash Zeppelin]

http://www.thenation.com/blog/171625/fcc-must-not-give-rupert-murdoch-more-control-over-us-media

The FCC Must Not Give Rupert Murdoch More Control Over US Media

We now know that top players with Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News channel plotted with General David Petraeus about the prospect of using the cable network as a platform for launching a “Petraeus for President” campaign. As Pulitzer Prize–winning journalist and author Bob Woodward writes in the The Washington Post:

So in spring 2011, [former Republican campaign strategist and now Fox News president Roger] Ailes asked a Fox News analyst headed to Afghanistan to pass on his thoughts to Petraeus, who was then the commander of U.S. and coalition forces there. Petraeus, Ailes advised, should turn down an expected offer from President Obama to become CIA director and accept nothing less than the chairmanship of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the top military post. If Obama did not offer the Joint Chiefs post, Petraeus should resign from the military and run for president, Ailes suggested.

The Fox News chairman’s message was delivered to Petraeus by Kathleen T. McFarland, a Fox News national security analyst and former national security and Pentagon aide in three Republican administrations. She did so at the end of a 90-minute, unfiltered conversation with Petraeus that touched on the general’s future, his relationship with the media and his political aspirations—or lack thereof. The Washington Post has obtained a digital recording from the meeting, which took place in Petraeus’s office in Kabul.

McFarland also said that Ailes—who had a decades-long career as a Republican political consultant, advising Richard M. Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush—might resign as head of Fox to run a Petraeus presidential campaign. At one point, McFarland and Petraeus spoke about the possibility that Rupert Murdoch, the head of News Corp., which owns Fox News, would “bankroll” the campaign.

“Rupert’s after me as well,” Petraeus told McFarland.

Murdoch is not the first media mogul to stand accused of plotting a presidential campaign for a favored contender. But the revelations regarding his network come at a particularly inconvenient moment, as Murdoch is seeking federal rule changes that would allow him to become a dramatically more definitional figure in American politics.

The Federal Communications Commission is currently considering a radical restructuring of media ownership rules that would benefit Murdoch. From its founding, the FCC has been charged with preventing media conglomerates from dominating local and national media in a manner that would allow an individual owner to define the discourse. Now, because Murdoch wants to buy major daily newspapers in communities where his News Corp combine already owns local television stations, he proposes to tear up the old rules.

Murdoch wants FCC chairman Julius Genachowski and his fellow commissioners to ease limits on what is referred to as “media cross-ownership” in the nation’s largest cities. If that happens, the nation’s media reform network, Free Press, warns that the move will “pave the way for Murdoch—and like-minded media moguls—to own the daily newspaper, two TV stations and up to eight radio stations in the same market.”

Free Press has been fighting the change, and it has rallied considerable support. So far:

* More than 100,000 people have signed a petition telling the FCC to abandon its giveaway to big media.

* More than 600 people have called members of Congress and asked them to oppose the FCC’s action.

* More than 40 local and national civil rights organizations representing millions of constituents have raised concerns about the rule changes.

* Ten senators have written letters to the FCC in protest of its march toward more media consolidation.

In recent days, the senators have stepped up their advocacy.

“We strongly believe that maintaining robust diversity of media ownership is fundamental to preserving the strength of our democracy. Broadcast media continues to be the primary source, by far, for local news in communities across the nation. When ownership of local television and radio stations is concentrated in too few hands, diversity is threatened, and when programming decisions are made by large media companies from hundreds of miles away, coverage of local news can become either diluted or neglected,” wrote Senators Bernie Sanders, Patrick Leahy, Tom Harkin, Barbara Boxer, Patty Murray, Ron Wyden, Jon Tester, Al Franken and Jeff Merkley in a letter to Genachowski requesting that the FCC “not proceed” with the rule changes.

The letter is important, as it signals concern on the part of the Senate, which has significant oversight responsibility with regard to the FCC and media-ownership rules. Expressing concern, in particular, with regard to the negative impact that the easing of media cross-ownership rules might have on efforts to promote ownership of media by more women and minorities, the senators note that “past research shows that minority communities are the ones harmed most by further consolidation, and in particular by loosening the prohibitions on cross-ownership.”

These are not small matters. In a rapidly diversifying country, it becomes all the more important that media outlets reflect that diversity. Allowing further consolidation of ownership in the hands of existing owners makes that prospect more remote.

And that’s not the only concern.

In addition to demographic diversity when it comes to media ownership, communities are best served by basic diversity in their news sources. In other words, information should be gathered, reported and analyzed by outlets with different owners. If not, the risk is that communities and even states could end up with the sort of one-sized-fits-all communication that threatens genuine democratic discourse.

There are those who claim that these diversity concerns will be resolved by the development of new digital platforms. But there is scant evidence to suggest that the Internet fills the void, especially on the local and regional level.

“While the Internet has matured significantly in recent years, it does not solve this problem,” write the senators in their letter to the FCC. “Importantly, we still have many constituents in our states who rely solely on TV and radio broadcast news for news and information. According to a recent Pew study, 74 percent of adults get their local news information from their local TV news station, 51 percent from radio broadcasts, and 50 percent from local newspapers. Even when citizens have the opportunity to consume news over the Internet, they continue to rely on the websites of their local broadcasters and newspapers for information about their communities. The vast majority of respondents reported sampling multiple local news sources—an activity that would be impossible if their community had only one media owner.”

Like this article? Support this journalism with a $5 donation now.

This is big deal not merely for communities and states but also for federal policymaking, especially when players like Rupert Murdoch are looking to buy up dominant newspapers in big cities where they already own television stations. Just as Fox is seen as a conservative network, so too are Murdoch owned outlets like The Wall Street Journal, The New York Post and The Weekly Standard magazine. America has always had media outlets that skew to the right and to the left. That won’t change. But a shift in cross-ownership rules could allow an individual media mogul or a media company to play an outsized role not just in major markets but—if the owner operates in multiple markets and nationally—the dialogues, the debates and even the campaigns of a whole country.

That’s not healthy for democracy, especially when we’re talking about owners who appear to be interested in picking candidates for president and using their networks to promote those candidates.

(John Nichols is a co-founder, with Robert W. McChesney, of Free Press, the nation's media reform network. Nichols and McChesney are the co-authors of a number of books on media policy, most recently The Death and Life of American Journalism.)

 

[Harry Gypsna]

Why can't one of these nutters who goes mental with a gun, ever do it in the vicinity of these wankers......

 

[Hash Zeppelin]

^I know right? especially because these wankers are the people who promote the insanity in the first place.

 

[Drift13]

Why can't one of these nutters who goes mental with a gun, ever do it in the vicinity of these wankers......

Because they have enough $$ to suround themselfs with armed guards while telling the world why everyone else must turn their guns in. It's a real shame because that nutter would do the whole world a huge favor.

 

[Hash Zeppelin]

^Murdoch is all about the money. In Australia where Murdoch is from he used the media to help take guns away. Here in America he feeds the gun nuts. He has no principals.

 

[vertigo0007]

I thought that guy was shunned after the dead girls voicemail scandal, or did the fire bush end up taking the brunt of it?

 

[Drift13]

Murdoch will find plenty of company here in the USA. Like Bloomberg, Ted Turner, Jim Brady ect...ect...

 

[SirSmokeallot]

Murdoch's newspapers and television channels should be boycotted by all of humanity.

He is an evil man and he is in crew with the evil European Royal Families and the European Banking Families who have been trying to control the world since Queen Elizabeth the 1st started kicking the Spanish and Portugese out of the Far East and the Americas. People believe the USA is the world's leading power - they are mistaken. It's the the British Monarchy that rule the world still to this day - only they control the world behind the scenes through multi-national companies, banks and other financial institutions, trade rights, IMF, World Bank, etc.

The Mighty USA, UK, Canada, Australia, the whole Commonwealth, Israel and most countries in the world are in control of the European Banking Elite (who get their right to plunder the world's resources from the British Crown).

They use their control over our media to blind us with crap like a school shooting when hundreds of school children die daily around the world (mostly by the hands of their own tax funded killing gangs) without anyone batting an eye lid. It's a charade, we have a choice of a or b and they are both the same, and the winner has probably been predetermined anyway because they clearly control all the media anyway. As if we have a choice.

The Internet is now rife with their agents from Mossad, MI6 and the CIA spreading disinformation and protecting the truth by making whole websites about how aliens destroyed the Twin Towers (so everyone associates any talk of conspiracy with crazy people) or setting up 'Myth Busting' websites. Stoners can't compete with profession bullshitters paid to make us think we live in a good system.

Stop reading his crap, stop watching his crap. And start smoking weed.

 

[SirSmokeallot]

I thought that guy was shunned after the dead girls voicemail scandal, or did the fire bush end up taking the brunt of it?

They give millions to their lawyer chums from Oxbridge to do an 'inquiry' and then carry on with the old status quo as always. It's all for show man. Even you thought he was old news, shunned for life for unforgivable crimes against humanity. Nope, As strong as ever. His disgraced son (who repeatedly punched himself in his own mouth) is back working for News Corp now as well.

What I can't understand is why his shit sells. His British papers are absolute horse crap filled with lies. How is it that the highest read newspaper in the UK has a 18-23 year old girl with her breasts out on page 3? Really? These girls are paid to go bare chested on page 3 of the highest read newspaper in the Uk and then the same newspaper goes on about how bad prostitution is.

 

[Hash Zeppelin]

^Because people are fucking stupid. The average I.Q. is 100. That means at least 30 percent of people out there actually are like Forest Gump, but they didnt have good mamas like Forest did.

 

[vertigo0007]

They give millions to their lawyer chums from Oxbridge to do an 'inquiry' and then carry on with the old status quo as always. It's all for show man. Even you thought he was old news, shunned for life for unforgivable crimes against humanity. Nope, As strong as ever. His disgraced son (who repeatedly punched himself in his own mouth) is back working for News Corp now as well.

What I can't understand is why his shit sells. His British papers are absolute horse crap filled with lies. How is it that the highest read newspaper in the UK has a 18-23 year old girl with her breasts out on page 3? Really? These girls are paid to go bare chested on page 3 of the highest read newspaper in the Uk and then the same newspaper goes on about how bad prostitution is.

I bet u can understand this... Human beings are inherently insidious. Thats why we all (some openly, some secretly) love gossip!

Hahaha, my chick has a friend from uk. That girl came to my parents for thanks giving last year since shes not feom here and has no relatives in the state. Anyway, in her nonstop babbling she often mentioned his papers and the "page 3 boobers" as she called them.

Speaking of "page 3 boobers", i love keeley hazel.... At least i uses to. Not sure if shes ballooned up yet or not

 

[waveguide]

lol..

let me help you figure this one out.

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110719131237AAlpKnd

lol.. from answers.yahoo.. chuckle..

Resolved Question
Is Rupert Murdoch a freemason?

I always assumed he was due to his position in power, and also years ago I saw a picture of him holding what looked like a desk paper weight, and it was shaped like a pyramid and had the single eye at the top like the masonic symbol. So if he is then why are his fellow masons in the police and government trying to screw him over? I thought if you were 'on the square' then your fellow brethren looked out for you?

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker
Squabbling does occur amongst freemasons, and revenge does take place.


laughing my fuckign ass off, man. when are you people going to get it? secret societies and collusion are not a joke.

 

[Hash Zeppelin]

^it is not the free masons Murdoch is propaganda minister for. He is one of 4 propaganda Ministers for the world banking conglomerates. It is not a conspiracy either. The history is out there for everyone to read. It is just not taught in school or universities. The Rothschilds changed everything. It used to be illegal to charge interest for loans. They started charging interest to huge under the table loans to government and hierarchies, and made so much money he was able to make the other banking families go along by paying them off. That was when the Feudal Plutocracy that controls the world was born.
http://www.xat.org/xat/moneyhistory.html

This is just one little part read the whole thing, and you will have a true understanding of how things work on earth

taken from THE HISTORY OF MONEY PART 1

THE ROTHSCHILDS (1743)


A goldsmith named Amshall Moses Bower opened a counting house in Frankfurt Germany in 1743. He placed a Roman eagle on a red shield over the door prompting people to call his shop the Red Shield Firm pronounced in German as "Rothschild".

His son later changed his name to Rothschild when he inherited the business. Loaning money to individuals was all well and good but he soon found it much more profitable loaning money to governments and Kings. It always involved much bigger amounts, always secured from public taxes.

Once he got the hang of things he set his sights on the world by training his five sons in the art of money creation, before sending them out to the major financial centres of the world to create and dominate the central banking systems.

J.P. Morgan was thought by many to be the richest man in the world during the second world war, but upon his death it was discovered he was merely a lieutenant within the Rothschild empire owning only 19% of the J.P. Morgan Companies.

"There is but one power in Europe and that is Rothschild."
19th century French commentator 1

"The rich will strive to establish their dominion and enslave the rest. They always did. They always will... They will have the same effect here as elsewhere, if we do not, by (the power of) government, keep them in their proper spheres."
Governor Morris


1. THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF 1787, 7/2

 

[THE PABLOS]

^ Secret societies are not so secret I suppose. Well....what is one to do? It's a dirty...unethical...fucked up world. Realizing the chains is one thing...talking about them is one thing...but where's the solutions?

People would be lost...if someone didn't create a story for them..and tell them what they need to do. That's the reality. Is knowing all this information make anyone feel better? Just wonder...interesting good reads..mind candy

Some old families own the world. You are born into slavery. You have worked for the slavers all your life. You know nothing else. Make the best out of it

 

[Hash Zeppelin]

continued...

FIRST BANK OF THE UNITED STATES (1791-1811)


It worked once, it will work again. It's been six years. There are a lot of new hungry politicians. Let's give it a try. And so there it was, in 1791, the First Bank of the United States (BUS). Not only deceptively named to sound official, but also to take attention away from the real first bank which had been shut down.

Its initials however gave a clear indication that Americans were once again being taken for a ride. And true to its British model, the name of the investors was never revealed.

Having gotten away with it a second time, some of them probably wished Amshall Rothschild had picked a different time to make his pronouncement from his private central bank in Frankfurt.

"Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws."
Mayer Amschel Rothschild, 1790

Not to worry, no one was listening, the American government borrowed 8.2 million dollars from the bank in the first 5 years and prices rose by 72%. This time round the money changer's had learned their lesson, they had guaranteed a twenty year charter.

The president, who could see an ever increasing debt, with no chance of ever paying back, had this to say.

"I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution - taking from the federal government their power of borrowing."
Thomas Jefferson, 1798

While the independent press, who had not been bought off yet, called the scam "a great swindle, a vulture, a viper, and a cobra."

As with the real first bank, the government had been the only depositor to put up any real money, with the remainder being raised from loans the investors made to each other, using the magic of fractional reserve banking. When time came for renewal of the charter, the bankers were warning of bad times ahead if they didn't get what they wanted. The charter was not renewed.

Five month later Britain had attacked America and started the war of 1812.

Meanwhile a short time earlier, an independent Rothschild business, the Bank of France, was being looked upon with suspicion by none other than:


NAPOLEON (1803 - 1825)


He didn't trust the bank saying:

"When a government is dependent upon bankers for money, they and not the leaders of the government control the situation, since the hand that gives is above the hand that takes... Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency; their sole object is gain."
Napoleon Bonaparte, 1815

For both sides of a war to be loaned money from the same privately owned Central Bank is not unusual. Nothing generates debt like war. A Nation will borrow any amount to win. So naturally if the loser is kept going to the last straw in a vain hope of winning, then the more resources will be used up by the winning side before their victory is obtained more resources used, more loans taken out, more money made by the bankers; and even more amazing, the loans are usually given on condition that the victor pays the debts left by the loser.

In 1803, instead of borrowing from the bank, Napoleon sold territory west of the Mississippi to the 3rd President of the United States, Thomas Jefferson for 3 million dollars in gold; a deal known as the Louisiana Purchase.

Three million dollars richer, Napoleon quickly gathered together an army and set about conquering much of Europe.

Each place he went to, Napoleon found his opposition being financed by the Bank of England, making huge profits as Prussia, Austria and finally Russia all went heavily into debt trying to stop him.

Four years later, with the main French army in Russia, Nathan Rothschild took charge of a bold plan to smuggle a shipment of gold through France to finance an attack from Spain by the Duke of Wellington.

Wellington's attack from the south and other defeats eventually forced Napoleon into exile. However in 1815 he escaped from his banishment in Elba, an Island off the coast of Italy, and returned to Paris.

By March of that year Napoleon had equipped an army with the help of borrowed money from the Eubard Banking House of Paris.

With 74,000 French troops led by Napoleon, sizing up to meet 67,000 British and other European Troops 200 miles NE of Paris on June 18th 1815, it was a difficult one to call. Back in London, the real potential winner, Nathan Rothschild, was poised to strike in a bold plan to take control of the British stock market, the bond market, and possibly even the Bank of England.

Nathan, knowing that information is power, stationed his trusted agent named Rothworth near the battle field.

As soon as the battle was over Rothworth quickly returned to London, delivering the news to Rothschild 24 hours ahead of Wellington's courier.

A victory by Napoleon would have devastated Britain's financial system. Nathan stationed himself in his usual place next to an ancient pillar in the stock market.

This powerful man was not without observers as he hung his head, and began openly to sell huge numbers of British Government Bonds.

Reading this to mean that Napoleon must have won, everyone started to sell their British Bonds as well.

The bottom fell out of the market until you couldn't hardly give them away. Meanwhile Rothschild began to secretly buy up all the hugely devalued bonds at a fraction of what they were worth a few hours before.

In this way Nathan Rothschild captured more in one afternoon than the combined forces of Napoleon and Wellington had captured in their entire lifetime.

 

[Hash Zeppelin]

"The Bank is trying to kill me - but I will kill it!" and later "If the American people only understood the rank injustice of our money and banking system - there would be a revolution before morning..."
-Andrew Jackson

Andrew Jackson When asked what he felt was the greatest achievement of his career Andrew Jackson replied without hesitation

"I killed the bank!"

THE HISTORY OF MONEY PART 2



The 19th century became known as the age of the Rothschild's when it was estimated they controlled half of the world's wealth. While their wealth continues to increase today, they have managed to blend into the background, giving an impression that their power has waned. They only apply the Rothschild name to a small fraction of the companies they actually control. Some authors claim that the Rothschild's had not only taken over the Bank of England but they had also in 1816 backed a new privately owned Central Bank in America called The Second Bank of The United States, causing huge problems to the American president.


ANDREW JACKSON (1828 - 1836)


When the American congress voted to renew the charter of The Second Bank of The United States, Jackson responded by using his veto to prevent the renewal bill from passing. His response gives us an interesting insight. "It is not our own citizens only who are to receive the bounty of our government. More than eight millions of the stock of this bank are held by foreigners... is there no danger to our liberty and independence in a bank that in its nature has so little to bind it to our country?...

Controlling our currency, receiving our public moneys, and holding thousands of our citizens in dependence... would be more formidable and dangerous than a military power of the enemy. If government would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favour alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing. In the act before me there seems to be a wide and unnecessary departure from these just principles."


Andrew Jackson 1 In 1832 Jackson ordered the withdrawal of government deposits from the Second bank and instead had them put into safe banks. The Second Banks head, Nicholas Biddle was quite candid about the power and intention of the bank when he openly threatened to cause a depression if the bank was not re-chartered, we quote. "Nothing but widespread suffering will produce any effect on Congress... Our only safety is in pursuing a steady course of firm restriction - and I have no doubt that such a course will ultimately lead to restoration of the currency and the re-charter of the bank."


Nicholas Biddle 1836 By calling in existing loans and refusing to issue new loans he did cause a massive depression, but in 1836 when the charter ran out, the Second Bank ceased to function. It was then he made these two famous statements: "The Bank is trying to kill me - but I will kill it!" and later "If the American people only understood the rank injustice of our money and banking system - there would be a revolution before morning..."


Andrew Jackson When asked what he felt was the greatest achievement of his career Andrew Jackson replied without hesitation "I killed the bank!" However we will see this was not the end of private financial influence passing itself off as official when we look at...


1. Andrew Jackson, Veto of the Bank Bill, to the Senate, (1832)


ABRAHAM LINCOLN AND THE CIVIL WAR (1861 - 1865)


With the Central Bank killed off, fractional reserve banking moved like a virus through numerous state chartered banks instead causing the instability this form of economics thrives on. When people lose their homes someone else wins them for a fraction of their worth. Depression is good news to the lender; but war causes even more debt and dependency than anything else, so if the money changers couldn't have their Central Bank with a license to print money, a war it would have to be. We can see from this quote of the then chancellor of Germany that slavery was not the only cause for the American Civil War. "The division of the United States into federations of equal force was decided long before the Civil War by the high financial powers of Europe. These bankers were afraid that the US, if they remained as one block, and as one nation, would attain economic and financial independence, which would upset their financial domination over the world."


Otto von Bismark chancellor of Germany 1876 On the 12th of April 1861 this economic war began. Predictably Lincoln, needing money to finance his war effort, went with his secretary of the treasury to New York to apply for the necessary loans. The money changers wishing the Union to fail offered loans at 24% to 36%. Lincoln declined the offer. An old friend of Lincoln's, Colonel Dick Taylor of Chicago was put in charge of solving the problem of how to finance the war. His solution is recorded as this. "Just get Congress to pass a bill authorising the printing of full legal tender treasury notes... and pay your soldiers with them and go ahead and win your war with them also."


Colonel Dick Taylor When Lincoln asked if the people of America would accept the notes Taylor said. "The people or anyone else will not have any choice in the matter, if you make them full legal tender. They will have the full sanction of the government and be just as good as any money; as Congress is given that express right by the Constitution."


Colonel Dick Taylor 1 Lincoln agreed to try this solution and printed 450 million dollars worth of the new bills using green ink on the back to distinguish them from other notes. "The government should create, issue and circulate all the currency and credit needed to satisfy the spending power of the government and the buying power of consumers..... The privilege of creating and issuing money is not only the supreme prerogative of Government, but it is the Government's greatest creative opportunity. By the adoption of these principles, the long-felt want for a uniform medium will be satisfied. The taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest, discounts and exchanges. The financing of all public enterprises, the maintenance of stable government and ordered progress, and the conduct of the Treasury will become matters of practical administration. The people can and will be furnished with a currency as safe as their own government. Money will cease to be the master and become the servant of humanity. Democracy will rise superior to the money power."


Abraham Lincoln 2 From this we see that the solution worked so well Lincoln was seriously considering adopting this emergency measure as a permanent policy. This would have been great for everyone except the money changers who quickly realised how dangerous this policy would be for them. They wasted no time in expressing their view in the London Times. Oddly enough, while the article seems to have been designed to discourage this creative financial policy, in its put down we're clearly able to see the policies goodness. "If this mischievous financial policy, which has its origin in North America, shall become endurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off debts and be without debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous without precedent in the history of the world. The brains, and wealth of all countries will go to North America. That country must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe."


Hazard Circular - London Times 1865 From this extract its plan to see that it is the advantage provided by the adopting of this policy which poses a threat to those not using it. 1863, nearly there, Lincoln needed just a bit more money to win the war, and seeing him in this vulnerable state, and knowing that the president could not get the congressional authority to issue more greenbacks, the money changers proposed the passing of the National Bank Act. The act went through. From this point on the entire US money supply would be created out of debt by bankers buying US government bonds and issuing them from reserves for bank notes. The greenbacks continued to be in circulation until 1994, their numbers were not increased but in fact decreased. "In numerous years following the war, the Federal Government ran a heavy surplus. It could not (however) pay off its debt, retire its securities, because to do so meant there would be no bonds to back the national bank notes. To pay off the debt was to destroy the money supply."


John Kenneth Galbrath The American economy has been based on government debt since 1864 and it is locked into this system. Talk of paying off the debt without first reforming the banking system is just talk and a complete impossibility. That same year Lincoln had a pleasant surprise. Turns out the Tsar of Russia, Alexander II, was well aware of the money changers scam. The Tsar was refusing to allow them to set up a central bank in Russia. If Lincoln could limit the power of the money changers and win the war, the bankers would not be able to split America and hand it back to Britain and France as planned. The Tsar knew that this handing back would come at a cost which would eventually need to be paid back by attacking Russia, it being clearly in the money changers sights. The Tsar declared that if France or Britain gave help to the South, Russia would consider this an act of war. Britain and France would instead wait in vain to have the wealth of the colonies returned to them, and while they waited Lincoln won the civil war. With an election coming up the next year, Lincoln himself would wait for renewed public support before reversing the National Bank Act he had been pressured into approving during the war. Lincoln's opposition to the central banks financial control and a proposed return to the gold standard is well documented. He would certainly have killed off the national banks monopoly had he not been killed himself only 41 days after being re-elected. The money changers were pressing for a gold standard because gold was scarce and easier to have a monopoly over. Much of this was already waiting in their hands and each gold merchant was well aware that what they really had could be easily made to seem like much much more. Silver would only widen the field and lower the share so they pressed for...


1. Lincoln By Emil Ludwig 1930, containing a letter from Lincoln, also reprinted in Glory to God and the Sucker Democracy A Manuscript Collection of the Letters of Charles H. Lanphier compiled by Charles C. Patton.
2. Abraham Lincoln. Senate document 23, Page 91. 1865.


THE RETURN OF THE GOLD STANDARD (1866 - 1881)


"Right after the Civil War there was considerable talk about reviving Lincoln's brief experiment with the Constitutional monetary system. Had not the European money-trust intervened, it would have no doubt become an established institution."


W.Cleon Skousen. Even after his death, the idea that America might print its own debt free money set off warning bells throughout the entire European banking community. On April 12th in 1866, the American congress passed the Contraction Act, allowing the treasury to call in and retire some of Lincoln's greenbacks, With only the banks standing to gain from this, it's not hard to work out the source of this action. To give the American public the false impression that they would be better off under the gold standard, the money changers used the control they had to cause economic instability and panic the people. This was fairly easy to do by calling in existing loans and refusing to issue new ones, a tried and proven method of causing depression. They would then spread the word through the media they largely controlled that the lack of a single gold standard was the cause of the hardship which ensued, while all this time using the Contraction Act to lower the amount of money in circulation.

It went from $1.8 billion in circulation in 1866 allowing $50.46 per person, to $1.3 billion in 1867 allowing $44.00 per person, to $0.6 billion in 1876 making only $14.60 per person and down to $0.4 billion only ten years later leaving only $6.67 per person and a continually growing population.

Most people believe the economists when they tell us that recessions and depressions are part of the natural flow, but in truth the money supply is controlled by a small minority who have always done so and will continue to do so if we let them. By 1872 the American public was beginning to feel the squeeze, so the Bank of England, scheming in the back rooms, sent Ernest Seyd, with lots of money to bribe congress into demonetising silver. Ernest drafted the legislation himself, which came into law with the passing of the Coinage Act, effectively stopping the minting of silver that year. Here's what he said about his trip, obviously pleased with himself. "I went to America in the winter of 1872-73, authorised to secure, if I could, the passage of a bill demonetising silver. It was in the interest of those I represented - the governors of the Bank of England - to have it done. By 1873, gold coins were the only form of coin money."


Ernest Seyd Or as explained by Senator Daniel of Virginia "In 1872 silver being demonetized in Germany, England, and Holland, a capital of 100,000 pounds ($500,000.00) was raised, Ernest Seyd was sent to this country with this fund as agent for foreign bond holders to effect the same object (demonetization of silver)". 1

Within three years, with 30% of the work force unemployed, the American people began to harken back to the days of silver backed money and the greenbacks. The US Silver Commission was set up to study the problem and responded with telling history: "The disaster of the Dark Ages was caused by decreasing money and falling prices... Without money, civilisation could not have had a beginning, and with a diminishing supply, it must languish and unless relieved, finally perish. At the Christian era the metallic money of the Roman Empire amounted to $1,800,million. By the end of the fifteenth century it had shrunk to less than $200,million. History records no other such disastrous transition as that from the Roman Empire to the Dark Ages..."


United States Silver Commission While they obviously could see the problems being caused by the restricted money supply, this declaration did little to help the problem, and in 1877 riots broke out all over the country. The bank's response was to do nothing except to campaign against the idea that greenbacks should be reissued. The American Bankers Association secretary James Buel expressed the bankers attitude well in a letter to fellow members of the association.

He wrote: "It is advisable to do all in your power to sustain such prominent daily and weekly newspapers, especially the Agricultural and Religious Press, as will oppose the greenback issue of paper money and that you will also withhold patronage from all applicants who are not willing to oppose the government issue of money. To repeal the Act creating bank notes, or to restore to circulation the government issue of money will be to provide the people with money and will therefore seriously affect our individual profits as bankers and lenders. See your congressman at once and engage him to support our interest that we may control legislation."
James Buel American Bankers Association 2 What this statement exposes is the difference in mentality between your average person and a banker. With a banker 'less really is more' and every need an opportunity to exploit. James Garfield became President in 1881 with a firm grasp of where the problem lay. "Whosoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce... And when you realise that the entire system is very easily controlled, one way or another, by a few powerful men at the top, you will not have to be told how periods of inflation and depression originate."


James Garfield 1881 Within weeks of releasing this statement President Garfield was assassinated. The cry from the streets was to...


1. Senator Daniel of Virginia, May 22, 1890, from a speech in Congress, to be found in the Congressional Record, page 5128, quoting from the Bankers Magazine of August, 1873
2. from a circular issued by authority of the Associated Bankers of New York, Philadelphia, and Boston signed by one James Buel, secretary, sent out from 247 Broadway, New York in 1877, to the bankers in all of the States


FREE SILVER (1891 - 1912)


Fleecing of the flock is the term the money changers use for the process of booms and depressions which make it possible for them to repossess property at a fraction of its worth. In 1891 a major fleece was being planned. "On Sept 1st, 1894, we will not renew our loans under any consideration. On Sept 1st we will demand our money. We will foreclose and become mortgagees in possession. We can take two-thirds of the farms west of the Mississippi, and thousands of them east of the Mississippi as well, at our own price... Then the farmers will become tenants as in England..."


1891 American Bankers Association as printed in the Congressional Record of April 29, 1913 The continued gold standard made this possible. William Jennings Bryan was the Democratic candidate for president in 1896, campaigning to bring silver back as a money standard. (free Silver) "We will answer their demand for a gold standard by saying to them: You shall not press down upon the brow of labour this crown of thorns, you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold."
William Jennings Bryan Of course the money changers supported his opposition on the Republican side so long as he wanted the gold standard maintained. The factory bosses were somehow convinced to tell their work force that business would close down if Bryan was elected, and everyone would lose their jobs. The Republicans won by a small margin. Bryan tried again in 1900 and in 1908 but lost both times. He became secretary of state under Wilson in 1912 but became disenchanted and resigned in 1915 under suspicious circumstances connected with the sinking of the Lusitania which drove America into the First World War.


J.P.MORGAN AND THE CRASH OF 1907


If you want to work out the cause of the crash of 1907, checking who benefited is where you might like to look first. With the stock market slump causing most of the over extended banks to falter, in steps J.P. Morgan offering to save the day. People will do strange things when in a panic, and this might explain why Morgan was authorised to print $200 million from nothing, which he then used to prop things up. Some of the troubled banks with less than 1% in reserve had no choice. It was accept this solution or go under. Even if they had worked out that their problems had been caused by the same people now offering the solution, there is not a lot they could have done about it. J.P.Morgan was hailed a hero. "All this trouble could be averted if we appointed a committee of six or seven men like J.P.Morgan to handle the affairs of our country."


Woodrow Wilson But not everyone was fooled. "Those not favourable to the money trust could be squeezed out of business and the people frightened into demanding changes in the banking and currency laws which the Money Trust would frame."


Rep. Charles A. Lindbergh (R-MN) Apart from making a small number rich at the expense of the many, in this case the instability also served the second purpose of encouraging the public to believe that they would be better off living under a Central Bank and a Gold Standard. Desperate people have little time for logic.


LINCOLN WATCHES


In Washington the statue of Lincoln sitting in his chair is facing a building called the Federal Reserve Headquarters. This institution would not be there if Lincoln's monetary policy had been adopted by the USA. It is not Federal and it has doubtful reserves. The name is an open deception designed to give this private bank the appearance that it is operating in the public's interest, when in fact it is run solely to gain private profit for its select stock holders. It came into being as the result of one of the slickest moves in financial history. On 23rd December 1913 the house of representatives had past the Federal Reserve Act, but it was still having difficulty getting it out of the senate. Most members of congress had gone home for the holidays, but unfortunately the senate had not adjourned sene die (without day) so they were technically still in session. There were only three members still present. On a unanimous consent voice vote the 1913 Federal Reserve Act was passed. No objection was made, possibly because there was no one there to object. Charles Lindbergh would have objected. "The financial system has been turned over to... the federal reserve board. That board administers the finance system by authority of... a purely profiteering group. The system is private, conducted for the sole purpose of obtaining the greatest possible profits from the use of other peoples money."


Rep Charles A, Lindbergh (R-MN) Louis T. McFadden would have objected. "We have in this country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board... This evil institution has impoverished... the people of the United States... and has practically bankrupted our Government. It has done this through... the corrupt practice of the moneyed vultures who control it."


Rep. Louis T, McFadden (R-PA) Barry Goldwater would also have objected. "Most Americans have no real understanding of the operation of the international money lenders... The accounts of the Federal Reserve System have never been audited. It operates outside the control of Congress and... manipulates the credit of the United States."


Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-AZ) Most Americans would object if they knew. The Federal Reserve is the largest single creditor of the United States Government, and they are also the people who decide how much the average persons car payments are going to be, what their house payments are going to be, and whether they have a job or not. The three people who passed the Federal Reserve Act in 1913, knew exactly what they were doing when they set up this private bank, modelled on the Bank of England and the fact that THE BANK OF ENGLAND had been operating independently unopposed since 1694 must have given them a great deal of confidence.


WHERE THERE'S WAR THERE'S MONEY


War uses up more materials more quickly than most anything else on earth. In war expensive equipment doesn't wear out slowly, it gets blown up. (It's interesting to note that during the 119 year period from the founding of the Bank of England to Napoleon's defeat at Waterloo, England had been at war for 56 years, while the rest of the time preparing for it. In the process the money changers had been getting rich.) So there it was, the newly formed Federal Reserve poised to produce any money the U.S. Government might need from thin air with each dollar standing to make a healthy interest. Nine days after its formation the Federal Reserve founders were wishing each other a Happy New Year. What good fortune might 1914 bring?