Tag: central banks

KMAG 20250108 Rewriting The Constitution

I mentioned in last Wednesday’s article that I fell down an interesting rabbit hole, more like a rabbit warren, when looking in my notes for info on the John Maynard Keynes link to the Fabian Society.

This is the comment in my notes that started my latest journey.

jdseanjd says:

March 6, 2014 at 6:13 am

Nicely done, Gail, very neat. The nail rapped smartly on the head 3 times. 🙂 I’ll raise you 137 years. 🙂

1st May, 1776, Rothschild commissioned a report on how to secure world domination:
Go to youtube & put in their search box : Whistleblower Head of FBI tells all from NWO 1 hr 4 mins.

Or try the ref, it might work :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=do_swOstGaI [It still does work surprisingly. – GC]
Ted L. Gunderson, ex head of FBI in LA, would not shut up about what he’d learned.
He wound up poisoned with arsenic.

Is the plan coming apart?
http://www.usawatchdog.com
& scroll down to the article: US Currency Weak and About to Crash. 02/12/2014 371 comments. ( which I haven’t had time to read. Karen is ex Chief Legal Counsel for the World Bank.

Is this lady the real deal, or is she full of it? Anyone?

(She is full of it.)

Jdseanjd References U.S. Currency Weak and About to Crash—Karen Hudes.

In the comments on that article is this link from 2014, Philosophy of Metrics which looks interesting.

ABOUT

Philosophy of Metrics is the methodology of understanding the world through patterns and processes.  From the ancient philosophy of primitive man to the stock market today, there is a pattern in everything and anything.  We but need to observe and recognize the macro and micro of it all.

One of the biggest patterns is the one of ignorance.  We are subjected daily to methods of misdirection and direct obfuscation which serve to keep us blind to the realities that surround us.

Our modest intent is to lift the fog on the mysteries and allow some of these patterns to become visible, whereby we may better understand the world and our place within it.

I bring that comment up because it is the patterns and threads I am trying to follow since we now know our history as taught is bull schiff.

Back to Karen Hudes:

The video in that USA Watch Dog article is gone but I found this Utube: Karen Hudes on 1871 US Corporation, Gold, Homo Capensis, JFK Murder, Global Debt Facility & Bitcoin

I would say she is a Limited Hangout (1) given the blurb from this Utube:


In 2007 Karen warned the US Treasury Department and US Congress that the US would lose its right to appoint the President of the World Bank if the current American President of the World Bank did not play by the rules. The 66 year old Gentlemen’s Agreement that Europe would appoint the Managing Director of the IMF and US would appoint the World Bank President ended in 2010
http://www.imf.org/external/np/cm/201… Karen Hudes studied law at Yale Law School and economics at the University of Amsterdam
.

She worked in the US Export Import Bank of the US from 1980-1985 and in the Legal Department of the World Bank from 1986-2007. She established the Non Governmental Organization Committee of the International Law Section of the American Bar Association and the Committee on Multilateralism and the Accountability of International Organizations of the American Branch of the International Law Association.

1871 US Corporation??? 😜

(30) Ashton v. Cameron County Water Improvement Dist., 298 U.S. 513, 56 S.Ct. 892 (1936):

State governments and their political subdivisions can’t use bankruptcy.
NOTE: A popular argument in movement circles contends that this whole nation was placed into bankruptcy in 1930 and Roosevelt devised a plan to get judicial approval of the “bankruptcy” via the decision in the 1938 Erie Railroad case. But how can such a legal theory fly in view of the decision in this case? — LIMITS OF CONGRESSIONAL POWERS – Constitution Org

A bit from the transcript of : Karen Hudes on 1871 US Corporation, Gold, Homo Capensis, JFK Murder, Global Debt Facility & Bitcoin (2015)

5:15 to 6:40

“…at a town hall meeting I said since John F Kennedy was assassinated by the Jesuits, and we know this because Gambino when he got out of jail said that the mafia were told by the Jesuits to fire the kill shot. There was a a mafioso hidden in a sewer so as the limousine drove by that’s that’s the shot that killed John F Kennedy.

Did you know for example that we had a second constitution in 1871 after the debts for the Revolutionary War came due and we couldn’t meet those obligations?That’s when we got a second Constitution. So that the United States is incorporated as a company. The president of the United States is the chief executive officer and the Congress acts like managers of the company rather than representing the constituency. Rather than respecting our first Constitution. This is understood by a number of people. There’s a lot of documentation on this. Now people are starting to spread the world word. You’re not going to get this in your universities. You’re not going to be taught this in the schools…” 


She is spouting chaff meant to divert attention away from the CIA in my opinion. Why? I think it is because of these two whistle-blowers getting traction and because of the rise of the Tea Party Movement.

Mr. Budhoo’s Bombshell: A people’s alternative to Structural Adjustment

Summer 1995

“Today I resigned from the staff of the International Monetary Fund after over 12 years, and after 1000 days of official fund work in the field, hawking your medicine and your bag of tricks to governments and to peoples in Latin America and the Caribbean and Africa. To me, resignation is a priceless liberation, for with it I have taken the first big step to that place where I may hope to wash my hands of what in my mind’s eye is the blood of millions of poor and starving peoples. Mr. Camdessus, the blood is so much, you know, it runs in rivers. It dries up too; it cakes all over me; sometimes I feel that there is not enough soap in the whole world to cleanse me from the things that I did do in your name and in the name of your predecessors, and under your official seal. “


With those words, Davison Budhoo, a senior economist with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for more than 12 years, publicly resigned in May, 1988. A native Grenadian, Budhoo received his degree from the London School of Economics. He joined the staff of the World Bank in 1966 and later shifted to the IMF, where he was responsible for designing and implementing Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) for African, Latin American and Caribbean nations. His 100-plus page open letter to Michel Camdessus, managing director of the IMF, titled “Enough is Enough,” sent shock waves around the world, making front page headlines in many countries (but not in the US).

Budhoo was the first person to break the IMF’s code of silence regarding internal affairs by exposing extensive statistical fraud carried out by the fund in Trinidad and Tobago during 1985-1987….


The other was Confessions of an Economic Hitman – describing how as a highly paid professional, John Perkins helped the World Bank. cheat poor countries around the globe out of trillions of dollars by lending them more money than they could possibly repay and then take over their economies. Also note that the finger is pointed at the USA (to generate hatred of the USA) and not the REAL culprit, the globalists.


Confessions of an Economic Hit Man:

How the U.S. Uses Globalization to Cheat Poor Countries Out of Trillions

“….He was an amazing man, Torrijos. And so, he died in a fiery airplane crash, which was connected to a tape recorder with explosives in it, which—I was there. I had been working with him. I knew that we economic hit men had failed. I knew the jackals were closing in on him, and the next thing, his plane exploded with a tape recorder with a bomb in it. There’s no question in my mind that it was C.I.A. sanctioned, and most—many Latin American investigators have come to the same conclusion. Of course, we never heard about that in our country.…” Democracy Now Org 2004


The IMF/World Bank uses Structural Adjustment Policies, SAPs, to open up countries to exploitation by corporations. Instead of a British Empire overtly colonizing the world — heavily criticized by a voting public — we have Corporate and Banking interests united in the covert control of whole nations in the name of profit….

Structural Adjustment Program 2000

(There have been 249 captures of this article by the Wayback!)

Structural Adjustment Policies are economic policies which countries must follow in order to qualify for new World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) loans and help them make debt repayments on the older debts owed to commercial banks, governments and the World Bank. Although SAPs are designed for individual countries but have common guiding principles and features which include export-led growth; privatisation and liberalisation; and the efficiency of the free market.

SAPs often result in deep cuts in programmes like education, health and social care…

By devaluing the currency and simultaneously removing price controls, the immediate effect of a SAP is.. that riots are a frequent result….

“…privatisation and liberalisation; and the efficiency of the free market...” Those are just the feel good words the Global Cabal uses to hide what they are actually doing. I will get into that in the next article.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The second rabbit hole warren from this comment, — Ted L. Gunderson, Whistleblower Head of FBI — deserves its own separate article so I will address it next week.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Rabbit hole #3

The Lord moves in mysterious ways. He even drags an agnostic such as myself, to the truth, on Sunday no less.

I remembered an article talking of the Supreme Court case that allows the bureaucracy to MAKE law. The federal Register and 30 day comment period was the fig leaf for “consent of the governed” blessed by that Supreme Court case. A few days ago I went looking for that info and all I could find was the happy horse schiff from the Federal Reserve, March 14, 1936 — March 14, 2006

On December 10, 1934, at the Supreme Court, the Assistant Attorney General of the United States had been grilled during oral arguments in the first case to reach the Court challenging the constitutionality of the centerpiece of President Roosevelt’s “New Deal” — the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA). The critical constitutional issues at stake were mostly ignored that day while the Justices focused on the fact that the defendants, two Texas oil companies, had been charged with violating a provision of regulations that technically did not exist at the time the companies were charged. 
The defects in the case highlighted a fundamental problem facing a democratic government that was exploding with new agencies and new regulations. Amidst the ferment of orders and codes issuing from agencies, even individuals working at the highest levels of government found it difficult or impossible to keep track of all of them. And for the regulated public, this new body of “executive legislation” was inaccessible and virtually hidden. The next day, at the White House, 
where the great men of the New Deal [You mean Commie TRAITORS don’t you?…] had been arguing over the value of publishing a gazette containing the orders issued by Executive Branch officers, President Roosevelt laid aside his misgivings about possible misuse of the publication for propagandistic purposes and appointed a committee of the National Emergency Council to make a special study of the idea. Meanwhile, behind-the-scenes maneuvering by lawmakers and influential legal minds, including Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, culminated in the publication on December 11, 1934 of a Harvard Law Review article by, Ervin Griswold entitled “Government in Ignorance of the Law – 
A Plea for Better Publication of 👉Executive Legislation.👈” 
The arguments Griswold made for orderly publication of the official actions of the Executive Branch were underlined when the Supreme Court issued its opinion in the Panama Oil case and forced the hand of the committee studying the issue for President Roosevelt. Congress passed legislation to create the Federal Register, and the President signed it into law (Pub. L. 74-220, July 26, 1935). The Act created a lasting partnership between the National Archives and the Government Printing Office. The Archivist of the United States, acting through a Division in the National Archives, was charged with custody of and, with the Public Printer, prompt and uniform printing and distribution of public documents in a publication designated the Federal Register…


In those notes on the Fabians, I had this but not the Utube I got it from:

Min 1:00 — 3:38

On the interpretation of two main clauses of the constitution, the first is the commerce clause which delegates to congress the authority to regulate commerce among the states. The second is the necessary and proper clause which provided for the congress to have the powers that are necessary and proper for carrying into execution the other powers, the explicit powers and unfortunately those words have been given a broader interpretation than was intended by the framers.

On my website constitution.org and on my blog constitutionalism.blogspot.com

I have a number of articles that examine the problems arising from this misinterpretation and the arguments and evidence for why the clauses should not be interpreted in that way. But this evening I’m going to focus on the line of supreme court presidents that led to where we are today. There are 44 main supreme court presidents. There are many more cases than that, but most of those others cite one or more of these 44 cases. So if one were to overturn these 44 cases, and in fact you wouldn’t need to overturn all of them, if you overturned the first few the rest would fall because the later ones are based on the earlier ones. But for the sake of completeness if one were to propose amendments to the constitution to overturn these bad precedents, which are about the only way they are going to get overturned, then it would be necessary to unravel them fairly specifically. And the way to word such an amendment is not at all obvious, it requires a good deal of analysis and thought and i hope to assemble teams of experts to work out the wording. For how to do that in the meantime i have proposed my own wording if on constitution.org you will find a link to constitutional amendments…

So I tried to find the video but could not and instead I fell down a very interesting rabbit hole leading to

Jon Roland: (Civic Curriculum Vitae)

 His blogs

His videos: https://www.youtube.com/user/JonRoland1787

Gee! I think those are the Droids I was looking for! 🤗 And WOW what a treasure trove of information on the Constitution. Linked below are just two of the goodies at that website.

Abuses and Usurpations

“𝕋𝕙𝕖 𝕔𝕠𝕟𝕥𝕖𝕤𝕥 𝕚𝕤 𝕟𝕠𝕥 𝕓𝕖𝕥𝕨𝕖𝕖𝕟 𝕌𝕤 𝕒𝕟𝕕 𝕋𝕙𝕖𝕞, 𝕓𝕦𝕥 𝕓𝕖𝕥𝕨𝕖𝕖𝕟 𝔾𝕠𝕠𝕕 𝕒𝕟𝕕 𝔼𝕧𝕚𝕝, 𝕒𝕟𝕕 𝕚𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕠𝕤𝕖 𝕨𝕙𝕠 𝕨𝕠𝕦𝕝𝕕 𝕗𝕚𝕘𝕙𝕥 𝔼𝕧𝕚𝕝 𝕒𝕕𝕠𝕡𝕥 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕨𝕒𝕪𝕤 𝕠𝕗 𝔼𝕧𝕚𝕝, 𝔼𝕧𝕚𝕝 𝕨𝕚𝕟𝕤.”

Find out just what the people will submit to and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress. — Frederick Douglass, civil rights activist, Aug. 4, 1857

Any power that can be abused will be abused. — Tyranny Law #1

Abuse always expands to fill the limits of resistance to it. — Tyranny Law #2

If people don’t resist the abuses of others, they will have no one to resist the abuses of themselves, and tyranny will prevail. — Tyranny Law #3

Usurpations

Usurpation is the exercise of powers by an agent which have not been delegated to him by the principal. In a constitutional republic like the United States of America, acts by officials are legitimate only if they are consistent with and based on a constitution, a body of laws which are superior to all subsequent statutes and other acts of officials, which embodies all delegations of power, and which may recognize certain rights to further define the limits on the powers delegated. It is a fundamental principle that all acts of officials not derived from the delegated powers of the constitution are null and void from inception, not just from the point at which a court may find them unconstitutional. Every person who has an encounter with the acts of officials has the duty not only to obey legitimate official acts, but to help enforce them, but, when there is a conflict among acts of officials, to enforce the superior one, which, when an act of an official is in conflict with the constitution, means enforcing the constitution and not the act in conflict with it. Judges and other citizens do not decide constitutionality, but discover it, and every person who is involved with any act by an official has a nondelegatable duty to make a determination of the constitutionality of that act. This determination is called constitutional review, and, when exercised by a judge in a case, judicial review.

Since the ratification of the Constitution for the United States and each of its properly ratified amendments, there have been numerous acts by officials, including statutes, regulations, executive orders, court rulings, and ordinary decisions and actions taken while on duty and under color of law, which have been unconstitutional, and in many cases, in violation of civil rights of persons and of constitutional laws. We will try to identify some of the worst of such violations of the Constitution, and discuss how compliance with the Constitution can be restored.

Then follows over 50 links to other articles and documents.

….
His Constitution.org site also had this with 25 articles referenced:

Nondelegation and the Administrative State

The doctrine of nondelegation is explicit or implicit in all written constitutions that impose a structural separation of powers. It is usually applied in questions of constitutionally improper delegations of legislative powers to executive branch officials, but may be more broadly applied to questions of improper delegations of legislative powers to judicial officials, improper delegations of judicial powers to legislative or executive officials, improper delegations of executive powers to legislative or judicial officials, improper delegations of legislative or judicial powers to clerical subordinates within their branches, or improper delegations of legislative, judicial, or executive powers to private parties, or improper delegations of private powers to public officials. Although it is usually constitutional for executive officials to delegate executive powers to executive branch subordinates, there can also be improper delegations of powers within an executive branch.

Finally, there is the broadest application of all, the nondelegation from the people of a power to any officials in a constitution, the principle of which is set forth in the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

An example of one of the documents referenced in this article:

Reviving the Sleeping Nondelegation Doctrine — USLaw.com

Congress sometimes has a habit of passing laws with very broad mandates, then leaving it up to administrative agencies to fill in all of the policy details later.

In the 1930s, the Supreme Court blew the whistle on this practice, finding several times that Congress could not give away lawmaking powers vested in it by Article I of the Constitution. In 1935 in Schechter Poultry Company v. U.S., for example, the court struck down parts of the National Industrial Recovery Act, which essentially delegated legislative powers to administrative agencies and private parties to write rules to govern the American economy. Congress had given only the vaguest guidance as to how to do it–ensuring “fair competition.”

The principle that Congress could not delegate away its Article I lawmaking powers to administrative agencies came to be known as the “nondelegation doctrine.”

Six Decades of Dormancy

For six decades the nondelegation doctrine has pretty much been asleep. In 1980, in Industrial Union Dept AFL-CIO v. American Petroleum Institute, then-Associate Justice William H. Rehnquist summarized the three main functions of the nondelegation doctrine: it guarantees that key social policy decisions will be made by Congress, it ensures that administrative agencies get an “intelligible principle” by which to exercise their discretion, and it guarantees that courts reviewing administrative actions will have ascertainable and meaningful standards against which to judge them.

But no court has dared question a legislative enactment as a violation of the doctrine for a long time –that is, until the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia rendered its decision last year in American Trucking Association v. Environmental Protection Agency. There, the court found that the EPA’s “construction of the Clean Air Act. . . in promulgating the NAAQS (National Air Ambient Quality Standards) effects an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power.” The court said that, in delegating so much power to the EPA to decide clean air rules, “it is as though Congress commanded EPA to select ‘big guys,’ and EPA announced that it would evaluate candidates based on height and weight, but revealed no cut-off point. The announcement. . .is fatally incomplete. The reasonable person responds, ‘How tall? How heavy?'” With this vivid analogy, the nondelegation doctrine sprung back to life.

Revived or Put Into Deeper Sleep?

Or did it? The problem with the D.C. Circuit’s so-called “revival” of the nondelegation doctrine is that it looks a lot more like a burial. The court’s tortured formulation of the problem makes no sense. It is not the EPA’s construction of the statute that effects an unconstitutional delegation; it is Congress’ statute itself. EPA’s construction of the statute cannot determine, much less cure, its constitutionality. Yet, having made this fundamental error, the court follows through on it by remanding the case to the EPA to come up with an “intelligible principle” that will, amazingly, somehow magically cure the statute of its unconstitutionality. But how can an agency rewrite a congressional statute to make it constitutional?….

Another interesting reference is:

LEGAL ORIGINS OF THE MODERN AMERICAN STATE   by William J. Novak1

𝕋𝕙𝕖 𝕥𝕣𝕒𝕟𝕤𝕗𝕠𝕣𝕞𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟 𝕠𝕗 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕊𝕥𝕒𝕥𝕖 𝕚𝕤 𝕒𝕝𝕤𝕠 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕥𝕣𝕒𝕟𝕤𝕗𝕠𝕣𝕞𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟 𝕠𝕗 𝕚𝕥𝕤 𝕃𝕒𝕨.
— Léon Duguit (👉 1913)

 Between 1877 and 1937 (between the formal end of Reconstruction and the formal constitutional ratification of the New Deal), the American system of governance was transformed with momentous implications for twentieth-century social and economic life. Nineteenth-century traditions of self-government and local citizenship were replaced by a modern approach to positive statecraft, individual rights, and social welfare very much with us today…. By “The Creation of the American Liberal State” I mean to suggest that the period from 1877 to 1937 was not just an “age of reform” or a “response to industrialism” or a “search for order” (Hofstadter 1955; Hays 1957; Wiebe 1967). Rather, it was an era marked by the specific and unambiguous emergence of a new regime of American governance — the modern liberal state….  the very origins of modern social-scientific inquiry in the United States were wholly coincident with and participatory in the construction of the new state-centered socio-economic policies of the progressive era… 

The Progressive Discovery that Law Obstructs Politics

It is easy amid the rapid shifts in contemporary intellectual fashion to forget the long and pervasive hold of “progressive historiography” on American thought during the first half of the twentieth century (Hofstadter 1968; Benson 1960; Horwitz 1984). From the turn-of-the-century through the late New Deal, American political and economic development was interpreted primarily through the filter of intellectual categories developed in contests over progressive reform in the early twentieth century….

The confrontation between FDR’s New Deal legislation and Supreme Court constitutional review breathed new life into the progressive critique of law. In 1938… Benjamin Twiss began his Lawyers and the Constitution: How Laissez Faire Came to the Supreme Court (1942) as a direct response to the “revolution of 1937″ and as a direct attack on the “Four Horsemen” of anti-New Deal judicial apocalypse: Justices Van Devanter, McReynolds, Sutherland, and Butler. Twiss’s story about law and the New Deal re-deployed the stock figures and simple morals of a mature progressive historiography…

𝔸𝕞𝕖𝕣𝕚𝕔𝕒𝕟 𝕡𝕣𝕠𝕘𝕣𝕖𝕤𝕤𝕚𝕧𝕖𝕤 𝕗𝕖𝕝𝕥 𝕥𝕙𝕒𝕥 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕚𝕣 𝕝𝕖𝕘𝕚𝕤𝕝𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕧𝕖 𝕒𝕘𝕖𝕟𝕕𝕒 𝕨𝕒𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕣𝕖𝕒𝕥𝕖𝕟𝕖𝕕 𝕓𝕪 𝕒 𝕊𝕦𝕡𝕣𝕖𝕞𝕖 ℂ𝕠𝕦𝕣𝕥 𝕒𝕟𝕕 𝔸𝕞𝕖𝕣𝕚𝕔𝕒𝕟 𝕛𝕦𝕣𝕚𝕤𝕡𝕣𝕦𝕕𝕖𝕟𝕥𝕚𝕒𝕝 𝕥𝕣𝕒𝕕𝕚𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟𝕤 𝕙𝕠𝕤𝕥𝕚𝕝𝕖 𝕥𝕠 𝕣𝕖𝕘𝕦𝕝𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟, 𝕣𝕖𝕕𝕚𝕤𝕥𝕣𝕚𝕓𝕦𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟, 𝕒𝕟𝕕 𝕣𝕖𝕗𝕠𝕣𝕞. 𝕀𝕟 𝕣𝕖𝕤𝕡𝕠𝕟𝕤𝕖 𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕪 𝕒𝕤𝕤𝕖𝕞𝕓𝕝𝕖𝕕 𝕒𝕟 𝕦𝕟𝕡𝕣𝕖𝕔𝕖𝕕𝕖𝕟𝕥𝕖𝕕 𝕡𝕠𝕨𝕖𝕣𝕗𝕦𝕝 𝕒𝕟𝕕 𝕡𝕠𝕝𝕖𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕒𝕝 𝕒𝕤𝕤𝕒𝕦𝕝𝕥 𝕠𝕟 𝔸𝕞𝕖𝕣𝕚𝕔𝕒𝕟 𝕔𝕠𝕟𝕤𝕥𝕚𝕥𝕦𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟𝕒𝕝𝕚𝕤𝕞.

Behind the progressive mythology of negative laissez-faire constitutionalism lies an alternative story of law’s positive force in producing a modern state in America. And contrary to oddly influential European proclamations of the weakness and incompleteness of that state, the obvious empirical reality is that the story of the twentieth-century American state is about the creation of a most powerful geo-political entity. That entity, which has wielded staggering global influence in the twentieth century, was patently not the simple outgrowth of possessive individualism or the protection of private rights of property and contract or a governmental willingness to “leave alone.” It was the product of a continuous and energetic process of statebuilding…

“..the obvious empirical reality is that the story of the twentieth-century American state is about the creation of a most powerful geo-political entity… It was the product of a continuous and energetic process of statebuilding….”He leave out the tiny little fact that the USA was transformed into the British Empire’s Front Man and Cannon Fodder after the passage of the 1913 Federal Reserve Act. We have been fighting Banker Wars ever since.

“All Wars Are Bankers Wars” (45 minutes)

One of the references cited in the above article is this 1938 book:

Court over Constitution: A study of judicial review as an instrument of popular government by Edward S. Corwin 1938.

I am not about to buy the book but I did find this thanks to Yandex. Brave only had one pointer. It was to “Good Reads’ with no info. Not even a review. 🤔


In trying to find more about that book I was led to:

FEDERALIST NO. 78 AND BRUTUS’ NEGLECTED THESIS ON JUDICIAL SUPREMACY 

It is noteworthy that whenever Marbury v. Madison is discussed in works on constitutional law, text books or case books, reference is invariably made to Alexander Hamilton’s discussion of judicial review in Federalist No. 78 as an early indication that the principle was regarded as a fundamental part of the system of government set up under the Constitution. Surprisingly, these works, almost without exception, fail to refer to the Antifederalist Letters of Brutus to which this number of the Federalist Papers constitutes a response. This is a regrettable omission since No. 78 cannot be properly understood except in the context of Brutus’ charge that the Constitution provided, not only for judicial review, but for judicial supremacy….

What concerned Brutus, in the first instance, was the use to which the court would apply judicial review in the service of national consolidation and how this would threaten the independence and survival of the states. 👉The judicial power, Brutus warned, would operate to affirm and legitimate all the invasions of state power committed by the national legislature.👈 “The real effect of this system of government, will … be brought home to the feelings of the people, through the medium of the judicial power.”

….Brutus went on to point out another crucial distinction between the British and American systems of government – the ability of Parliament to severely restrict the broader impact of an unwarranted and inappropriate judicial interpretation of the constitution – a power entirely lacking to the U.S. Congress.

The supreme court then have a right, independent of the legislature, to give a construction to the constitution and every part of it, and there is no power provided in this system to correct their construction or do it away. If, therefore, the legislature pass any laws, inconsistent with the sense the judges put upon the constitution, they will declare it void; and therefore in this respect their power is superior to that of the legislature. In England the judges are not only subject to have their decisions set aside by the house of lords, for error, but in cases where they give an explanation to the laws or constitution of the country, contrary to the sense of the parliament, though the parliament will not set aside the judgment of the court, yet, they have authority, by a new law, to explain a former one, and by this means to prevent a reception of such decisions. But no such power is in the [U.S.] legislature. The judges are supreme-and no law, explanatory of the constitution, will be binding on them.

The end result was that,

(t]here is no power above them to controul any of their decisions. There is no authority that can remove them, and they cannot be controuled by the laws of the legislature. In short, they are independent of the people, of the legislature, and of every power under heaven. Men placed in this situation will generally soon feel themselves independent of heaven itself.

Thus one can understand why George Soros targets judges and state attorneys general. People who fly under the radar of most people but who wield tremendous power.

Rights, Powers and Duties

On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.
— Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), letter to Judge William Johnson, (from Monticello, June 12, 1823)
If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.
— George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796
Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.

I am going to again post the URL of another Constitutionalist, “Publius Huldah” the nom de guerre of Joanna Martin, J.D.

(1) Footnote: LINK to article about Victor Marchetti, former senior CIA official, who wrote a book exposing CIA deceptions. The CIA  remove 399 passages, nearly a fifth of the book.  That article defines ‘Limited Hangout’ thus:

DEAR KMAG 20240925 DAILY THREAD — ISRAEL, USA & WAR


Notice The British Empire vs The Ottoman Empire in the first map on the left. I thought about the promises the Brits made to the Arabs if they revolted against the Ottoman Empire. I did a bit of digging and decided I am going to explore WHY the Brits/Rothschilds were so interested in destroying the Ottoman Empire in the next article. Looks like double crossing the Arabs and adding Israel to the mix was a feature not a bug.

YOU HAVE BEEN SYSTEMATICALLY BRAINWASHED AND YOU DO NOT EVEN KNOW IT! And yes I mean all of us. I finished writing this and realized I had gone about it all wrong. Therefore I am changing the order and add a lot more information. (So what else is new?)

Our puppet masters are well aware that “…emotions drive more than 80 percent of our decision-making, while logic makes up the rest.… Social psychologists have discovered that emotional response to a given stimuli is milliseconds faster than cognitive or thinking response…” AND “… anger [along with fear] is one of our strongest and most powerful emotions…” In other words they know how to manipulate the public.

False Flag events are REAL events orchestrated by governments or non-state actors to elicit a specific response from the public — Fear & Anger. To make sure the specific response by the public is achieved AND directed toward the selected target, propaganda is used. It is all about getting the public’s buy-in to the Cabal’s narrative and has NOTHING to do with the truth.


5th-Gen Warfare Terms and Tactics —

“The deliberate manipulation of an observer’s context in order to achieve a desired outcome.” by Dr Robert Malone

“The basic idea behind this term [fifth-generation warfare] is that in the modern era, wars are not fought by armies or guerrillas, but in the minds of common citizens.”— Al Jazeera

So, what is fifth generation warfare and why does it matter?

5th-Gen warfare is an extension of Asymmetric and Insurgent Warfare strategies and tactics, whereby both conventional and unconventional military tactics and weapons are incorporated and deployed, 👉including exploitation of political, religious and social causes. 👈 This new gradient of warfare uses the internet, social media and the 24 hour news cycle to change cognitive biases of individuals and/or organizations. It can be conducted by organized or unorganized (ergo decentralized) groups; it may be led by nation states, non-nation state actors and organizations, non-governmental organizations or even individuals. A key characteristic of 5th Gen warfare is that the nature of the attack is concealed. The goal is to disrupt and defeat opponents by creating new cognitive biases.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

WHO CONTROLS THE PROPAGANDA WE CONSUME?


This is key to understanding how we are being manipulated and BY WHOM. Please put your emotions on hold and look at this without the religious overtones. However if you do want to introduce religion…


Behold, I give of the synagogue of Satan, of them that say they are Jews, and they are not, but do lie….


Revelation 3:9:


I do not think the Cabal is ‘Jewish’ but instead are Lovers of Money and POWER who use the Jewish religion as cover especially in the USA. (Just try criticizing George Soros.)

…One item stands out as a person listens to the International Bankers and reads their books. They believe money is what makes the world go round. If you have money, you can do anything. Money is “God”, and it is worshipped and served. Even after these families accumulate more than can be spent, these devotees continue selling their souls for this false but powerful god. The great poet-philosopher Heinrich Heine (a Banker’s son) said, “Money is the god of our time, and Rothschild is his prophet.”— As quoted in Sampson, Anthony. The Money Lenders. Middlesex, Eng.: Penguin Books, Ltd., 1985, p.37.

…According to eye-witnesses, who were prominent enough to visit one of the British Rothschild homes, the Rothschilds worship yet another god too, Satan. They set a place for him at their table.(8a) The Rothschilds have been Satanists for many generations. LINK

BELOW: “Marina Abramovic posing with Lord Jacob Rothschild, who is also a lover of the “arts.” The painting behind them just happens to be “Satan summoning his Legions” (1797), by Sir Thomas Lawrence.”


Just as we Americans are duped by the US government, the Jewish people are duped by theirs. In both cases atrocities are committed in our name as the true villains hide. You do not need The Khazar-Rothschild Continuum and the Hidden Hand of History (Burning Platform) to explain the present situation, all you need is the love of Power, Wealth, AND WAR!


Yeah, seems the Rothschilds OWN Charlies and have owned England since 1815.

THIS IS A CRITICAL POINT!

TIMELINE

1815 — Napoleon lost the Battle of Waterloo.

Nathan spread the rumor that Napoleon had won and that everyone on the English Stock Market should start selling their useless English money. Rothchilds’ agents were then able to purchase nearly the entire English Stock Market at incredibly low prices, thus controlling the entire English market…As of 2015, the English government is still paying back money owed to the Rothschild family from this Napoleonic fraud… (Now removed from Investopedia, fancy that.)

1858 — The Suez Canal was an immensely profitable investment by the Rothschild family. The Rothschild’s basically owned the British banking system and had funded all the British war efforts throughout the 19th century. Because the Suez Canal was built with slave labor, the Brits did not want their name associated with the building of it. Prime Minister, Benjamin Disraeli, (Jewish BTW) had N M Rothschild & Sons acted for the British Government instead. Disraeli was a close personal friend of Lionel de Rothschild. LINK

1881 – Assassination of Tsar Alexander II in retaliation for his help during the US Civil War. Start of the Jewish Pogram in Russia in response to the assassination carried out by socialist Jews.

1882 -1918 — The Rothschilds began to buy land in Palestine. The Rothschilds, who had international power as they lent money to all governments, wanted the refugee Russian Jews to be allowed to settle in these lands. By 1918, one-twentieth of Palestine’s fertile lands belonged to the Rothschilds. — Who sold Palestine?

If the people settling in Palestine were Russian Jews, perhaps the scientist who looked at their DNA was correct and they are more closely related to the Khazars than to Middle East people. Remember these Jews were refugees because Jewish Socialists had assassinated the Tzar and Russians took out their anger on the entire Jewish community. Also, exactly WHO owns Israel if the Rothschilds bought the land?

1895 — London School of Economics was founded by Sidney Webb.

Among its major contributors: the Rockefeller Foundation, the Carnegie United Kingdom Trust, and Mrs. Ernest Elmhirst, the widow of J. P. Morgan partner Willard Straight, who founded the socialist. magazine New Republic. — The Fabians, the Round Table, and the Rhodes Scholars

The Fabian co-founders, the Webbs, founded the London School of economics with a bit of financial help from Nathan Rothschild. [ALL references are now gone…]

More recently Evelyn de Rothschild was a Governor of LSU.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


THE TAKE OVER OF THE USA

Cartoon by Robert Minor [a Communist] in St. Louis Post-Dispatch (1911). Karl Marx surrounded by an appreciative audience of Wall Street financiers: John D. Rockefeller, J. P. Morgan, John D. Ryan of National City Bank, and Morgan partner George W. Perkins. Immediately behind Karl Marx is Teddy Roosevelt, leader of the Progressive Party.

1913 — The Federal Reserve Cartel: Part I: The Eight Families

…J. W. McCallister, an oil industry insider with House of Saud connections, wrote in The Grim Reaper that information he acquired from Saudi bankers cited 80% ownership of the New York Federal Reserve Bank- by far the most powerful Fed branch- by just eight families, four of which reside in the US. They are the Goldman Sachs, Rockefellers, Lehmans and Kuhn Loebs of New York; the Rothschilds of Paris and London; the Warburgs of Hamburg; the Lazards of Paris; and the Israel Moses Seifs of Rome.

CPA Thomas D. Schauf corroborates McCallister’s claims, adding that ten banks control all twelve Federal Reserve Bank branches…


From: CHAPTER FIVE The House of Rothschild [SECRETS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE By Eustace Mullins]

…They are J.P. Morgan Company, Brown Brothers Harriman, Warburg, Kuhn Loeb and J. Henry Schroder. All of them maintain close relationships with the House of Rothschild, principally through the Rothschild control of international money markets through its manipulation of the price of gold…. Although these firms are ostensibly American firms,.. the fact is that these banking houses actually take their direction from London. Their history is a fascinating one, and unknown to the American public originating as it did in the international traffic in gold, slaves, diamonds, and other contraband.

👉 There are no moral considerations in any business decision made by these firms. They are interested solely in money and power.


1913 – Anti-Defamation League (ADL), formerly known as the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith is an international NGO formed in NYC. It opposed McCarthyism during the Cold War. (Can’t have the Commies and other traitors exposed now can we? Nor people like George Soros criticized.)


1917 — Congressional Record, February 9, 1917 Rothschild agents take control of US Media.

“In March, 1915, the J.P. Morgan interests, the steel, ship building and powder interests and their subsidiary organizations, got together 12 men high up in the newspaper world and employed them to select the most influential newspapers in the United States and sufficient number of them to control generally the policy of the daily press in the United States…

1950 — February 17, 1950, James Warburg confidently declared to the United States Senate:

“We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent.”  
James Paul Warburg (1896-1969) was the son of Paul Moritz Warburg, and a nephew of both Felix Warburg and Jacob Schiff, both associated with Kuhn, Loeb & Company which financed the Russian Revolution through James’ brother Max, banker to the government of Germany.
[Mastermind of the Federal Reserve]

1948 — Tantura massacre: Documentary exposes Israel’s foundational myth

“Some of these young soldiers I remember – it’s not nice to say – they put [the Palestinian villagers] in a barrel and shot at the barrel, and I remember the blood in the barrel.”

1953 — The Qibya massacre: The difference between deterrence and vengeance

Qibya is one of the saddest and most difficult events in Israeli history. A military unit enters a village, and when the raid is over, 43 homes had been demolished, and 69 civilians – mostly women and children – had been killed.

1954 — AIPAC

AIPAC was founded in 1954 by Isaiah L. Kenen, a lobbyist for the Israeli government, partly to counter negative international reactions to Israel’s Qibya massacre of Palestinian villagers that year. –WIKI

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

ISRAEL LOBBY DOMINATES CONGRESS & THE SENATE

Many Democrat congressmen, senators and bureaucrats have duel Israeli citizenship LINK & LINK 👉That list includes David Plouffe.

I can not find my reference to the Democrat connection to AIPAC. but here are some alternate references:

No mention of Palestinians or Israeli settlements, as Democrats take AIPAC stage

A Big-Money Operation [by AIPAC] Purged Critics of Israel From the Democratic Party

AIPAC uncorks $100 million war chest to sink progressive candidates

Building on a successful playbook from 2022, AIPAC and other aligned groups are picking their targets — many more of them this time.

A California Democrat running for Rep. Katie Porter’s seat suddenly became the target of an unexpected barrage of negative ads from the nation’s premier pro-Israel group this year. So he emailed a former Michigan representative, Andy Levin, for advice.

Levin was ousted from his House seat in 2022, after the American Israel Public Affairs Committee spent $4 million against him. Levin was one of a handful of Democrats targeted by AIPAC last cycle, when the group went after a range of progressive candidates in mostly open House primaries over their criticism of Israel….

Rep. Thomas Massie tells Tucker Carlson every GOP member of Congress has an ‘AIPAC babysitter’

“Everybody but me has an AIPAC person — like your AIPAC babysitter, who is always talking to you for AIPAC,”Massie said. “They’re probably a constituent from your district but they’re firmly embedded in AIPAC.”

“Every member has something like this?” Tucker Carlson asked.

“Every Repub–, I don’t know how it works on the Democrat side, but that’s how it works on the Republican side, and when you come to DC you go have lunch with them and they’ve got your cell number and you have conversations with them.”

“That’s crazy,” Carlson responded.

“So, I’ve had four members of Congress say, ‘I’ll talk to my AIPAC person’ — that’s literally what we call them, ‘my AIPAC guy,'” Massie said, laughing. “‘I’ll talk to my AIPAC guy and see if I can get them to, you know, dial those ads back.'”

“Why have I never heard this before?” Carlson said.

“It doesn’t benefit anybody,” Massie said, “why would they want to tell their constituents that they’ve basically got a buddy system with somebody who is representing a foreign country, it doesn’t benefit the congressmen for people to know that so they’re not going to tell you that.”

FORWARD: Jewish Independent Nonprofit Says It’s Time For AIPAC To Register As A Foreign Agent

…AIPAC is one of the leading forces behind the Israel lobby, joined in recent years by the ascending Christians United for Israel. Other Jewish “pro-Israel” organizations are niche affairs, representing particular constituencies on the left or right. But it’s AIPAC that is the registered lobby on Capitol Hill, and it is AIPAC whose clout on matters relating to Israel exceeds the clout of the National Rifle Association on matters related to guns; while the NRA’s sway is almost entirely over Republicans,

AIPAC has historically drawn its support from both parties. Is there any place but AIPAC that not only gets Mike Pence, Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi in the same room, but also gets to hear them in near total agreement?

But there’s something strange, too, about AIPAC. Consider Vice President Mike Pence’s 

remarks at last year’s conference:

“Every freedom-loving American stands with Israel — because her cause is our cause, her values are our values and her fight is our fight.” [Excuse me bull schiff! Why should US blood and money go to defend another country when we have major problems here at home? –GC]

And it is not just Congress.

FBI Basic Field Training Course

The Department of Justice released the Anti-Defamation League’s Basic Field Training Course (PDF). The course is mandatory for all FBI New Agent Trainees (NATs) and New Intelligence Analyst Trainees (NIATs). This release follows a decade of Freedom of Information Act requests and denials by the Department of Justice (PDF) and evasion by publicly funded content contributors.

The ADL course is developed and conducted by Anti-Defamation League (ADL) instructors. It selects materials from the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (USHMM) and Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial. Marcus Appelbaum, Museum Director of Law, Justice and Society Initiatives in 2014 resisted any public review of the curriculum, stating, “Unfortunately we do not randomly send out the curriculum.” Appelbaum also denied that any of the large amounts of U.S. taxpayer funding supporting the museum paid for the curriculum.

The ADL course facilitates a discussion of the USHMM video 

The Path to Nazi Genocide by asking trainees to watch and then consider “the challenges that police officers faced, and decisions they made in Germany during the Nazi era.” The video depicts the rise of Nazi Germany from WWI to the final WWII liberation of concentration camps replete with emaciated images of the dead and barely living.

The final question the video puts to agents in training is why the word “genocide” had to be coined in the aftermath. “As the world struggled to understand what had happened, a new word, genocide, was needed for these crimes — crimes committed by ordinary people from a society not unlike our own.”

And the influence extends to our military too. See the 133 page FOIA document obtained from the Department of Defense entitled: AFSS 0910 EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AND TREATMENT INCIDENTS (EOTI) LESSON PLAN

The whole document was obtained by Judicial Watch. August 22, 2013 ARCHIVED DOC

LESSON EMPHASIS

This lesson will focus on awareness and current issues requiring the attention of future Equal Opportunity Advisors. It will also provide information that describes sources of extremism information, definitions, recruitment of DoD personnel, common themes in extremist ideologies, common characteristics of extremist organizations, DoD policies, and command functions regarding extremist activities. ……

RECOMMENDED READING

Seven Stage Hate Model, FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin March

The following references are additional sources for current extremism information:

• Anti-Defamation League – www.adl.org [The Anti-Defamation League was founded in 1913 “to stop the defamation of the Jewish people ]

• Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism – www.hatemonitor.csusb.edu [The Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University, San Bernardino is a nonpartisan research and policy center ]

• Know Gangs – www.knowgangs.com

• Political Research Associates – www.publiceye.org

• Southern Poverty Law Center – www.splcenter.org

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


THE SAMPSON OPTION

In the early ‘90s, legendary investigative journalist Seymour Hersh revealed the “Samson Option,” a secret Israeli nuclear deterrence strategy.

The Unclear Bomb – Investigating Israel’s ‘Samson Option’

…John F. Kennedy had run-ins with the Israel lobby early in his presidential campaign. He was visited by Abe Feinberg and eventually given $500,000 for his campaign. Feinberg is an important Jewish figure to have on side as his vote swayed the opinion of many Jewish businessmen in the USA at the time. Simultaneously he had a foot in Israeli politics, campaigning for the Zionist cause. Kennedy had needed the funding but was uncomfortable about the level of control Feinberg and other Zionists wanted to have over the President’s Middle East foreign policy.

Kennedy was committed to the cause of nuclear non-proliferation. It was one of the planks of his moral case for presidency and it sat well with a war-weary public. He would routinely pressure Ben-Gurion about inspections of the Dimona facility only to be stonewalled….

I quote here from Seymour Hersh’s eye opening ‘The Samson Option’ – an unparalleled research into Israeli nuclear ambitions with an array of primary sources in the US and Israeli intelligence services.

“Ben-Gurion took no chances: the American inspectors – most of them experts in nuclear reprocessing – would be provided with a Potemkin village and never know it.

The Israeli scheme, based on plans supplied by the French, was simple: a false control room was constructed at Dimona, complete with false control panels and computer-driven measuring devices that seemed to be gauging the thermal output of a twenty-four megawatt reactor (as Israel claimed Dimona to be) in full operation….

Thus the semi-secret nuclear reprocessing could continue under wraps, the Kennedy government none the wiser. Following Kennedy’s assassination Israel had a much easier time under Lyndon Johnson. He would not only look the other way on the nuclear weapons issue, but would go on to approve missile and fighter jet deliveries to Israel. At the heightened speed of processing Israel could produce enough enriched Uranium for 4 or 5 nuclear warheads per year, from the late 1960s. Ben-Gurion’s successor, Moshe Dayan, continued in this stead following some pressure from the Zionist lobby in Israel and globally to keep Israel ‘safe’ by arming herself with nukes….

The above is one version of the story. This is the less ‘nice’ version.
THE SAMSON OPTION – ISRAEL IS THE GREATEST THREAT TO THE ENTIRE WORLD

Remember the ‘Samson Option’? 

Israel says they have nuclear missiles aimed at cities all over Europe, which they curiously and insanely regard as ‘hostile’, this being the preferred choice of target of the Israeli Air Force. Israel routinely calls the USA ‘anti-semitic’ too. Does anything strike you a being a little odd about that?….

During an interview with Alan Hart, the then Israeli premier Golda Meir twice stated that Israel was prepared to destroy the whole world with nuclear weapons if Israel ever faced military defeat...


More details: The Samson Option: Was nuclear blackmail confirmed by Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir?

…In an interview with Alan Hart of the BBC, Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir actually threatened the entire world with nuclear Armageddon. She verified the “Samson Option” without batting an eye, much less flinching …

Hart: “I recall the words spoken to me many years ago by Golda Meir, Mother Israel, when she was prime minister. At a point during an interview I did with her for the BBC’s Panorama programme, I interrupted her to ask, “Prime Minister, I want to be sure I understand what you’re saying … You are saying that if Israel was ever in danger of being defeated on the battlefield, it would be prepared to take the region and the whole world down with it?”

Meir “without the shortest of pauses for reflection, and in the gravel voice that could charm or intimidate American Presidents according to need” replied: “Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying.”

Should we believe Alan Hart and share his conviction that Mother Israel meant exactly what she said? Yes, because we have similar reports from other reliable sources. For instance, I remember reading Robert Fisk’s book The Great War for Civilisation in which Fisk, a keen-eyed and objective observer, mentioned watching high-ranking American diplomats like Colin Powell and Madeline Albright acting deferentially, even fearfully, around Israeli leaders.  If we consider the normal operating mode of American politicians—hubris—that seems hard to believe, unless Israel was threatening to use nuclear weapons. When I put two and two together, it seems to me that Israel may have warned American diplomats, “Unless we are allowed to have our way with Arabs, and the world acquiesces to our brutal, unjust treatment of them, we are willing to unleash a nuclear Armageddon on the world.”

And it seems those American diplomats also believed the threat of the Samson Option.


Henry Kissinger’s role

Do not forget National Security Study Memorandum NSSM 200 and his declaration: In 10 Years, There Will Be No More Israel. Other link: New York Post, Sep 17, 2012


Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu uses a cartoon diagram of a bomb while delivering his address to the 67th United Nations General Assembly session, September 27, 2012.

THE SAMSON OPTION:

Israel’s Nuclear Arsenal and 

American Foreign Policy

By Seymour M. Hersh

Prelude to War 

Israel’s development as a full-blown nuclear power by 1969 could not have come at a more fortuitous time, in terms of the American presidency. Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger approached inauguration day on January 20, 1969, convinced that Israel’s nuclear ambitions were justified and understandable. Once in office, they went a step further: they endorsed Israel’s nuclear ambitions. 

The two American leaders also shared a contempt for the 1968 Nonproliferation Treaty, which had been so ardently endorsed in public by Lyndon Johnson. Nixon, midway in his campaign against Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey, dismayed the arms control community by urging the Senate to delay ratification of the NPT until after the election. He went further a few days later, telling newsmen in Charlotte, North Carolina, that he specifically was concerned about the NPT’s failure to permit the transfer of “defensive nuclear weapons,” such as mines or anti-ballistic missile systems, to non-nuclear powers. Government arms controllers were hugely relieved in early February 1969 when Nixon formally requested the Senate to take up the treaty and then stated at a news conference that he would do all he could to urge France and West Germany— known to have reservations—to sign it: “I will make it clear that I believe that ratification of the treaty by all governments, nuclear and non-nuclear, is in the interest of peace and in the interest of reducing the possibility of nuclear proliferation.” 

In the secrecy of their offices, however, as only a few in the government knew, Nixon and Kissinger had simultaneously issued a presidential order to the bureaucracy undercutting all that was said in public. The classified document, formally known as National Security Decision Memorandum (NSDM) No. 6, stated that “there should be no efforts by the United States government to pressure other nations, particularly the Federal Government of Germany, to follow suit [and ratify the NPT]. The government, in its public posture, should reflect a tone of optimism that other countries will sign or ratify, while clearly disassociating itself [in private] from any plan to bring pressure on these countries to sign or ratify.”

[So in other words,we are doing the exact opposite of what we are telling the American People we are doing DC]  

“It was a major change in American policy,” recalled Morton H. Halperin, then Kissinger’s closest aide on the National Security Council staff. “Henry believed that it was good to spread nuclear weapons around the world. I heard him say that if he were the Israelis, he would get nuclear weapons. He did not believe that the United States should try and talk them out of it.”.…

We really need POTUS Trump and the Abraham Accords!

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Given the information above, I am in agreement with Tonawanda.

Tonawanda(@tonawanda)

 September 23, 2024 09:11

I realize that many on our side regard the exploding pagers as primarily a laughing matter, and secondarily as an object of admiration.

Our side has been almost categorically on the side of Israel, regardless of the circumstances.

Ron Unz has a different take on the matter:

https://www.unz.com/runz/mossads-exploding-pager-attacks-and-911

No doubt, the all purpose response of name calling, a form of “shut up” with implied threats, is what can be expected to the information he presents.

But it is information he presents, information which can be evaluated and assessed in a rational/reasonable manner.

Unz has the same impression I had of the exploding pagers, that the scheme was a brilliant operation indistinguishable from barbaric terrorism. Unz goes into some depth about the extensive use of assassination and terrorism by the Zionists before the founding of Israel, and by Israel itself. The exploding pagers were not assassination.

Unz is a very cautious and scrupulous man. He provides sources and documentation for his assertions, and he honestly admits to speculation when he is speculating.

It would take a year to read and comprehend the archives at Unz.com, but the effort is well worth while with respect to an assortment of topics where the official narrative on a given topic turns out to be a series of lies, distortions and brainwashing.

On our side, we have been discovering for years how we have been lied to by our alleged government (run by TPTB) about a variety of topics. We are at the point where nothing is believed if it originates from the “government” or from their media/institutional frontmen.

The distinction has been made here and on other sites between the American people and the “government” who claims to act on our behalf. One of the fascinating aspects in this regard was Tucker’s interview with Putin, who disclosed his understanding that what the American “government” did was not endorsed or supported by a vast segment of the American people.

That distinction is a good one IMO when applied both here and in other countries.

Let me be very clear that I am condemning WAR especially Nuclear War and not the Jewish people. The IDF stood down allowing the murder of innocents just like our Air force stood down during 9-11. In both cases it was ALL ABOUT starting a war.

CONFIRMED: Israel ordered IDF to STAND DOWN and let Hamas attack – now Israel wants full-scale war to fulfill decades-long plan for “Greater Israel”

The JERUSALEM POST: IDF knew of Hamas’s plan to kidnap 250 before October 7 attack – report

September 17, 2023 Saudi Arabia Suspends Talks on Normalizing Relations With Israel

Saudi Arabia has informed the United States of the termination of negotiations to normalize relations with Israel, media reported, citing a source in Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office.

The source claimed that the Netanyahu government had rejected “conciliatory gestures” towards the Palestinians and acceptance of the demands of the right wing bloc undermined any possibility of rapprochement with the Palestinians and Saudi Arabia itself.

The Israeli leadership is “at a loss” over Riyadh’s decision to halt any negotiations with Washington on normalizing relations, the source added…

It is my opinion that factions within Israel never wanted peace in the first place. They wanted WAR! AND they want the USA to fight that war for them.

 Rabbis Against War with Iran: An Open Letter 

We, the undersigned American Jewish clergy, are deeply concerned about reports that Prime Minister Netanyahu will demand of President Obama, at their meeting at the White House today, that either the United States attack Iran, or else, Israel will...

Most of the people of the State of Israel oppose Prime Minister Netanyahu’s military threats against Iran. They fear the consequences of an attack on Iran. As Jewish leaders, we too believe that the path of wisdom towards achieving peace and stability in the region is through dialog and engagement and not through acts of war. We call on the United States government to safeguard the interests of the people of Israel and Iran…

‘Stop Vetoing Peace,’ Rabbis Tell Biden at UN Security Council Protest

….the latest high-profile demonstration demanding the United States end its opposition to a cease-fire in Gaza.

The rabbis—whose action was organized by Rabbis for Cease-fire, Jews for Racial and Economic Justice, Jewish Voice for Peace, and IfNotNow—displayed banners with messages for U.S. President Joe Biden: “Biden: The World Says Cease-Fire,” and “Biden: Stop Vetoing Peace.”

The protest came weeks after the U.S. alone vetoed a U.N. Security Council resolution calling for Israel to end its bombardment of Gaza, which has killed at least 23,210 people, injured more than 59,100, and left thousands more missing and feared dead under rubble, as the population of the enclave faces starvation and disease stemming from Israel’s blockade…

If you do not have time for the entire video, please listen to the first 7 minutes AND especially the couple of minutes from 23 to 25 minutes.

These two rabbis explain WHY the Torah says Israel should NOT EXIST and that religious Jews are bullied, attacked and even murdered by the SECULAR Zionists if they try to speak up.

Funny how we hear about the idiots supporting HAMAS, but not the JEW CALLING FOR PEACE, not to mention the Orthodox Jews like those above saying establishing Israel was AGAINST GOD’s COMMAND! 🤔
…

A PRIMER ON MONEY

Trudeau is threatening to confiscate bank accounts. Steve Cortez and others has been warning of coming Stagflation. Steve has been a part of Wall Street as a trader and strategist for almost two decades. Others such as Clif High warn of a coming dollar collapse.

Ed Dowd,  a former Blackrock Portfolio Manager, reports on Falling Pharma Stocks And Coming Financial Collapse. Edward has said elsewhere how COVID-19 may have been used to cover global debt, and how he predicts a financial collapse is ahead of us.

https://rumble.com/vvc53k-ed-dowd-reports-on-falling-pharma-stocks.html

And now even Tucker Carlson is warning of the problems if the US dollar loses it’s World Reserve Currency status.

On the other hand Edward Harrison, a senior editor at Bloomberg, wrote in 2011 an article On Hyperinflation explaining why the US dollar is still solid because it is the World Reserve Currency. The fly in the ointment is explained in this March, 2013 article, BRICS plan new 50bn bank to rival World Bank and IMF, and The China-Australia Currency Swap Agreement.

… the bilateral currency swap agreement on 22 March 2012. The agreement allows exchange of local currencies between the two central banks…’” thus cutting out the US Dollar as the exchange currency.

The China-Australia Currency Swap Agreement.

Given these circumstances, I thought a discussion about Central Banks and the US dollar was appropriate. I hoped the Q tree could benefit from having this information all in one place.

http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/06.20/images/servitude.jpg

“Inflation is the surest way to fertilize the rich man’s field with the sweat of the poor man’s brow.”

Charles Holt Carroll (1799-1890.)

Daniel Webster expanded on that idea.

“Of all the contrivances for cheating the laboring classes of mankind, none have been more effectual than that which deludes them with paper money. This is the most effectual of inventions to fertilize the rich man’s field by the sweat of the poor man’s brow. Ordinary tyranny, oppression, excessive taxation — these bear lightly on the happiness of the mass of the community compared with fraudulent currencies and the robberies committed by depreciated paper. Our own history has recorded for our instruction enough, and more than enough, of the demoralizing tendency, the injustice, and the intolerable oppression, on the virtuous and well disposed, of a degraded paper currency, authorized by law, or in any way countenanced by government.”

Daniel Webster (1782 -1852) Statement to the Senate in 1832

With encouragement from Senators Clay and Daniel Webster, Mr Nicholas Biddle, then President of the Second Bank of the United States, applied for a renewal of the Bank’s charter in 1832. President Jackson vetoed the renewal, stating “. . . It appears that more than a fourth part of the stock is held by foreigners and the residue is held by a few hundred of our citizens, chiefly of the richest class. . .” LINK

So it should not surprising that Senator Aldrich (R) read that Webster quote at a New York City dinner speech on October 15, 1913 on the eve of the passage of the Federal Reserve Act. He was NOT advocating AGAINST a Fractional Reserve Currency but rather FOR IT! — SEE: aIV Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science #1, at 38 (Columbia University, New York (1914))

For those who might not know the history of Fractional Reserve Banking see: The Magic of Fractional Banking. In essence it is counterfeiting.

https://soundmonetarypolicy.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/banksters-11470-20110901-26.jpg

INFLATION or Currency Devaluation:

One of the biggest victories achieved by modern economists and modern central bankers is changing the definition of inflation.  Inflation used to mean an increase in the money supply – full stop. 

PETER C. SCHMIDT (A very good article)

https://soundmonetarypolicy.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/032310Whiskey.jpg

A few more definitions:

Money is metal coins, currency (Bank IOUs) and credit (fairy dust created out of thin air) or even beads and obsidian arrowheads. Money needs to be durable, accepted and dividable which is why precious metals were often the choice.

Money is a generally accepted, recognized, and centralized medium of exchange in an economy that is used to facilitate transactional trade for goods and services.

Investopedia Definition of Money

Wealth is LAND, RESOURCES and the labor that fashions usable and saleable goods.

Wealth is an accumulation of valuable economic resources that can be measured in terms of either real goods or money value.

Investopedia definition of Wealth

Capitalism is a private individual’s wealth, labor and resources reinvested to produce more wealth.

Capitalism is an economic system in which capital goods are owned by private individuals or businesses. The production of goods and services is based on supply and demand in the general market.


@page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in } h2 { margin-top: 0.14in; margin-bottom: 0.08in; background: transparent; page-break-after: avoid } h2.western { font-family: “Liberation Serif”, serif; font-size: 18pt; font-weight: bold } h2.cjk { font-family: “Noto Serif CJK SC”; font-size: 18pt; font-weight: bold } h2.ctl { font-family: “Lohit Devanagari”; font-size: 18pt; font-weight: bold } p { margin-bottom: 0.1in; line-height: 115%; background: transparent } a:link { color: #000080; so-language: zxx; text-decoration: underline }
Investopedia definition of Capitalism

E.M. Smith aka Chiefio, who trained as an economist, gets into the definition of capitalism and other definitions surrounding capitalism: Monopoly, Monopsony, Oligopoly, Collusion And Economics 1 “Evil Socialism” vs “Evil Capitalism” is a short comment by EM describing the continuum between straight capitalism and Communism.

One of the best explanations of the Federal Reserve is by G Edward Griffin. A Talk by G. Edward Griffin-The Creature from Jekyll Island. Unfortunately Griffin is a member of the John Birch Society and is therefore attacked on that basis by the defenders of the Fed. So I am presenting more rigorous sources.

Money Is Created by Banks – Evidence Given by Graham Towers, Governor of the Central Bank of Canada

Some of the most frank evidence on banking practices was given by Graham F. Towers, Governor of the Central Bank of Canada (from 1934 to 1955), before the Canadian Government’s Committee on Banking and Commerce, in 1939… Most of the evidence quoted was the result of interrogation by Mr. “Gerry” McGeer, K.C., a former mayor of Vancouver, who clearly understood the essentials of central banking. Here are a few excerpts:


Q. But there is no question about it that banks create the medium of exchange?
Mr. Towers: That is right. That is what they are for… That is the Banking business, just in the same way that a steel plant makes steel. (p. 287)
The manufacturing process consists of making a pen-and-ink or typewriter entry on a card in a book. That is all. (pp. 76 and 238)
Each and every time a bank makes a loan (or purchases securities), new bank credit is created — new deposits — brand new money. (pp. 113 and 238)
Broadly speaking, all new money comes out of a Bank in the form of loans.
As loans are debts, then under the present system all money is debt. (p. 459)


Q. When $1,000,000 worth of bonds is presented (by the government) to the bank, a million dollars of new money or the equivalent is created?
Mr. Towers: Yes.


Q. Is it a fact that a million dollars of new money is created?
Mr. Towers: That is right.


Q. Now, the same thing holds true when the municipality or the province goes to the bank?
Mr. Towers: Or an individual borrower.


Q. Or when a private person goes to a bank?
Mr. Towers: Yes.


Q. When I borrow $100 from the bank as a private citizen, the bank makes a bookkeeping entry, and there is a $100 increase in the deposits of that bank, in the total deposits of that bank?
Mr. Towers: Yes. (p. 238)


Q. Mr. Towers, when you allow the merchant banking system to issue bank deposits which, with the practice of using the cheques as we have it in vogue today, constitutes the medium of exchange upon which I think 95 per cent of our public and private business is transacted, you virtually allow the banks to issue an effective substitute for money, do you not?
Mr. Towers: The bank deposits are actual money in that sense, yes.


Q. In that sense they are actual money, but, as a matter of fact, they are not actual money but credit, bookkeeping accounts, which are used as a substitute for money?
Mr. Towers: Yes.


Q. Then we authorize the banks to issue a substitute for money?
Mr. Towers: Yes, I think that is a very fair statement of banking. (p. 285)

US banks operate without Reserve

“Banks typically have 3% of their assets in cash in order to meet customer needs. Since 1960, banks have been allowed to use this “vault cash” to satisfy their reserve requirements. Today, bank reserve requirements have fallen to the point where they are now exceeded by vault cash, which means lowering reserve requirements to zero would have virtually no impact on the banking system. US banks are already operating free of any reserve constraints. The graph below shows reserve requirements falling to zero over the last fifty years….”

Eric deCarbonnel

https://web.archive.org/web/20111110155612im_/http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_EZMGVwURo3M/SdBtYrToHuI/AAAAAAAAA6k/Z_ym5xtlBRU/s400/RequiredReservesMinusVaultCash-758249.PNG

E.M. Smith and other economists, such as Steve Bannon and those he has on the War Room as well as other financial experts are trained (and believe in) Keynesian Economics (IMF.) I prefer Mises and have had arguments with E.M to that effect. (He has started to come around a bit.) It should be noted that Communist spy Harry Dexter White of the US Treasury and Fabian Socialist John Maynard Keyne are the two who saddled the world with the IMF and World Bank via the 1944 Bretton Woods system. I mentioned recently Structural Adjustment Policies, the noose the IMF & World Bank Banksters put around the neck of countries that go bankrupt. There is another Economic Philosophy not connected to the Communists and Fabian Socialists. It was developed by Mises.

Mises on Money by Gary North

This is very long so I want to highlight a few critical points.

#1. Because money is not capital, he [Mises] concluded that an increase of the money supply confers no identifiable social value. If you fail to understand this point, you will not be able to understand the rest of Mises’s theory of money. On this assessment of the value of money, his whole theory of money hinges.

An increase in the quantity of money can no more increase the welfare of the members of a community, than a diminution of it can decrease their welfare. Regarded from this point of view, those goods that are employed as money are indeed what Adam Smith called them, “dead stock, which . . . produces nothing”

#2. New money does not appear magically in equal percentages in all people’s bank accounts or under their mattresses. [New] Money spreads unevenly, and this process has varying effects on individuals, depending on whether they receive early or late access to the new money.

It is these losses of the groups that are the last to be reached by the variation in the value of money which ultimately constitute the source of the profits made by the mine owners and the groups most closely connected with them

[This is a critical point and the reason Bankers can steal our wealth]

This indicates a fundamental aspect of Mises’s monetary theory that is rarely mentioned: the expansion or contraction of money is a zero-sum game. Mises did not use this terminology, but he used the zero-sum concept. Because the free market always maximizes the utility of the existing money supply, changes in the money supply inescapably have the characteristic features of a zero-sum game. Some individuals are made better off by an increase in the money supply; others are made worse off. The existing money is an example of a “fixed pie of social value.” Adding to the money supply does not add to its value.

MISES ON GOLD

…the attempt by modern governments to regulate in any way an international gold standard is always a political ruse to undermine its anti-inflationary bias. “The international gold standard works without any action on the part of governments. It is effective real cooperation of all members of the world-embracing market community. . . . What governments call international monetary cooperation is concerted action for the sake of credit expansion”

“Now, the gold standard is not a game, but a social institution. Its working does not depend on the preparedness of any people to observe arbitrary rules. It is controlled by the operation of inexorable economic law” (p. 462)…..

. . . The role played by ingots in the gold reserves of the banks is a proof that the monetary standard consists in the precious metal, and not in the proclamation of the authorities (p. 67).

In order to effect the acceptance of fiat money or credit money, the State adopts a policy of the abolition of its previous contractual obligations. What was previously a legal right of full convertability into either gold or silver coins is abolished by a new law. The State removes the individual’s legal right to exchange the State’s paper notes for gold or silver coins. It then declares that the new, inconvertible fiat paper money or bank credit money is equal in value to the older redeemable notes, meaning equal to the value of the actual coins previously obtainable through redemption. But the free market determines otherwise. The two forms of money are not equal in value in the judgment of the market’s individual participants. Gresham’s law is still obeyed….

Gresham’s law

The State can set legal prices, meaning exchange ratios, between the various kinds of money. The effects of such fixed exchange rates are identical to the effects of any other kind of price control: gluts and shortages. The artificially overvalued money (glut) replaces the artificially undervalued money (shortage). This cause-and-effect relationship is called Gresham’s law.

MONEY:

Mises therefore defined money as the most marketable commodity. “It is the most marketable good which people accept because they want to offer it in later acts of impersonal exchange” (Human Action, p. 401.).

Money serves as a transmitter of value through time because certain goods serve as media of exchange.

Money transmits value, Mises taught, but money does not measure value. This distinction is fundamental in Mises’s theory of money.

Mises was adamant: there is no measure of economic value.

….Mises concluded that money is neither a consumption good nor a capital good. He argued that production and consumption are possible without money (p. 82). Money facilitates both production and consumption, but it is neither a production good nor a consumption good. Money is therefore a separate analytical category.

“It is illegitimate to compare the part played by money in production with that played by ships and railways. Money is obviously not a ‘commercial tool’ in the same sense as account books, exchange lists, the Stock Exchange, or the credit system”

Because money is not capital, he concluded that an increase of the money supply confers no identifiable social value. If you fail to understand this point, you will not be able to understand the rest of Mises’s theory of money. On this assessment of the value of money, his whole theory of money hinges….

This theory regarding the impact that changes in the money supply have on social value is the basis of everything that follows. Mises offered here a unique assessment of the demand for money. He implied here that an individual’s demand for production goods or consumption goods, when met by increased production, confers an increase in social value or social welfare.

If a producer benefits society by increasing the production of a non-monetary good, later finding a buyer, then society is benefitted because there are at least two winners and no losers.

Therefore, if a producer of gold and a buyer of gold both benefit from an exchange – which they do, or else they would not trade – yet society receives no social benefit, then the analyst has to conclude that some other members of society have been made, or will be made, worse off by the increase in the money supply. This analysis would also apply to decreases in the money supply.

There are two conceptually related issues here: (1) money as a separate analytical category, neither a consumption good nor a production good; (2) changes in the money supply as conveying neither an increase nor decrease in social value.

With that as a background in economics, we look at the Federal Reserve Bank through the eyes of Congressman Wright Patman (D) in 1964 before President Nixon had to close the gold window.

Excerpts from:

A PRIMER ON MONEY

COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND CURRENCY

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

WRIGHT PATMAN Chairman 1964

Again this is very long, which is why I have posted excerpts. However if you want to understand our Central Banking System this is a very good document to read.

President Lincoln said :

“Money is the creature of law, and the creation of the original issue of money should be maintained as an exclusive monopoly of the National Government. The privilege of creating and issuing money is not only the supreme prerogative of the Government, it is the Government’s greatest opportunity.” [pg 16]

This is very important. Although US citizens can not exchange Federal Reserve notes for treasury gold, official and semi official foreign banks can.

Behind the Federal Reserve notes is the credit of the U.S. Government. If you happen to have a $5, $10, or $20 Federal Reserve note, you will notice across the top of the bill a printed statement of the fact that the US government promises to pay not the Federal Reserve promises to pay. Nevertheless most Americans to do not understand what the US Government promises to pay: American citizens holding these notes cannot demand anything for them except (a) they can be exchanged for other Federal Reserve notes or (b) that they be accepted in payment of taxes and all debts public and private. Certain official or semiofficial foreign banks may exchange any “dollar credits” they may hold-that is, deposits with the commercial banks-for an equal amount of the Treasury’s gold. Americans themselves may not exchange them for gold . [pg 19]

Of the 19 Federal Reserve officials 12 are elected by bankers so HOW the money supply is increase and WHO gets the interest on the US treasury bonds can get very interesting.

The Federal Reserve officials can always decide to create a large portion of any increase in the money supply themselves, though, of course, a larger portion of the supply will always be provided by the private banks under present law. Still the larger portion of Reserve-created money, the more the U.S. Treasury benefits-because all income of the Federal Reserve after expenses reverts to the Treasury. Thus the Treasury receives a good share of the income earned from the Government securities purchased in Reserve money-creating operations.

On the other hand, if the Federal Reserve officials decide that the increase in the money supply they want is all, or substantially all, to be made by the private banks, the private banks acquire and hold more Government securities than in the first case, and the interest payments on these securities go into bank profits. So, whether the Federal Reserve officials decide to favor the U.S. Treasury or the private banks does make a difference-millions of dollars of difference-in the amount of taxes you, I, and all other taxpayers must pay. After all, one of the biggest items of expense of the Federal Government is the interest it must pay on its debt. [pg 36]

[JUMPING FORWARD IN TIME]

“…Although the money in the Federal Reserve is not in anyway “owned” by private banks they get paid interest on it….
In its latest power play, on October 3, 2008, the Fed acquired the ability to pay interest to its member banks on the reserves the banks maintain at the Fed. Reuters reported on October 3:”

“The U.S. Federal Reserve gained a key tactical tool from the $700 billion financial rescue package signed into law on Friday that will help it channel funds into parched credit markets. Tucked into the 451-page bill is a provision that lets the Fed pay interest on the reserves banks are required to hold at the central bank.”

Global Research

[BACK TO WRIGHT PATMAN]

[An incorrect but ] typical explanation runs this way: John Jones deposits $100 in cash with his bank. The bank is required to keep, say, 20 percent of its deposits in reserves, so the bank must deposit $20 of this $100 as reserves, with a Federal Reserve bank. The bank is free to use the other $80, however, to make loans to customers or invest in securities. The expansion of money thus begins. This kind of explanation not only leads to misunderstanding, it also leads to misguided Government policies and rather constant agitation on the part of bankers for other such policies. Many of the smaller bankers who are, on the whole, not as well versed with the mechanics of the money system as they might be, actually believe that they have deposited a portion of their money, or their depositors’ money, with the Federal Reserve. Thus they feel they are being denied the opportunity to make profitable use of this money. Accordingly, there is always agitation to have the Federal Reserve pay the banks interest on this money which they think they have “deposited” with the Federal Reserve.


Furthermore, they are quite certain that the Federal Reserve System has “used” their money to acquire the Government securities which the Federal Reserve may buy in the process of reserve creation. Believing this, the bankers naturally feel that they are entitled to some share of the tremendous profits which the System receives from interest payments on its Government securities. Many bankers know better. The leaders of the bankers’ associations certainly do. But some of these leaders have not hesitated to play on general ignorance and misunderstanding to mobilize the whole banking community behind drives that are nothing but attempts to raid the Public Treasury.


The truth is, however, that the Private banks, collectively, have deposited not a penny of their own funds, or their depositors funds, with the Federal Reserve banks. The impression that they do so arises from the fact that reserves, once created, can be, and are, transferred back and forth from one bank to another, as one bank gains deposits and another loses deposits. [pg 37]

Under Secretary of the Treasury Robert V. Roosa, formerly a Vice President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, while testifying before the House Committee on Banking and Currency in 1960, described the misconception as follows:


“There is another misconception which occurs much more frequently-that is, the banks think that they give us the reserves on which we operate and that, too, is a misconception. We encounter that frequently, and, as you know, we create those reserves under the authority that has been described here.”

The writer [Wright Patman] has had a couple of personal experiences which ‘have provided some amusing confirmation of the fact that the source of bank reserves is not deposits of cash by the member banks with the Federal Reserve banks. having seen reports that the Federal Reserve System had, on a given date, Government securities amounting to a proximately $28 billion, I went on one occasion to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York where these securities are supposed to be housed, and asked if I might be allowed to see them. The officials of this bank said, yes, they would be glad to show them to me; whereupon they opened the vaults and let me look at, and even hold in my hand, the large mound of Government securities which they claimed to have and which, in fact, they did have.


Since I had also seen reports that the member banks of the Federal Reserve System had a certain number of millions of dollars in “cash reserves” on deposit with the Federal Reserve bank, I then asked if I might be allowed to see these cash reserves. This time my question was met with some looks of surprise; the bank officials then patiently explained to me that there were no cash reserves. The cash, in truth, does not exist and never has existed. [pg 38]

When the Federal Reserve purchases a $1 million Government bond and gives some bank credit for $1 million in its reserve account, that bank also credits the bond dealer’s checking account with $1 million. I n other words, to acquire $1 million of reserves, the bank also assumes a liability to pay its customers $1 million. If the transactions stopped here, the bank would, of course, come out even, neither gaining anything nor losing anything. But the fact that there is now $1.million more of bank reserves than existed before means that the private banks as a group can create $6 million more money than existed before. In other words, by acquiring this $1 million more in bank reserves, the private banks have the privilege of creating another $6 million of bank deposits, in the process of which they acquire $6 million in interest-bearing securities or loan paper, less an allowance for leakage into the cash (currency) balances of the public. [pg 43]

What amount of Government securities have the private banks acquired with bank-created money?


On January 31, 1964, all commercial banks in this country owned $62.7 billion in U.S. Government securities. The banks have acquired these securities with bank-created money. In other words, the (banks have used the Federal Government’s power to create money without charge to lend $62.7 billion to the Government at interest.


On January 29, 1964, commercial banks had total assets amounting to $304.7 billion, and all of these had been paid for with bank-created money, except $25.4 billion which had been paid for with their stockholders’ capital. In other words, less than 10 percent of the banks’ assets have been acquired with money invested by stockholders in the banks. [pg 46]

The make-up of the Federal Reserve Directors changed in favor of the bankers


The Federal Open Market Committee.
There are 19 participants in this powerful body, 7 appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the Senate of the United States. Once appointed, however, a man serves for a period of 14 years, and cannot be removed by the President or by any other official body, except for cause. The other 12 men in this select group are elected to their places through the votes of private commercial bankers. there are 12 voting members of the Federal Open Market Committee. The voting members consist of 7 members of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, plus some 5 of the 12 Federal Reserve bank residents. [pg 65]

Because of this, the balance of power over the money supply lay securely, it was thought, with the public side of the System through authority of the Board of Governors. But when the move toward the alternative open-market technique of control was given legislative blessing by Congress in 1933 and 1935 and a full-fledged central bank thereby created the balance shifted radically toward the private, commercial banking side of the System. [pg 72]

.

.

“ownership” of the fed reserve: Confusion due to stock and elected board members:
The position of the Federal Reserve officials thus seems to be clear :


The Federa1 Reserve banks are not owned by the commercial banks. The viewpoint of the individuals quoted above has also been borne out by the presidents of the Federal Reserve banks in hearings before the House Banking and Currency Committee. However, officials of the Federal Reserve banks are sometimes inclined to take the opposite position. [pg 78]


Do bankers believe that they own the Federal Reserve banks.
Yes. [100% of the “stock” is owned by the private banks. Also after instigating “the Accord” It was later revealed by testimony of some of the Federal Reserve officials to committees of Congress that the Open Market Committee had held a meeting on August 18 and decided not only to raise the discount rate, but to “go their own way” on the Government longer term bond rate as well, despite what the President, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the head of the Office of Defense Mobilization might do”….Therefore the Federal Reserve is not answerable to the President or Congress or the electorate, nor even to a government audit or even Congressional funding!]


The original act required that the banks invest 6 percent of their capital stock in the Federal Reserve banks.


Why was the Federal Reserve Act written to require member banks to invest in the so-called stock of the Federal Reserve banks?

The framers of the Federal Reserve Act gave many reasons, but the main, reason was this: it was expected that the Federal Reserve would issue money, not mainly against Government securities as is now the practice, but against commercial and industrial loan paper-“eligible paper” as the reader knows.

It was in view of these considerations that Congress, in framing the Federal Reserve Act in 1913, required member banks of the Federal Reserve System to put a certain percentage of their capital into the .’stock” of the Federal Reserve banks; this “stock” was a safeguard against a misuse of the Government’s credit which was being delegated to these banks. The 1013 act placed on the member banks, furthermore, a “double liability” for their “stock” in the Federal Reserve banks. In other words, if a Federal Reserve bank failed, the member banks would lose not only their invested capital, but an equal amount of capital which they would also forfeit. [pg 79]

The 1933 act also prohibited commercial banks from making stock market loans, and investment banks from accepting public deposits. This was an effort to prevent a wave of stock market speculation like that of the twenties by keeping commercial banking and investment banking separate and distinct. [pg 84] [Clinton got rid of that and other limits on the banks.]

What changes were made the Banking Act of 1935?

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation was made permanent, and the Board of Governors was given power to change reserve requirements. The act of 1935 had other important revisions :


(1) The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System was changed. Membership no longer included the Secretary of the Treasury and the Comptroller of the Currency, and the number of members was cut from nine to seven. The name, the Federal Reserve Board, was changed to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. The reorganized Board, with its increased powers really gave us a central bank for the first time, in place of a system of individual Federal Reserve banks which were largely on their own.


(2) Also of primary importance in creating a true central bank was the establishment of the Federal Open Market Committee to determine purchases and sales of Government securities for the entire System.


(3) Another change made by the 1935 act related to loans of the Federal Reserve banks. This act allowed the Federal Reserve banks to extend reserve bank credit on any type of credit which the commercial bank possessed.


4 ) The 1935 act also contained provisions concerning regulation of bank holding companies. [Pg 84]

Private banks enjoy a very special relationship with the Federal Government. After all, most business firms employ private capital or privately owned resources to produce a product or provide a service which can be profitably sold in the marketplace. Most business firms pay for the raw materials and services they receive, and, furthermore, in the case of most kinds of business firms, the business itself is a risk-taking venture. The firm succeeds or fails in competition with other business firms.

But the conditions under which private banks operate are very different. In the first place, one of the major functions of the private commercial banks is to create money. A large portion of bank profits come from the fact that the banks do create money. And, as we have pointed out, banks create money without cost to themselves, in the process of lending or investing in securities such a Government bonds. Bank profits come from interest on the money lent and invested, while the cost of creating money is negligible. (Banks do incur costs, of course, from bookkeeping to loan officers’ salaries.) The power to create money has been delegated, or loaned, by Congress to the private banks for their free use. There is no charge.

On the contrary, this is but one of the many ways the Government subsidizes the private banking system and protects it from competition. The Government, through the Federal Reserve System, provides a huge subsidy through the free services the System provides for member banks. “Check clearing” is one of the services; i.e., the collection and payment of funds due one bank from another because of depositors’ use of their checkbook money. The costs of this service alone runs into scores of millions of dollars.


The gross expenses of the combined Federal Reserve banks totaled $207 million in 1963, most of which was incurred as a cost of providing free services to the private banks. Other Federal agencies also receive services from the Federal Reserve. But these are not free. The System received about $20 million for “fiscal agency and other expenses” in 1963.

In addition, the Federal Government provides private banks with a large measure of protection from competition, and the hazards of failure. … This means, in brief, that nobody can enter the banking business by opening a national bank, unless the proposed bank is to be located where it will not cause an inconvenient amount of competition to other banks already in business. [pg 89]

In mid-August of 1950, however, the Federal Reserve raised the discount rate and short-term Treasury bills jumped toward 11/2 percent, although there were requests from the Secretary of the Treasury and the President for the System to continue a low-rate policy. It was later revealed by testimony of some of the Federal Reserve officials to committees of Congress that the Open Market Committee had held a meeting on August 18 and decided not only t o raise the discount rate, but to “go their own way” on the Government longer term bond rate as well, despite what the President, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the head of the Office of Defense Mobilization might do….
Since the signing of the so-called accord, in March of 1951, this event has been widely interpreted as an understanding, reached between the Treasury and the Federal Reserve, that the Federal Reserve would henceforth be “independent.” It would no longer ” peg Government bond prices. It would raise or lower interest rates as it might see fit, as a means of trying to prevent inflation or deflation.

These are understandings which have been grafted onto the accord over the years. Certainly, no such understandings were universal at the time the accord was signed. ….

At the end of 1951, then, the Federal Reserve had both self-proclaimed independence, as a result of the accord, and an operational policy which aimed at maximum credit effects through minimum changes in interest rates….. the Federal Reserve people were quite sure that they could do a better job of running the country than the President, and with only slight increases in interest rates. …

It then added another string to its bow- the “bills only” policy. … Henceforth when the Treasury issued bonds or medium-term securities, it was to dump these issues on the market and watch the natural consequences-first a drop in bond prices, then a gradual recovery as the market absorbed the bonds. Any private rigging or manipulations of the market were to go without interference from the Federal Reserve, as were any speculative booms or panics short of a “disorderly” market. The “bil1s-only” policy had only one reservation: The Federal Reserve would buy long-term bonds in the event that the Open Market Committee made a findings that the market was disorderly. [ full details starting on pg 103]

The [Eisenhower ] administration announced at the outset that it would re1y on monetary policy exclusive1y for its economic regulation and would respect the complete independence of the Federal Reserve to carry out these policies as it saw fit …..

Thirteen years have now passed since the accord and the liberation of the Federal Reserve. What have been the results? The major result is shockingly obvious. Interest rates have climbed steadily, with slight interruptions, during the entire post accord period. (See table 3.) The period has been marked, then, by a continual shift of income to the banks, other major financial institutions, and individuals with significant interest income. The rest of the country provided this income. …

Another result of post accord monetary policy is that the U.S. economy has unwittingly become a low investment economy… The Federal Reserve has chosen the high interest, slower growth option for this country.

In fiscal year 1963, the U S Government paid out approximately $10 billion as interest on the national debt. The budget deficit for the same year was $8.8 billion. Much political hay was made with the deficit. It was potential inflationary dynamite, ran the ”no deficit” claim. And these same people strongly supported tighter money and higher interest rates to prevent the otherwise inevitable inflationary explosion. Yet if these people were really worried about the deficit they should have been rabid partisans of a low-interest policy. For it can be shown that last year’s deficit would have been $5 billion less if the Government had not been forced by Federal Reserve policy to pay increasingly more on its outstanding debt. I n fact, the total national debt would now be $40 billion less if the interest rates of the early 1940’s had prevailed in the postwar period.

Moreover, the system eludes even the audit control exercised by the General Accounting Office, whose function it is to make sure that other Federal agencies not only handle their financial affairs properly but also pursue policies and practices that are in accord with the law. The system provides for its own auditing; clutching its mantle of independence, it has stoutly resisted repeated congressional suggestions that the General Accounting Office perform an annual audit.[ pg 121]

Congress has never given authority for determining monetary policy to the Federal Reserve System-and certainly not to a committee within the System containing members who owe their selection to private bank interests. This basic authorization has not been changed by any amendments to the Federal Reserve Act made to date. Yet two evolutions have taken place within the Federal Reserve System, in one instance, without authorization, and, in the other, directly contrary to the expressed intent of the Federal Reserve Act. In brief, the Federal Reserve’s “monetary policies,” as they are practiced today, were never authorized by law…There is little doubt in the author’s mind that if any legal challenge were ever raised to the Federal Reserve’s monetary policies, the courts could hold them unconstitutional.


The First Annual Report of the Board of Governors after passage of the 1935 act opened with a statement that the act “places responsibility for national monetary and credit on the Board of Governors and the Federal Open Market Committee”-although the act contained no reference whatever to monetary policy nor any provision which indicated a change in the convertibility concept on which the 1913 act was drawn. In brief, the Federal Reserve’s “monetary policies,” as they are practiced today, were never authorized by law.


The monetary powers, as has frequently been pointed out, are reserved to the Congress by the constitution. There is no doubt that it is within the prerogative of the Congress to delegate these powers either to the executive branch of the Government or to an independent agency. But it is not within Congress’s constitutional means to delegate these powers without prescribing policy objectives and clear guidelines detailing how the powers may be used. Inevitably, the Supreme Court has held unconstitutional those grants of powers made without any spelling out of the specific objectives and limitations placed on their use [pg 128]


This second change, whatever else it accomplished, did open the door to private banker influence in the formation of monetary policy. T h e regional bank presidents have become policymakers. At the very least, the type of man chosen to become the president of a regional bank affects the bent of Open Market Committee thinking. Now the private bankers have the dominant voice in choosing the regional bank presidents. They are hardly likely to choose and retain man as presidents whose approach to monetary matters does not in general conform to their taste.

I hope you take the time to read these excerpts and do not blow your blood pressure too high.

“Capitalists with government help are the worst of all economic phenomena.” — A. Rand

Rand was wrong, the absolute worst economic phenomenon is “Capitalists with government help ALL paid for by counterfeit money printed by the Robber Baron Bankers”

The book “Bank Control of Large Corporations in the United States” By David M. Kotz, explains how banks use pension funds to buy controlling interest in large corporations among other strategies.

The Nuremberg Code vs US Law and The Push For World Government

TradeBait2 Made the comment:

I have been reminding folks on here – the Fed has to be bankrupted at some point. It will either be by the white hats or the black hats. The Gab post you show is correct for the most part IMO. The Fed has fueled the Great Reset, which is why they could care less about how much debt we have in America because we will not exist as an independent nation in their black hat world.

Digital one world currency is the plan. Why do you think there were coin shortages recently? Why do you think they hate crypto and parallel economies so much? Why do they want America at odds with Russia, but falling right in line with China? Where Xi falls in this I am not certain. But I do know China and the Chi-coms are a CB [central bank] creation.

The linchpin is digital currency.

Follow the money….

That is the first half of the comment

Actually I can see where he is going since I also have warned of this much earlier.

The Push For World Government

A few years ago Soros directed the USA to overthrow the ELECTED government in both Syria and Ukraine. (Trump side stepped both.)

Why? Because the EU is the model for a global government. Soros wanted the EU to annex the Ukraine. The elected president said HE!! NO! so he was ousted and a pro-EU puppet was put in his place who has since been voted out while Trump was in the White House.

Russia tossed Soros out and put out a warrant for him. Russia makes much of their money selling gas to Europe. It also gives them leverage to keep the EU from expanding into their sphere of influence. Soros wants to remove Russia’s leverage by putting in a pipeline from the middle east to Europe. ALL the countries that were opposed to that pipeline have been overthrown EXCEPT for Syria.

If you want a World Government similar to the European Union then you are on Soros side. If you want sovereign nations you are on the side of Russia….. AND I am still of that opinion.

BREXIT THE MOVIE will give you the details on how the EU is actually run.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTMxfAkxfQ0

Former World Trade Organization Director-General Pascal Lamy tells you point blank that the EU is the template for the desired World Government and it has been the plan since the 1930s.

All had lived through the chaos of the 1930s — when turning inwards led to economic depression, nationalism and war. All, including the defeated powers, agreed that the road to peace lay with building a new international order — and an approach to international relations that questioned the Westphalian, sacrosanct principle of sovereignty…

Pascal Lamy, Whither Globalization

Lamy is quite blunt in stating national sovereignty is passé:

…more than half a century ago that the Frenchman Jean Monnet, one of the shapers of post-war Europe, said, “The sovereign nations of the past can no longer provide a framework for the resolution of our present problems. And the European Community itself is no more than a step towards the organizational forms of tomorrow’s world.” His assessment was as valid then as it is now….

Pascal Lamy, Global Governance: Lessons from Europe

Lamy indicates that a super state fashioned after the European Union is the goal and he calls for European-Inspired Global Governance:

This is what Global Warming was really about. We have all seen the political message morph over the decades from Global Warming to Climate Change to Weather Weirding.

As H.L. Mencken said:

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed — and hence clamorous to be led to safety — by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

In other words, create a crisis to order to implement Diocletian’s Problem-Reaction-Solution

Mencken also warns:

“The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the urge to rule it.”

The UN put the concept into practice via the IPCC. The IPCC mandate states:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established by the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to assess the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of human induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for mitigation and adaptation. http//www.ipcc-wg2.gov/ (No longer available)

IPCC

Notice the IPCC ASSUMES the hypothesis of human induced climate change IS TRUE and goes from there.

With Reagan killing off the Cold War, Pascal Lamy takes ‘Practical Politics’ the next step, by telling us about a “new enemy to unite us” (Global Warming) A global enemy needed to create Legitimacy, one of the ‘four legs’ needed to implement a global government…

I see four main challenges for global governance today.

The first one is leadership, i.e. the capacity to embody a vision and inspire action, in order to create momentum. Who is the leader? Should it be a superpower? A group of national leaders? Selected by whom? Or should it be an international organization?

The second one is efficiency, i.e. the capacity to mobilize resources, to solve the problems in the international sphere, to bring about concrete and visible results for the benefit of the people. The main challenge here is that the Westphalian order gives a premium to “naysayers” who can block decisions, thereby impeding results. The ensuing viscosity of international decision-making puts into question the efficiency of the international system.

The third one is coherence, for the international system is based on specialization. Each international organization focuses on a limited number of issues. The World Trade Organisation deals with trade, the International Labour Organisation with labour issues, the World Meteorological Organisation with meteorology and so the list continues. It is a fact: the UN is not really overarching, assuming this was the initial intention.

The last challenge that I see is that of legitimacy— for legitimacy is intrinsically linked to proximity, to a sense of “togetherness”.  By togetherness, I mean the shared feeling of belonging to a community. This feeling, which is generally strong at the local level, tends to weaken significantly as distance to power systems grows. It finds its roots in common myths, a common history, and a collective cultural heritage. It is no surprise that taxation and redistribution policies remain mostly local!

There is one place where attempts to deal with these challenges have been made and where new forms of governance have been tested for the last 60 years: in Europe. The European construction is the most ambitious experiment in supranational governance ever attempted up to now. It is the story of a desired, delineated and organized interdependence between its Member States…. http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/sppl_e/sppl220_e.htm

Pascal Lamy

In another presentation Lamy again addresses the problem of legitimacy:

It gives me great pleasure to be here today to participate in this thematic debate on the United Nations in global governance, an issue of the utmost importance given the urgency of the global challenges we are facing… As for legitimacy, I see two avenues to strengthen it. First, domestically, by increasing the visibility of international issues and giving citizens a greater say…. https://archive.globalpolicy.org/social-and-economic-policy/the-three-sisters-and-other-institutions/global-governance-and-the-three-sisters-1-11/50398-lamy-urges-raising-un-ecosoc-profile.html%3Fitemid=id.html

Pascal Lamy

By now, with Al Gore exiting stage left, Trump entering stage right, it is pretty obvious that ‘Global Warming’ has lost its high panic factor and the climb down is in progress. However the need for a ‘Crisis to Unite Us’ and a reason to implement ‘Agenda 21 – Sustainability’ and ‘Global Governance’ still remains. WORSE for the Globalists the fiat currency central banking system is on its last legs and about to IMPLODE, as many people like Dave of the X22 Report and Clif High and others have been warning us. Up to now we have been wondering what the next hobgoblin would be. And now we know it’s COVID -19!!! A Bio-Weapon and a Poison Jab that kills off a lot of the population, crashes the world economy and ushers in a Vaccine Digital Passport soon to be linked to the BRAND NEW DIGITAL WORLD CURRENCY and Social Credit Score.

And that brings us to the second part of TradeBait2’s comment.

…… You do not want to use the Nuremberg Code as your get out jail free card from jabs. You fall into the hands of international law superseding national law. It’s a set up, don’t fall for it.

Cannot tell you the number of times I have prepared a post and deleted it because I doubted folks on here would pay attention or believe it. This is the world I lived in for 35 years and escaped.

As I showed above that “international law superseding national law” is exactly what Pascal Lamy was yammering about a decade ago and what Klaus Schwab is threatening us with now.

So how do we escape this TRAP if it is being set?

Use USA LAW!

I find it interesting that the internet is FULL of the Nuremberg Code…….

……and the GERMAN/CALIFORNIA LAWYER Reiner Füllmich and 50 Lawyers, but I went nutz trying to find the US LAWS. It took me over ½ hour.

And WHY does Reiner Füllmich have no problem with YouTube???? When everyone else gets the boot?

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Reiner+F%C3%BCllmich+youtube&t=brave&ia=videos&iax=videos

JW in Germany even brought us this comment:

I watched it for about half an hour and thought it was important enough to post here. The dozens of witnesses/experts that will be speaking in the next days are from around the world…many of the names you may already know.

Day 1 Opening Session of the Grand Jury Proceeding

A group of international lawyers and a judge are conducting criminal investigation modeled after Grand Jury proceedings in order to present to the public all available evidence of Covid 19 Crimes Against Humanity to date against “leaders, organizers, instigators, and accomplices” who aided, abetted, or actively participated in the formulation and execution of a common plan for a pandemic

https://gettr.com/post/psoiulc122

Those are things that make you go HMMMmmm…..

I think Reiner Füllmich and his group is sincere but it is very very possible they are being used.

So after a LOT of digging at Cornell Law I found the provision that covers the situation for the military: 10 U.S.C. § 1107. “This provision prohibits the administration of investigational new drugs, or drugs unapproved for their intended use, to service members without their informed consent.”

And finally after a lot more searching I stumbled across the information that civilians are covered under a FDA Regulation and not a law:
CFR – Code of Federal Regulations Title 21 as of January 6, 2022

Subpart B – Informed Consent of Human Subjects
   § 50.20 – General requirements for informed consent.
   § 50.23 – Exception from general requirements.
   § 50.24 – Exception from informed consent requirements for emergency research.
   § 50.25 – Elements of informed consent.
   § 50.27 – Documentation of informed consent.

[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 21, Volume 1]
[CITE: 21CFR50.20]

TITLE 21–FOOD AND DRUGS
CHAPTER I–FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

SUBCHAPTER A – GENERAL

PART 50 — PROTECTION OF HUMAN SUBJECTS
Subpart B – Informed Consent of Human Subjects
Sec. 50.20 General requirements for informed consent.
Except as provided in §§ 50.23 and 50.24, no investigator may involve a human being as a subject in research covered by these regulations unless the investigator has obtained the legally effective informed consent of the subject or the subject’s legally authorized representative. An investigator shall seek such consent only under circumstances that provide the prospective subject or the representative sufficient opportunity to consider whether or not to participate and that minimize the possibility of coercion or undue influence. The information that is given to the subject or the representative shall be in language understandable to the subject or the representative. No informed consent, whether oral or written, may include any exculpatory language through which the subject or the representative is made to waive or appear to waive any of the subject’s legal rights, or releases or appears to release the investigator, the sponsor, the institution, or its agents from liability for negligence.
[46 FR 8951, Jan. 27, 1981, as amended at 64 FR 10942, Mar. 8, 1999]

BUT there is a cockroach in the ointment.

 § 50.24 – Exception from informed consent requirements for emergency research.

[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 21, Volume 1]
[CITE: 21CFR50.24]

TITLE 21–FOOD AND DRUGS
CHAPTER I–FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

SUBCHAPTER A – GENERAL

PART 50 — PROTECTION OF HUMAN SUBJECTS
Subpart B – Informed Consent of Human Subjects
Sec. 50.24 Exception from informed consent requirements for emergency research.
(a) The IRB responsible for the review, approval, and continuing review of the clinical investigation described in this section may approve that investigation without requiring that informed consent of all research subjects be obtained if the IRB (with the concurrence of a licensed physician who is a member of or consultant to the IRB and who is not otherwise participating in the clinical investigation) finds and documents each of the following:
(1) The human subjects are in a life-threatening situation, available treatments are unproven or unsatisfactory, and the collection of valid scientific evidence, which may include evidence obtained through randomized placebo-controlled investigations, is necessary to determine the safety and effectiveness of particular interventions.
(2) Obtaining informed consent is not feasible because:
(i) The subjects will not be able to give their informed consent as a result of their medical condition;
(ii) The intervention under investigation must be administered before consent from the subjects’ legally authorized representatives is feasible; and
(iii) There is no reasonable way to identify prospectively the individuals likely to become eligible for participation in the clinical investigation.
(3) Participation in the research holds out the prospect of direct benefit to the subjects because:
(i) Subjects are facing a life-threatening situation that necessitates intervention;
(ii) Appropriate animal and other preclinical studies have been conducted, and the information derived from those studies and related evidence support the potential for the intervention to provide a direct benefit to the individual subjects; and
(iii) Risks associated with the investigation are reasonable in relation to what is known about the medical condition of the potential class of subjects, the risks and benefits of standard therapy, if any, and what is known about the risks and benefits of the proposed intervention or activity.
(4) The clinical investigation could not practicably be carried out without the waiver.
(5) The proposed investigational plan defines the length of the potential therapeutic window based on scientific evidence, and the investigator has committed to attempting to contact a legally authorized representative for each subject within that window of time and, if feasible, to asking the legally authorized representative contacted for consent within that window rather than proceeding without consent. The investigator will summarize efforts made to contact legally authorized representatives and make this information available to the IRB at the time of continuing review.
(6) The IRB has reviewed and approved informed consent procedures and an informed consent document consistent with § 50.25. These procedures and the informed consent document are to be used with subjects or their legally authorized representatives in situations where use of such procedures and documents is feasible. The IRB has reviewed and approved procedures and information to be used when providing an opportunity for a family member to object to a subject’s participation in the clinical investigation consistent with paragraph (a)(7)(v) of this section.
(7) Additional protections of the rights and welfare of the subjects will be provided, including, at least:
(i) Consultation (including, where appropriate, consultation carried out by the IRB) with representatives of the communities in which the clinical investigation will be conducted and from which the subjects will be drawn;
(ii) Public disclosure to the communities in which the clinical investigation will be conducted and from which the subjects will be drawn, prior to initiation of the clinical investigation, of plans for the investigation and its risks and expected benefits;
(iii) Public disclosure of sufficient information following completion of the clinical investigation to apprise the community and researchers of the study, including the demographic characteristics of the research population, and its results;
(iv) Establishment of an independent data monitoring committee to exercise oversight of the clinical investigation; and
(v) If obtaining informed consent is not feasible and a legally authorized representative is not reasonably available, the investigator has committed, if feasible, to attempting to contact within the therapeutic window the subject’s family member who is not a legally authorized representative, and asking whether he or she objects to the subject’s participation in the clinical investigation. The investigator will summarize efforts made to contact family members and make this information available to the IRB at the time of continuing review.
(b) The IRB is responsible for ensuring that procedures are in place to inform, at the earliest feasible opportunity, each subject, or if the subject remains incapacitated, a legally authorized representative of the subject, or if such a representative is not reasonably available, a family member, of the subject’s inclusion in the clinical investigation, the details of the investigation and other information contained in the informed consent document. The IRB shall also ensure that there is a procedure to inform the subject, or if the subject remains incapacitated, a legally authorized representative of the subject, or if such a representative is not reasonably available, a family member, that he or she may discontinue the subject’s participation at any time without penalty or loss of benefits to which the subject is otherwise entitled. If a legally authorized representative or family member is told about the clinical investigation and the subject’s condition improves, the subject is also to be informed as soon as feasible. If a subject is entered into a clinical investigation with waived consent and the subject dies before a legally authorized representative or family member can be contacted, information about the clinical investigation is to be provided to the subject’s legally authorized representative or family member, if feasible.
(c) The IRB determinations required by paragraph (a) of this section and the documentation required by paragraph (e) of this section are to be retained by the IRB for at least 3 years after completion of the clinical investigation, and the records shall be accessible for inspection and copying by FDA in accordance with § 56.115(b) of this chapter.
(d) Protocols involving an exception to the informed consent requirement under this section must be performed under a separate investigational new drug application (IND) or investigational device exemption (IDE) that clearly identifies such protocols as protocols that may include subjects who are unable to consent. The submission of those protocols in a separate IND/IDE is required even if an IND for the same drug product or an IDE for the same device already exists. Applications for investigations under this section may not be submitted as amendments under §§ 312.30 or 812.35 of this chapter.
(e) If an IRB determines that it cannot approve a clinical investigation because the investigation does not meet the criteria in the exception provided under paragraph (a) of this section or because of other relevant ethical concerns, the IRB must document its findings and provide these findings promptly in writing to the clinical investigator and to the sponsor of the clinical investigation. The sponsor of the clinical investigation must promptly disclose this information to FDA and to the sponsor’s clinical investigators who are participating or are asked to participate in this or a substantially equivalent clinical investigation of the sponsor, and to other IRB’s that have been, or are, asked to review this or a substantially equivalent investigation by that sponsor.
[61 FR 51528, Oct. 2, 1996]

And now we go to USA lawyer, Attorney Thomas Renz and his interview on Bannon’s War Room.

Episode 1,619 – Beijing Olympics Fail; Legal/Financial Investigations Of Big Pharma

https://rumble.com/vu5amo-episode-1619-beijing-olympics-fail-legalfinancial-investigations-of-big-pha.html


ROUGH TRANSCRIPT (start at 18:15)

ATTORNEY THOMAS RENZ: We have to get it to the public and that is where the War room is so important.
Se are going to be submitting this to a case in Alabama. We are going to be submitting ths to a number of different places in the military, ahhh I guess law enforcement world. And we are looking to bring this into the civilian law enforcement as well. There is no question as to what is happening. These are major crimes and you know Steve, I don’t know if you have got this but we just yesterday, dated February 4th, got a document from the CDC that re-affirms everything we said last week when we said they know this. If you are interested that document actually says it is was in the meeting yesterday, it was presented yesterday it says the CDC is working to monitor these things and they are monitoring the DOD data. Which indicates to me, I don’t know if you have heard the DOD s response? DOD to me has committed fraud and conspiracy. They have said there baseline data from 2016 to 2020 was wrong. They didn’t notice it until we pointed it out in the whistle blower testimony. But some how even though they didn’t notice it, it magically got corrected in 2021.

I mean seriously, How stupid do they think the American people are?

STEVE BANNON: What about adjudicating this. What about Alabama? (21:40)

RENZ: We have a case in Alabama where we are challenged the EUA authorization of the vaccine….. Balance of harm tests…. Generally you have to show more benefit than injury… we are also challenging on mis branding, because the CDC changed the definition of vaccines so they could call these gene therapies a vaccine. BTW Pfizer and Moderna have admitted they are gene therapy in their documents. And we have challenged it on several other fronts so that’s in court. This document and all this DOD stuff just came to us. We have declarations under penalty of perjury and those declarations will be submitted to the court. They are getting updated right now because we’ve had this new data come forward related to this…. We have been working with attorneys all over the world and around the country… and we have been getting this data out and we are giving it to anyone who wants to use it anywhere they can. And we believe it will help. We have to find the right court like you said. Until we find a court that is willing to listen and have an evidentiary hearing, it’s tough. We are going to have more info on that coming up…..

STEVE: asks about military JAG system and Senator Johnson. Senator Johnson first.

RENZ: The problem for Senator Johnson is he is not getting enough support from other Senators. He has gotten NO RESPONSE from anyone else [including Rand Paul but he does not say that.]

STEVE: What about JAG? [24:50]

RENZ: Since the data has only been out for a week or two, we are working thru a number of JAG officers….. I got another letter this week…. From all places the Texas National Guard, one of the people there saying they are going to reject all the religious exemptions and we don’t want doctors giving medical exemptions. They actually say they view it as a COMMAND ISSUE and not a medical issue. So if a doctor thinks a soldier should not have this for a medical reason, they are to shut-up and take orders according to this document. We submitted that to Senator Johnson as well as some others.

This is a disaster in the military and they have created a situation where it is very very difficult for our solders to fight this. We do however have quite a number of military personnel stepping forward. And quite a number of JAG officers and others who, because of the publicity we have gotten on this, in the last week or so, are now wiling to step up and do something so we’ll see.

It goes on to Edward Dowd about the insurance industry data about unexpected deaths in working age people from there. Steve Bannon mentions that Zero Hedge covered the information given too. Suicide? How Some Life Insurance Companies Are Dealing With Experimental Vaccines Deaths

A very informative earlier video from the War Room showing the DOD changing the data from Thomas Renz. It also has Ed Dowd, a Financial guru who worked for Blackrock…. Yeah, Blackrock. He is calling out not only the vaccine manufacturers but the FDA for massive FINANCIAL fraud similar to ENRON. The video also has an interview with Dr Malone.

From 27:00 to 35:15 minutes

https://rumble.com/vtkou8-episode-1602-the-big-short-pfizer-and-moderna-the-new-enron-are-criminal-ch.html

-GC