Mortgage Servicing Fraud
occurs post loan origination when mortgage servicers use false statements and book-keeping entries, fabricated assignments, forged signatures and utter counterfeit intangible Notes to take a homeowner's property and equity.
Articles |The FORUM |Law Library |Videos | Fraudsters & Co. |File Complaints |How they STEAL |Search MSFraud |Contact Us
Edward Griffin

Let's stand back from the creature a few paces and take a look at its general form and shape and see what it is we got. We got a corporation chartered by Congress which was given an exclusive franchise to create our nation's money supply. We got a mechanism whereby Congress has been able to raise unlimited taxes from the American people without them even knowing that they're paying a tax and we got a mechanism whereby the banks can earn perpetual interest on nothing. That is the shape and form of the creature from Jekyll Island.

Here's an interesting question, Who owns the Federal Reserve System? You hear a lot of discussion on this particularly on talk radio nowadays. When the subject of money comes up somebody calls in and says, "Did you know the Federal Reserve is completely owned by the private banks? It's a private corporation. What we need to do," they say "is abolish the Fed and turn it over to the government so they can operate it for the benefit of the people." Some of you are laughing and I'm sure there are some people here thinking what's wrong with that so let's analyze it.

First of all it is a half-truth and it is a non-solution. Let's deal with the half-truth first. It is true that the Federal Reserve System is not an agency of the federal government in any shape or form. As I mentioned before, it is a corporation that is chartered by Congress and like all corporations it has stock certificates and those stock certificates in this case are held by the banks within the Federal Reserve System. Every bank that's in the system is an owner of the Federal Reserve--remember this is a cartel. They own it in one sense of the word, in the sense that they have stock certificates but up to that point it looks as though it has all the attributes of a privately held corporation. But that's as far as it goes because those stock certificates do not carry with them any of the attributes of private ownership. For example, the holders of these certificates cannot sell them. If you can't sell something then you don't really own it, that's one of the tests of ownership, your ability to dispose of it. You cannot sell it. Furthermore the larger banks put up more money than the smaller banks, it's a ratio to their assets, so the larger banks have more stock certificates in the system than the small ones and yet regardless of the number that they hold, every bank has just one vote. There's another violation of the principle of private ownership. Furthermore that vote doesn't buy them anything. They can't vote for anything of substance; they cannot vote for their national management which is the most important thing, isn't it? The board of directors and chairman of the Federal Reserve System are appointed by the President, they're not elected by the banks that are part of the system, the President does that.

All that the local banks can vote for with their vote are the boards of directors of the regional banks, so-called, which are subdivisions within the system. They can't even vote for the leadership in their local subdivisions because the chairman and the vice-chairman of those 12 regional banks are appointed by the national board. They can vote for their officers at those regional banks, the president, the vice-president and treasurer but guess what? Those are subject to veto by the national board. Get the picture? All power has always been at the top of this system. The only thing that the charter allows them to vote for, those boards of directors, of substance is to set the interest rates within their regions. But this should come as no surprise to anybody that even that is subject to veto by the national board. You see this concept of diffusion of power throughout the regions of the US is a scam. There is no power at the local level. There is nothing that these boards of directors who are voted in by the banks who hold the certificates can do of substance. All they're allowed to do really is play golf.

It is not a privately held corporation in the traditional sense of the word. This idea of diffusion of power over the 12 regional banks was just a necessity of 1913 to sell the concept to the American people. If it hadn't been for this aversion against the concentration of power in New York they would never have had these 12 regions; it's just a leftover from the necessity to sell it and doesn't serve any function whatsoever. So it's not a corporation in the traditional sense of the word, it's not a government agency in the traditional sense of the word so what is it? It's a hybrid, part corporation and part government, part private, part government. In fact, it is exactly what you would expect it to be considering the fact that it is a partnership between the private banking cartel and the government. It's a unique structure which was designed to perform a unique function.

Is it a solution to abolish the Fed and turn it over to the Congress to run on behalf of the people? At least we get the dirty bankers out of the loop, right? And that makes everybody feel good...well, we're not paying interest to the banks anymore but what happens? Now the government is running the whole thing by itself. Now that solves a lot of problems doesn't it? Now they're creating money out of nothing all by themselves. Well, they've always been able to do that. The government doesn't want to do that, that's the reason they got into this partnership in the beginning because when the government creates money directly it's too obvious. That's why the kings and princes of Europe couldn't do it. They printed money, that's how they did it generally, but when the government prints money you can see all this money around that says the government on there and you know exactly what's going on. They like to work through the banking system because when it appears in your checking account it doesn't say government on it and you don't know how it got there.

The government really doesn't want to do it that way but even if they did it wouldn't make much difference because it's not important who owns the Federal Reserve System. The important thing is what it does and as long as it a central bank, which means as long as it has the power and the mandate to create money out of nothing it will create money out of nothing. That's what it will do and it will continue to do exactly the same thing and be run no doubt by the same people as it is now and we would not have solved anything. We must keep in mind that in Europe all of the central banks there are in fact direct agencies of their respective governments; they are not hybrid organizations at all like ours. And yet in those countries they do exactly the same as the Federal Reserve System has been doing here. Just turning it over to the government is a non-solution.

Let's talk briefly about what the objectives of the Federal Reserve System are. We've been told over and over again that the purpose of the Fed is to stabilize the economy. Right now with the interest rates going up, up, up what are we told? why are they doing that? Well, that's to stabilize the economy so we won't have massive inflation right? It's being done for us folks! Don't you feel just warm all over knowing that they're looking out for you? That's always the answer; the purpose of the Fed is to look out for us and stabilize the economy, put an end to banking anarchy and all that sort of thing. Right now the textbook that is most commonly used in our school systems in economics is a book written by Paul Samuelson and in that book here's what he says regarding the purpose of the Fed: "The Federal Reserve sprang from the panic of 1907 with its alarming epidemic of bank failures. The country was fed-up once and for all with the anarchy of unstable private banking." That's what the students are learning.

Let's let that go for the moment and say ok if that is the purpose of the Fed, let's give it a report card and see how well it has done in stabilizing the economy. Since it was created in 1913 the Federal Reserve System has presided over the crashes of 1921 and 1929, the Great Depression of 1929-1939, recessions in the years 1953, 1957, 1969, 1975 and 1981, and a stock market Black Monday in 1987. We all know that corporate debt is soaring, personal debt is greater than ever before, both business and personal bankruptcies are at an all-time high, banks and savings and loan associations have failed in greater numbers than ever before in our history, interest on the national debt now consumes half of all of our tax dollars, heavy industry has all but been replaced by overseas competition, we're facing an international trade deficit for the first time in our history, 75% of downtown Los Angeles and other metropolitan areas are now owned by foreigners and over half of the nation now officially is in a state of recession.

That is the report card for the Federal Reserve System after 80 years of stabilizing our economy. I don't even think it's controversial to say that it has failed to meet its stated objectives. The only controversial part is why has it failed? My answer is because those have never been its real objectives at all.

What are its objectives? What are the objectives of any cartel? To make money for the members of the cartel, to improve the profit margins of the members of the cartel and to stabilize themselves in the marketplace. That is the true objective of the Federal Reserve System. Now if we hold that up as our guiding principle and give the Federal Reserve a report card it gets a different grade.

In particular I'd like to have you look with me at three particular objectives which were very well discussed in that period in which the Federal Reserve System was created. We always have to go back to that because we can learn so much from that period of history. There were three things that the bankers, particularly the ones on Jekyll Island, wanted the Federal Reserve Act to accomplish. What are they? The first one was to stop the erosion of their power away from New York. Just the opposite of what the Federal Reserve Act was sold to us as to accomplish, to keep the power of New York. They were concerned that as the nation was expanding westward and southward new banks were springing up all along the frontier and every year a little bit more of the nation's capital would drift away from New York. They still had the lion's share, of course, but they could see the chart and they knew that they had to put a stop to that now while they still had the power to do so. Competition is a sin said John D. Rockefeller I and that includes competition from these upstart banks.

It's a good point to mention that when I'm talking about the banking cartel I'm talking primarily about the big New York banks and not the local bank down the street that's struggling under the system. One of the purposes of the Federal Reserve System was to keep the lid on those new competitive banks so they could never grow and become large like the ones on Wall Street. The small banks have always been the target in this system and needed to be kept in line, to be regulated out of existence, a process which you've noticed has been going on for many, many years. There is objective number one, to keep control over the money markets in New York.

Objective number two was to reverse the trend of what is called private capital formation. That's banker language for a process in which an individual or a corporation uses their own savings to pay for something instead of going to the bank and borrowing it, if you can imagine that happening. It was happening at the turn of the century. The trend was that businesses in particular were withholding some of their dividends each quarter and putting that money into a sinking fund and then as the money accumulated or as the capital formed, then they finally had enough that they could use their own money to build that new factory or to launch a research & development project or whatever instead of going to the banks and borrowing for it. The banks were very concerned over this trend because this is their life-blood. Loaning money is what they do so how do you loan money when people don't want to borrow it? The answer they knew, and they talked a lot about this, was to lower interest rates, get those rates down so that they were so attractive that people would be crazy not to come to the banks and borrow money at those good interest rates.

How do you lower interest rates? Today it's easy when you've got the lever at the Federal Reserve you just throw it up or down and interest rates go up or down; you have total control over it. In 1913 there was no lever. The money in those days was backed by gold and silver and they couldn't control it. They hated that. These guys hate gold and silver behind money because under those conditions interest rates are the result of the natural forces of supply and demand; they couldn't just create money out of nothing. It was the result of the interaction of millions of people bidding for products and services and digging money out of the ground, literally gold and silver and converting into money.

They were looking for a way to artificially push the interest rates down. How do you do that? They said the only way you can do that is with a flexible currency. That was the cry that they put up in those days. What the nation needs, they said, is a flexible currency to meet the demands of industry and agriculture. You still hear that phrase today--"flexible currency." What does that mean? You need a dictionary sometimes to look these phrases up. Flexible currency does not mean the paper stuff in our pockets that bends, it means money created out of nothing. The trick here is not hard to figure out. If you can create money out of nothing, you don't have to charge an awful lot of interest on it to show a profit. It's that simple. If you have a flexible currency you can in fact lower interest rates and still do pretty well, can't you? They wanted a flexible currency so they could lower interest rates and entice people back into the banks to borrow money and to reverse the trend toward private capital formation. Objective number two.

The third objective was to pass on the inevitable losses within the banking system on to the taxpayer in the name of protecting the people. Those were three of the major objectives at the time the Federal Reserve System was created. I say those are the true objectives of the Fed. On that basis, let's give it a report card.

Did it keep control in New York in the hands of the larger banks? The answer is a resounding yes. Anyone who knows about the financial markets knows that this is definitely what's happened. Yes we have big banks in the west and in the south but they're nothing compared to those banks in New York which are astride the world with offices in Peking and Moscow and Africa and everywhere; these are the giants and they have remained that way from the very beginning because of the Federal Reserve System.

A few years ago there was a book that was published by Simon & Schuster and it was called "Secrets of the Temple" written by William Grider(?). It was a best-seller and it was advertised as a scathing attack against the Federal Reserve System. When I heard that I couldn't believe my ears. A scathing attack against the Federal Reserve System published by Simon & Schuster? one of the big publishing houses? I thought, I don't have to finish my own book, they've done it. So I ran down and got a copy of the book and devoured it and read it in one day and I was totally amazed on two points. First of all, much to my surprise, I did not expect this, Grider's history was, I thought, excellent. I thought it would be a whitewash but his history was right-on. He had all the gory details and I couldn't believe it but I knew these things were true because I was right then in the middle of researching them.

On the subject of the concentration of power in New York, I'd like to read to you an excerpt from Grider's book. He said: "At the time [he's talking about 1913] the conventional wisdom in Congress was that the government institution would finally harness the money trust, disarm its powers and establish broad democratic control over money and credit. The results were nearly the opposite. The money reforms enacted in 1913 in fact helped to preserve the status quo, to stabilize the old order. Money center bankers would not only gain dominance over the new central bank but would also enjoy new insulation against instability and their own decline. Once the Fed was in operation the steady diffusion of financial power halted. Wall Street maintained its dominant position and even enhanced it."

The other thing that amazed me was Grider's conclusion. He proved that the Federal Reserve had always acted against the public interest. He proved that it was designed to do that from the very beginning so what do you suppose his conclusion was regarding a solution? that we abolish the Fed? No, nothing that extreme. How about a major overhaul? No, not necessary. What then? Grider said, you see it's all so complicated, we're learning as we go, we've made a lot of mistakes but don't worry folks we're on it now, relax, it's under control, all we need now is wiser men.

That is the kind of powderpuff criticism it takes to be published by Simon & Schuster or any of the other major publishing houses which are firmly interlocked in the investment web on Wall Street. It doesn't make any difference how accurate your history is; it doesn't make any difference how much you point with alarm or how righteous you may sound if you have no realistic solution to the problem then who cares? They like that because it gives the people the impression that something's being done, somebody is really calling attention to the problem. But they have no solution or they're carefully selected so that the ones with the real solutions do not get the media, do not get the major publishing houses.

This is a tactic which we have to better understand especially in these critical days ahead. A tactic of controlled opposition. It makes no difference how accurate you are when you're pointing to the problems in America. If you don't have a solution what difference does it make? If your solution is put wiser men in there or if your solution is vote Republican and don't ask questions about what kind of Republican then you are controlled opposition and this is something we have to be very, very alert to in these critical days ahead.

Back to the topic. The Federal Reserve System gets an A on its report card for maintaining control over the financial markets in New York. What about reversing the trend toward private capital formation. Boy, did they ever. Periodically they get those interest rates down so low and everybody is lured into the banks. Borrow like crazy and then the economy crunches down and they're all stuck with this overhead and they can't make their interest payments.

We've seen businesses go out of existence because they cannot service their debt. You've seen people lose their homes and their cars because they cannot service their debt. There are many giant corporations today that are just hanging in there by the skin of their teeth because of their debt overhead. The fact is that many of these companies now send more money to the banks every quarter in the form of interest payments on their loans than they send to their stockholders as dividends on their stock. Think about that for a minute. The banks which had no part in the operation of the company whatsoever, the banks which made this money out of nothing are making more money from these industries than the people who work for the money, save the money, invested the money and risked the money to own those corporations. This is because they quite successfully reversed the trend toward private capital formation and they did it with a flexible currency. The Federal Reserve System gets an A+ on its report card for objective number two.

Finally, did they pass along their inevitable loses to the taxpayer in the name of protecting the people? This is what I call "Operation Bail-Out." Every time one of the big banks gets into trouble, not the small banks remember, they're the competition, the big banks get into trouble and they are bailed out at taxpayers' expense. Always in the name of protecting the people. If a large corporation is in trouble because it can't make its interest payments to the bank anymore, they go to Congress and say "we can't let this corporation fold; look at the thousands of jobs that would be lost; look how the people would suffer." When a third world country can no longer make its interest payments to a large bank in New York, what happens? The bank goes to Congress and says "you know, you'd better do something about this because if we have to write that loan off of our books we may be bankrupt, we could fold. And look at all of the depositors, good Americans, who have their accounts with us who would lose their deposit. Maybe the FDIC won't be able to cover; we could have a crisis on our hands. If our bank falls maybe the other banks will fall too and we'll have a national recession. Look how the people will suffer." So Congress dutifully steps forward, remember it's a partner in this, and votes the funds to guarantee the loans or in some way to pass the payments on directly or indirectly in some very ingenious methods to the taxpayer. That money is raised primarily through the Federal Reserve System and we pay it through the Mandrake Mechanism.

So the Federal Reserve System has done pretty well on that. In case you have missed a few of the more memorable games, I'd like to review them for you. Penn Central Railroad was bailed out in 1970. That was a good year because Lockheed Corporation was bailed out the same year. Commonwealth Bank of Detroit was bailed in 1972; New York City in 1975; Chrysler in 1978; First Pennsylvania Bank in 1980; Continental Illinois, the largest of the banks so far, in 1982. And look at all of these third world countries which cannot pay their interest payments. They are paying their interest payments and you're doing it for them because the Federal Reserve System creates the money that we send to the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank and then they give it to those countries so that they can pay the interest to the banks. Maybe you've missed that little trail but that's how it works.

The Federal Reserve System gets an A+++ on all of these points and it has surely been a huge success in terms of the people who created it.

Actions have consequences and one of the consequences of this scam is what we call a "national debt." Its rapidly approaching 5 trillion dollars that we know about, it's much higher than that if you include the unfunded debt and all of the things that are off-budget and all of the funny stuff that they do with the accounting in Washington. With all honest accounting you'd find it was much, much higher than that.

But even at 5 trillion dollars it's a staggering figure. I'm told if we had a stack of $100 bills about 40 inches high we'd be a millionaire. A stack of $100 bills equaling 5 trillion dollars would rise into space 3,350 miles. That's a lot of money and it all came from us and it's earning perpetual interest.

Another way of measuring that is that we've had a known inflation of 1,000% since the Federal Reserve System was created. Another way of phrasing that is that a dollar in 1913 today buys about nine cents worth of goods. That's how much money has been taken from us, taxed from us, through this hidden process.

I say 1,000% inflation that is known because it's much more than that. Have you ever wondered, as I used to, why don't we have more inflation than we have had? I knew they were creating this money like crazy, why only this inflation? And then I found out. Have you ever heard the expression that we're "exporting our inflation." Every once in a while you find that phrase in the financial section of the newspaper. It used to drive me crazy--how can you export inflation? It's one of those phrases that people use and I'm not sure most of the people who use the phrases know what they mean. Like the other day I read that the Federal Reserve System bought dollars today to bolster up the dollar. How can you buy dollars? What do you buy it with? They buy it with other currencies, the Federal Reserve holds a lot of different currencies, yens and deutsch marks and that kind of thing so they just swap currencies around.

This expression of exporting inflation--what does that mean? It means 70% of the American currency that has been created by our Federal Reserve System is no longer in America, it's overseas. Other nations use American dollars as their unofficial money supply. Especially those countries which have no realistic money of their own. These countries that undergo inflation rates of 5,000 and 10,000% a year, you can't work with money like that. Women have to take wheelbarrows full of paper money to the grocery store to buy a bottle of milk. You can't carry on any serious economic transaction with money like that and they don't, they use American dollars.

All the banks in those systems have dual types of money. American dollars are the mainstay of economic transactions in most of those countries. That's where a lot of our money went. We have been spared the inflationary impact of all that money because had it stayed here, it would've bid against the existing money here and would have diluted our pot even more and we would've known what the inflation should've been.

What happens when the day comes when for whatever reason these countries can no longer, or no longer wish to, use American dollars? What are they going to do with those dollars? They'll send them back. They'll buy something with them while they can. It'll be a big rush. It'll be our refrigerators, our automobiles, our real estate, our high-rise buildings, our corporate stock, our politicians, whatever's for sale. All of this money will come in and then we'll find out in a very short period of time what the true inflation rate really should have been all of these years.

Incidentally, if you've followed in the newspapers the talk about the new money that they're going to release, they're talking about two-tiered money, one for overseas and one for here. It will probably be a different color. Frankly I think they're recognizing this fact that the money would return and they're going to make it illegal for all of this overseas money to come back by making it a different color so that they won't be able to bring it here or if you do bring it here you won't be able to spend it here, it won't be legal here. Those are some of the consequences of the actions of the Federal Reserve Scam.

I have one last topic that I want to talk to you about and then I'll get to the conclusion. This is an extremely important topic and it has to do with usury. In ancient times usury was defined as interest on a loan, any interest on any loan. In modern times that has been redefined to mean excessive interest on a loan. Moderate interest seems logical to us in recognition of the fact that if we work hard for our money, we save it and surrender its use for a period of time being a sacrifice on our part and then loan it to somebody else for their venture, we're entitled to a reasonable return on that sacrifice. A reasonable interest rate is a concept that very few people have problems with, it seems logical and fair.

But what is this thing called excessive interest? Thomas Edison said, "People who will not turn a shovel-full of dirt on the project nor contribute a pound of materials will collect more money than will the people who will supply all the materials and do all the work." I wondered when I read that if Tom was exaggerating so I got my calculator out. I assumed that there was going to be a $100,000 house built. I assumed that $30,000 would have to go for land, architect's fees and permits and that kind of thing. $70,000 would go for the actual construction of the house, building materials and labor. I assumed that the buyer would go to the bank and put 20% down and then borrow the balance at 10% over 30 years. I punched in the numbers and discovered that the borrower will pay to the bank in interest $172,741 compared to $70,000 paid for the construction of the house. In other words, about 2 1/2 times as much money will be paid to the bank in interest than will be paid to those who provide all the labor and all the materials. And you may say to yourself, yes but that's fair, after all a 30 year loan is a long loan and people work for their money and sacrifice its use and loan it and so forth and deserve to be compensated. No. Not this money. Nobody worked for this money, nobody saved this money. There was no sacrifice of any kind for this money. This money was created out of nothing and I suggest that $172,741 interest on nothing is excessive!

I think it's time for a new definition of usury as follows: any interest on any loan of fiat money (meaning money made out of nothing). This example of a $100,000 home, as shocking as it is, producing $172,741 unearned interest, this is just a grain of sand in the Sahara. You have to multiply that by all the homes in America, by all of these hotels in America, all the high-rise buildings, all the factories, all the airplanes, automobiles, farm equipment, schools, everything, all the physical assets of America. You apply this same ratio and can you see it in your mind? We're talking about a river of unearned wealth that is so wide you can't even think of crossing it, flowing perpetually into the banking cartel. A dead short across the productive element of society. Money being taken from people who are working hard providing the material and the labor. They don't even know that this is being taken from them and it's in this huge river of wealth flowing into the banking cartel. It's a staggering thought.

You are led to the question of where is this river flowing? Where's it going? Get a picture of this that it's all going into a lake somewhere and maybe there's a dam and the wealth is building up and somewhere they're getting it all. Getting it no, they're spending it. They're not accumulating it at all. What are they spending it for? The answer may surprise you. They're not buying more yachts and mansions with this money, they've already got all of those they possibly want. In fact they got rid of the mansions on Jekyll Island a long time ago because they were bored with that. That's not it. When a person has all the wealth that you could possibly want for the material pleasures of life, what is left? Power. They are using this river of wealth to acquire power over you and me and our children.

They are spending it to acquire control over the power centers of society. The power centers are those groups and institutions through which individuals live and act and rely on for their information. They are literally buying up the world but not the real estate and the hardware, they're buying control over the organizations, the groups and institutions that control people. In other words, to be specific, they are buying control over politicians, political parties, television networks, cable networks, newspapers, magazines, publishing houses, wire services, motion picture studios, universities, labor unions, church organizations, trade associations, tax-exempt foundations, multi-national corporations, boy scouts, girl scouts, you name it. Make your own list of organizations and you will find that this is where those people have been for many decades spending this river of wealth to acquire operational control particularly over those institutions and individuals, those organizations that represent opposition to themselves. That's a critical area for expenditure on their part.

This process has gone on not only to a marked degree in America and in the other industrialized nations of the world, but it has gone on in the so-called third world or underdeveloped nations to such a degree that I would say the process is now complete. They own these countries already. Have you ever wondered what's going on there at the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank? Kind of an obscure operation isn't it? you don't read much about it except once in a while on the back page of the newspaper you find out that Congress at the insistence of the President authorized another $100 billion for the International Monetary Fund. And then the article tells you that this money will be used to make loans to underdeveloped nations or grants to them to raise their standard of living. Do you believe that? That's one of those appearances of the fourth kind if you ever saw one. If the money is to be used to raise the standard of living of these countries they're not doing a very good job of it because after all of these decades, after all of these hundreds of billions of dollars, you cannot point to one country that has had its standard of living raised one iota by that. In fact in most cases it's the other way around and that's not an accident because the money has not been used to raise the standard of living. The money does not go to the people in those countries. It goes to the politicians of those countries, to their governments and the money is designed and spent to strengthen their power structures, their ability to control their populations. They usually start off as inefficient dictatorships but by the time they get all this money from the IMF, they are now efficient dictatorships. They have a well-equipped army, a better bureaucracy, total control of their subjects. That's where the money's being spent.

These countries have been purchased because the politicians in those countries are now totally addicted to this money. We talk about welfare families in America that are third and fourth generation welfare, they're on the dole forever, they cannot dream of anything else. The politicians in these countries are the same way and it's now second, third and in some cases fourth generation international welfare from the United Nations funding. They have no ideology--communism, socialism, capitalism, fascism, what difference does it make? where's the money? As long as they live well, they have their mansions, their yachts, their limousines, they go to New York to the UN and have their suites at the Waldorf-Asoria and that's all they care about.

These countries have been purchased through this means and are now owned by this group at the UN and they're firmly in place in the new world order where they're just waiting for you and me to show up. That's the other side of this coin. Not only does this transfer of wealth from America to these countries not raise their standard of living but it does lower ours. That too, believe it or not, is part of the plan. Just waste, get rid of money, get rid of productive power to reduce our standard of living. A strong nation is not a candidate to surrender its sovereignty but a weak nation is. If America can be brought to her knees where she is struggling for survival, if people are hungry, if we have riots in our streets, then Americans could possibly be grateful for any assistance we could get from the UN. Those wonderful blue-helmeted peace-keeping forces could bring order back to our streets or international money, a new world money with purchasing power again might be welcomed by the unthinking, unknowing American public. That is what we're dealing with.

What I'm trying to say is that the name of the game out there is not wealth, it is power.



Quote 0 0
Thanks for the compliment Ed. If this is really you, would love to chat with you. Please contact me!
Quote 0 0
Very thoughtful and insightful!  Everyone should read this to better understand the relationship of "Individuals" and how they are able to control and manufacture creatures for their own benefit.
 
Thanks for the thought, and putting it to words here.
Quote 0 0
Write a reply...