Warnning internet scam

RCMP warn of renewed internet scam

Lake Louise resident reports computer locked while downloading music

Related Stories

New fake-RCMP computer scam fools Canadians

RCMP are warning the public about an internet scam that has resurfaced in the Lake Louise area.

The “scareware” scam involves a virus that is picked up while victims are surfing the internet. The victim’s computer is then locked onto a screen telling the user that Canadian law has been violated.

Victims are told to pay a fine of $150 using an electronic payment system to unlock their computers.

Sgt. Jeff Campbell said a local resident came to the Lake Louise detachment early Saturday morning to report the problem. The victim had been downloading music when the malware locked the computer screen.

Campbell says file sharing web sites are often sources of malware.

The scammers use sophisticated graphics, including the RCMP logo, to make the site look official.

Police say if you have been locked out of your computer, it’s an indicator that your system may be infected with malware and you will need to take steps to address the problem. Sgt. Campbell says it may be possible to make the computer temporarily functional by restoring system settings.

Tips from the RCMP to protect yourself

  • Never click on a pop-up that claims your computer has a virus
  • Update your anti-virus software often and scan your computer for viruses regularly
  • Don’t click on links or attachments in e-mails sent to you by someone you don’t know or that seem suspicious
  • Turn on your browser’s pop-up blocking feature
  • Never download anti-virus software from a pop-up or link sent in an e-mail

If you have received a scareware message, please contact your local police office online and the Canadian Anti Fraud Centre (1-888-495-8501) to report it. Source  

This type of thing could be implemented world wide.  Be sure to share with your friends so they do not get scammed.

Recent

Saudi Arabian Prince defects

 

 

 

 

Advertisements
Published in: on August 25, 2013 at 5:56 pm  Comments Off on Warnning internet scam  
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Who protects you from TSA Abusers?

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is an agency of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security that exercises authority over the security of the traveling public in the United States

The TSA was created as part of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, sponsored by Don Young in the United States House of Representative and Ernest Hollings in the Senate, passed by the 107th U.S. Congress, and signed into law by President George W. Bush on November 19, 2001. Originally part of the United States Department of Transportation, the TSA was moved to the Department of Homeland Security on March 9, 2003. Source

There seems to be a lot of problems associated with this organization. Abuse of power being the worst. This is a rather long story. The facts are frightening to say the least.

To anyone who is going to fly, be warned it may be a very disturbing, humiliating, experience.

The scanners to begin with may be dangerous. Seems they have not been well tested as to side affects.

 Scientists Cast Doubt on TSA Tests of Full-Body Scanners

by Michael Grabell
ProPublica, May 16, 2011

The Transportation Security Administration says its full-body X-ray scanners are safe and that radiation from a scan is equivalent to what’s received in about two minutes of flying. The company that makes them says it’s safer than eating a banana.

But some scientists with expertise in imaging and cancer say the evidence made public to support those claims is unreliable. And in a new letter sent to White House science adviser John Holdren, they question why the TSA won’t make the scanners available for independent testing by outside scientists.

What Kind of Body Scanner Does Your Airport Have?

VIDEO: The Science Behind Airport Body Scanners

The machines, which are designed to reveal objects hidden under clothing, have the potential to close a significant security gap for the TSA because metal detectors can’t find explosives or ceramic knives, which can be just as sharp as the box cutters that hijackers used on 9/11.

They are also important for TSA’s public relations battle over the alternative, the “enhanced pat-down,” which has bred an epidemic of viral videos: A 6-year-old girl is touched from head to toe. A former Miss USA says she was violated. A software programmer warns a screener, “If you touch my junk, I’m going to have you arrested.”

After the underwear bomber tried to blow up a Northwest Airlines plane on Christmas Day 2009, the TSA ramped up deployment of full-body scanners and plans to have them at nearly every security line by 2014.

There are two types of body scanners. Millimeter wave machines emit a radio frequency similar to cellphones. Backscatters work like a fast-moving X-ray. In the latter, the rays bounce off the skin and create a fuzzy white image of the passenger’s body. Because the beam doesn’t go through the body, most of its radiation is received by the skin.

The TSA says the backscatter technology has been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration, the National Institute for Standards and Technology and the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory. Survey teams are using radiation-detecting dosimeters to check the machines at airports. The TSA says the results have all confirmed that the scanners don’t pose a significant risk to public health.

According to the agency and many radiation experts, the dose is so low, even for children or cancer patients, that someone would have to pass through the machines more than a thousand times before approaching the annual limit set by radiation safety organizations.

But the letter to the White House science adviser, signed by five professors at University of California, San Francisco, and at Arizona State University, points out several flaws in the tests. Studies published in scientific journals in the last few months have also cast doubt on the radiation dose and the machines’ ability to find explosives.

A number of scientists, including some who believe the radiation is trivial, say more testing should be done given the government’s plans to put millions of passengers through the machines. And they have been disturbed by the TSA’s reluctance to do so.

“There’s no real data on these machines, and in fact, the best guess of the dose is much, much higher than certainly what the public thinks,” said John Sedat, a professor emeritus in biochemistry and biophysics at UCSF and the primary author of the letter.

The same group stirred controversy last year when it sent a letter to Holdren arguing that while the overall dose to the body may be low, the TSA hadn’t quantified the dose to the skin. Last fall, FDA and TSA officials released a study that estimated the dose to the skin to be twice the dose to the body, though still extremely low.

In the most recent letter sent to Holdren on April 28, the professors note that the Johns Hopkins lab didn’t test an actual airport machine. Instead, the tests were done on a model built by the manufacturer, Rapiscan, and configured to resemble a system previously tested by the TSA.

The researchers’ names have been kept secret, and the report on the tests is so “heavily redacted” that “there is no way to repeat any of these measurements,” they wrote.

The physics and medical professors also took issue with the device used to measure the radiation. Although the device, known as an ion chamber, is commonly used to test medical equipment, they argue that the detector gets overwhelmed by the amount of radiation the backscatter deposits in a short time and might not provide accurate readings.

Helen Worth, a spokeswoman for the Johns Hopkins lab, referred questions to the TSA.

Part of the trouble is that there is no ideal device for measuring the radiation dose given by backscatter X-rays, said David Brenner, director of the Columbia University Center for Radiological Research. The machines emit a pencil beam that rapidly moves across and up and down the body, he said.

“We are one of the oldest and biggest radiological research centers in the country, and we find this to be a very hard technical problem,” said Brenner, who was not involved with the letter.

Another issue is that there is a lot of uncertainty with the model used to estimate cancer risk from radiation exposure to the skin, said Rebecca Smith-Bindman, a UCSF radiologist who also was not involved in the letter.

Smith-Bindman, who has testified before Congress about excessive radiation from medical scans, studied the TSA reports and said she wasn’t concerned about the airport X-rays.

The risks are “truly trivial,” she wrote in an article for the Archives of Internal Medicine. A passenger would have to undergo 50 airport scans to reach the level of a dental X-ray, 1,000 for a chest X-ray, and 4,000 for a mammogram.

Though imperfect, the available models predict that the backscatters would lead to only six cancers over the course of a lifetime among the approximately 100 million people who fly every year, Smith-Bindman concluded.

“There’s really unnecessary fear related to these scans,” she said. “What I’m not as comfortable with is that there has not been access to these machines. They are not being tested on the same regulatory basis that we see on medical equipment.”

After her article was published, Smith-Bindman was contacted by a TSA public affairs officer. During the conversation, she suggested that she or other outside scientists be allowed to test the machine. The official was shocked by the suggestion and said such access could tip off people who want to avoid detection, Smith-Bindman said.

“It was not appreciating that there’s legitimate scientific questions that have to be balanced against the security questions,” she said.

The TSA did not respond to ProPublica’s questions about why it wouldn’t allow outside testing. But at a congressional hearing in March, Robin Kane, assistant administrator for security technology, said doing so would expose a lot of sensitive information the agency wouldn’t normally share publicly. The machines had already been tested several times, he said, and if set up securely, the agency would allow more testing.

The available information leaves scientists with little to work with. Peter Rez, the Arizona State physics professor who signed the letter to Holdren, has tried to calculate the radiation by examining the handful of backscatter images that have been released publicly.

The Electronic Privacy Information Center, a civil liberties group, sued the Department of Homeland Security, TSA’s parent agency, in federal court seeking release of 2,000 backscatter images used in testing. But it has not been successful.

The few images that have been made public do not reveal faces or detailed private features. The TSA says the images Rez used are out of date, but Rez says the current image on TSA’s website is unusable.

Using the earlier images, Rez concluded in the Radiation Protection Dosimetry journal that it was highly unlikely the machines could have produced such high-quality images with doses of radiation as low as those described by TSA. He estimated the dose, while still very small, is 45 times higher than the results measured by Johns Hopkins.

Applying Rez’s numbers, Brenner wrote a paper for the journal Radiology, estimating that 100 additional cancers would develop for every 1 billion scans.

For Rez, the real danger occurs if the machine stops in the middle of a scan, allowing the beam to focus on a tiny area for several seconds. Given that the backscatter works with a wheel rotating at a high speed, and that the agency plans to use the scanners continuously 365 days a year, mechanical failures are likely, he said.

The TSA says that the scanners have safety systems, such as automatic shutoffs and emergency stop buttons, that will kill the beam in the event of any problem that could result in abnormal radiation. How those fail-safe systems work isn’t entirely clear.

When Johns Hopkins researchers visited the Rapiscan facility, the automatic termination appeared to work. But the full results of the shutoff tests are redacted.

What’s more, the test system didn’t have an emergency stop button. Source

The question you must ask yourself: Are they telling the truth, when they say the scanners are safe? They of course show you, in all your glorious nakedness. That in of itself is humiliating on it’s own.

Now we must move on to how this so called Security works.

The beginning starts here:

TSA Worker Crimes

This is a rather long list of crimes perpetrated by the Employees of TSA,

Assault, harassment, theft, trying to buy sex, possessing child porn, rapeStatutory Rape, drugs, drugs smuggling, handguns in luggage, domestic violence, grand larceny, sexually abusing two young girls, federal extortion,  bribery charges, Running Prostitution Ring, cooking meth, taking bribes, Child Molestation,

To name a few: These are the the type of people who work for the TSA.

Go HERE to read about the crimes of TSA Employees, mentioned above.

Now that you know, what type of people are hired, we can move on to the next step in our journey to enlightenment.

TSA agent forces elderly woman to empty colostomy bag

December 6, 2010 By Dead Serious News

Rosemary Fecteau, an 87 year old widow from Hershey, Pennsylvania, plans to sue the TSA for forcing her to empty her colostomy bag during a pat-down.

Fecteau, who has had a colostomy bag since a mosh pit injury two years ago, is claiming that the TSA agent humiliated her in front of hundreds of passengers waiting in the security line at the Orlando International Airport yesterday.  According to Fecteau, she was selected for a pat-down when the full body scanner detected her colostomy bag.  Fecteau, through her lawyer, claims that she told the TSA agent that it was a colostomy bag, but the agent had “never heard of that before.”  After patting down the bag, the TSA agent stated that “something feels very strange in there” and requested that Fecteau empty the contents on the inspection table nearby.  Fecteau claims when she protested, the TSA agent threatened her with arrest and a $10,000 fine.  Fecteau, crying and trembling, emptied her colostomy bag on the table to jeers and laughter from passengers in the security line.  The TSA agent scolded Fecteau.  “Why didn’t you tell me the bag was full of your crap?”

Fecteau was allowed to board the plane after the incident.  A TSA spokesperson who was not aware of this specific incident, said that it appeared the TSA agent involved “acted appropriately”. Source

A TSA spokesperson who was not aware of this specific incident, said that it appeared the TSA agent involved “acted appropriately”.

I be to differ. The agent in question was cruel to and elderly woman. She was absolutely humiliated, beyond anything imaginable. He orders her to empty the bag then goes on to give her Shit for dumping shit out. Excuse the language but this type of behavior is anything but acceptable. The woman had no choice in the matter facing, arrest or a $10,000 fine.

I don’t know what planet the agent is from but on earth this is considered profound abuse of power.

Condoning such an act as the TSA spokesperson did it also an abuse of power in every way imaginable.  How dare anyone condone such an action towards an elderly terrified woman.  TSA says they train their employees to be sensitive. Well that is a load of BS. A blatant lie if you ask me.

Who is protecting people like this Elderly woman so horrifically, humiliated by the TSA?

This is just one incident there are many more.

Check HERE for more nightmares the Elderly and Handicapped  have been put through at the hands of TSA.

TSA Screening Abuse of Children & Minors

The short list:

Detaining and searching 3 year old;s., Exposes 17-Year-Old ’s Breasts, Baby 18 months old ordered off plane, 5th Grader Was Groped By TSA, TSA molesting child, Eight-Year-Old on TSA Terrorist Watchlist, to name a couple of infringements.

TSA Has No Idea How To Screen A 7-Year-Old With Cerebral Palsy

By Chris Morran April 25, 2012

The tiny (potential) terrorists of the world continue to wreak havoc at airport security checkpoints. We already brought you the story of the 4-year-old who dared to hug her grandmother in view of TSA screeners, and now comes the tale of a 7-year-old girl with cerebral palsy whose crutches and leg braces reportedly confounded security personnel at JFK Airport.

The girl’s parents tell TheDaily.com that they know their daughter needs to go through a pat-down when she flies because her crutches and braces throw off the scanners and other detectors.

But, says her father, the family recently missed their flight out of JFK because the TSA screeners were not only rude, but also could not decide how to properly screen his daughter.

Because their daughter is developmentally disabled and can react negatively to being inspected by strangers, the parents say they usually ask the screeners performing the pat-down to introduce themselves to the little girl.

“[T]he woman started screaming at me and cursing me and threatening me,” the father recalls.

Things seemed to be okay after a supervisor decided that searching the girl’s crutches would suffice.

But after the family had been sitting at the gate for an hour, the TSA suddenly decided it hadn’t done its job and it needed everyone to come back to the checkpoint to re-screen the girl.

When that was all done, the family say they attempted to race through the terminal to make their flight but they were too late and had to be re-booked onto a later flight.

The TSA gave Consumerist the following statement:

TSA takes all passengers claims seriously and each one is thoroughly reviewed. A TSA manager determined that a TSA officer did not complete the screening procedure on the child.

When the checkpoint manager learned that the screening was not completed, TSA officers went to the gate and offered to conduct a modified pat-down at the gate, or back at the checkpoint, where there is a separate screening room for privacy. The family ultimately returned to the checkpoint to complete the screening process.

TSA officers strive to screen passengers respectfully while ensuring the safety of all travelers. Source

This type of behavior from TSA employees is not acceptable.

For All Reports on this topic go HERE

TSA Screening Abuse Reports – General Public

The short list:

Sexual harassment, TSA agents ‘laugh at travelers’ naked scanner images in backrooms, vandalizing travelers property, reaching into woman’s bra, Women’s Breasts  exposed by TSA screeners, TSA pulls down man’s pants, ordered to strip naked for airport security while workers took pictures and video, people sexually assaulted, to name a few.

Flier’s TSA ‘grope’ nightmare

By HEATHER HADDON

March 27, 2011

The skies were a little too friendly for a Brooklyn woman who said her security pat-down at La Guardia Airport last week felt more like fondling than frisking.

“If I had been physically attacked, this would have been a very, very similar experience,” said Nancy Campbell, 33, an urban planner who said she was traumatized by a touchy-feely female TSA agent before her flight to Washington Tuesday.

Campbell had already cleared security and was approaching the gate when the young agent stopped her, told her to drop her stuff and demanded she stand spread-eagled.


UNHAPPY LANDINGS: Brooklynite Nancy Campbell claims her search was like a physical attack.

As passers-by gawked, the TSA agent patted Campbell down, touching her breasts, inner thighs and crotch, the freaked-out flier told The Post.

When she protested, the agent said, “You can either continue on flailing about, or you can let me do my job. If you don’t, you can’t fly.”

The petite Brooklynite was in tears when she boarded her plane after the three-minute ordeal.

Hers is just one of the hundreds of complaints heard since Nov. 1, when the Transportation Security Administration started sending some passengers through full-body scanners to better detect explosives. Those who refused the scan would face a more vigorous pat-down.

But Campbell says she was never asked to step through a scanner. The guard provided no other options to the random pat-downs at the gate.

Putting passengers through enhanced pat-downs after they’ve already cleared security is “very, very strange,” said Christopher Calabrese, legislative counsel for the ACLU.

Campbell said two other women were groped during the random checks at Gate 18.

Ann Davis, a TSA spokeswoman, said the agency has randomly screened bags and travelers at gates since 2008.

Davis would not say if the pat-down described by Campbell broke agency protocols or was overly intrusive. When asked about the rules, Davis said she could not discuss them because of security concerns.

“We will certainly look into the specifics of this passenger’s complaint. Officers are trained to conduct these pat-downs in a professional manner,” she said.

The TSA has received 900 complaints from travelers who underwent or witnessed pat-downs and another 4,515 from those against the public friskings in general. Source

For more on this topic Go HERE

Here a link with some of the Lawsuits against TSA

TSA Security Failures & Negligence

TSA Propaganda & Misinformation

This is how the Department of Homeland Security and TSA protects the people of the US.

The above reports are up to April 2013 only.

Thank you, to those who have come forward and reported all the abuses.  Thank you, to all those who have reported and collected all the information. There certainly is a mountain of crimes, being committed in the name of Security.

I will leave you with this last thought.

Disgraced Catholic priest who was defrocked after ‘sexually abusing two young girls’ now works as a TSA airport screener (Thomas  Harkins)

A disgraced priest who was kicked out of the Catholic church after he allegedly abused two young girls has found new employment supervising airport security screeners for the TSA.

The post gives Thomas Harkin access thousands of travelers, including untold numbers of children, as they pass through security checkpoints at Philadelphia International Airport every day.

And now, a third alleged victim has come forward saying that Harkin molested her up to 15 times when she was 11, including in the rectory of Saint Anthony of Padua parish in Hammonton, New Jersey.

All of the alleged abuse occurred in the 1980s, but none of the alleged victims came forward before the statute of limitations expired, CBS Philadelphia reports.

Harkin could not be prosecuted, but when the Diocese of Camden, New Jersey, learned of the allegations in 2002, he was defrocked.

It’s unclear when Harkin landed the job supervising airport screeners, but the Transportation Security Administration says he in is charge of overseeing baggage, not passengers.

Karen Polesir, the Philadelphia spokeswoman with the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, told the TV station she fears Harkin still has access to any passengers coming through the security gates.

New allegations: A third accuser has come forward to say Harkin molested her up to 15 times at Saint Anthony of Padua parish when she was 11

As the public, we are screened to our underwear getting on a plane, and yet they hire a man like that,’ she said.Harkin, when confronted by CBS Philadelphia, denied that the public was in danger, but refused to comment on his job, on the abuse allegations, or the lawsuit filed by his newest accuser.The TSA says it hired Harkin after he cleared a criminal background check. His security record was clean because he was never arrested on the abuse allegations.However, it’s unknown whether he would have been disqualified even if he had been arrested for child molesting, Huffington Post reports.

The TSA says its background checks search for ’28 disqualifying crimes,’ but the agency doesn’t say what the crimes are, so no one can say whether sexually abusing children disqualifies potential screeners.

Harkin refused to speak with a reporter from CBS Philadelphia who confronted him over the allegations

Videos at Source

What do you think?

Who protects you from TSA Abusers?

As of June 1 2013

TSA removes body scanners criticized as too revealing

From June 2011

Electronic Privacy Information Center obtained documents that show how TSA workers got sick with cancer, heart disease and stroke. Source

So what about frequent flyers?  They could get all of the above as well, from the scanners.

Recent

Canada: Father Dan Miller has pleaded guilty to five counts of indecent assault

Cyprus Banks steal Depositors money

This is rather a long read. It is important that we all know the facts. If banks were properly regulated this would not have happened. It all started back in 2008 in the US and is still continuing. The question we all should be asking is, why is it those who created the problem never get punished?

Cyprus Steal The West’s Premeditated Bank Robbery

By Jeff Nielson 04/01/13

VANCOUVER, Canada (Bullions Bull Canada) — The veils have been removed. The open criminality of Western regimes is now on display for all the world to see. Bank robbery is now official government policy across the West with no debate and no voting.

As was noted in my original commentary on this government-perpetrated crime, it was immediately obvious that this was an entirely staged/scripted event. To fully comprehend the premeditated nature of this crime requires a detailed examination of the chronology.

December 10, 2012:

The U.S. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the UK Bank of England jointly release a “position paper” titled “Resolving Globally Active, Systemically Important, Financial Institutions.” Sounds wonderful: “resolving.” They are finally coming up with a plan to put the “Too Big To Fail” fraud factories out of our misery. Wrong.

This document is a blueprint for precisely the opposite: propping up these TBTF monstrosities forever. This manifesto was simply coming up with new “proposals for financing” — i.e. feeding the Beast. And one of these proposals was the “bail-in.”

…[Item 19] The introduction of a statutory bail-in resolution tool (the power to write down or convert into equity the liabilities of a failing firm)… [emphasis mine]

Why was there no rioting in the streets of the U.S. and UK? Why were there no scathing condemnations from our wonderful “free press?” In fact, why did the media not even mention the “bail-in” was now government policy for the U.S. and UK?

And what about our “leaders,” the politicians? Why did not a single one of these stalwarts in the U.S./UK utter so much as a “peep” about bank robbery becoming official government policy in the United States and United Kingdom?

Because when these traitor governments made this their “official policy” they never fully defined what they really meant by “bail-in.” Here is as close as the FDIC/Bank of England come to telling the truth:

…A bail-in tool would enable the U.K. authorities to recapitalize an institution by allocating losses to its shareholders and unsecured creditors…[emphasis mine]

Why were no UK politicians protesting the “bail-in?” Because when the Bank of England spoke of “allocating losses to…unsecured creditors” no one would have dreamed that what this central bank really meant was stealing the money out of peoples’ bank accounts.

It should be noted that while that provision was explicitly designated as applying only to “the U.K. regime” that it can be implicitly understood that it applies to the U.S. as well. While the provisions for “the U.S. regime” do not use the term “bail-in,” here is the vague language which was employed:

…Title II [of the Dodd-Frank Act] requires that the losses of any financial company placed into receivership will not be borne by taxpayers, but by common and preferred stockholders, debt holders, and other unsecured creditors… [emphasis mine]

December 10, 2012:

The U.S. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the UK Bank of England jointly release a “position paper” titled “Resolving Globally Active, Systemically Important, Financial Institutions.” Sounds wonderful: “resolving.” They are finally coming up with a plan to put the “Too Big To Fail” fraud factories out of our misery. Wrong.

This document is a blueprint for precisely the opposite: propping up these TBTF monstrosities forever. This manifesto was simply coming up with new “proposals for financing” — i.e. feeding the Beast. And one of these proposals was the “bail-in.”

…[Item 19] The introduction of a statutory bail-in resolution tool (the power to write down or convert into equity the liabilities of a failing firm)… [emphasis mine]

Why was there no rioting in the streets of the U.S. and UK? Why were there no scathing condemnations from our wonderful “free press?” In fact, why did the media not even mention the “bail-in” was now government policy for the U.S. and UK?

And what about our “leaders,” the politicians? Why did not a single one of these stalwarts in the U.S./UK utter so much as a “peep” about bank robbery becoming official government policy in the United States and United Kingdom?

Because when these traitor governments made this their “official policy” they never fully defined what they really meant by “bail-in.” Here is as close as the FDIC/Bank of England come to telling the truth:

…A bail-in tool would enable the U.K. authorities to recapitalize an institution by allocating losses to its shareholders and unsecured creditors…[emphasis mine]

Why were no UK politicians protesting the “bail-in?” Because when the Bank of England spoke of “allocating losses to…unsecured creditors” no one would have dreamed that what this central bank really meant was stealing the money out of peoples’ bank accounts.

It should be noted that while that provision was explicitly designated as applying only to “the U.K. regime” that it can be implicitly understood that it applies to the U.S. as well. While the provisions for “the U.S. regime” do not use the term “bail-in,” here is the vague language which was employed:

…Title II [of the Dodd-Frank Act] requires that the losses of any financial company placed into receivership will not be borne by taxpayers, but by common and preferred stockholders, debt holders, and other unsecured creditors… [emphasis mine]

The official policy of the U.S. government is precisely the same as that of the UK (hence the joint “position paper”). The FDIC simply didn’t articulate its own plans for bank robbery to the same degree. Put another way: There were seven sections detailing how the UK would “resolve” these “systemically important institutions” (but no mention of bank-robbery) versus only two sections for the U.S.

Now we come to the remainder of the chronology, which not only proves that the Cyprus Steal was planned (at least) as far back as December 2012, but that the fix was in: our traitor governments had already reached agreement with the traitor government of Cyprus to perpetrate this crime.

March 15:

The EU banking cabal and its puppet politicians “surprise” the world by announcing a plan to steal money out of the bank accounts of ordinary people in order to “recapitalize” a private bank in Cyprus, while a publicly owned bank would be liquidated and also fed to the private bank. Victimizing the people twice in order to temporarily prop up another reckless/insolvent fraud factory.

As noted previously, this was obviously a proposal intended to fail in this silly, two-act theater. This was proven by the zealous insistence of the European Central Bank that the original proposal must “magnify the hit” on smaller depositors. This would ensure maximum public outrage, and guarantee that the politicians would vote against it.

The ECB is the third member of the Western Troika, along with the Federal Reserve and the Bank of England. They were solely responsible for the final language of the original proposal; solely responsible for its rejection.

March 19:

Cyprus politicians (government and opposition alike) unanimously reject the “bail-in.” What a surprise!

March 21:

Stephen Harper, leader of Canada’s Conservative government officially tables the 2013 Canadian Budget, which makes the “bail-in” the official law of Canada.

[page 145] The Government proposes to implement a bail-in regime for systemically important banks…

As with the U.S. and UK, the Canadian document contains nothing but weasel-words that never fully define what “bail-in” really means — i.e. robbing peoples’ bank accounts to temporarily prop-up reckless/parasitic banks.

Is Stephen Harper the most stupid politician in the Western world? Two days after the government of Cyprus unanimously rejects bank robbery as a means to “recapitalize banks,” Harper makes this the official law of Canada. Would he really want to go into the next election as “Stephen Harper: Bank Robber of the West” or did Harper know something then, almost no one else knew?

March 25:

The government of Cyprus approves the “new and improved” Cyprus Steal amid reports that the Big Money had already been warned about this bank robbery, and had moved their own money out weeks/months ahead of time.

Now our picture is complete.

We have our traitor governments planning this bank robbery months in advance and warning the big-money oligarchs so they would not be affected. We have them then staging an “emergency.”

The TG’s then tell us that because of this “emergency” they need to instantly raise a lot of money, and so they don’t have time to fairly and systematically “tax” people with some broad, general levy; rather, they “need to” simply seize wealth from a particular group of targeted victims.

This time it was stealing money out of bank accounts. Next time it might be confiscating pensions. The blueprint (i.e. script) is now firmly in place:

  • (Secretly) plan the robbery.
  • Warn the Big Money (so all their wealth is moved to safety).
  • Announce/stage an “emergency.”
  • Perpetrate the theft.

The criminality of the West’s traitor governments is now a matter of record. Their written confessions are contained in official, public documents.

The question then becomes: What will be the response of the Sheep — i.e. the pseudo-citizens of these regimes? Will they simply sit back and submit to a “taxation regime” that has now abandoned even the pretense of legitimacy?

If the answer to that question is “yes” then one can only conclude the Sheep deserve to be robbed. They elect these traitor governments. They continue snoozing when the politicians publicly announce they plan on openly stealing from them. They allow themselves to be robbed.

You can’t help victims who refuse to help themselves.

What about the rest of us, the remaining citizens of these once-legitimate regimes? We have no choice but to protect ourselves — not with guns, but with our brains.

With first “MF Global” and now the Cyprus Steal we have incontrovertible proof that no paper asset is safe in the West. Period.

We must therefore divest ourselves of as much paper as possible, with “physical” gold and silver bullion being the best/safest option. Do not pump every last penny of your wealth into our “bubble” real-estate markets. They are all doomed to suffer major crashes.

Obviously, we will receive no further “warnings” from our governments. Source

 

‘It’s robbery!’ New Cyprus bombshell as Britons are told they may lose EVERYTHING over £85k

  • Bank of Cyprus will see 37.5% of deposits over £85k converted into shares
  • Laiki Bank customers are also reported to be facing the loss of 80%
  • Experts say there is a good chance that shares will be worthless

By Dan Atkinson And Ian Gallagher

March 31 2013

British expats in Cyprus face a near-total wipe-out of any deposits over £85,000 as the full nightmare  of the stricken island’s EU bailout became clear yesterday.

Although it was known that the wealthiest savers would take a  large hit from last week’s €10 billion (£8.5 billion) EU rescue deal, the loss is far greater than feared.

The blow will fall on customers of the country two biggest banks – Bank of Cyprus and Laiki Bank.

Bank of Cyprus savers will see 37.5 per cent of any deposits over €100,000 (£85,000) converted into shares in the bank, with a strong possibility that these will prove worthless. Another 40 per cent will be repaid only if the bank does well in future, while 22.5 per cent will go into a contingency fund that could be subject to further write-offs.

Laiki Bank customers are also reported to be facing the loss of 80 per cent of their deposits above the £85,000 limit.

An early bailout plan – highlighted by The Mail on Sunday two weeks ago – would have seen the losses shared across all bank customers, regardless of their balance.

However, that plan was voted down by the Cypriot parliament, leaving the country in urgent need of a new solution to raise its €5.8 billion contribution towards the bailout.

The deal – which was clinched last Monday between Cyprus, the European Union and the International Monetary Fund – made clear that richer bank customers would shoulder a much larger bill.

Although it is not known how many of the 60,000 British expats living  on the island have deposits of  more than £85,000, it is likely that a considerable number will be caught in the net.

Neil Hodgson, 48, who moved to Paphos, on the south-west coast of the island, six years ago, said he has lost nearly £200,000. The former farmer, who has two accounts with Bank of Cyprus, added: ‘I had more than €300,000 in my deposit account and €20,000 in my current account. When I went to the bank the other day I was told the total balance for both is €100,000.

‘They were unable to explain how this had been worked out but indicated I might get some back at a later stage.

‘I checked online and it confirmed that the €20,000 in my current account remains, but that I only have €80,000 in my savings account. It’s robbery, plain and simple.’

Laiki Bank customers are also reported to be facing the loss of 80 per cent of their deposits above the £85,000 limit

Banks in Cyprus are open for normal business but with strict restrictions on how much money their clients can access, after being shut for nearly two weeks

Mr Hodgson, from Newcastle upon Tyne, whose wife died two years ago, said he moved to Cyprus believing he was destined for a ‘happy life of semi-retirement’.

‘Our farm in Ayrshire was bought by a mining company and I came into a lot of money,’ he added. ‘We moved to Cyprus for the sunshine and easy life but it has turned into  a nightmare.

‘My big mistake was to move all my money here, but at the time things were very stable. Most of  the Brits here had the foresight to move their money in the last few months, but I genuinely thought it would be OK. I’m not sure what the future holds now.’

The Treasury has said it will  compensate any of the 3,000 British Service personnel facing losses.
Those hit hardest include thousands of wealthy Russians who  have deposited millions of euros on the stricken island. Peter Dixon, strategist at European bank Commerzbank, said: ‘These suggested new sacrifices being demanded of better-off depositors sound even worse than we assumed.

‘The problems in Cyprus are twofold. First, the central bank ignored the huge build-up of debt. There was a problem of mismanagement.

‘Secondly, the Cypriots essentially imposed these tough solutions on themselves and the eurozone rubber-stamped them.’

Last week markets took fright at suggestions that the Cyprus model could be a blueprint for future  bailouts elsewhere in Europe.

Those with less than £85,000 in the bank have also seen themselves hit by the bailout. Temporary capital controls have been imposed to stop residents taking cash off the island, including capping cash machine withdrawals at €300 a day.

At the same time, businesses have been told they will be unable to transfer more than €5,000 abroad without approval, while no one, including tourists, can leave the island with over €1,000 in cash.

Meanwhile, the spotlight has now swung to Slovenia, another small member of the single currency in which investors are losing faith.

Last week, the price it had to pay to borrow money jumped sharply as markets began to take account of the risk that the country may default on its debts. However, on Friday, finance minister Uros Cufer insisted: ‘We will need no bailout this year. I am calm.’

 

Dan Atkinson: How the euro turned into the biggest theft in history

For a currency that promised to provide a sure bet on a glorious future, the euro is turning into the biggest theft of people’s savings in Western Europe since the war.

Greece, Ireland, Portugal  and Spain were among the first  to be crushed by the fallacy of  a one-size-fits-all currency.  Now it is Cyprus’s turn, and the scale of losses for some savers  is eye-watering.

Last week, the latest Cypriot bailout proposals hinted at a 40 per cent levy on all deposits of more than €100,000, or £85,000. This weekend, it emerged that the true cost for those better-off depositors could be much closer  to 80 per cent. British expats feature prominently among those who will suffer from an effective confiscation of their assets.

Claims that the victims are shady Russian oligarchs have  a nasty whiff to them, and even  if some of the cash that will be taken is of doubtful provenance, that cannot justify the burden now being placed on the tiny island economy.

Smaller savers may not have been hit by a levy on their bank accounts, but they will be swept up in the economic storm that is sure to descend  on Cyprus as a result of such draconian measures.

It’s tempting to wonder why any troubled eurozone country like Cyprus was ever let into what was obviously a rich man’s club.

But that is unfair – the poorer members were welcomed with open arms, with the assurance that the euro would turn them into German-style economic titans. It was like persuading  a pauper to join a casino.

Yes, Cyprus let its banking sector balloon wildly and, yes, it is the Cypriot government that has dreamt up some of the more masochistic features of the various bailout plans.

But all this human sacrifice in the eurozone – austerity, mass unemployment, arbitrary bank account levies – is about saving the euro. You wonder how much pain there has to be before someone realises that what must be sacrificed is the euro itself. Source

Morici: The Insanity of the Cyprus Crisis

By Peter Morici 03/28/13

NEW YORK Cyprus did not manufacture its banking crisis. The European Central Bank and European Union bear that responsibility. Yet, Cypriots will pay the price for their dysfunctions.

Until recently, Cyprus was a prosperous island economy with robust tourism, shipping and a significant international banking sector. Its big banks, like others in Europe, attracted large overseas deposits and invested heavily in sovereign debt. In Cyprus, much of the money came from Russia and was invested in Greek bonds.

Like the United States, the large banks are subject to stress tests but with an important distinction. The Federal Reserve is responsible both for undertaking those tests and sustaining the operation and protecting depositors of large money center banks in a crisis. During the recent financial meltdown, the Federal Reserve printed billions of dollars to purchase souring bonds and the U.S. Treasury borrowed to inject new capital into large banks when their mortgage-backed securities failed.

In the eurozone, the European Banking Authority undertakes those stress tests, and in 2010 and 2011 — well aware of their considerable holdings in Greek bonds — determined Cypriot banks had plenty of capital to withstand a financial crisis.

Meanwhile, Greece was in the throes of a financial crisis. In February 2012, the European Central Bank and European Union, along with the International Monetary Fund, imposed a 53.5% haircut on all private bondholders — for all practical purposes, that sunk the large Cypriot banks and manufactured their crisis.

Unlike the Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank lacks the authority to print money to rescue failing banks. European Banking Authority is an arm of the European Union, which lacks the borrowing authority of the U.S. Treasury and the taxing capacity to back up bonds. Hence neither the ECB nor EU is in a position to bail out the Cypriot banks without substantial contributions and consent from the largest and healthiest European economy, Germany.

Germany might be willing to extend ECB the authority to print money and the EU to borrow and tax to save banks in Frankfurt but not in Cyprus or just about anyplace outside Germany. Domestic politics prevent the German government from borrowing and taxing to bail out other troubled European banks and governments without extracting a high price from private actors. In Greece, those were private bondholders, which included banks spread throughout Europe but most heavily those in Cyprus.

Simply, Cypriot banks hardly have enough capital to cover their losses on Greek sovereign debt, and their economy is too small to afford the Cypriot government the borrowing and taxing capacity to rescue them.

In exchange for 10 billion euros in aid, the ECB and EU are demanding that Cypriot banks be downsized — banking in Cyprus can be no larger than the average for the entire European Union. Moreover, under eurozone rules, championed by Germany, austerity — cuts in government spending and strict limits on deficits — will be required.

In Cyprus, the loss of international banking will impose double-digit unemployment of perhaps as high as 20% because this small island economy cannot devalue its currency to attract new investment, as Iceland did after its crisis. Most laid-off workers, whose native tongue is generally Greek, have few employment options elsewhere in Europe.

Thanks to a crisis manufactured by the European Central Bank and European Union, with the help of the International Monetary Fund, Cyprus will join Spain, Portugal and Greece in a permanent recession.

Spain suffered a similar banking crisis premised on foreign money inflows and real estate loans and similar problems engineering a recovery. The contrast between Spain and Cyprus, which are locked into the euro, and Iceland, which has its own currency and recovered, plainly illustrates the euro does not make sense for these economies.

Germany’s prescription for all these economies is austerity. Observing failed experiences with those policies across the Mediterranean recalls the definition of insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again but expecting a different result.

The bailout terms and prescriptions for restructuring imposed on Cyprus are nothing short of insane, and the only sane course would be for Cyprus and the other Club Med states to negotiate an orderly withdrawal from the euro. Source

The Great Cyprus Bank Robbery

Ron Paul

After Cyprus, the EU’s Attention Turns to Tiny Luxembourg

By Peter Coy

March 29, 2013

It’s getting hot in Luxembourg, a nation that’s something like Cyprus on steroids. Its population is smaller and its banking sector is bigger. If you thought it was risky for banks in Cyprus to have assets about eight times the national gross domestic product, then what is one to make of Luxembourg, where the multiple is nearly 23?

Worryingly for Luxembourg, there’s a new idea afloat that European Union nations, even small ones, should take responsibility for saving banks operating within their borders, instead of falling back on the EU for help. This week, Dutch finance minister Jeroen Dijsselbloem, who is president of the euro zone group of finance ministers, had tough words for the likes of Luxembourg and Malta in a joint Reuters-Financial Times interview:

Deal with it before you get in trouble. Strengthen your banks, fix your balance sheets, and realize that if a bank gets in trouble, the response will no longer automatically be: We’ll come and take away your problems. We’re going to push them back. That’s the first response that we need. Push them back. You deal with them.

Dijsselbloem later said that he did not intend to say that the original Cyprus plan to tax depositors of Cypriot banks should be a template for other bailouts.

Seemingly in response, the government of Luxembourg warned that the European Union risks hurting financial stability if it moves to isolate banking systems within national borders. “Luxembourg will therefore not adhere to policies that intend to renationalize elements of the single market,” the government said in an e-mailed statement, according to Bloomberg News.

In a March 27 statement, (PDF) the Luxembourg government said it is “concerned about recent statements and declarations” on financial systems and the “alleged risks” of over-dependence on banks. It pointed to the “very high solvency ratios” of the mostly international banks, insurers, and asset managers operating on Luxembourg soil.

Luxembourg has a population of about 520,000 people, making it no bigger than Albuquerque, N.M. It relied on financial services for 23.5 percent of its gross domestic product in 2011, the highest proportion in Europe, according to the European Union’s statistics office. The figure for Cyprus was 8.9 percent. Assets of its banks are nearly 23 times as big as the national gross domestic product. That compares with a little over eight for Cyprus. Still, Luxembourg’s banks are far healthier than those of Cyprus, which were overexposed to Greece.

There’s no realistic way for Luxembourg to rescue its banking sector if serious trouble develops. That’s why for Luxembourg, shoring up the commitment to shared responsibility for bank bailouts is a matter of life and death. Source

 

European Austerity Costing Lives:

As the euro crisis wears on, the tough austerity measures implemented in ailing member states are resulting in serious health issues, a study revealed on Wednesday. Mental illness, suicide rates and epidemics are on the rise, while access to care has dwindled. Source

 

Financial Wars:

Attack is the Best Form of Defence

By Alexander GOROKHOV

The US has been using its best endeavours to create a Free Trade Zone with the European Union with a view to finally removing the remaining barriers to the penetration of American capital into Europe and, after engineering the collapse of the euro, to buy up Europe’s tastiest morsels using vastly inflated dollars under the pretext of saving the EU’s economy.Source

The criminals are protected and everyone else pays.

Believe me when I say no one wants to live in a Free Trade Zone.

 

Published in: on April 3, 2013 at 3:34 pm  Comments Off on Cyprus Banks steal Depositors money  
Tags: , , , , , ,

What Every American Should Know

Published on Mar 1, 2013

Grant F. Smith, research director of IRmep, briefs several hundred Houston area non-profit and business leaders about why Americans are turning away from Israel and challenging Israel’s U.S. lobby. Review of major espionage, propaganda and wealth transfer initiatives. Analysis of new polling data on American public opinion and how the growing breech between opinion and policy may be driving a higher score on Transparency International’s “perceptions of corruption” index.

Netanyahu worked inside nuclear smuggling ring
Counterespionage debriefing reveals how Israel targeted US. On June 27, 2012, the FBI partially declassified and released seven additional pages[.pdf] from a 1985–2002 investigation into how a network of front companies connected to the Israeli Ministry of Defense illegally smuggled nuclear triggers out of the U.S.* The newly released FBI files detail how Richard Kelly Smyth — who was convicted of running a U.S. front company — met with Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel during the smuggling operation. At that time, Netanyahu worked at the Israeli node of the smuggling network, Heli Trading Company. Netanyahu, who currently serves as Israel’s prime minister, recently issued a gag order that the smuggling network’s unindicted ringleader refrain from discussing “Project Pinto.” More

The Mobsters who Funded AIPAC

Disclosure forms and subpoenaed documents filed by AIPAC and its predecessor organizations (the AZC and AZCPA) reveal organized crime figures such as “Jake the Barber,” “Meyer Lansky’s right-hand-man” Aaron Weisberg, arms smuggler associate Zimel Resnick, and Israeli nuclear bomb funding coordinator Abraham Feinberg all provided critical and timely start-up funding to AIPAC as it morphed through shell corporations.

http://www.irmep.org/ILA/AZCPA/default.asp

For More Information Go to IRmep.org

http://www.irmep.org/

http://www.irmep.org/ILA/default.asp

Every American should know this.

The Foreign Assistance Act strictly prohibits U.S. foreign assistance to any country that “engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights.

Israel  gets about $3 billion a year from the US.

Bahrain gets military aid

So how many violators of Human rights get aid from the US one has to ask?  There are many more. I imagine it is a very long list.

By Assisting the Rebels in Syria, the US is also helping Al Qaeda.

Analysis: Study shows rise of al Qaeda affiliate in Syria

By Nic Robertson and Paul Cruickshank

A jihadist group with links to al Qaeda has become the most effective of the different factions fighting the regime, according to a new analysis, and now has some 5,000 fighters.

The group is Jabhat al-Nusra, which was designated an al Qaeda affiliate by the United States government last month. It is led by veterans of the Iraqi insurgency “and has shown itself to be the principal force against Assad and the Shabiha,” according to the study.

CNN obtained an advance copy of the analysis, set to be released Tuesday by the Quilliam Foundation, a counterterrorism policy institute based in London.

“The civil war in Syria is a gift from the sky for al-Nusra; they are coasting off its energy,” the lead author of the report, Noman Benotman, told CNN.

Isn’t it illegal to help terrorists? Stop helping the Rebels.Maybe Americans should be telling the Government that.

Netanyahu in 1992: Iran close to having nuclear bomb

Posted on 09/16/2012 by Juan

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is trapped in reflection theory. He was allegedly himself involved in illegally smuggling nuclear triggers out of the US, and he assumes that Iran desperately wants a nuclear weapon as well. But Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has given a fatwa against nukes, and there is no solid intelligence pointing to an Iranian weapons program. Iran can’t be close to having a weapon if it doesn’t have a weapons program.

He has no credibility left on such warnings.

Scott Peterson at the Christian Science Monitor did a useful timeline for dire Israeli and US predictions of an imminent Iranian nuclear weapon, beginning 20 years ago.

1992: Israeli member of parliament Binyamin Netanyahu predicts that Iran was “3 to 5 years” from having a nuclear weapon.

1992: Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres predicts an Iranian nuclear warhead by 1999 to French TV.

1995: The New York Times quotes US and Israeli officials saying that Iran would have the bomb by 2000.

1998: Donald Rumsfeld tells Congress that Iran could have an intercontinental ballistic missile that could hit the US by 2003.

Source

For 21 years we keep hearing the same tired line. Enough is enough.

Related

Israel’s Dirty Nuclear Secrets, Human Experiments  and WMD

Secret nuclear and biological weapons programs in Israel

Criminal State – A Closer Look at Israel’s Role in Terrorism

A Jewish Defector Warns America also Zionists Poisoned/Radiated 100,000 Sefardi Jewish Children Just scroll down for that story

Recent

UK police in Hot Water

Icelandic Food and Veterinary Authority Discovery “Something was Missing”

Forced Birthcontrol

Historic Case Against the BBC’s Cover Up of 9/11 Evidence

Nuclear Dump in Washington Leaking Radioactive Waste

Published in: on March 3, 2013 at 10:14 pm  Comments Off on What Every American Should Know  
Tags: , , , , , , ,

This Is One of the Biggest Wall Street Frauds Ever

By Porter Stansberry

February 26 2010

One of the best lessons I’ve learned over my career as an investment analyst is the myth of excellent management or “great execution” is really just that – a myth.

When I see companies in troubled industries reporting quarter after quarter of great results, while all of their peers are getting killed, I know a fraud is going on. I remember in the early 2000s, WorldCom kept reporting profits when all of the other long-distance carriers were getting killed. I knew it couldn’t last. And it didn’t. WorldCom’s accounting was revealed to be a fraud – the company was counting its network access costs as capital expenses. Once the real numbers came out, the company collapsed in what was the largest bankruptcy in American history at that point.

About three years ago, I saw Goldman Sachs reporting quarter after quarter of unbelievable results when all of the other investment banks were hurting. I spent a lot of time looking at its numbers – which didn’t make any sense. It reminded me of Enron. It kept reporting bigger and bigger profits, but lost more money every year in cash. And its debt balances kept growing.

I wrote a lot about this in The Digest, but I never officially recommended shorting Goldman in my newsletter because I literally couldn’t figure out how Goldman Sachs was doing it. I couldn’t find the smoking gun… but I knew a giant fraud would be discovered there, eventually.

In October 2008, I figured out part of the big secret: Goldman had insured all of its subprime exposure via AIG. This allowed it to book huge profits on its subprime investments long before they were actually paid off because the bonds were insured. Of course, it was all a sham – AIG didn’t have nearly enough money to pay off any of the insurance. (See the October issue of PSIA for more details.) A source close to the company even told me how big the exposure to AIG really was – $20 billion. That’s roughly 100% of the profit Goldman claimed in 2006 and 2007, at the height of the credit bubble. Goldman completely denied my report and claimed it had zero exposure to AIG.

As was subsequently revealed in the spring of 2009, my report was right on the money. Goldman had roughly $20 billion in exposure to AIG and received roughly $14 billion of money the federal government used to bail out AIG.

But I completely missed one big part of the story… And once this fact becomes common knowledge, it will probably mean jail time for several leading Goldman executives and the end of the firm. What did I miss? The entire Goldman-AIG relationship was a complete sham. Let me explain…

Goldman eventually admitted it had insured roughly $20 billion worth of subprime CDOs with AIG and had major exposure to the firm. But the New York Federal Reserve and Goldman Sachs never revealed this critical fact: Goldman didn’t merely buy insurance on a bunch of random subprime CDOs. It actually bought insurance on special CDOs it had put together and sold to its own clients. In other words, Goldman knew more about these CDOs than anyone else. Goldman bought insurance on these CDOs because it knew they’d collapse.

This is tantamount to building a house, planting a bomb in it, selling it to an unsuspecting buyer, and buying $20 billion worth of life insurance on the homeowner – who you know is going to die!

These facts all came to light because of research done by the office of Darrell Issa, the ranking Republican on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. These new documents will certainly lead to a full investigation of the Goldman-AIG dealings and the subsequent $180 billion bailout led by the New York Federal Reserve. My bet? Heads will roll. If you own Goldman Sachs, you’d better sell.
Source

No surprise there. Both AIG and Goldman Sachs rate right up there with all the bailed out companies.  They caused the Financial crisis and the taxpayer foots the bill and still no real investigation or audits have been done. Even the Fed refused to let auditors in.

Recent

Assassination latest act in nightmare without end

Rachel Corrie Gets Her Day in Court

Help Haiti Everybody Hurts Video

Published in: on February 28, 2010 at 5:39 am  Comments Off on This Is One of the Biggest Wall Street Frauds Ever  
Tags: , , , , , , ,

Motorcycle thieves stalk victims online, warn police

By Steve Farrell
12 December 2008

Motorcycle thieves are using social networking websites and classified ad sites to find their next victims, police have warned.

They say riders too often give away enough clues to lead thieves to their bikes, and have issued tips to avoid the trap.

Crime prevention officer Colin Brough said riders selling bikes online sometimes include their home address with directions. He said some ads even include photos giving away where bikes are kept and how they are secured, so thieves know what tools to bring.

Brough said: ‘‘We have clear indications that motorbike thieves are looking at classified ad sites to target bikes to steal. Unfortunately, some people put too much information on their posting, including photos of the bike that also show the shed or garage door behind and whether there is much in the way of security.

‘‘Some of the postings quite literally put out the welcome mat by including a mapping system that provides directions virtually straight to the door of the seller.

‘‘The thieves can then look up the exact location of the bike and we believe they are turning up, with tools if necessary, to break in to the garage or shed and steal the bike.’’

Riders who use social networking sites are also at risk if the post too may details, according to the police warning.

Brough, of Tayside Police, said: “‘Many bikers have blogs on these sites that include a lot of information about them, often with photographs showing them on their motorcycles. A lot of these photos give strong clues as to the location of where these bikes are being stored and where they can potentially be stolen from.

‘‘I must stress that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the sites themselves, or with anyone using them – all include good information on how to keep safe when using them. But it is the amount of personal information that individuals are giving out that can be used by thieves and which is giving us real cause for concern.’’

The force said in a statement: ‘Tayside Police recommends that people look again at their postings and take all possible steps to ensure that there is nothing there to alert the eagle-eyed thief to the location of their vehicles.

‘Those who are selling a motorbike via a classified ads site are advised not to give out a home phone number, or use a mapping system showing the way to their door.
‘At the same time check out the tips that such websites give out themselves in respect of safety, security and any scams.’

Brough added: “We are targeting those responsible in an effort to bring them to justice but we need assistance from motorcycle owners. By reducing the amount of information that they make widely and readily available, they can reduce the chances of being a victim of crime.’’

Source

Published in: on December 12, 2008 at 2:26 pm  Comments Off on Motorcycle thieves stalk victims online, warn police  
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FEDERAL RESERVE OWNERS AND HISTORY

March 2012 — Just added the First Audit of the Federal Reserve in 99 years. It is at the bottom of the page.

Seems the Federal Reserve is deep in a Fraud and Money Laundering Scam. This began in the George W Bush Era.

This may just be the tip of the iceberg.

Bush, Fed, Europe Banks in $15 Trillion Fraud, All Documented

FEDERAL RESERVE OWNERS


Here’s a look into who was involved in setting up the Federal Reserve in 1913.

* Rothschild Banks of London and Berlin
* Lazard Brothers Bank of Paris
* Israel Moses Sieff Banks of Italy
* Warburg Bank of Hamburg, Germany and Amsterdam
* Kuhn Loeb Bank of New York
* Lehman Brothers Bank of New York
* Goldman Sachs Bank of New York
* Chase Manhattan Bank of New York (Controlled By the Rockefeller Family Tree)

Charles A. Lindbergh, Sr. 1913 “When the President signs this bill, the invisible government of the monetary power will be legalized….the worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking and currency bill.”

A Bit of History

In August of 1929, the Fed began to tighten the money supply continually by buying more government bonds. At the same time, all the Wall Street giants of the era, including John D. Rockefeller and J.P. Morgan divested from the stockmarket and put all their assets into cash and gold.

Soon thereafter, on October 24, 1929, the large brokerages all simultaneously called in their 24 hour “call-loans.” Brokers and investors were now forced to sell their stocks at any price they could get to cover these loans. The resulting market crash on “Black Thursday” was the beginning of the Great Depression.

The Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee, Representative Louis T. Mc Fadden, accused the Fed and international bankers of premeditating the crash. “It was not accidental,” he declared, “it was a carefully contrived occurrence (created by international bankers) to bring about a condition of despair…so that they might emerge as rulers of us all.”

He went on to accuse European “statesmen and financiers” of creating the situation to facilitate the reacquisition of the massive amounts of gold which Europe had lost to the U.S. during WWI. In a 1999 interview, Nobel Prize winning economist and Stanford University Professor Milton Friedman stated: “The Federal Reserve definitely caused the Great Depression.”

US DECLAIRED bankruptcy

Because the government of the U.S. (a corporation) had paid its loans to the Fed with real money exchangeable for gold, it was now insolvent and could no longer retire its debt. It now had no choice but to file chapter 11. Under the Emergency Banking Act (March 9, 1933, 48 Stat.1, Public law 89-719) President Franklin Roosevelt effectively dissolved the United States Federal Government by declaring the entity bankrupt and insolvent.

June 5, 1933 Congress enacted HJR 192 which made all debts, public or private, no longer collectible in gold. Instead, all debts public or private were to be payable in un-backed Fed-created fiat currency. This new currency would now be legal tender in the U.S. for all debts public and private.

Henceforth, our United States Constitution would be continuously eroded due to the fact that our nation is now owned “lock stock and barrel,” by a private consortium of international bankers, contemptuous of any freedoms or sovereignties intended by our forefathers. This was all accomplished by design.

How the Gold was Stolen from America

Under orders of the creditor (the Federal Reserve System and its private owners) on April 5, 1933 President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued Presidential order 6102, which required all Americans to deliver all gold coins, gold bullion, and gold certificates to their local Federal Reserve Bank on or before April 28, 1933.

Any violators would be fined up to $10,000, imprisoned up to ten years, or both for knowingly violating this order. This gold was then offered by the Fed owners to any foreign, non-U.S. citizen, at $35.00 per ounce. Over the entire previous 100 years, gold had remained at a stable value, increasing only from $18.93 per ounce to $20.69 per ounce.

Since then, every U.S. citizen (by virtue of their birth certificate) has become an asset of the government, pledged at a specific dollar amount to pay this debt through future taxation. Thus, every American citizen is in debt from birth (via future taxation), and is, for all practical purposes, property of the creditors, the privately owned Federal Reserve System.

Presently, the United States Government (which again, is completely owned and controlled by the international bankers) continues to forfeit its sovereignty by entering into international monetary and trade agreements which abolish almost all forms of trade tariffs that previously protected not only the value of American commercial productivity and workforce labor, but which were also a substantial source of revenue for the government.

The loss of this revenue, as well as the expanding deficits created by recent massive reduction in taxation for large corporations and the very wealthiest citizens, insures continued borrowing by the government. This self-perpetuating cycle of borrowing is made possible only by the ability of the government to guarantee repayment (of only the interest, never the principal) through future taxation on the earnings of every American citizen.

Due to our banking history of deception, fraud and counterfeiting, which only benefits the purported elite bankers and their underlings, the borrowed principal itself is being used to make the payments on our debt at interest, thus, it is mathematically impossible to pay off.

We are, therefore, obligated to continue this cycle of borrowing indefinitely, causing complete money slavery for life. The amount owed will expand endlessly, until our monthly payments exceed our income, we are bankrupt, and all we have acquired in this lifetime is pillaged from us. Or, until the privately owned Federal Reserve System is ended and all debts are terminated.

This IS WAY Custsy

BANKING SECRETS THAT BANKS DON’T WANT PUBLISHED

With debt termination/debt reconciliation, you’re out of credit card debt and unsecured loans quickly and easily, once and for all! Here, you will learn the the violations that occur in the issuance of credit cards and loans, plus a touch of the legalities employed in terminating your debts. After qualifying and receiving a telephone presentation, you’ll concur that this is the safest, fastest, most legal, lawful, honest and ethical way of getting out of debt there ever was.

Through extensive research and development by economists, bankers, bank auditors, CPA’s, attorneys, underwriters, authors, and database programmers, we have developed a state-of-the-art legal administrative remedy, designed to anticipate and overcome nearly every variation of creditor response.

The successful termination of your debt also includes all-inclusive Credit Clean-Up of the accounts enrolled. Utilizing these abundant resources, we can work toward the termination of your debt within 18 months, with a much lower monthly payment, ending with nothing negative on your credit report.

With the immeasurable assistance and response from consumers nationwide, combined with our passion to do whatever it takes to neutralize this iniquity, our highly effective, proprietary system, and network of highly capable attorneys, will never cease to improve. The laws described below are the foundation of this process.

Your debt termination relies on applying Federal Laws, U.S. Supreme Court decisions, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Fair Credit Billing Act, the Uniform Commercial Code, the Truth in Lending Act, and numerous other banking and lending laws – to overcome the following banking practices…

Banks bombard consumers with over 6 billion mail solicitations each year. Notwithstanding newspaper, radio, television, magazine, sporting event advertising and numerous other forms of marketing, the average working class, credit-worthy, American is exposed to over 75 loan solicitations per year.

These banking ads represent, in one way or another, that the bank will lend you money in exchange for repayment, plus interest. This absurd idea is completely contrary to what, in reality, transpires and what is actually intended. In actual fact, banks do not lend you any of their own, or their depositors money.

False advertising is an act of deliberately misleading a potential client about a product, service or a company by misrepresenting information or data in advertising or other promotional materials. False advertising is a type of fraud and is often, a crime.

To substantiate this premise, we will begin by examining the funding process of credit cards and loans. When you sign and remit a loan or credit card application, (say you are approved for $10,000.00) the commercial bank stamps the back of the application, as if it were a check, with the words: “Pay $10,000.00 to the order of…” which alters your application, transforming it into a promissory note.

Altering a signed document, after the fact with the intention of changing the document’s value, constitutes forgery and fraud. Forgery is the process of making or adapting objects or documents with the intent to deceive. Fraud is any crime or civil wrong perpetuated for personal gain that utilizes the practice of deception as its principal method.

In criminal law, fraud is the crime or offense of deliberately deceiving another, to damage them – usually, to obtain property or services without compensation. This practice may also be referred to as “theft by deception,” “larceny by trick,” “larceny by fraud and deception” or something similar.

Having altered the original document, the (now) promissory note is deposited at the local Federal Reserve Bank as new money. Generally Accepted Accounting Principels (the publication governing corporate accounting practices) states: “Anything accepted by the bank as a deposit is considered as cash.” This new money represents a three to ten percent fraction of what the commercial bank may now create and do with as they please.

So, $100,000.00 to $330,000.00.00, minus the original $10,000.00 is now added to the commercial bank’s coffers. With this scheme they are taking your asset, depositing it, multiplying it and exchanging it for an alleged loan back to you. This may constitute deliberate theft by deception. In reality, of course, no loan exists.

At this point in the process, they have now transferred and deposited your note (asset) to the Federal Reserve Bank. This note will permanently reside and be concealed there. Since they’ve pilfered your promissory note, they owe it back to you. It is you, therefore, who is actually the creditor. This deceptive acquisition and concealment of such a potentially valuable asset amounts to fraudulent conveyance.

In legal jargon, the term “fraudulent conveyance” refers to the illegal transfer of property to another party in order to defer, hinder or defraud creditors. In order to be found guilty of fraudulent conveyance, it must be proven that the intention of transferring the property was to put it out of reach of a known creditor – in this case, you.

Once they have perpetrated this fraudulent conveyance, the creditor then establishes a demand deposit transaction account (checking account) in your name. $10,000.00 of these newly created/acquired funds are then deposited into this account. A debit card, or in this case, a credit card or paper check is then issued against these funds. Remember – it’s all just bookkeeping entries, because this money is backed by nothing.

Money laundering is the practice of engaging in financial transactions in order to conceal the identity, source and/or destination of money. Previously, the term “money laundering” was applied only to financial transactions related to otherwise criminal activity.

Today, its definition is often expanded by government regulators (such as the United States Office of the Comptroller of the Currency) to encompass any financial transactions which generate an asset or a value as the result of an illegal act, which may involve actions such as tax evasion or false accounting.

As a result, the illegal activity of money laundering is now recognized as routinely practiced by individuals, small or large businesses, corrupt officials, and members of organized crime (such as drug dealers, criminal organizations and possibly, the banking cartel).

Since receipt of your first “statement” from each of your creditors, they have perpetuated the notion of your indebtedness to them. These assertions did not disclose a remaining balance owed to you, as would your checking account. Mail fraud refers to any scheme which attempts to unlawfully obtain money or valuables in which the postal system is used at any point in the commission of a criminal offence.

When they claim you owe a delinquent payment, you are typically contacted via telephone, by their representative, requesting a payment. In some cases this constitutes wire fraud, which is the Federal crime of utilizing interstate wire communications to facilitate a fraudulent scheme.

Throughout the process of receiving monthly payment demands, you may have been threatened with late fees, increased interest rates, derogatory information being applied to your credit reports, telephone harassment and the threat of being “wrongfully” sued.

Extortion is a criminal offense which occurs when a person obtains money, behavior, or other goods and/or services from another by wrongfully threatening or inflicting harm to this person, their reputation, or property. Refraining from doing harm to someone in exchange for cooperation or compensation is extortion, sometimes euphemistically referred to as “protection”. This is a common practice of organized crime groups.

Blackmail is one kind of extortion – specifically, extortion by threatening to impugn another’s reputation (in this case) by publishing derogatory information about them, true or false, on credit reports. Even if it is not criminal to disseminate the information, demanding money or other consideration under threat of injury constitutes blackmail.

New money was brought into existence by the deposit of your agreement/promissory note. If you were to pay off the alleged loan, you would never receive your original deposit/asset back (the value of the promissory note). In essence, you have now paid the loan twice. Simultaneously, the banks are able to indefinitely hold and multiply the value of your note (by a factor of 10 to 33) and exponentially generate additional profits.

For an agreement or a contract to be valid, there must be valuable consideration given by all parties. Valuable consideration infers a negotiated exchange and legally reciprocal obligation. If no consideration is present, the contract is generally void and unenforceable.

The bank never explained to you what you have now learned. They did not divulge that they were not loaning anything. You were not informed that you were exchanging a promissory note (which has a real cash value) that was appropriated to fund the implicit loan.

You were led to assume that they were loaning you their own, or other people’s money, which we have established as false. They blatantly concealed this fact. If you were misinformed, according to contract law, the agreement is null and void due to “non-disclosure.”

Contract law states that when an agreement is made between two parties, each must be given full disclosure of what is transpiring. An agreement is not valid if either party conceals pertinent information.

Related Article

A Wee Family Tree up 1976 Really Interesting

A must to check out for sure. It is very enlightening as to who owns and controls what. They own and control even more today.

Related Articles

The owners of the Federal Reserve. Our ruling transatlantic elite? and how JFK challenged the Fed.

List of failed banks and banking writedowns

Any President that Would Dare Oppose The Federal Reserve Gets Assassinated: History Lesson & JP Morgan Buyout of Bear Stearns

Article Source

Somewhere in the trillionaires room of Heaven three old codgers are sitting around a table smoking cigars and chuckling over the J. P Morgan Chase & Company buyout of Bear Stearns for a paltry $2.00 a share. Not so much because the price had been over $130 a share a few weeks earlier but because the Federal Reserve Board put up $30 billion of the government’s money to guarantee the sale.

Yes, Mayer Amschel Rothschild, J. P. Morgan and John D. Rockefeller, patriarchs of three of the most powerful family fortunes in history have waited nearly two centuries to see their dreams fulfilled. Perhaps such patience is why their families have remained successful by steadfastly maintaining the rules of the game as set down by their founders.

It was 248 years ago, in 1760 that Mayer Amschel Rothschild created the House of Rothschild that was to pave the way for international banking and control of the world’s resources on a scale unparalleled and somewhat mysterious to this date. He disbursed his five sons to set up banking operations throughout Europe and the various European empires.

“Give me control of a nation’s money
and I care not who makes the laws.”
Mayer Amschel Rothschild

In time the House of Rothschild was able to take control of the Bank of France and Bank of England and relentlessly pursued an effort over two centuries to control a national bank in the USA. By 1850 it was said the Rothschild family was worth over $6 billion and owned one half of the world’s wealth.

From oil (Shell) to diamonds (DeBeers) to gold (from 1919 until 2004 a Rothschild was permanent Chairman of the London Gold Fixing committee which met twice a day in the Rothschild offices in London) the Rothschild’s quietly accumulated a foothold in critical industries and commodities throughout the world.

A master at building impenetrable walls around his family assets the current value of the Rothschild holdings are estimated to be between $100 and $300 trillion, yes that is trillion dollars! Now for a point of reference the current United States National Debt is $9.4 trillion.

J. P. Morgan began as the New York agent for his father’s business in London in 1860 and by 1877 was floating $260 million in US Bonds to save the government from an economic collapse. In 1890 he inherited the business and in 1895 bought $200 million in US Bonds with gold to again save the US economy.

“If you have to ask how much it costs,
you can’t afford it.”
J. P. Morgan

By 1912 he controlled $22 billion and had started companies such as US Steel and General Electric while he owned several railroads. Morgan was also an American agent for the House of Rothschild in London and used the Rothschild resources to help people like John D. Rockefeller.

Rockefeller, who started Standard Oil in 1863 with the help of Morgan, grew his company into the largest oil company in the world and by 1916 Rockefeller was the first billionaire in American history. In 1909 he had set up the Rockefeller Foundation with $225 million and donated nearly a billion more dollars to various causes. The Rockefeller family fortune is estimated to be around $11 trillion today.

“The way to make money is to buy
when blood is running in the streets.”
John D. Rockefeller

So what did they have in common these extraordinary capitalists? They all were dedicated to owning a national bank in America so they could determine the fiscal policies of the nation and earn interest on the debt of the nation.

Rothschild agents in 1791 formed the First Bank of the United States but intense opposition to foreign ownership by President Jefferson and others helped kill it by 1811. A Second Bank of the United States was formed in 1816 once again by Rothschild agents and this time they secured a 20-year charter. However, President Andrew Jackson was also opposed to foreign ownership and withdrew the federal deposits in 1832 as part of his plan to kill the bank charter in 1836.

An attempt to assassinate Jackson in 1834 left him wounded but more determined than ever to stop the central bank. Thirty years later President Lincoln refused to pay international bankers extremely high interest rates during the Civil War and ordered the printing of government bonds. With the help of Russian Czar Alexander II who also blocked a similar national bank from being set up in Russia by the international bankers they were able to survive the economic squeeze.

Lincoln said, “The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. The banking powers are more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. They denounce as public enemies all who question their methods or throw light upon their crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe. Corporations have been enthroned, and an era of corruption in high places will follow. The money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in the hands of a few, and the Republic is destroyed.”

Both Lincoln and Alexander II were assassinated. In 1881 James Garfield became president and he was dedicated to restoring the right of the federal government to issue money like Lincoln did in the Civil War and he was also assassinated.

Finally along came 1913 and the US was again suffering from a weak economy and there was a threat of another costly war, a world war this time, and business tycoons J.P. Morgan, John D. Rockefeller and E.H. Harriman were part of a group that got Woodrow Wilson to sign into law the Federal Reserve Act creating a network of 12 privately owned banks as part of a new Federal Reserve network.

One of the largest stockholders in the new Federal Reserve was the House of Rothschild through their direct and indirect holdings. A few years later it was disclosed that the Rothschilds also owned about 20% of J. P. Morgan. In time Morgan would merge with the Chase Manhattan Bank of the Rockefellers.

Years later John F. Kennedy opposed a private national bank and was assassinated in 1963 and Ronald Reagan opposed a private national bank and in 1981 an attempt was made to assassinate him. Coincidence or not the opposition to a privately owned national bank was a common characteristic.

Which brings us full circle to the present bailout of Bear Stearns by J.P. Morgan Chase & Company and we find the Rothschild, Morgan and Rockefeller families are all conveniently part of the same group benefiting from the bailout and the $30 billion guarantee by the Federal Reserve. This is the third time the J. P. Morgan Company has come to the rescue of the American banking system and economy.

John Perkins “Confessions of an Economic Hitman”Extended Interview 2008

Talks about Banks, Corporations, Free Trade,Wars, Toppling Governments, assassinations and numerous other things the US does to manipulate other countries.

How banks create money out of thin air

In Libya loans were interest free. Libya had no Debt. They instead had a surplus.Its no wonder the US/NATO countries wanted this example of good banking gone.

The Libya American’s never saw on Television

Related Articles

US Spending and Revenues 1902 to 2008

Who Benefited the most by J.F. Kennedy’s Death?

President John F.Kennedy, The Federal Reserve And Executive Order 11110

From September 2009

Federal Reserve rejects request for public Audit

First independent audit of the Federal Reserve in the Fed’s 99 year history.

By Alan Grayson

I think it’s fair to say that Congressman Ron Paul and I are the parents of the GAO’s audit of the Federal Reserve.

Anyway, one of our love children is a massive 251-page GAO report technocratically entitled “Opportunities Exist to Strengthen Policies and Processes for Managing Emergency Assistance.” It is almost as weighty as that 13-lb. baby born in Germany last week, named Jihad. It also is the first independent audit of the Federal Reserve in the Fed’s 99-year history.

It documents Wall Street bailouts by the Fed that dwarf the $700 billion TARP, and everything else you’ve heard about.

I wouldn’t want anyone to think that I’m dramatizing or amplifying what this GAO report says, so I’m just going to list some of my favorite parts, by page number.

Page 131 – The total lending for the Fed’s “broad-based emergency programs” was $16,115,000,000,000. That’s right, more than $16 trillion. The four largest recipients, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch and Bank of America, received more than a trillion dollars each. The 5th largest recipient was Barclays PLC. The 8th was the Royal Bank of Scotland Group, PLC. The 9th was Deutsche Bank AG. The 10th was UBS AG. These four institutions each got between a quarter of a trillion and a trillion dollars. None of them is an American bank.

Pages 133 & 137 – Some of these “broad-based emergency program” loans were long-term, and some were short-term. But the “term-adjusted borrowing” was equivalent to a total of $1,139,000,000,000 more than one year. That’s more than $1 trillion out the door. Lending for these programs in fact peaked at more than $1 trillion.

Pages 135 & 196 – Sixty percent of the $738 billion “Commercial Paper Funding Facility” went to the subsidiaries of foreign banks. 36% of the $71 billion Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility also went to subsidiaries of foreign banks.

Page 205 – Separate and apart from these “broad-based emergency program” loans were another $10,057,000,000,000 in “currency swaps.” In the “currency swaps,” the Fed handed dollars to foreign central banks, no strings attached, to fund bailouts in other countries. The Fed’s only “collateral” was a corresponding amount of foreign currency, which never left the Fed’s books (even to be deposited to earn interest), plus a promise to repay. But the Fed agreed to give back the foreign currency at the original exchange rate, even if the foreign currency appreciated in value during the period of the swap. These currency swaps and the “broad-based emergency program” loans, together, totaled more than $26 trillion. That’s almost $100,000 for every man, woman, and child in America. That’s an amount equal to more than seven years of federal spending — on the military, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, interest on the debt, and everything else. And around twice American’s total GNP.

Page 201 – Here again, these “swaps” were of varying length, but on Dec. 4, 2008, there were $588,000,000,000 outstanding. That’s almost $2,000 for every American. All sent to foreign countries. That’s more than twenty times as much as our foreign aid budget.

Page 129 – In October 2008, the Fed gave $60,000,000,000 to the Swiss National Bank with the specific understanding that the money would be used to bail out UBS, a Swiss bank. Not an American bank. A Swiss bank.

Pages 3 & 4 – In addition to the “broad-based programs,” and in addition to the “currency swaps,” there have been hundreds of billions of dollars in Fed loans called “assistance to individual institutions.” This has included Bear Stearns, AIG, Citigroup, Bank of America, and “some primary dealers.” The Fed decided unilaterally who received this “assistance,” and who didn’t.

Pages 101 & 173 – You may have heard somewhere that these were riskless transactions, where the Fed always had enough collateral to avoid losses. Not true. The “Maiden Lane I” bailout fund was in the hole for almost two years.

Page 4 – You also may have heard somewhere that all this money was paid back. Not true. The GAO lists five Fed bailout programs that still have amounts outstanding, including $909,000,000,000 (just under a trillion dollars) for the Fed’s Agency Mortgage-Backed Securities Purchase Program alone. That’s almost $3,000 for every American.

Page 126 – In contemporaneous documents, the Fed apparently did not even take a stab at explaining why it helped some banks (like Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley) and not others. After the fact, the Fed referred vaguely to “strains in the financial markets,” “transitional credit,” and the Fed’s all-time favorite rationale for everything it does, “increasing liquidity.”

81 different places in the GAO report – The Fed applied nothing even resembling a consistent policy toward valuing the assets that it acquired. Sometimes it asked its counterparty to take a “haircut” (discount), sometimes it didn’t. Having read the whole report, I see no rhyme or reason to those decisions, with billions upon billions of dollars at stake.

Page 2 – As massive as these enumerated Fed bailouts were, there were yet more. The GAO did not even endeavor to analyze the Fed’s discount window lending, or its single-tranche term repurchase agreements.

Pages 13 & 14 – And the Fed wasn’t the only one bailing out Wall Street, of course. On top of what the Fed did, there was the $700,000,000,000 TARP program authorized by Congress (which I voted against). The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC) also provided a federal guarantee for $600,000,000,000 in bonds issued by Wall Street.

There is one thing that I’d like to add to this, which isn’t in the GAO’s report. All this is something new, very new. For the first 96 years of the Fed’s existence, the Fed’s primary market activities were to buy or sell U.S. Treasury bonds (to change the money supply), and to lend at the “discount window.” Neither of these activities permitted the Fed to play favorites. But the programs that the GAO audited are fundamentally different. They allowed the Fed to choose winners and losers.

So what does all this mean? Here are some short observations:

(1) In the case of TARP, at least The People’s representatives got a vote. In the case of the Fed’s bailouts, which were roughly 20 times as substantial, there was never any vote. Unelected functionaries, with all sorts of ties to Wall Street, handed out trillions of dollars to Wall Street. That’s now how a democracy should function, or even can function.

(2) The notion that this was all without risk, just because the Fed can keep printing money, is both laughable and cryable (if that were a word). Leaving aside the example of Germany’s hyperinflation in 1923, we have the more recent examples of Iceland (75% of GNP gone when the central bank took over three failed banks) and Ireland (100% of GNP gone when the central bank tried to rescue property firms).

(3) In the same way that American troops cannot act as police officers for the world, our central bank cannot act as piggy bank for the world. If the European Central Bank wants to bail out UBS, fine. But there is no reason why our money should be involved in that.

(4) For the Fed to pick and choose among aid recipients, and then pick and choose who takes a “haircut” and who doesn’t, is both corporate welfare and socialism. The Fed is a central bank, not a barber shop.

(5) The main, if not the sole, qualification for getting help from the Fed was to have lost huge amounts of money. The Fed bailouts rewarded failure, and penalized success. (If you don’t believe me, ask Jamie Dimon at JP Morgan.) The Fed helped the losers to squander and destroy even more capital.

(6) During all the time that the Fed was stuffing money into the pockets of failed banks, many Americans couldn’t borrow a dime for a home, a car, or anything else. If the Fed had extended $26 trillion in credit to the American people instead of Wall Street, would there be 24 million Americans today who can’t find a full-time job?

And here’s what bothers me most about all this: it can happen again. I’ve called the GAO report a bailout autopsy. But it’s an autopsy of the undead.

Feel free to take a look at it yourself, it’s right here.

Source

Ron Paul and what he went through to get this Audit done.