U.S. Fed Commits to Erasing the Dollar

Ben Bernanke and his cabal of governors approved the expenditure of at least $600 billion to buy U.S. debt.  This move makes the private Federal Reserve Bank the largest holder of U.S. even debt above China.

CNBC/Reuters

The Federal Reserve launched a controversial new policy on Wednesday, committing to buy $600 billion more in government bonds by the middle of next year in an attempt to breathe new life into a struggling U.S. economy.

The decision, which takes the Fed into largely uncharted waters, is aimed at further lowering borrowing costs for consumers and businesses still suffering in the aftermath of the worst recession since the Great Depression.

The U.S. central bank said it would buy about $75 billion in longer-term Treasury bonds per month. It said it would regularly review the pace and size of the program and adjust it as needed depending on the path of the recovery.

In its post-meeting statement, the Fed described the economy as “slow”, and said employers remained reluctant to add to payrolls. It said measures of inflation were “somewhat low.”

“Although the committee anticipates a gradual return to higher levels of research utilization in a context of price stability, progress toward its objectives has been disappointingly slow,” the Fed said. (Click here to read Fed statement.)

Stocks showed relatively little reaction to the news. The Dow Jones Industrial Average bounced around between positive and negative, a day after closing at its highest level since April 26. The S&P 500 Index and the Nasdaq also were mostly flat.

Longer-dated U.S. Treasurys shed gains, with 30-year bonds falling more than a point.

The US dollar fell against the euro and also pared gains against the yen.

The central bank repeated its vow to keep the federal funds rate on overnight loans ultra-low for an extended period. Some analysts had speculated the Fed might broaden this commitment.

Kansas City Fed President Thomas Hoenig continued his streak of dissents, saying the risk of additional securities purchases outweighed the benefits.

In a separate statement, the New York Fed said it would temporarily relax a rule limiting ownership of any particular security to 35 percent.

It said holdings would be allowed to rise above that threshold “only in modest increments.” Including the Fed’s ongoing plan to reinvest maturing assets, the New York Fed expects to conduct $850 billion to $900 billion in Treasury purchases through the end of the second quarter of 2011.

With the U.S. economy expanding at only a 2 percent annual pace in the third quarter of this year and the jobless rate seemingly stuck around 9.6 percent, the Fed had come under pressure to do more to stimulate business activity.

The central bank had already cut overnight interest rates to near zero in December 2008 and bought about $1.7 trillion in U.S. government debt and mortgage-linked bonds.

Those purchases, however, occurred when financial markets were stricken by crisis, and economists and Fed officials alike are divided over how effective the new program will be. Further bond purchases, however, are viewed with a skeptical eye by many economists and some Fed officials.

Indeed, some worry further bond buying could do more harm than good by providing tinder for inflation that will ignite when the recovery finally gains traction.

Markets had already seen sharp moves in anticipation of a resumption of bond purchases by the Fed. U.S. stocks and government bonds have rallied, while the dollar has taken a drubbing in advance of the decision.

Stocks have also been supported by expectations—now validated—that Republicans, viewed as more pro-business by investors, would seize control of the House and pick up Senate seats in elections on Tuesday that were seen as a referendum on the economy.

Since Republicans campaigned on a platform for smaller government, Congress may be less likely to offer fresh stimulus spending if the economy sputters, leaving the Fed as the primary source of support.

With the prospect of a long period of ultra-low returns in the United States, investors have flocked to emerging markets, pushing those currencies higher. Emerging economies, worried about a loss of export competitiveness, have cried foul.

“We are all under attack by the relaxed monetary policy of the United States,” Colombian Finance Minister Juan Carlos Echeverry told investors on Tuesday.

The Bank of Japan, which meets on Thursday and Friday, is also poised to launch a new round of bond buying. The European Central Bank and Bank of England also meet this week, but are not expected to shift policy.

The Fed move is likely to weaken the dollar further, which will helps big exporters like CNBC parent General Electric

Basel Banking Committee Ready to “Strangle” Economy

real-agenda.com

The World Financial Order is almost complete. New measures will keep bailout monies in banks’ coffers, increase interests on loans while reducing credit availability.

A group of un-elected regulators has come to an agreement on how to strangle the global economy even further, while presenting their package of measures as “saving” policies” for a coming financial crisis.  The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision -current owners-  established more rules to exercise tighter controls on banks and the very financial system they managed to break by design.

At the top of the list, Jean Claude Trichet, warns that the no implementation of these policies would let banks free to do anything they want -he himself is a banker- and that the new rules would secure bank reserves for difficult financial times.  The package of rules was adopted on Sunday, and it has a very clear goal: “To protect International Economies”.  This confirms the group’s intention to establish a global financial system headed by no other than themselves.  Such Order would abide by their rules no matter what effects such rules have over individual national economies.

According to their published document, banks will have to triple their cash reserves -from 2 to 7 percent- which in their minds would act as a cushion for difficult times or when banks invest in junk financial products.  That amount is in itself ridiculous, if one takes into account that banks’ investments in dubious financial products is many times larger than 7 percent.  What this measure will do is to give banks an excuse to increase interest rates on loans and reduce their loan spending programs.  The reduction in available credit will achieve a goal the bankers had yearned for and that could not accomplish through the failed cap & trade fraudulent scheme: to bring global economic activity to a halt.

“The agreements reached today are a fundamental strengthening of global capital standards,” said Jean-Claude Trichet, president of the European Central Bank and chairman of the banking supervision group.  Trichet commanded the group dismissing some bankers concerns that these new measures will require them to curtail credit, which in turn would cripple economic growth. He said the new rules would “contribute to long-term financial stability and growth will be substantial.”  Other bankers sided with Trichet, saying the modest effect on growth or borrowing would be a small price to pay for a less explosive financial system.

What these new rules would achieve -if anything- is the legalization of bad investments, as banks will not have to worry about how to pay for loses.  They will have large amounts of money from investors to cover their backs.  In addition, banks will continue to count on nation states to make up for any shortfalls, as more bailouts for troubled banks have not been taken off the table.  The new rules issued by the group that includes former Goldman Sachs executive Ben Bernanke, will be approved in November by the G-20 before they are handed over to individual countries before they become binding.  Nation-states will have until January 1, 2013 to adapt to the new rules.

“Banks will unarguably be safer institutions,” said Anders Kvist, representative of SEB, a bank that operates out of Stockholm.  Shouldn’t Nation-states have the prerogative to regulate banks operating in their territories?  Meanwhile, bankers continue to point out the new measures will reduce the amount of available credit for borrowers but were not bothered by the other side of the coin: Centralized Control.  That is what this is all about.

The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, again, a group of un=elected bankers mandates banks to “protect themselves” when they invest in financial instruments of dubious origin.  How about letting banks operate freely and collapse if they have to, due to their irresponsible investment practices?  The new provisions, called a leverage ratio, will obligate banks to hold reserves against all their money at risk.  That is like the nanny global order telling their children not to pick their noses in public.

Of course, there are those to whom global financial regulation is never enough.  Some G-8 countries were pushing for an additional 2.5 percent increase, during “good times” of economic overheating. According to the document released by the group, the rules would be adopted gradually to give banks time to adjust.  Some of the measures will not take effect until 2019, with banks having to start raising cash in 2013.  Too little too late?

The Basel Regulators left the door open to imposing stricter rules on “important” banks, whose problems -irresponsibilities- can infect the whole financial system.  The banksters’ representatives in the US -The FED, FDIC- issued a common statement saying the agreement is a significant step towards reducing the occurrence of future financial crises.  Although Nation-states still have the ability to reject these new regulations and create and approve some of their own, the international financial order has been clear that failure to adopt their newest package of rules will be punishable with harsh changes in credit availability, large increases in interest rates and overall restrictions for financial aid.  Once the new polices are adopted they become binding and countries cannot abandon them.

In the meantime, the Basel group will allow banks to continue to receive government bailout money to raise capital through 2017.  Those banks that are not capable of raising enough cash may be obligated to merge or perish as part of the consolidation and control package the regulators have in mind.  Only in the US, it is estimated that some 400 banks are on the brink of failure.

Deutsche Bank in Frankfurt said it intends to sell shares for 9.8 billion euros to increase its reserves.  Other banks that will do the same include Société Générale -a bailed out bank- in France and Lloyds in Britain. The rules imposed by the Basel Group also include paying banks -with taxpayer money- to dispose of toxic assets such as derivatives.

Goldman Sachs Defrauded Investors, sent bailout outside U.S.A

by Karen Mracek and Thomas Beaumont

Goldman Sachs sent $4.3 billion in federal tax money to 32 entities, including many overseas banks, hedge funds and pensions, according to information made public Friday night.Goldman Sachs disclosed the list of companies to the Senate Finance Committee after a threat of subpoena from Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Ia.

 Asked the significance of the list, Grassley said, “I hope it’s as simple as taxpayers deserve to know what happened to their money.”

 He added, “We thought originally we were bailing out AIG. Then later on … we learned that the money flowed through AIG to a few big banks, and now we know that the money went from these few big banks to dozens of financial institutions all around the world.”

 Grassley said he was reserving judgment on the appropriateness of U.S. taxpayer money ending up overseas until he learns more about the 32 entities.

 SETTLEMENT: Goldman Sachs admits it misled investors, pays $550M fine

GOLDMAN CONSENT: SEC vs. Goldman Sachs

JUDGEMENT: Final judgement of defendant

 Goldman Sachs (GS) received $5.55 billion from the government in fall of 2008 as payment for then-worthless securities it held in AIG. Goldman had already hedged its risk that the securities would go bad. It had entered into agreements to spread the risk with the 32 entities named in Friday’s report.

 Overall, Goldman Sachs received a $12.9 billion payout from the government’s bailout of AIG, which was at one time the world’s largest insurance company.

 Goldman Sachs also revealed to the Senate Finance Committee that it would have received $2.3 billion if AIG had gone under. Other large financial institutions, such as Citibank, JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley, sold Goldman Sachs protection in the case of AIG’s collapse. Those institutions did not have to pay Goldman Sachs after the government stepped in with tax money.

 Shouldn’t Goldman Sachs be expected to collect from those institutions “before they collect the taxpayers’ dollars?” Grassley asked. “It’s a little bit like a farmer, if you got crop insurance, you shouldn’t be getting disaster aid.”

 Goldman had not disclosed the names of the counterparties it paid in late 2008 until Friday, despite repeated requests from Elizabeth Warren, chairwoman of the Congressional Oversight Panel.

 “I think we didn’t get the information because they consider it very embarrassing,” Grassley said, “and they ought to consider it very embarrassing.”

 FINANCIAL REFORM: How Congress rewrote the regulations

FIXED? Will new regulations prevent future meltdowns?

FINANCIAL OVERHAUL AND YOU: Mortgages, debit cards, loans, more

 The initial $85 billion to bail out AIG was supplemented by an additional $49.1 billion from the Troubled Asset Relief Program, known as TARP, as well as additional funds from the Federal Reserve. AIG’s debt to U.S. taxpayers totals $133.3 billion outstanding.

 “The only thing I can tell you is that people have the right to know, and the Fed and the public’s business ought to be more public,” Grassley said.

 The list of companies receiving money includes a few familiar foreign banks, such as the Royal Bank of Scotland and Barclays.

 DZ AG Deutsche Zantrake Genossenschaftz Bank, a German cooperative banking group, received $1.2 billion, more than a quarter of the money Goldman paid out.

 Warren, in testimony Wednesday, said that the rescue of AIG “distorted the marketplace by turning AIG’s risky bets into fully guaranteed transactions. Instead of forcing AIG and its counterparties to bear the costs of the company’s failure, the government shifted those costs in full onto taxpayers.”

 Grassley stressed the importance of transparency in the marketplace, as well as in the government’s actions.

 “Just like the government, markets need more transparency, and consequently this is some of that transparency because we’ve got to rebuild confidence to make the markets work properly,” Grassley said.

 AIG received the bailout of $85 billion at the discretion of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which was led at the time by Timothy Geithner. He now is U.S. treasury secretary.

 “I think it proves that he knew a lot more at the time than he told,” Grassley said. “And he surely knew where this money was going to go. If he didn’t, he should have known before they let the money out of their bank up there.”

 An attempt to reach Geithner Friday night through the White House public information office was unsuccessful.

 Grassley has for years pushed to give the Government Accountability Office more oversight of the Federal Reserve.

 U.S. Rep. Bruce Braley, a Waterloo Democrat, said he would propose that the House subcommittee on oversight and investigations convene hearings on the need for more Federal Reserve oversight. Braley is a member of the subcommittee.

 Braley said of Geithner, “I would assume he would be someone we would want to hear from because he would have firsthand knowledge.”

 Braley also noted that the AIG bailout was negotiated under President George W. Bush, a Republican.

 He said he was confident that the financial regulatory reform bill signed by President Obama this week would help provide better oversight than the AIG bailout included.

 “There was no regulatory framework in place,” Braley said. “We had to put something in place to begin reining them in. I’m confident they will begin to be able to do that.”

El Terror de Otoño

Por Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
Julio 18, 2010

Si hay una lección que la historia muestra claramente, es que las crisis no aparece al azar.  Las crisis importantes son causadas para promover una agenda. Las Guerras Mundiales I, II, son ejemplos de esto. El ataque del Golfo de Tonkin es otra crisis creada artificialmente perpetrada para aumentar control. Las operaciones terroristas Gladio y Northwoods son otros dos ejemplos de cómo las élites juegan con la mente del público para forzar un plan. Más recientemente, tenemos 9 / 11 y el derrame de petróleo en el Golfo de México.

El terror es la herramienta favorita de las élites para forzarnos a aceptar sus políticas cuando quieren o necesitan. Lo que salvó la presidencia de Bill Clinton no era su comprensión de la economía, pero su ataque militar en Bosnia y el atentado de Oklahoma City. Lo que salvó la presidencia de George W. Bush en su primer mandato no fue su compasión o acciones conservadoras, pero el ataque en el Centro Mundial de Comercio en Manhatan, Filadelfia y Washington. Ahora, está siendo propuesto por entes controlados por la élite, que sólo un ataque terrorista masivo puede salvar la presidencia de Barack Obama.  Uno de la escala de Oklahoma City o del 11 de septiembre 2001.

La sospecha de que un ataque masivo contra los americanos o cualquier otra nación del G8 está en por llegar con el fin de llevar a otra, posiblemente la última crisis no es una exageración. La historia nos enseña bien. Lo que es más escandaloso de una crisis  ingeniada, no es que va a suceder, pero que estos entes que trabajan para las élites salgan y lo digan a los cuatro vientos: que un ataque terrorista masivo es la única forma de rescatar la presidencia de Barack Obama del fango donde se está ahora. En un artículo en el Financial Times, un ex operativo de Bill Clinton, Robert Shapiro, dejó claro que Obama depende de un ataque en el otoño para resucitar de entre los muertos.

“Lo fundamental aquí es que los estadounidenses no creen en el liderazgo del presidente Obama”, dijo Shapiro. “Él tiene que encontrar alguna manera de aquí a noviembre de demostrar que él es un líder que puede inspirar confianza y, a falta de un evento de la escala del 11 de setiembre o de Oklahoma City, no puedo pensar en cómo podría hacer eso.” Recuerdan la imagen de George W. Bush de pie sobre los escombros del World Trade Center? Adónde estará Obama en octubre? Él ya ha tenido su momento -como Bush lo tuvo con Katrina- en el Golfo de México, donde mantuvo los intereses de la corona británica por encima a los de su gente, dejando que BP se saliera con la suya, literalmente.

La administración Obama no sólo no impidió el desastre del derrame de petróleo, sino también a propósito permitió que empeorara. Obama impidió que extranjeros y locales ayudaran con la limpieza de las aguas del Golfo de México. En su lugar, permitió que BP contratara a matones para bloquear el rescate de la fauna y evitar la propagación del petróleo a lo largo de la costa del Golfo. Mientras usted lee este artículo, BP usa el agua y la tierra como vertederos de tóxicos. Ha transformado las islas en  centros de muerte, mediante el vertido de productos químicos a su alrededor, que agotan la vida marina en todo el Golfo. A pesar de que existe la tecnología para limpiar las aguas del Golfo de México, Obama y sus compinches en BP eligieron dejar verter el petróleo en el océano con el fin de tener una excusa para promover su programa Cap & Trade.

Mirando hacia atrás en la historia, durante el gobierno de Bush, su secretario de Defensa, Donald Rumsfeld, sugirió que un nuevo ataque terrorista podría ayudar a vender la guerra contra el terror mejor. Los militares también plantearon esta opción como una sugerencia para darle a la guerra global contra el terrorismo un gran impulso en los tiempos cuando la gente está cansada de guerra. El teniente coronel Doug Delaney, del Colegio Militar Real hizo esta declaración como la cabeza del curso de estudios de guerra. Por supuesto, un ataque contra los Estados Unidos o cualquier país del G-8 no sólo tendría un impacto local o regional. La manera en la que la economía mundial va -Depresión- haría que un ataque terrorista diera paso a un estado general de Ley Marcial y el Estado  Policía que los globalistas quieren implantar.  Además, provocaría un colapso más rápido y más ensordecedor de las economías de todo el mundo.

La “sorpresa de octubre”, como se le llama en América del Norte podría venir en cualquier forma, no necesariamente una bomba nuclear. Como hemos visto, a los gobernantes no les falta creatividad cuando se trata de asustar a la gente. Hemos visto como el estado de la economía fue cambiado a través de la venta y compra ilegal de productos financieros  imaginarios -derivatives-, ahora sabemos cómo invadir un país y perder una guerra y, ciertamente, es de conocimiento de todo el mundo que estamos viviendo las consecuencias de un derrame de petróleo mal administrado -a propósito-. Pero hay un detalle que el próximo ataque puede tener y que ningún otro ha tenido. Parece ser un secreto a voces, que esta vez la culpa del ataque se adjudicaría a los ciudadanos. Eso es. Cualquiera y todos los que critican fuertemente al gobierno y sus acciones ilegales han sido el objetivo ataques del gobierno mismo a lo largo de la historia. Ahora, los que hagan oír su voz no sólo serán puestos en prisión o detenidos de por vida. Ellos mismos serán culpados por cualquier ataque.

En los Estados Unidos, el grupo conocido como Tea Party es satanizado todos los días por los medios de comunicación corporativos. Por supuesto no todo el mundo en el Tea Party es un verdadero patriota debido al hecho de que está infiltrado por el gobierno y matones de inteligencia. Sin embargo, la verdadera Tea Party, formada por ciudadanos preocupados principalmente quienes apoyan al congresista Ron Paul ha sido víctima de continuos ataques de la policía, los medios de comunicación y otros grupos que están en la nómina del gobierno.

Entonces, ¿qué debe hacer un presidente cuando las encuestas le hunden en sólo los primeros 18 meses de mandato? ¡Nada! Debido a que ningún presidente está en condiciones de decidir qué se hace. Él se sienta allí como el líder, como el personaje principal en el espectáculo de títeres. Se le dice qué hacer y cómo hacerlo. Qué hombre inteligente, consciente dejaría un desastre químico simplemente suceder? Cuál graduado de Harvard dejaría que las corporaciones, los bancos y los intereses militares estar por encima de los del pueblo? Sólo aquel que fue creado, y que es controlado por ellos. También un hombre que es chantajeado por aquellos que lo pusieron en el poder.

Otra pregunta que queda por abordar es: ¿Por qué los ciudadanos están en revuelta contra su gobierno? ¿Podría ser porque para ellos, los ciudadanos son un producto que pueden vender o subastar al mejor postor? ¿Puede ser porque los ciudadanos son abusados hasta acabar con su última gota de sudor, sangre y paciencia en sus cuerpos? Tal vez es el hecho de los ciudadanos son tratados como delincuentes en su propio país, mientras que los criminales están sueltos en la calle. Esto no es así porque no hay fondos suficientes para mantener los pueblos y ciudades seguras, sino porque fue diseñado para ser así. Cobrar más impuestos, recortar los servicios básicos. Cobrar más impuestos, pero subsidiar el colapso de la industria. Y cuando esto no es bueno, los gobernantes deciden que es una buena idea bombardear a los ciudadanos irracionales. En la mentalidad colectivista, este bombardeo para calmar los ánimo se haría para beneficiar a la mayoría, por supuesto.

Hay una cosa sobre la que los gobernantes no mienten, y eso es lo que realmente quieren hacer con nosotros. Cuando dijeron que querían un ataque terrorista masivo para consolidar aún más su control de las personas y recursos, lo hicieron (Proyect for a New American Century). Cuando dijeron que colapsarían la economía mundial, lo hicieron (los derivatives, los activos tóxicos, el FMI y los programas de préstamo del Banco Mundial). Ahora se nos advierte una vez más que otra gran sorpresa se acerca y no tenemos ninguna razón para dudar de ellos. Sobre todo porque a diferencia de la mayoría de la corrupción corriente, los medios de comunicación están siriviendo de altavoz para mostrar escenarios de oscuridad y perdición, haciéndose eco de lo que los terroristas -gobernantes- dicen. Hace quince años, no se oía hablar del Grupo Bilderberg en los medios de comunicación; o cómo los bancos centrales son privados y controlados desde la parte superior de la pirámide. Ahora bien, estas y otras “teorías conspirativas” se explican en detalle todos los días. Los políticos, profesionales, periodistas y todo el mundo en la calle sabe que el mundo es controlado por un puñado de familias. Ellos, por supuesto, hacen que parezca como si es bueno para nosotros que sea así. Presentan a los gobernantes y sus “soluciones” como los únicos que nos pueden salvar; en lugar de decirnos la verdad: Que son ellos los que causan las crisis.

La máscara de Obama ha caído. De hecho, las máscaras de todos los presidentes y jefes de gobierno han caído.

¿Cuál será la forma del Terror de Otoño? ¿Quién sabe? Lo importante es que hemos sido alertados y debemos prepararnos.

The Autumn Terror

By Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
July 15, 2010

If there  is one lesson that history shows clearly, it is that crisis don’t come around randomly.  Major crisis are caused in order to further an agenda.  World Wars I, II are examples of this.  The Gulf of Tonkin attack is another artificially created crisis perpetrated to pass an agenda of control.  Operations Gladio and Northwoods are two other examples of how the Establishment plays with the public’s mind to force an agenda through.  More recently, we have 9/11 and the Gulf of Mexico’s Oil Spill.

Terror is the elites’ favorite tool to force crime and control down our throats when they want or need.  What saved Bill Clinton’s presidency was not his understanding of economics, but his treacherous attack in Bosnia and the Oklahoma City bombing.  What saved George W. Bush’s presidency in its first term was not his compassion or conservative actions, but the 9/11 attacks.  Now, it is being suggested by Establishment talking heads that the only think that can save Barack Obama’s presidency is another massive terror attack of the scale of Oklahoma City or September 11, 2001.

Suspecting that a massive attack on the Americans or any other G8 nation is in the works in order to bring about another -possibly a last- crisis is not an exaggeration.  History teaches us well.  What is more outrageous about a possible engineered crisis is not that it will happen, but that Establishment-controlled talking heads come out in the open and suggest such crisis may be the only way to rescue Barack Obama’s presidency from the mud where it is laying down now.  In an article in the Financial Times, a former Bill Clinton operative, Robert Shapiro, made it clear that Obama is relying on an Autumn crisis to come back from the dead.

“The bottom line here is that Americans don’t believe in President Obama’s leadership,” said Shapiro.  “He has to find some way between now and November of demonstrating that he is a leader who can command confidence and, short of a 9/11 event or an Oklahoma City bombing, I can’t think of how he could do that.”  Remember George W. Bush standing over the World Trade Center pile of metal?  Where will Obama be standing come October?  He has already had his Katrina-like moment in the Gulf of Mexico, where he bowed to the interests of the British crown by letting BP get away with murder; literally.

The Obama administration not only failed to prevent the oil spill disaster, but also purposely allowed it to get worse.  Obama prevented foreigners and locals to help with the clean-up of the Gulf’s waters.  Instead, he allowed BP to hire thugs and goons who to block the rescue of wildlife and prevent the spread of the oil along the Gulf coast.  As you read this article, BP is using water and land as toxic dumps.  It has transformed islands in centers of death, by pouring chemicals around them which deplete marine life all over the Gulf.  Even though there is technology to clean the waters of the Gulf of Mexico, Obama and his buddies at BP chose to let the oil pour into the ocean in order to have an excuse to promote their Cap&Trade scheme.

Looking back in history, during the Bush administration, his Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld suggested that another terror attack could help sell the war on terror better.  Members of the military also posed this option as a suggestion to give the global war on terror a boost in times when people are war-fatigued.  Lt. Colonel Doug Delaney, from the Royal Military College made this statement as the head of the war studies course.  Of course, an attack on the United States or any other G8 country would not only have local or regional impact.  The way the global economy is going -into Depression- a terror attack would not only mean a general state of Martial Law and Police State, but a faster and more deafening collapse of economies around the world.

The October Surprise, as it is called in North America could come in any form, not necessarily a nuclear or dirty bomb.  As we have witnessed, the Rulers do not lack creativity when it comes to scaring the sheep.  We have seen the state of the economy being changed through the sale and purchase of illegal imaginary financial products -derivatives-, we now know how to invade a country and lose a war and certainly it is of everyone’s knowledge we are experiencing the consequences of a poorly -purposely- handled oil spill.  But there is one details that the next attack may have that no other had.  It seems, from all the chatter, that this time the attack will be blamed on the citizens.  That’s right.  Anyone and everyone who loudly criticizes the government and its illegal actions has been the target of that very same government throughout history.  Now, those who make their voices heard will not only be put in prison or detained for life.  They themselves will be blamed for any attack.

In the United States, the Tea Party is demonized on an hourly basis on the corporate media.  Granted not everyone in the Tea party is a real patriot -due to the fact it is infiltrated by government and intelligence goons.  However, the real Tea Party, formed by concerned citizens mainly from the Ron Paul Revolution have been victims of continuous attacks from police, the media and other groups that are on the payroll of the government.

So what is a president to do when his poll numbers plunge in only the first 18 months? Nothing!  Because no president is in a position to decided what is done.  He sits there as the front man, as the main character in the puppet show.  He is told what to do and how to do it.  What intelligent man, conscious man would let a chemical disaster simply happen?  What smart, Harvard product would let corporations, banks and military interests be above those of the people?  Only one who was created, one who is controlled and told what to do by his owners.  Also a man who is blackmailed by those who put him in power.

Another question that remains to address is: Why are citizens in revolt against their government?  Could it be because to them, citizens are a product they can sell or auction to the best bidder?  Can it be because citizens are squeezed until their last drop of sweat, blood and patience runs out of their bodies?  Maybe is the fact citizens are treated like criminals in their own country while the criminals are let loose on the street.  This is not so because there aren’t enough funds to keep the towns and cities safe, but because it was designed to be like that.  Charge more taxes, cut basic services.  Charge more taxes but subsidize the collapse of industry.  And when this is not good anymore, the Rulers simply decide to bomb the heck out the irrational citizens.  For the citizens’ benefit, of course.

There is one thing the Rulers do not lie about, and that is what they really want to do to us.  When they said they wanted a massive terror attack to further consolidate their control of people and resources, they did it (Project for a New American Century).   When they said they would collapse the global economy, they did it (Derivatives, toxic assets, IMF and World Bank loan programs).  Now they warn us once again that another Big Surprise is coming and we don’t have any reason to doubt them.  Especially because unlike most corruption, the main stream media loud speaks scenarios of gloom and doom echoing what the terrorists say.  Fifteen years ago, no corporate medium talked about Bilderberg or how the central banks are private and controlled from the top of the pyramid.  Now, these and other “conspiracy theories” are explained in detail daily.  Politicians, professionals, reporters and everyone on the street knows the world is controlled by a handful of families.  They of course make it look as if it is good for us for it to be like that.  They present the Rulers and their “solutions” as the only ones that can save us instead of telling us the truth: That they are the ones who cause the crisis.

Obama’s mask has fallen.  In fact, all the presidents and heads of government’s masks have fallen.

In what form will the Autumn Terror come? Who knows?  The important thing is we have been warned and we must prepare.