Is a New American Reichstag in the Works?

By Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
August 17, 2011

That is what chatter coming from the United States government seems to suggest. A few weeks ago, we reported on how a video from the Department of Homeland Security(DHS) incited fear of ‘white Al-Qaeda’ terrorists and just a day after publication, Anders Breivik blew up a government building in Oslo, Norway.

The U.S. government is preaching the idea that a new Oklahoma City style attack is coming.

Since Oslo, the very same Department of Homeland Security has put out a new Public Service Announcement where they go at it again. The white American is the threat. Somehow the U.S. Government found a way to move the threat from Islamic fundamentalists to Americans who support Constitutionalism.

In the new ad, DHS presents new ‘white faces’ while calling for a high state of vigilance from the part of the citizenry to report any ‘suspicious’ or ‘out of the ordinary’ activity. As in previous occasions, no clear definition of ‘suspicious’ or ‘out of the ordinary’ is given. This technique, as we reported before, is a psychological operation to instigate fear and distrust on the public so that they not only accept the government’s message of fear, but also turn against their neighbors and family members and tattle tale about their questioning of government policies.

Back in the days of the infamous Nazi party, Adolf Hitler used the false threat of a foreign force planning to attack Germany in order to push the public to accept his insane power grab, that ended in the death of Jews, Christians, and any other members of groups that opposed his policies. Hitler only failed on his attempt to take over Europe and the world, because his handlers had already achieved their goal to ramp up the war movement by playing Hitler against other military forces.

The threat of a ‘lone wolf’ style terror attack in the United States then is the solution to save the drastically faded Obama presidency. If you think this is insane, take a look at this article on the Financial Times of London, where Robert Shapiro, a former White House aide to Bill Clinton suggested that barring a terror attack, the Obama administration was doomed. We must add to this Barack Obama’s own assessment which included his thought that the United States could absorb another terror attack of the size of 9/11.

Yesterday, Barack Obama came out to reinforce even more the supposed threat of homegrown terrorism during an interview on CNN. While responding to a comment from Wolf Blitzer, Obama identified the possibility that a single person could cause a major terror attack. “We are vigilant and constantly monitoring the threat of a terrorist attack… The risk is always there… The risk we are concerned now is the ‘lone wolf’ threat, a single person with a weapon, someone being able to carry out the type of massacre we saw in Norway recently.” Of course, it has been proven that Anders Breivik did not act alone. In fact, even main stream media reports confirm that Breivik called police several times to turn himself in before the attacks.

A couple of days ago, New York Times writer Paul Krugman came out and suggested the United States would benefit greatly if a new threat such as the invasion of aliens happened because it would allow the government to launch wars and therefore revive the economy. This train of thought would be funny if it wasn’t because what Krugman suggested was exactly the agenda carried out in World Wars I and II. Upon the evident economic crisis, the Globalists decided to play nations against nations in order to spur manufacturing of war machinery, create jobs within the military industrial complex and start fresh again after the wars were over. But at what human cost?

What does the new DHS Ad say?

Picking up where they left off a few weeks ago, the Department of Homeland Security headed by Secretary Janet Napolitano, continues its fear mongering campaign to get people to accept the next big terrorist attack and the Police State measures that will stem from it.

In the video, DHS shows a white young man driving a cab. He stops by what seems to be a bus or train station, opens the trunk of the cab and activates what appears to be an explosive device. At the same time, two passengers inside the station see a suspicious looking woman walking inside the station as she flies by them. And guess what, she’s white, too. A white man who observes the white taxi driver walking away from the cab is then shown talking to a police officer in a supposed attempt to denounce the suspicious activity.

What can we get from this? When looked at it in more than one dimension, it is clear that once again the DHS intends to portray whites as dangerous, especially white middle class people. In order to understand this trick, one needs to connect the ad to the current financial situation, where mostly middle class and the poor (taxi drivers and public transportation users) are being robbed of their future. Everywhere in the world, it is the middle and poor class the ones rising up against the Globalist attempt to further consolidate economic and military power. After Anders Breivik allegedly attacked the federal building in Oslo, authorities beefed up security in the capital and other cities in Norway. After the last riots in London, in another Problem, Reaction, Solution scheme, a crowd of criminals attacked local businesses and homes. The British government decided to use face recognition technology on the streets to scan and store imagery from anyone who “may be or act suspicious”. Previous to the attacks, police stood down and let the looters do whatever they wanted and now they want to scan everyone’s faces.

Back in the United States the corporate prostitute media continues to eco Obama’s speech about the threat of a ‘lone wolf’ attack. On Tuesday, CBS News said the next attack would not come from Islamic terrorists, but from a member of the “Sovereign Citizen” movement in the United States, that is everyone calling for the end of the Federal Reserve, the end of the wars, the reactivation of the economy, the adoption of sound fiscal and monetary policies and the end of interventionism and empire building. Going by the recent polls, this group of people now labeled as “dangerous” by the federal government, includes a powerful minority who is armed and ready to defend their rights to speak freely, own and carry weapons to protect themselves and their families from rising crime, public protest against insane government policies and anyone who supports Ron Paul and anyone and anything that smells like Constitutionalism.

Naturally, the government knows that it does not take a majority to get the government back to the people, but a really well-educated and armed minority to eject the current invaders who occupy the United States of America, or for that matter every other country in the western world. That is why the government continues to move initiatives to discretely ban the second amendment carrying out stings in gun shows and invading private property to look for legally held fire arms. Obama himself is an “in the closet” gun grabber. So are Rick Perry and Mitt Romney. In April, the newspaper the Star-Tribune reported that the Federal Bureau of Investigation is spying on citizens in Wyoming to keep tabs on their use of fire arms. FBI agent Kathy Wright said that “the bureau has kept an eye on the movement because some sovereigns have taken the logical step from belief in the illegitimacy of the current system to acting violently against it.”

What could come from a situation where a disarmed society is unable to protect itself from crime and the abuses of government? Ask relatives of people who survived the Nazi atrocities, ask the people of Oklahoma City, the people from Virginia Tech, from New York, and more recently from Norway. What could stem from an educated society that freely carries fire arms to defend itself? Ask the citizens of Switzerland and Texas.

The 2000-Page Power Grab any Dictator Dreams About

In the words of the very same legislators who created the new financial bill, ‘No one will know until this is actually in place how it works’…, said Christopher Dodd, democrat from Connecticut.  The new bill gives sweeping powers to the president, whoever it is, to determine what is done with many aspects of American citizen’s lives.  “…it deals with every single aspect of our lives,” added Dodd.

WSJ

After more than 20 hours of continuous wrangling, Congressional Democrats and White House officials reached agreement on the

Lawmaker Christopher Dodd (D), next to senator Richard Shelby.

final shape of legislation that would transform financial regulation, avoiding last-minute defections among New York lawmakers that had threatened to upend the bill.

After months of uncertainty about how the U.S. would craft new rules, the agreement offers the clearest picture since the financial crisis of how markets and the government will interact for decades to come. The common thread: large financial companies are facing a tougher leash.

he bill is expected to have enough support to become law. Both chambers plan to vote next week. The margin in the House and Senate will likely be close because most Republicans are expected to oppose the measure.

If the bill passes, President Barack Obama is expected to sign the package into law by July 4. Thursday’s agreement also gives the president leverage going into a weekend summit of world leaders in Canada, where he will prod other nations to rewrite their rules.

“This is about as important as it gets, because it deals with every single aspect of our lives,” said Sen. Christopher Dodd (D., Conn.), a chief architect of the compromise.

In two important ways, the agreement is tougher on the banking industry than officials in the Treasury Department anticipated when they first drafted their version of the bill 12 months ago.

Lawmakers agreed to a provision known as the “Volcker” rule, named after former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, which prohibits banks from making risky bets with their own funds. To win support from Sen. Scott Brown (R., Mass.), Democrats agreed to allow financial companies to make limited investments in areas such as hedge funds and private-equity funds.

The move could require some big banks to spin off divisions, known as proprietary-trading desks, which make bets with the firms’ money.

The bill also includes a provision, authored by Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D., Ark), which would limit the ability of federally insured banks to trade derivatives. This provision almost derailed the bill following vehement objections from New York Democrats. Ms. Lincoln worked out a deal in the early hours of Friday morning that would allow banks to trade interest-rate swaps, certain credit derivatives and others—in other words the kind of standard safeguards a bank would take to hedge its own risk.

Banks, however, would have to set up separately capitalized affiliates to trade derivatives in areas lawmakers perceived as riskier, including metals, energy swaps, and agriculture commodities, among other things.

A panel of 43 lawmakers spent two weeks reconciling differences between a bill that passed the House in December and the Senate in May. They concluded their negotiations along party lines at a little after 5 a.m. ET in a Capitol Hill conference room marked by tension, levity and exhaustion. Senior administration officials, including Treasury Department Deputy Secretary Neal Wolin, arrived late in the afternoon to try and quell the feud between the New York delegation and Ms. Lincoln.

Major components of the bill, including the derivatives provisions, were negotiated in the hallway of the Dirksen Senate Office Building as the clock neared midnight. At one point, after hearing of an offer from Senate Democrats, Rep. Melissa Bean (D., Ill.) exclaimed: “Are you flipping kidding me? Are you flipping kidding me?”

Democrats hailed the agreement as a tool to prevent the kind of taxpayer-funded bailouts that stabilized the economy in 2008 but left divisive scars. Many Republicans said the bill could have unintended consequences, crimping financial markets and access to credit.

“My guess is there are three unintended consequences on every page of this bill,” Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R., Texas) said of the nearly 2,000-page bill.

The deal comes as the banking industry is still struggling to regain its footing. Hundreds of banks have been dragged down by bad loans and investments. The violent restructuring of the U.S. banking sector two years ago has left just a few companies controlling a vast amount of the deposits, assets and financial plumbing of the country.

Government-controlled Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac remain a multibillion dollar drain on the U.S. Treasury, and largely untouched by this proposal. And the banking sector in parts of Europe remains fragile.

The legislation would redraw how money flows through the U.S. economy, from the way people borrow money to the way banks structure complicated products like derivatives. It could touch every person who has a bank account or uses a credit card.

It would erect a new consumer-protection regulator within the Federal Reserve, give the government new powers to break up failing companies and assign a council of regulators to monitor risks to the financial system. It would also set up strict new rules on big banks, limiting their risk and increasing the costs.

The legislation gives the Securities and Exchange Commission new powers to regulate Wall Street and monitor hedge funds, increasing the agency’s access to funding. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission would also have new powers under the bill, which would try and force most derivatives to face more scrutiny from regulators and other market participants.

To pay for some of the new government programs, the bill would allow the government to charge fees to large banks and hedge funds to raise up to $19 billion spread over five years. The assessment is designed to eventually pay down a part of the national debt.

The broad contours had been set for weeks and mostly mirror a proposal the White House has pushed since last summer. But the last few days represented a mad dash of political maneuvering to iron out final details.

Negotiations went into Friday morning, with New York Democrats and White House officials meeting to address the bill’s potential impact on New York, which relies on the financial industry for employment and tax revenue.

To win broader support, Democrats softened the bill’s impact on community banks, auto dealers, and small payday lenders and check cashers.

From the beginning, lawmakers opted against a dramatic reshaping of the country’s financial architecture. Instead, they moved to create new layers of regulation to prevent companies from taking on too much risk.

For example, regulators decided not to order a sweeping consolidation of the regulatory agencies policing finance. They also decided not to bust up large financial companies, despite pressure from liberal groups.

But they did create a process for seizing and dismantling faltering companies, tools the government lacked in 2008 during the seemingly chaotic events surrounding Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, and American International Group Inc.

Democrats are banking on stronger government regulators to constrain risk in the financial system and prevent a future banking crisis—or at least blunt its impact.