Tom Usher wrote or added | Economics is easy!
Thanks to Chris 'Pie Rate' McCabevia David Cronin for this link.
Concerning the main, linked article, they're formalizing what they've been doing for years anyway. The European people haven't been careful enough about what power and authority they've given to whom. The same applies to Americans. Seeing every SWIFT wire (Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication) allows the US "intelligence community" not only to look for supposed terrorist's money transfers but also to piece together private but completely legal business dealings. With such information, that "intelligence community" can do deeper industrial and corporate espionage for US-centered Big Business. Not much is said about this, but it's a huge aspect of US so-called intelligence — finding out trade secrets and slipping them to buddies in US business. It's leaked only a couple of times and been almost successfully flushed down the memory hole.
If you're interested in one bit that leads me to say this, here's a link from 2000, "I spy an ally: All is fair in the world of espionage, even eavesdropping on your friends," by Duncan Campbell, Wednesday 15 March 2000. The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,181794,00.html It makes clear that the spy agencies are used for the Military-Industrial Complex, which is the banksters' with their power over the purses of the corporations and US government. Also check out my brief article from June 29, 2007, "EU, US REACH DEAL ON FINANCIAL SPYING," http://www.realliberalchristianchurch.org/2007/06/29/eu-us-reach-deal-on-financial-spying.html, in which I mention that this allowing the US to see European citizens' private financial transactions running through clearing or settlement houses has been publicly known since at least 2006 (as also stated in the linked article http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=52069).
I'm saying it would be extremely naive of anyone to believe that immediately following 9/11, the European leadership didn't open up all the way to the CIA and NSA, etc. We know, for instance that Europe was cooperating with all the "extraordinary renditions," allowing CIA and other flights, carrying so-called "unlawful combatants" not allowed any due process of law whatsoever and many of whom were completely innocent, to land and refuel on their way to various other torture chambers and dungeons, etc., some of which were right in Europe. It was never supposed to come out, but it was leaked apparently by European and American "intelligence" and other personnel aghast at the utter depravity of the sociopaths and sadists in intelligence ranks going right to the top that included George W. Bush, who with his buddies I might add, reportedly used to get his jollies by shoving powerful firecrackers up the anuses of frogs in Texas, lighting those firecrackers, throwing those frogs high in the air, and watching in sick glee (laughing his head off) as the frogs blew apart. That was the man many Americans voted for, for President. Then they wonder why the US is going to Hell in a hand basket.
There's no end to the collusion of Europe and the US. Just look at the recent G20 Summit in Toronto, Canada, where civil liberties were completely and unconstitutionally disbanded while the heads of state met to compare more notes and to get on the same page, which they have done more than the mainstream media is allowed to express. The Obama "quantitative easing" is to continue to avoid deflation while the Germans, and therefore necessarily Europe, will tighten up to avoid inflation.
That "quantitative easing" would have worked very well had the new money been applied to what we all call "Main Street." Rather than that though, it was used for banksters to pay off their underlings in the form of record bonuses for a job "well done": raping the people via taxes ultimately directed to those plutocrats. It was used to consolidate the holdings of the biggest banks taking over better but smaller banks. It was used to be parked at the Fed to earn interest for doing nothing but parking it rather than circulating it via lending. Lending was the bait while Henry Paulson made the quick and preplanned switch, after he got up off his knee to Nancy Pelosi, who had to have the cover of seemingly fighting the banksters. The tens of trillions in taxes, now and future, could have gone directly into improving the quality of life for every member of the planet. Instead, the ranks of the poor have swollen, and the superrich exponentially have magnified their evil.
What I've heard from absolutely no one else is that Obama and Merkel are being two sides of the same coin. You see, with the austerity program being pushed by Merkel, the rich benefit and with the more-stimulus charade of Obama, the rich benefit. In either case, the poor and lower-middle classes, and really the middle class too, do not benefit but are harmed.
Now, if Obama had done real stimulus in the form of using all the money (that was created and given to the banksters) to put the unemployed to work on public works projects, then there would be no false choice between Obama's and Merkel's approaches. The people would have employed each other through their own taxes, and the recession/depression and unemployment would have ended nearly overnight.
This is easy, contrary to the self-styled "rank-and-ï¬le PhD economist operating within a central banking system," Kartik Athreya of the Federal Reserve, who claims that "Economics is Hard." http://www.scribd.com/doc/33655771/Economics-is-Hard and here http://housingdoom.com/2010/06/28/fed-economists-now-feeling-threatened-by-bloggers/ and here (this one made it go somewhat viral) http://www.zerohedge.com/article/fed-has-lost-it-publishes-essay-bashing-bloggers-tells-general-public-broadly-ignore-those-w Tyler Durden does too much name calling without taking apart the arguments of his opposition. He's preaching to the choir in that case. He's assuming everyone already knows what he does and will just laugh right along with him. It makes for easy, fast, and numerous posts; but it doesn't really educate much. To be fair, I have seen him write probing, analytical pieces. I'd like to see him turn to doing more of that, not that I agree with his ideology.
Economics is not hard. Economics is easy. The banksters simply deliberately complicate things with endless jargon and secrets and lies. Even Adolf Hitler apparently rather quickly put over 6 million back to work in depressed Germany. His mistake was doing it in building up the German military again. If he had put the same amount of energy and money into peaceful pursuits, we might all be speaking German, as the old saying goes; but the world would be a much better place than under the people who tell Kartik Athreya what to do or else.
Look, after you read this Kartik Athreya, just consider that he is saying that no one is allowed to know that peace is easy because people graduate from West Point afterall. Do you see the point? Unless you study psy-ops at the doctorate level and publish in military "peer-reviewed" journals, then you have no business saying that war is evil and peace is easy for those who know it. As for the oncologists mentioned by Athreya, well, they are dealing with the horse after it's out of the barn. Is Kartik Athreya saying that everyone who says to eat healthfully and to steer clear of carcinogens should shut up because he or she hasn't studied radiation treatment and chemotherapy sufficient to receive a specialized MD? If so, he's an idiot.
Doing away with the Federal Reserve would be as easy as a majority in both houses of Congress voting to nationalize it and Obama signing it into law – done. Renationalizing the currency the way the Constitution has it would be equally as easy. Paying off the National Debt and using all the tax dollars now for peaceful and productive purposes that are now going to interest to the banksters would also be just as easy. Pegging the supply of money to exactly the rate of growth in productivity such that there would be zero inflation or deflation would be just as easy. Using the Treasury printing presses to pay for everything without collecting taxes but simply spending the new money into the economy for greater public works of all kinds would be just as easy.
I'm telling you, the only thing hard about economics is firing the chief stewards and shepherds; but that would be easy too if the people would just do it! As I've said repeatedly, this would not necessitate starving them or punishing them but simply treating them no better or worse than anyone else.
Do you see all of this? If you do, spread it. How else with the people see through what's going on with this fake choice.
Behind the scenes where the top members of the major banking dynasties meet, they have a clear understanding of how this fake choice will weaken the nation-states so that further crises (supposedly manageable via thuggery and a huge arsenal that can be turned on the masses in the blink of an eye) will be pretexts for yet more corporate consolidation and so-called bailouts.
The new reserve currency will be taken out of the hands of the American and other electorates to decide. It will be a privatized global currency so that the banking plutocrats (world banksters) can control everything much more centrally. It will be electronic currency shortly. It will have zero reserves backing it. It will give the banksters literal totalitarian control. They reward and punish at will. You will do things 100% their way and like it, or you will be terminated. This leads to the Apocalypse, in which so many don't believe and won't believe even as it is upon them for cause.
All this breaking down the barriers between the various compartments, over which those plutocrats are continuing to grab absolute (totalitarian) control, is designed to facilitate greater and greater consolidation into fewer and fewer hands. It's definitely Biblical in proportions.
See: Facebook Comments: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=557363740&v=wall&story_fbid=141514789198769&ref=share
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)