In Their Own Words: US Presidents Vs. Central Banking

presidents

Our nation was founded at a time when many citizens believed that private banking interests in England had undue influence on the laws and actions of the monarchy. This belief was reflected in the words of the leaders elected to represent the early nation.

Our earliest presidents were very skeptical about banks and fiat currency. They spoke and wrote about it openly. Our founding fathers even included specific instructions in the U.S. Constitution about how money should be created and by whom (hint: it’s not the Federal Reserve). In fact, delegates at the Constitutional Convention even rejected a clause that would allow Congress to print paper money.

Our first president wrote in a letter to Jabez Bowen on January 9, 1787: “Paper money has had the effect in your state that it will ever have, to ruin commerce, oppress the honest, and open the door to every species of fraud and injustice.”

Washington’s successor, John Adams, was similarly disposed, writing in a letter to Thomas Jefferson that same year that “ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation” was the only cause of confusion and distress in America.

Thomas Jefferson himself also provided many scathing quotes against the bankers and their interests, including the famous quote taken from a letter he wrote to John Taylor in which he stated: “And I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies.”

Perhaps the most vehement and colorful of early presidential opposition to banks came from “Old Hickory”, our seventh president, Andrew Jackson. When speaking in 1834 to a citizens committee in Philadelphia on his reasons for not re-chartering the Bank of the United States, Jackson declared: “I have undergone much peril for the liberties of this people, and Andrew Jackson yet lives to put his boot upon the head of the monster and crush him [in] the duel.” Never one to mince words, Jackson continued: “I would rather undergo the tortures of ten Spanish Inquisitions than that the deposits should be restored, or the monster be re-charted.”

Vocal opposition to the banks continued throughout the 19th century, with two of the biggest presidential opponents – Lincoln and Garfield – being assassinated in the last half of the century.

Of course, the passage of Federal Reserve Act of 1913 rendered all of these opinions moot, and now we are all living according to a monetary philosophy that was disdained and feared by the very framers of nation and its founding documents.

This video provides some more detail on early presidential opposition to central banking and paper currency, as well as the establishment of America’s central bank:

Also, for more information on the Federal Reserve and the private banking industry’s efforts to control the world’s resources, read G. Edward Griffin’s fascinating book, “The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve”.

Advertisements

Why are we Letting a Private Corporation Steal Clean Water from the Places Where it’s Most Needed?

water.jpg

Water is essential to life on earth – certainly human life at least – and there’s not always enough when and where it’s needed most. Environmental scientists project that by 2025, increasing global population will lead to a 40% increase in water consumption needs. This reality is leading many researchers to declare water the most valuable precious resource of the twenty-first century.

It makes sense then, that access to naturally-occurring clean drinking water is considered to be a universal human right, and that intentionally preventing that access is a serious human rights violation.

Considering the circumstances many impoverished nations of the world find themselves in – with their natural water sources polluted and contaminated beyond viable consumption, it would seem that accessing clean water from underground aquifers is a great idea. Of course, that depends on who’s running the program and for what purpose.

What’s actually happening is that Nestlé corporation, the world’s largest food company, is buying land near regions with water shortages, pumping clean water up from the underground aquifers that naturally occur in these areas, bottling this water, and selling it for a healthy profit back to the people who should have rightfully owned it in the first place.

As you can imagine, the profit margin is astounding. And while the most obvious impact of this resource-looting can be seen in drought-stricken and impoverished regions in Africa, this isn’t just a third world problem.

For example, in Wellington County, Ontario, one Nestlé water packaging operation is estimated to pay only $3.71 for every million liters of water it pumps from the local watershed. It then packages this water in single-use plastic bottles and sells it back to the public for as much as $2 million!

This is happening around the world, and – not surprisingly – in many places where drought and/or pollution have increased the demand for bottled water. In a way, this privatization is incentivizing pollution, making it profitable for local populations to have limited access to clean water.

Consider the water troubles Flint, Michigan has experienced in recent years. Here is an entire modern, industrialized city essentially dependent on bottled water. It’s worth noting that Swiss-owned Nestlé owns three wells in the Muskegon River watershed in Michigan, from which they have pumped over 4 billion gallons of clean water, which they are then able to sell back to the citizens of Michigan for an insane profit.

This is obviously controversial, and legal battles have been fought. In fact, Nestlé had plans to open a facility in Kunkletown, Pennsylvania that would pump 200,000 gallons of water a day from the local aquifer. The local citizens fought back and created enough of a backlash that Nestlé actually backed down and scrapped their plans.

It’s a fight worth fighting. There is a very real clash of ideologies and the world’s most precious resource at stake. The CEO of Nestlé, Peter Brabeck has famously stated that “access to water should not be a human right”, and he can justify this opinion by asserting that his company has provided access to water for people who previously didn’t have it. Let’s not forget, though, the reason behind this activity. It’s certainly not altruism. The reason is profit, and global corporations of this size have shown they will go to any length to maximize it.

Remember When the Government Gave ‘Free Health Care’ to Poor Black Citizens in Alabama?

tse

As we prepare for yet another legislative revolution in American health care, let’s look back at some of the illustrious work done by US health officials in our past, just to make sure we can all be on the same page.

If we’re going to have a serious discussion about whether health care is a basic human right that should be provided to all citizens equally and at whatever cost, we have to be honest about the organizations responsible for overseeing and administering health and medical services in the US.

This is a story about 40-year experiment conducted in Macon County, Alabama started in 1932. That year The US Public Health Service (now the “US Department of Health and Human Services”) worked in conjunction with Tuskegee University to enroll 600 impoverished sharecroppers in a free health care program to treat them for “bad blood”, a term locals used to describe a range of diseases like syphilis, anemia, and fatigue.

In truth, the purpose of the study was to observe the natural progression of syphilis in rural African American men if it was left untreated. Of the chosen study participants, 399 were found to have previously contracted syphilis; 201 did not. The infected men were never informed that they had the disease and were never given any treatment.

The ever-generous federal government provided these men free medical care, meals, and free burial insurance for their participation in the study (not entirely unlike American slaves of the previous century).

The study was conducted even after funding was lost – without ever informing the men of their conditions or providing treatment. They even prevented their victims from accessing the syphilis treatment programs that were available to other residents in the area.

The program continued until a leak to the press in 1972 resulted in enough public outrage that the program was officially halted. This was after it had already claimed the lives of many men, infected 40 of their wives, and 19 children who were born with congenital syphilis.

The Tuskegee Experiment, as the study came to be known, was just one of many disturbing programs directed under the tutelage of what we now know as the US Department of Health and Human Services. We should also recognize that this is the department responsible for overseeing its many operating divisions, like the CDC, FDA and NIH – directed, of course, by their corporate overlords in the private sector.

So, while free health care for all sounds like a glorious idea, we would have to be very gullible or naïve to think that these government agencies that have never prioritized the common good of American citizens would suddenly shake off their shackles of corruption and internal cronyism and start working for our best interests.

It’s a nice dream, but it feels like we’re trying to jam the lid down on Pandora’s Box and act like it was never opened.

Why is the US Importing China’s Toxic Waste?

nuclear-2082637_1280

It shouldn’t be surprising that a nation as populous as China would use large amounts of fertilizer to grow crops. Lots of food to grow.

It also probably shouldn’t be surprising that Chinese companies produce an abundance of industrial waste while manufacturing the phosphate fertilizer used on Chinese farms.

And, of course, no one should be surprised to learn that this industrial waste – a noxious potpourri of toxic chemicals and heavy metals known as fluorosilicic acid – is treated as a pollutant unfit for disposal in natural water ways, and certainly unfit for human consumption.

It should, however, be very surprising – if not horrifying – to know that tons of this pollutant are shipped out of China and into the United States every year for a healthy Chinese profit.

Why, you may ask, would the US purchase toxic industrial waste from Chinese fertilizer manufacturers? Too put it in our drinking water, of course!

What a triumph of efficiency! Not only are we helping prevent the pollution and degradation of our natural environment, but we get ourselves some fancy sets of shiny, white, decay-resistant chompers on top of it!

It’s really nothing to joke about. The fluorosilicic (also hexa- or hydrofluorosilicic) acid produced in these industrial processes is not approved or regulated as a food or drug. In fact, independent studies have shown wide varieties of non-fluorine substances in various samples of the product. Researchers commonly find toxic substances like arsenic, lead, tungsten – even uranium in the same fluorosilicic acid compound that is being added to the majority of Americans’ water supplies.

To be clear, this isn’t intended to criticize the import of Chinese waste products when we have perfectly good fertilizer production right here in the US (incidentally, most of the fluorosilicic acid used for water fluoridation came from US sources until recently, as Chinese companies have been able to offer lower prices).

It is meant more as a question like: What the hell are we doing – and are we sure there’s not a better way?

Can We Thank the Manhattan Project for our Fluoridated Drinking Water?

atomic-bomb-966008_1280

Thanks to our sparkling white smiles, it seems not many people question the efficacy of adding a toxic chemical compound to approximately 70% of American citizens’ drinking water. Of course, there are large numbers of loons and conspiracy nuts who have tried to sound the alarm about fluoride and its’ dangers but why would we listen to them? After all, if we ran headlong into every rabbit hole we stumble across, we’d hardly have any time left for football games and ‘Dancing with the Stars’.

As it turns out, a flurry of recent articles is shining a light on some declassified documents that were released back in 1997, suggesting that the early research that supported municipal water fluoridation were not fueled by an altruistic desire to promote public health (surprise!), but were in fact inspired by a much more predictable desire of the federal government to cover its collective ass in the face of litigation from private citizens and military defense contractors who were injured by the fluoride used in the U.S. nuclear weapons program back in the 1940s.

In fact, these documents indicate that a secret government program (Program F) was launched to surreptitiously collect blood samples from citizens of Newburgh, NY – one of the first fluoridated cities – in an effort to gather medical evidence that would help defend the government from lawsuits filed by the many people they had poisoned during the Manhattan project.

If this is news to you, don’t be surprised. The research that discovered these facts nearly 20 years ago was funded by the Christian Science Monitor, and was never actually published by them. Go figure.

The word is spreading, though, and many cities are now refusing to fluoridate their water due to public pushback. Much of the pushback may be due to false narratives and baseless anti-fluoride propaganda, but at least cities are making what seems to be the right choice – even if it may not be for all of the right reasons.

This video provides a good survey of the situation:

 

Have Scientists Discovered Real Evidence of a Parallel Universe?

11937781733_bd60ac6a3a_b

A 1.8 billion light year wide ‘cold spot’ in the universe is getting a new explanation. While it was considered for years to be a simple trick of light caused by shifting wavelengths of a ‘supervoid’, new research indicates that explanation just doesn’t ‘cut the mustard‘ anymore.

The latest theory attempting to explain this giant hole in the universe – a hole presumed to be missing 10,000 galaxies – is that it is actually the result of a collision that occurred between our universe and another parallel universe.

While the notion of parallel universes is certainly nothing new, this may be the first time actual empirical evidence has been recorded.  Of course, it is just a theory at this point, and further research is needed, but there are numerous cosmological models that support the notion of a multiverse, and this recent theory should really come as a shock to no one.

Maybe we’re getting closer to wormholes and interstellar travel, or maybe some scientific rationale for the Mandela Effect, or maybe even a plausible explanation for whatever happened to that other sock that mysteriously vanished from the dryer.

In any event, this is at least another example of how little we really know about the nature of our universe.

German Professor Analyzes The Allure of ‘Conspiracy Theories’. Thanks Doc!

haha3

Does it seem like conspiracy theories are becoming ‘cool’ again? Just a few decades ago they were all the rage, proudly bandied about by every hip young thinker, and if you weren’t down with the cause, that’s because you were a ‘square’.

Something happened, though, as we entered the 1980’s. Suddenly, it wasn’t cool anymore to question the established authorities. The only people who would suggest that our government and corporate oligarchs might be something other than wholly altruistic and morally unflappable were characterized as crackpots and denigrated on film and television.

Even as the passing years provided more and more validation to some of these earlier theories – with declassified documents indicating that, yes, the US government does appear to have been involved in drug trafficking, and yes, government agencies do appear to have conducted medical experiments on American citizens without their consent, and yes, the NSA does seem to have been involved in an ongoing clandestine effort to secretly monitor the conversations and transactions of private citizens – even still, ‘conspiracy theorists’ have been marginalized and treated as if they are somehow ignorant of the facts to which they frequently refer.

Of course, it doesn’t help that there is likely a concerted effort to pollute these conversations with intentional misinformation (like Richard Doty claims to have done in the UFO community).

Fortunately for conspiracy enthusiasts, President Trump has renewed the old interest, and conspiracy theories are becoming ‘cool’ again. (It’s interesting to note that U.S. presidents have a long history of being conspiracy theorists – particularly when it comes to centralized banking and the military industrial complex – all the way from George Washington to Dwight D. Eisenhower.)

Now,  Michael Butter,  a Professor of American Literary and Cultural History at the University of Tübingen in Germany, has shed some light on the topic during an interview with International Politics and Society. 

Professor Butter makes some salient points about governments having used conspiracy theorists in the past to help promote a particular narrative or reinforce an existing power structure. He also touches on the psychology appeal these theories can have to individuals in times when available information is confusing or chaotic, or in other words, “fake news”.

He offers a few interesting takes, with a special emphasis on the importance of critical thinking. We couldn’t agree more.