Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You have a point GunNTexas. I often wonder if the American people are being hoodwinked, and the two parties are just arms of the same diabolical, clandestine secret society of elites or something who just supports big business and uses political rivalries to exploit the people. Not as far fetched as it sounds.
The evidence is everywhere.
Not too many people realize that every US President has had direct bloodline ancestry to the Royal families of England and France, which is a mathematical impossibility in an open and free democratically elected government for over 200 years:
(Part one of a four-part series) The Four Horsemen of Banking (Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup and Wells Fargo) own the Four Horsemen of Oil (Exxon Mobil, Royal Dutch/Shell, BP and Chevron Texaco); in tandem with Deutsche Bank, BNP, Barclays and other European old money behemoths. But their monopoly over the global economy does not end at the edge of the oil patch.
According to company 10K filings to the SEC, the Four Horsemen of Banking are among the top ten stock holders of virtually every Fortune 500 corporation.[1]
So who then are the stockholders in these money center banks?
This information is guarded much more closely. My queries to bank regulatory agencies regarding stock ownership in the top 25 US bank holding companies were given Freedom of Information Act status, before being denied on “national security” grounds. This is rather ironic, since many of the bank’s stockholders reside in Europe.
One important repository for the wealth of the global oligarchy that owns these bank holding companies is US Trust Corporation - founded in 1853 and now owned by Bank of America. A recent US Trust Corporate Director and Honorary Trustee was Walter Rothschild. Other directors included Daniel Davison of JP Morgan Chase, Richard Tucker of Exxon Mobil, Daniel Roberts of Citigroup and Marshall Schwartz of Morgan Stanley. [2]
J. W. McCallister, an oil industry insider with House of Saud connections, wrote in The Grim Reaper that information he acquired from Saudi bankers cited 80% ownership of the New York Federal Reserve Bank- by far the most powerful Fed branch- by just eight families, four of which reside in the US. They are the Goldman Sachs,Rockefellers, Lehmans and Kuhn Loebs of New York; the Rothschilds of Paris and London; the Warburgs of Hamburg; the Lazards of Paris; and the Israel Moses Seifs of Rome.
We're talking a dozen families, and a couple hundred inner circle who actually own just about everything worth owning ... what they don't own outright, they own a controlling share. But the real issue is the Banks. Whoever controls the flow of money, effectively controls everything else ... politics ... wars ... economies .... everything. And those 8 families own the money.
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,544 posts, read 56,054,732 times
Reputation: 11862
^ Yes the bail-out was a bit suss...actually not too wacky. There is something about America (the government/nation that is), like it's controlled by powers unseen. Maybe Americans are being deceived into thinking they are free.
Not too many people realize that every US President has had direct bloodline ancestry to the Royal families of England and France, which is a mathematical impossibility in an open and free democratically elected government for over 200 years:
(Part one of a four-part series) The Four Horsemen of Banking (Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup and Wells Fargo) own the Four Horsemen of Oil (Exxon Mobil, Royal Dutch/Shell, BP and Chevron Texaco); in tandem with Deutsche Bank, BNP, Barclays and other European old money behemoths. But their monopoly over the global economy does not end at the edge of the oil patch.
According to company 10K filings to the SEC, the Four Horsemen of Banking are among the top ten stock holders of virtually every Fortune 500 corporation.[1]
So who then are the stockholders in these money center banks?
This information is guarded much more closely. My queries to bank regulatory agencies regarding stock ownership in the top 25 US bank holding companies were given Freedom of Information Act status, before being denied on “national security” grounds. This is rather ironic, since many of the bank’s stockholders reside in Europe.
One important repository for the wealth of the global oligarchy that owns these bank holding companies is US Trust Corporation - founded in 1853 and now owned by Bank of America. A recent US Trust Corporate Director and Honorary Trustee was Walter Rothschild. Other directors included Daniel Davison of JP Morgan Chase, Richard Tucker of Exxon Mobil, Daniel Roberts of Citigroup and Marshall Schwartz of Morgan Stanley. [2]
J. W. McCallister, an oil industry insider with House of Saud connections, wrote in The Grim Reaper that information he acquired from Saudi bankers cited 80% ownership of the New York Federal Reserve Bank- by far the most powerful Fed branch- by just eight families, four of which reside in the US. They are the Goldman Sachs,Rockefellers, Lehmans and Kuhn Loebs of New York; the Rothschilds of Paris and London; the Warburgs of Hamburg; the Lazards of Paris; and the Israel Moses Seifs of Rome.
We're talking a dozen families, and a couple hundred inner circle who actually own just about everything worth owning ... what they don't own outright, they own a controlling share. But the real issue is the Banks. Whoever controls the flow of money, effectively controls everything else ... politics ... wars ... economies .... everything. And those 8 families own the money.
Absolutely positively right on GuyNTexas!!!!! So right on!! Now I know you really get it. Not that I didn't know that before. Then you must also realize with what's going on in Greece, Spain and Europe that we are close to "zero hour" for the "economy". Bidebergers start meeting tomorrow at 1:00 p.m. EST. Interesting times.
To me, 'left wing' or socialist has nothing to do with being socially liberal. They're completely unrelated things! Is it just another case of associating two completely different things, kind of like support for the death penalty and being pro-life, because that's what your party believes in?
People like Buddha, Jesus, the Amish, Hippies, and some of the most conservative religious people were 'lefties.' Not liberals, but leftists. Jesus was the ultimate collectivist. Yet we have right-wing Republican Christians claiming socialism is somehow un-Christian? How does that figure?
Does it have it's origin in the 50s and the whole 'red scare' thing...where since liberals and communists were the common enemy, they were lumped as one villainous assortment of non-Americans? In the 1950s it seemed the worst accusation against homosexuals was that they were part of the 'Communist' agenda, as was Atheism. Atheism linked with Communism, and Liberalism linked with Atheism.
How is a Socialist government even 'liberal?' Isn't it anti-liberal? China is more repressive and supposedly 'left-wing' than the US, and it's a liberal's nightmare. Socialism is about the distribution of wealth, nothing to do with whether two gay people can get married. Compare the Amish with a rich gay person, for instance.
I think it's typically bs and disingeneous, and reaches it's most exquisite level of ridiculousness in the farce that is American politics. Sadly that is creeping into Australia and Europe as well. Such a dichotomy would be completely alien in Asia, where Leftism is associated with repression and curtailing of freedom, the antithesis to the liberal platform.
I Wouldn't deny the others being right as well. I think this plays a part in it.
Among the GOP base, there is constant harping about somebody else, some "other," who is deliberately, assiduously and with malice aforethought subverting the Good, the True and the Beautiful: Subversives. Commies. Socialists. Ragheads. Secular humanists. Blacks. ****. Feminazis. The list may change with the political needs of the moment, but they always seem to need a scapegoat to hate and fear
The Republican appeal to the so-called 'Evangelical vote' not too surprisingly happened shortly after gains in Civil Rights. But it was the Cold War that the Republicans really used to 'leg-up' against the Dems during the terms of Reagan and Bush Snr.
Johnson's push for the Civil Rights act cost the Dems the "Dixiecrat" vote, as Johnson figured it would. That bloc defected to the Repubs. The Evangelical vote began being courted when GW Bush ran his father's Presidential campaign. He discovered a huge potential voting bloc, and went after it. He continued catering to it for his own election campaigns, and really fed it, gave those people a platform.
I'm not following the Cold War argument. Could you elaborate on that one, and what the Reagan & Bush admins had to do with it? The Cold War ended during Reagan/Bush. Accusing Dems of Socialism first began during FDR.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
