Author: DELEITURAS

Republicans, conservatives and even some environmentalists are criticizing the final version of New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal as not yet ready for prime time. One major Democratic lawmaker even downplayed the idea’s importance going forward.

The resolution calls for “10-year national mobilizations” toward a series of goals aimed at fighting global warming, according to a copy of the bill obtained by NPR. A separate fact sheet claims the plan would “mobilize every aspect of American society on a scale not seen since World War 2.” Not everyone feels the same.

“Who knew? ‘Green New Deal’ is a resolution, not a bill, which means it’s a ‘statement,’” Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas wrote in a tweet Thursday morning after Ocasio-Cortez and Democratic Sen. Edward Markey of Massachusetts released the plan. Other GOP lawmakers likewise dinged the Green New Deal for lacking seriousness.

Republican Rep. Doug Lamborn of Colorado, for instance, criticized what he believes is a tendency of Democrats to embark on unrealistic agenda.

“I guess I can understand if someone who has not a lot of life experience and they’re proposing something that’s extremely unrealistic,” he said at a House Natural Resources Committee hearing Wednesday. “Impossible. But what I don’t understand is adults, grown-ups who are older and more mature are also advocating something that is impossible.”

University of Colorado professor Roger Pielke Jr. echoed both Lamborn’s and Cornyn’s positions. “Almost no policy substance and that which is there is pretty weak tea: ‘reduce emissions … as much as technologically possible,’” Pielke Jr. wrote in a tweet Thursday. “Not yet worth debating here as there is not much to debate.”

Other conservatives called the plan a socialistic ploy. “Wealth transfer schemes suggested in the radical policies like the Green New Deal may not be the best path to community prosperity,” Illinois Rep. John Shimkus, the top Republican on the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on climate change and other environmental issues, said in a statement.

The plan removed a call to eradicate fossil fuels, which is causing heartburn for some environmentalists.

Friends of the Earth President Erich Pica, for instance, was dour in her assessment of the final copy. “The failure to mention and explicitly state that we have to end the era of fossil fuels is just a huge missed opportunity to be real about where we are and where we need to go,” she said in a press statement Thursday.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi downplayed Ocasio-Cortez’s plan and even poked fun at the idea. “It will be one of several or maybe many suggestions that we receive,” the California Democrat told reporters Wednesday. “The green dream or whatever they call it, nobody knows what it is, but they’re for it right?”

• The media smelled blood when a video seemingly showed a group of teenage boys bullying an older Native American protester.
• Newer videos showed that the protester had actually approached the students, who were also receiving slurs shouted by a group of radical activists.
• The media’s misleading reports happened at a time when the students were facing death threats.

Just mere days after BuzzFeed News dropped its hotly disputed report accusing President Donald Trump of obstruction of justice, the media decided to pick a new target: a group of teenage Catholic high school boys.

On Friday, a group of male students from Covington Catholic High School in Kentucky found themselves in the middle of a media firestorm after an initial video gave the impression that they had mobbed a Native American protester. Media figures, still reeling from the wave of criticism following the BuzzFeed News fiasco, smelled blood. Sure, the initial video didn’t show the students assaulting anyone, but that didn’t stop reporters, commentators and Hollywood celebrities from focusing on the smirk of a student in the video, which somehow triggered painful memories of lonely prom nights and failed junior varsity sport tryouts.

Of course, newer videos showed that the students were completely innocent. They were first taunted by a group of radical activists and the Native American protester approached them.

Even with this new information, CNN decided to report the story with the following headline:

Facts first, of course.

BuzzFeed News Reporter, Anne Helen Petersen, made her colleagues proud by smearing one of the kids in the video and implied he had a future in sexually assaulting women. Petersen even acknowledged that other videos showed a completely different story, but that didn’t stop her diatribe about why a teenage boy’s face “caused a visceral reaction.”

Three Washington Post reporters, as National Review’s Michael Brendan Dougherty neatly explained, framed their story on how “a throng of young, mostly white teenage boys, several wearing “Make America Great Again” caps,” surrounded the Native American protestor Nathan Phillips and reported that he “felt threatened.”

Even The New York Times seemingly contradicted itself halfway through its own report:

The Atlantic’s James Fallows, just hours after the first video was released, wrote a bizarre column comparing the young boys to pro-segregation activists. Fallows seemed to even recognize that other footage might give a more complete picture of the incident, but he chose to brush this off as just “whatever happened.”

Even by Monday morning, MSNBC was still tweeting out clips from shows expressing sympathy for Fallows. One women, who purports to have been there, said she “witnessed something that was very aggressive and something that was very frightening.”

WATCH:

Other reporters, like The New York Times’ Jonathan Capehart, stood in solidarity with Phillips, while others like esteemed tech journalists Kara Swisher said this is exactly why Americans needed that insipid Gillette ad.

In fairness, a number of individuals apologized and shared the newer videos demonstrating the students’ innocence (which you can find in this piece by The Daily Caller’s Scott Morefield).

Despite these efforts, it’s important to keep in mind that the media’s efforts to tarnish the reputations of these innocent kids was being done while other social media users were encouraging violence and sending death threats.

One would think that following the fallout from the disputed BuzzFeed report, the media would take a minute before trying to ruin any more innocent lives, particularly when we’re talking about kids. Yet this whole episode makes one thing clear: Journalists aren’t willing to learn a thing.

LAREDO, Texas — U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Office of Field Operations (OFO) continues to prepare for the potential arrival of thousands of people migrating in a caravan to the United States through the Southwest border.  The eight ports of entry extending from Brownsville to Del Rio that comprise the Laredo Field Office (LFO) will soon begin Mobile Field Force (MFF) training to secure our nation’s borders.

CBP will be conducting Mobile Field Force (MFF) operational readiness exercises at Laredo Field Office ports of entry in the very near future.

“The MFF training consists of practical exercises designed to train officers on CBP’s special response tactics,” said Director of Field Operations, David P. Higgerson, Laredo Field Office.  “As they train to respond to any incident that may occur at the ports of entry, our priority is still the safety and security of the American people, international travelers, and our communities while facilitating legitimate trade and travel.”

As the men and women of CBP conduct these drills, it is important for the traveling public to be aware of high visibility operations.

CBP is continually assessing the capabilities of our facilities and has been making — and will continue to make — necessary preparations.  Preparations include participating in operational readiness exercises and the mobilization of resources, as needed, to ensure the facilitation of lawful trade and travel.

The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) today announced the results of a nationwide survey of small businesses and manufacturers. The results cast a harsh light on the state of the U.S. economy six weeks before Election Day.

The poll, conducted by Public Opinion Strategies (POS), surveyed 800 small business owners, manufacturers and decision-makers at small and medium-sized companies, with a majority (55 percent) saying the national economy is in a worse position compared to three years ago. Among the chief factors survey respondents cited were federal regulations, taxes, government spending and the cost of health insurance and energy.

Key survey findings include the following:

• 67 percent say there is too much uncertainty in the market today to expand, grow or hire new workers.
• 69 percent of small business owners and manufacturers say President Obama’s Executive Branch and regulatory policies have hurt American small businesses and manufacturers.
• 55 percent say they would not start a business today given what they know now and in the current environment.
• 54 percent say other countries like China and India are more supportive of their small businesses and manufacturers than the United States.

“Manufacturers have told policymakers in Washington time and again that uncertainty and a negative business environment is turning the American Dream into a nightmare,” said NAM President and CEO Jay Timmons. “The findings of this survey show that manufacturers and other small businesses have a starkly negative outlook for their future—with good reason. There is far too much uncertainty, too many burdensome regulations and too few policymakers willing to put aside their egos and fulfill their responsibilities to the American people. To fix this problem, we need immediate action on pro-growth tax and regulatory policies that put manufacturers in the United States in a position to compete and succeed in an ever-more competitive global economy.”

NFIB President and CEO Dan Danner said, “The small businesses who are the engine of our economy are clamoring for their elected representatives to stand up and lead so they can focus on the business of getting America back on its feet. Yet, instead of smoothing the way, our government continues to erect more barriers to growth through burdensome regulations that increase costs for small businesses and all Americans. It’s time Washington started listening to America’s job creators and offered real solutions to help us back to prosperity.”

Bill McInturff of POS said, “The data in this survey offer a striking picture of how American businesses view the current state of the U.S. economy. It’s clear that small business owners and manufacturers are becoming increasingly more frustrated by the federal government’s inability to solve America’s economic problems. Manufacturers place most of the blame squarely on policies coming out of Washington.”

The Pentagon revealed just how President Donald Trump’s national emergency declaration enables the Department of Defense to secure our borders and illustrates just how little the restrictions in the funding bill actually mean.

“The president has declared a national emergency on the southern border,” the Defense Department said Friday in a statement. “The president invoked sections 12302, 284(b)(7), and 2808 of Title 10, U.S. Code, and requires the use of the armed forces to respond to this emergency through support to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in its efforts to secure the southern border.”

Each of the listed sections brings DoD resources to bear on the crisis at the southern border:

10 U.S.C., Section 12302 (Activation of the Ready Reserve) authorizes involuntary activation of the Ready Reserve, which includes members who, when mobilized, perform a federal mission at the direction of the secretary of defense. This allows the Secretary of Defense to activate military members currently on inactive duty in the Ready Reserve (Inactive Ready Reserve) to be activated should he see fit.

10 U.S.C., Section 284(b)(7) (Counterdrug Support) authorizes DOD to support the counterdrug activities of other federal agencies, including DHS, with the construction of roads, fences, and lighting to block drug smuggling corridors across international boundaries.  DOD will review and respond appropriately to any request for assistance received from DHS. “Fences” are not defined in section 284(b)(7) and courts would likely agree that any physical barrier would meet the description.

Per 10 U.S.C., Section 2808 (Military Construction (MILCON)), this declaration of a national emergency at the southern border requiring the use of the armed forces authorizes the secretary of defense to determine whether border barriers are necessary to support the use of the armed forces and to re-direct unobligated DOD MILCON funding to construct border barriers if required. Section 2808 is less ambiguous. It authorizes border barriers as the Secretary of Defense sees fit.

When President Trump said he had a plan to get $8 billion for border barriers, he meant it. And these provisions don’t come with the handcuffs included in the funding bill signed by the president today.

Barack Obama, who has stayed in continuous campaign mode since birth, persists in insisting House Republicans submit to his demands to hike tax rates on “the rich.”  If Republicans do note cede to his decrees, Obama will let everyone’s tax rates go up and cut one trillion dollars from the budget, half of which will come from defense spending.

If he were truly interested in solving America’s fiscal troubles, this would not be his position.

Most definitely not…

Obama carries on with his nonstop campaign-style appearances, claiming that higher tax rates will reduce the U.S. deficit and cut the national debt.

That is categorically complete, total, absolute, utter fantasy.

The amount collected by the IRS from Obama’s long lusted for tax hikes would fund U.S. federal spending for fewer than nine days.

For members of the self-imagined, self-appointed “progressive” intellectual elite: That is less than two weeks.

At current spending levels the U.S. federal government borrows forty six cents of every dollar it spends.  Despite the fact that 2013 has not yet begun, through the first two months of fiscal year 2013 the U.S. is already approximately $300 billion in debt.

The biggest drivers of U.S. deficit spending are Medicare, Social Security, “safety net” programs and interest on the debt.  The looming short and long term costs of Obamacare have yet to fully reveal themselves, but given the U.S. federal government’s track record one can safely predict that it will be far more than what taxpayers were told and will rape their wallets for billions every year.

In other words, under the White House’s current “progressive” policies, it is only going to get worse, not better.

The Oval Office occupier and his “progressive” Party Pravda press secretaries willfully ignore and refuse to mention that under the current tax rates, revenues are up by thirty billion dollars over last year.

Obama keeps claiming that raising tax rates on America’s highest earners, those who already pay forty percent of the revenue to the IRS, will be the silver bullet that solves America’s financial woes.  He continues blaming today’s deficits on his predecessor.

During his time in office, George W. Bush’s highest deficit was $438 billion.  Obama’s government has posted a $1 trillion plus deficit for four straight years.  2013 will make five.  America’s fiscal gloom and the looming “fiscal cliff” “crisis” are the result of “progressive” spending on wasteful big government socialist programs.

That is the reason.  Any other claim is pure unadulterated political snake oil.

America’s debt and deficit problems can only be resolved by cuts in spending.  When the United States receives another credit downgrade, it will be because of “progressives”, not Conservatives.  America needs to cut spending, not increase taxes.

Anyone who says differently should be in organic fertilizer distribution…or is that redistribution?

Two male runners are continuing to dominate high school girls’ track in Connecticut.

High school juniors Terry Miller and Andraya Yearwood took first and second place in the state open indoor track championships on Feb. 16, the Associated Press noted in a report on Sunday. Both Miller and Yearwood are biological males who identify as transgender girls.

One of their competitors, high school junior Selina Soule, told the AP that it was unfair to force female runners to compete against male runners.

“We all know the outcome of the race before it even starts; it’s demoralizing,” said Soule. “I fully support and am happy for these athletes for being true to themselves. They should have the right to express themselves in school, but athletics have always had extra rules to keep the competition fair.”

Miller is currently the third-fastest runner in the country in the girls’ 55-meter dash. Yearwood is close behind, tied for seventh nationally.

Miller and Yearwood’s success is just the latest instance of male athletes, who identify as transgender, excelling in women’s sports.

Miller and Yearwood easily outpaced female runners in the state last year as well, when both were sophomores.

A sympathetic segment on ABC’s “Good Morning America” in June 2018 described the two runners as “dominating the competition” at the outdoor state championships earlier that month.

In that interview, Miller argued that female runners should work harder – rather than complaining about unfairness – when forced to compete against male athletes who identify as transgender.

Yearwood acknowledged being stronger than female runners to the AP, but compared it to advantages that other athletes might have from perfecting their form or doing extra training sessions.

“One high jumper could be taller and have longer legs than another, but the other could have perfect form, and then do better,” Yearwood told the AP. “One sprinter could have parents who spend so much money on personal training for their child, which in turn, would cause that child to run faster.”

The sequester’s $85 billion dollar slowing of federal spending isn’t what’s going to stall the economy this year – that will come from the President’s healthcare reform.

The White House and congressional Democrats have been hard at-work spinning the March jobs slowdown as an effect of sequestration even though the details of the report show no slowdown in government hiring. As sequestration would first impact government jobs, the correlation is non-existent.

The true culprit in the coming recession is not George Bush, Republican filibusters or slightly slower government spending – its Obamacare.

The President’s marquee healthcare reform law is taking its toll on business owners and families as it is directly causing premiums to skyrocket – some by more than double – and the toll on the economy is just beginning.

An exhaustive study by three congressional committees delivers startling news about the dire effects of Obamacare: President Barack Obama’s signature legislation could increase health insurance premiums by over 200 percent and render insurance coverage unaffordable for millions of Americans.

Insurance companies, states and the federal government have been frantically trying to implement the complicated and costly healthcare law.

Insurance companies have spent millions of dollars installing new software, designing integration with state/federal exchanges and changing their processes to deal with the concept of premium subsidies and premium cost-sharing – two major components of Obamacare. That money has to come from somewhere and its coming in the form of skyrocketing premiums.

States that chose to either implement their own exchanges or work in a state-federal partnership to form exchanges are seeing their costs balloon as well. State taxpayers will bear the brunt of those expenses.

The federal government, realizing that the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) is too complex, is planning to hire Obamacare Insurance Navigators at a cost of $29-$49.00 per hour. When the government hires, the costs come from taxpayers. Increasing costs mean increasing taxes – just as the President has proposed in his budget plan.

The revenue needed to fund the expense is coming out of the pockets of consumers and going to a massively-expanding federal bureaucracy. More taxpayer money is going to fund Department of Health and Human Services regulation, State and Federal exchanges and now more federal employees – expensive ones.

Consumers are getting hit from another side as premiums affect their paychecks and their employers.

As employers are forced to pay increasing premiums, more revenue must be directed away from pay and hours. Many employers are converting full-time positions to part-time or eliminating them altogether to avoid the overwhelming costs associated with healthcare reform.

Skyrocketing premiums mean less money for workers. As employer-provided health insurance usually splits the cost between the employee and employer, the worker will see a shrinking paycheck as premiums increase.

According to a Milliman Consulting Group study on insurance rates, the pain will be substantial for the middle-class:

the poor are likely to pay significantly less than they do now while middle-class families dig deeper into pocketbooks.

President Obama told the American people that this law would bend the healthcare cost curve down. In just its first few years of implementation it has done the opposite.

Even Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius admitted that “there may be a higher cost associated with getting into that market.” When asked about rapidly-increasing premiums.

Some proponents of the healthcare law have made the case that premiums are rising due to increasing healthcare costs. White House deputy press secretary Josh Earnest countered that claim saying that “I would actually point to the results that we’re already seeing from the Affordable Care Act, which is a savings of $2.1 billion.”

So if healthcare costs are not causing insurance premiums to rise – there’s only one culprit left and the drain on the economy will likely push the country back into recession.

• China provided over $158 million in funding to U.S. schools for ‘Confucius Institutes,’ which Chinese officials have called a form of propaganda, a bipartisan Senate investigation found.
• The program’s U.S. counterpart in Chinese universities was shut down after alleged Chinese interference.  
• FBI Director Christopher Wray faulted ‘naïveté’ among U.S. college faculty, and China is now expanding the program into grade schools, the report said. 

The Chinese government has funded hundreds of outposts in U.S. universities that its own officials say are avenues for propaganda, according to a bipartisan Senate investigation.

Most U.S. institutions of higher learning that received significant Chinese funding failed to report the foreign contracts in violation of the law, and many signed contracts that included secrecy provisions that prevent their terms from being known by students and the public, according to the report.

The Chinese government funds and staffs centers called Confucius Institutes at colleges outside China according to a 100-page report issued Wednesday by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which will hold a hearing on the topic Thursday. The program is run by a Chinese government entity called Hanban.

“We should actively carry out international propaganda battles,” China’s former Minister of Propaganda Liu Yunshan said in a Chinese newspaper in 2010. “Our strategy is to proactively take our culture abroad … We should do well in establishing and operating overseas cultural centers and Confucius Institutes.”

The growth of China’s Confucius Classrooms (Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations)

According to the report, Li Changchun, a former member of the Chinese government, said in a 2011 speech that “Confucius Institutes are an important part of China’s overseas propaganda set-up.” He said the program “has made an important contribution toward improving our soft power … Using the excuse of teaching Chinese language, everything looks reasonable and logical.”

Administrators at most of the U.S. host colleges told government investigators they had no qualms about the program — even as some of the program’s personnel allegedly sabotaged other professors’ academic materials mentioning Taiwan and even as the Chinese government obstructed the U.S.’s effort to create a complementary program in China.

“I think the level of naïveté on the part of the academic sector about this creates its own issues,” FBI Director Christopher Wray said during a 2018 congressional hearing, according to the report. China is “exploiting the very open research and development environment that we have, which we all revere, but they’re taking advantage of it.

“So one of the things we’re trying to do is view the China threat as not just a whole-of-government threat but a whole-of-society threat on their end, and I think it’s going to take a whole-of-society response by us,” he continued. “So it’s not just the intelligence community, but it’s raising awareness within our academic sector.”

The Chinese program is now expanding into grade school and has set up 519 “Confucius Classrooms” in U.S. K-12 classrooms, according to the report. “Since 2006, the Subcommittee determined China directly provided over $158 million in funding to U.S. schools for Confucius Institutes,” the report said. “The Department of Education requires all post-secondary schools to report foreign gifts of $250,000 or more from a single source within a calendar year of receiving them.

“Despite that legal requirement, nearly 70 percent of U.S. schools that received more than $250,000 from Hanban failed to properly report that amount,” it continued.

The pool of teachers is selected by the Chinese program and they come over on visas granted by the State Department that are designated for academics conducting research, but the Senate report found indications of visa fraud.

In 2018, the State Department revoked 32 visas for Confucius Institute teachers because they were not conducting research but rather teaching at K-12 schools.

“The State Department also found evidence that one Confucius Institute Chinese director improperly coached the teachers to discuss their research during interviews with State Department investigators,” the report said.

When it comes to colleges failing to disclose foreign money, the Department of Justice told Senate investigators it had no indication that the Department of Education has ever tried to take U.S. colleges to court for allegedly violating the law.

Likewise, the report says the State Department has done little on-the-ground investigation of the programs. “In 2019, the State Department plans to double the number of Confucius Institutes field reviews it completed in 2018 – from two to four,” the report says.

The U.S. attempted to establish parity by creating “American Cultural Centers” (ACC) in which U.S. universities would partner with Chinese ones to set up programs abroad. But the program was ended in 2017 after the Chinese government allegedly repeatedly obstructed programs and denied them academic freedom.

“Despite receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars from the State Department, at least seven ACCs sponsored by U.S. schools were unable to ever open due to Chinese interference,” the report said.

One U.S. college official told Senate investigators that the Communist Party was involved in approving cultural events, and others said permission was routinely denied.

“Another U.S. school official left the ACC after two sessions of extensive questioning by Chinese police officers regarding her involvement with the ACC and the State Department,” the report said. “When the U.S. school official returned to the United States, a colleague told her that Chinese police interrogation of school officials was common and that she was now just ‘part of the club.’”

Chinese outposts in US schools vs. American outposts in Chinese schools (Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations)

In October 2018, Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Chuck Grassley, an Iowa Republican, wrote to the attorney general that the program may violate the Foreign Agents Registration Act.

The report, written by staff for both Republican Rob Portman of Ohio and Democrat Tom Carper of Delaware, concluded that “Schools in the United States—from kindergarten to college—have provided a level of access to the Chinese government that the Chinese government has refused to provide to the United States … Confucius Institutes should not continue in the United States.”

Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Seth Moulton urged two colleges in his state to sever ties, while Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio wrote in a February 2018 letter to Florida universities that “[g]iven China’s aggressive campaign to ‘infiltrate’ American classrooms, stifle free inquiry, and subvert free expression both at home and abroad, I respectfully urge you to consider terminating your Confucius Institute agreement.”

In 2013, the Canadian Association of University Teachers called on colleges to shut the programs down, saying “Confucius Institutes are essentially political arms of the Chinese government” and “restrict the free discussion of topics Chinese authorities deem controversial.”

Meanwhile, “As China opened over 100 additional Confucius Institutes in the United States over the last 15 years, the Department of Education remained silent,” the report said.

With the enactment of the privately owned central bank, the Bank of England provided the model for the financial enslavement of governments, and their citizens. Well before the conflict for establishing a National Bank in America or the eventual surrender to the money changers with the betrayal in instituting the Federal Reserve, the history of the Bank of England needs to be studied. Relying on British historians may seem to invoke a cultural bias; however, the range and wealth of information on this topic comes from an earlier age. Further research will expand this understanding and many of the sources cited can fulfill this objective.

For purposes of a mainstream account, the official site of the Bank of England provides a flowery version about the background and purported success of the scheme proposed by   “William Paterson, envisaged a loan of £1,200,000 to the Government, in return for which the subscribers would be incorporated as the “Governor and Company of the Bank of England”. Although the new bank would have risked its entire capital by lending it to the Government, the subscription proved popular and the money was raised in a few weeks. The Royal Charter was sealed on 27 July 1694, and the Bank started its role as the Government’s banker and debt-manager, which it continues today.”

“The bank hath benefit of interest on all moneys which it creates out of nothing.”

– William Paterson

THE FORMATION OF THE BANK OF ENGLAND by Halley Goodman provides a detailed and well sourced chronicle and background.

“The goldsmiths evolved to become the original private bankers of the time. Since  goldsmiths already had as part of their trade private stores of gold and stout vaults to store them in, entrepreneurs could entrust their own gold to them for safe keeping, for a fee, and receive a paper receipt for the deposit. The goldsmiths could then lend monies against these deposits for an additional fee. Mr. Hartley Winters declares that “some ingenious goldsmith conceived the epock-making notion of giving notes…and so founded modern banking.” Merchants would deposit “their money with the goldsmiths and received from them receipts” that “…were payable on demand, and were transferred from one holder to another in payment of debts.” These receipts or notes from the goldsmith bankers, often in the form of a letter, are some of the earliest surviving cheques in England. Given the economic realities of the time, although deposits provided the funds for their business, most of the clients of these goldsmith bankers were usually borrowers rather than depositors.”

From such humble origins, the foundation was laid to invent a central bank that would create money out of thin air and loan it at interest to the government, who lost it sovereignty for making this Faustian bargain.

Secrets of the Bank of England Revealed at Last!!

The Charter of the Bank of England (1694) with the Great Seal of William and Mary. The first usury central bank to be incorporated in England.

The Bank of England account, published by Cassell, Petter & Galpin cites a rocky start and opposition from the goldsmiths.

“In 1696 (very soon after its birth) the Bank experienced a crisis. There was a want of money in England. The clipped silver had been called in, and the new money was not ready. Even rich people were living on credit, and issued promissory notes. The stock of the Bank of England had gone rapidly down from 110 to 83. The goldsmiths, who detested the corporation that had broken in on their system of private banking, now tried to destroy the new company. They plotted, and on the same day they crowded to Grocers’ Hall, where the Bank was located from 1694 to 1734, and insisted on immediate payment—one goldsmith alone demanding £30,000. The directors paid all their honest creditors, but refused to cash the goldsmiths’ notes, and left them their remedy in Westminster Hall. The goldsmiths triumphed in scurrilous pasquinades entitled, “The Last Will and Testament,” “The Epitaph,” “The Inquest on the Bank of England.”

It did not take long for the Jewish bankers to set their sights on Paterson’s bank and financers for the English regime. Brother Nathanael Kapner adds his audacious viewpoints.

“The new King William III soon got England involved in costly wars against Catholic France which put England deep into debt. Here was the Jewish bankers’ chance to collect. So King William, under orders from the Elders of Zion in Amsterdam, persuaded the British Treasury to borrow 1.25 million pounds sterling from the Jewish bankers who had helped him to the throne.

Since the state’s debts had risen dramatically, the government had no choice but to accept. But there were conditions attached: The names of the lenders were to be kept secret and that they be granted a Charter to establish a Central Bank of England. Parliament accepted and the Jewish bankers sunk their tentacles into Great Britain.”

Actual control of the fiat central bank is discussed in Who owns the Bank of England?

“A very famous story relates to the Bank of England and the infamous Rothschilds, that all powerful banking family. This story was re-told recently in a BBC documentary about the creation of money and the Bank of England.

It revolves around the Battle of Waterloo in which Nathan Rothschild used his inside knowledge of the outcome and his faster horses and couriers to play the market by getting the result of the battle before anyone else knew the outcome.

He quickly sold his English bonds and gave all the traders who looked to him for guidance the impression that the French had won at Waterloo.