Terror, Petrodollar Warfare and Plan “B” for Iraq

Anatoly ALIFEROV (Russia)

The death toll in Iraq is surging after more than 7 years of international occupation. The ballots cast during the March 7 parliamentary elections still have not been completely counted, and the tide of terror of some obscure origin in the country is raising as we watch. Blasts took over 70 lives in Baghdad on April 23, and, as predicted by the US military, under the circumstances the withdrawal of the US forces from Iraq is likely to be suspended if not altogether abolished.

On the day of the Muslim traditional Friday prayer, when imams praise the Almighty and ask prophet Muhammad for blessing, the deadliest three bombings exploded in rapid succession near the headquarters of the political movement led by the Shiite cleric (Moktada al-Sadr) in Sadr City, the impoverished Shiite neighborhood in Baghdad that bears his family’s name. Each Friday hundreds of his followers gather in an open square there for noon prayers, and they accounted for many of the victims. (Sadr is one of the most influential religious and political figures in the country. He organized thousands of his supporters into a political movement, which includes a military wing known as the Jaysh al-Mahdi or Mahdi Armi).

Immediately upon the seizure of Baghdad in 2003, al-Sadr, whose family was persecuted under S. Hussein, stated that he and his followers would not directly or indirectly submit to the occupation. In April 2004 he initiated a revolt against the coalition forces occupying Iraq.

On April 23, Baghdad was shattered by at least 7 blasts targeting the Rahmaniya marketplace, mosques, and residential housing.

What is the connection between the blasts and the timetable of the phased US withdrawal from Iraq? The plan is to downsize the current US force in the country numbering 96,000 servicemen to 50,000 by August, 2010, and then to pull them out by the end of 2011. As commander of the US forces in Iraq Gen. Ray Odierno said two weeks prior to the elections, “if something happens” the US has a “plan B” which involves seriously slowing or even entirely stopping the pullout.

The “something” seems to be the increase in violence in Iraq. The escalation did “happen” – it accompanied the run-up to the elections, continued while they were in process, and still lingers. The Associated Presssurvey of the worst terrorist attacks for the two months since Gen. Odierno made his statement is: 32 dead on March 3, 37 dead on March 7 (the elections day), 57 dead on March 26, 24 dead on April 2, 42 dead on April 4, 50 dead on April 6, and 72 dead on April 23 (and the list keeps swelling).

What is the notorious Plan “B” for Iraq? The information is unreliable and contradictory. Various scenarios bracketed as the plan have been discussed by the US establishment for several years. One of the versions is that a scheme of “winning dirty” by fueling the sectarian strife in the country has been masterminded given the impossibility of the US “clean” victory. A provoked crisis and a general escalation should help eliminate the key opponents of the US policy in Iraq. For example, already in 2004 the famed Seymour M. Hersh wrote that G. Bush’s Administration had a detailed plan, called Operation Stuart, for the arrest and, if necessary, assassination of Sadr (but the operation was cancelled).

The democracy show – elections paralleled by blasts in city streets – can continue in Iraq for some time, but the essence of what is going on in Iraq is already clear. The best description of the situation has been suggested by US expert on information security William R. Clark who coined the term “petrodollar warfare”.

The author wrote in his Petrodollar Warfare: Oil, Iraq and the Future of the Dollar (New Society Publishers, 2005) that the 2003 war in Iraq was the first war for maintaining the US dollar’s exclusive role of the currency of oil contracts. In September, 2000 Hussein demanded a conversion of $10 bn from the accounts of the UN Food for Oil program into Euro. Clark holds that the decision to sell Iraq’s oil for Euro, not for US dollars, is the explanation behind everything that the country was to endure.

The First Petrodollar War which swept across Iraq is not only a war for control over the Iraqi oil fields (containing the world’s second largest oil reserves). It is a war for the control over the financial instruments which are used in the global oil trade.

The main developments in Iraq over the past several months have been actually related to oil. In the interval of time between the summer of 2009 and January, 2010 the Iraqi government urgently signed 10 conracts with global oil grands to develop all of the country’s oil deposits. The best parts of the pie were fed to BP, Exxon Mobil, Royal Dutch Shell, Conoco Philips, Occidental Petroleum, and to China’s CNPC (BP-CNPC nabbed the Rumaila oil field second in size only to Saudi Arabia’s Gawar). Having handed out the pieces, Baghdad unveiled a plan to boost Iraq’s oil output by a factor of 5 in the coming 7 years – from the current 2.4 to 12 million bpd. Fighting terrorism, “winning dirty” and other forms of the US presence in Iraq will clearly be employed by Washington to retain control over the supply of the Iraqi oil which is expected to start growing at an unprecedented pace already this year. The control will open to the US further opportunities to manipulate global oil prices. The world has already been taught a lesson on what the result can be: as the prominent Russian historian and blogger Nikolay Starikov wrote in his ‘Cherchez la Oil‘: “Sixfold oil price drop in 1986 was the main factor that catalyzed the collapse of the Soviet Union’s economy and eventually led to destruction of the USSR”.

…Tensions in Baghdad persist. Muqtada al-Sadr issued a statement late Friday calling on believers to join the Iraqi army and police “to defend their shrines, mosques, prayers, markets, houses and their towns.” Al-Sadr urged Iraqi leaders “not to be pulled toward the malicious American plans that intend to pull Iraq into wars and fighting in order to find the pretext for staying on our holy lands”.

Source: Strategic Culture Foundation

3 Comments

  1. Nalliah Thayabharan

    At the end of World War II, an agreement was reached at the Bretton Woods Conference which pegged the value of gold at US$35 per ounce and that became the international standard against which currency was measured. But in 1971, US President Richard Nixon took the US$ off the gold standard and ever since the US$ has been the most important global monetary instrument, and only the US can produce them. However, there were problems with this arrangement not least of all that the dollar was effectively worthless than before it reneged on the gold-standard. But more importantly because it was the world’s reserve currency, everybody was saving their surpluses in US$. To maintain the US$’s pre-eminence, the Richard Nixon administration impressed upon Saudi Arabia and therefore OPEC (Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries) to sell their oil only in US$. This did two things; it meant that oil sales supported the US$ and also allowed the USA access to exchange risk free oil. The USA propagates war to protect its oil supplies, but even more importantly, to safeguard the strength of the US$. The fear of the consequences of a weaker US$, particularly higher oil prices is seen as underlying and explaining many aspects of the US foreign policy, including the Iraq and Libyan War. The reality is that the value of the US$ is determined by the fact that oil is sold in US$. If the denomination changes to another currency, such as the euro, many countries would sell US$and cause the banks to shift their reserves, as they would no longer need US$ to buy oil. This would thus weaken the US$ relative to the euro. A leading motive of the US in the Iraq war — perhaps the fundamental underlying motive, even more than the control of the oil itself — is an attempt to preserve the US$ as the leading oil trading currency. Since it is the USA that prints the US$, they control the flow of oil. Period. When oil is denominated in US$ through US state action and the US$ is the only fiat currency for trading in oil, an argument can be made that the USA essentially owns the world’s oil for free.
    So long as almost three quarter of world trade is done in US$, the US$ is the currency which central banks accumulate as reserves. But central banks, whether China or Japan or Brazil or Russia, do not simply stack US$ in their vaults. Currencies have one advantage over gold. A central bank can use it to buy the state bonds of the issuer, the USA. Most countries around the world are forced to control trade deficits or face currency collapse. Not the USA. This is because of the US$ reserve currency role. And the underpinning of the reserve role is the petrodollar. Every nation needs to get US$ to import oil, some more than others. This means their trade targets US$ countries.
    Because oil is an essential commodity for every nation, the Petrodollar system, which exists to the present, demands the buildup of huge trade surpluses in order to accumulate US$ surpluses. This is the case for every country but one — the USA which controls the US$ and prints it at will or fiat. Because today the majority of all international trade is done in US$, countries must go abroad to get the means of payment they cannot themselves issue. The entire global trade structure today works around this dynamic, from Russia to China, from Brazil to South Korea and Japan. Everyone aims to maximize US$ surpluses from their export trade.
    Until November 2000, no OPEC country dared violate the dollar price rule. So long as the US$ was the strongest currency, there was little reason to as well. But November was when French and other Euroland members finally convinced Saddam Hussein to defy the USA by selling Iraq’s oil-for-food not in US$, ‘the enemy currency’ as Iraq named it, but only in euros. The euros were on deposit in a special UN account of the leading French bank, BNP Paribas. Radio Liberty of the US State Department ran a short wire on the news and the story was quickly hushed.
    This little-noted Iraq move to defy the US$ in favor of the euro, in itself, was insignificant. Yet, if it were to spread, especially at a point the US$ was already weakening, it could create a panic selloff of US$ by foreign central banks and OPEC oil producers. In the months before the latest Iraq war, hints in this direction were heard from Russia, Iran, Indonesia and even Venezuela. An Iranian OPEC official, Javad Yarjani, delivered a detailed analysis of how OPEC at some future point might sell its oil to the EU for euros not US$. He spoke in April, 2002 in Oviedo Spain at the invitation of the EU. All indications are that the Iraq war was seized on as the easiest way to deliver a deadly pre-emptive warning to OPEC and others, not to flirt with abandoning the Petro-dollar system in favor of one based on the euro.
    Informed banking circles in the City of London and elsewhere in Europe privately confirm the significance of that little-noted Iraq move from petro-dollar to petro-euro. ‘The Iraq move was a declaration of war against the US$’, one senior London banker told me recently. ‘As soon as it was clear that Britain and the US had taken Iraq, a great sigh of relief was heard in London City banks. They said privately, “now we don’t have to worry about that damn euro threat”.
    First Iraq and then Libya decided to challenge the petrodollar system and stop selling all their oil for US$, shortly before each country was attacked.The cost of war is not nearly as big as it is made out to be. The cost of not going to war would be horrendous for the US unless there were another way of protecting the US$’s world trade dominance.
    Guess how USA pays for the wars? By printing US$ it is going to war to protect.
    After considerable delay, Iran opened an oil bourse which does not accept US$. Many people fear that the move will give added reason for the USA to overthrow the Iranian regime as a means to close the bourse and revert Iran’s oil transaction currency to US$. In 2006 Venezuela indicated support of Iran’s decision to offer global oil trade in euro.
    6 months before the US moved into Iraq to take down Saddam Hussein, Iraq had made the move to accept Euros instead of US$ for oil, and this became a threat to the global dominance of the US$ as the reserve currency, and its dominion as the petrodollar.
    Muammar Qaddafi made a similarly bold move: he initiated a movement to refuse the US$ and the euro, and called on Arab and African nations to use a new currency instead, the gold dinar. Muammar Qaddafi suggested establishing a united African continent, with its 200 million people using this single currency. The initiative was viewed negatively by the USA and the European Union, with French president Nicolas Sarkozy calling Libya a threat to the financial security of mankind; but Muammar Qaddafi continued his push for the creation of a united Africa.
    Muammar Gaddafi’s recent proposal to introduce a gold dinar for Africa revives the notion of an Islamic gold dinar floated in 2003 by Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, as well as by some Islamist movements. The notion, which contravenes IMF rules and is designed to bypass them, has had trouble getting started. But today Iran, China, Russia, and India are stocking more and more gold rather than US$.
    If Muammar Qaddafi were to succeed in creating an African Union backed by Libya’s currency and gold reserves, France, still the predominant economic power in most of its former Central African colonies, would be the chief loser. The plans to spark the Benghazi rebellion were initiated by French intelligence services in November 2010.
    – Nalliah Thayabharan

  2. Nalliah Thayabharan

    Germany was hopelessly broke when Adolf Hitler came to power in 1933 . The Treaty of Versailles (le Traité de Versailles) had imposed crushing reparations on the German people, demanding that Germans repay every nation’s costs of the war. These costs totaled three times the value of all the property in Germany.

    Private currency speculators caused the German currency to plummet, precipitating one of the worst runaway inflations in modern times. A wheelbarrow full of 100 billion-mark banknotes could not buy a loaf of bread. The national treasury was empty. Countless homes and farms were lost to speculators and to private Zionist controlled banks. Germans lived in hovels. They were starving.

    Nothing like this had ever happened before – the total destruction of the national currency – German mark, plus the wiping out of German’s savings and businesses. On top of this came a global depression. Germany had no choice but to succumb to debt slavery under international Zionist bankers until 1933, when the National Socialists came to power. At that point the German government thwarted the Zionist international banking cartels by issuing its own money. Zionist bankers responded by declaring a global boycott against Germany.

    Adolf Hitler began a national credit program by devising a plan of public works that included flood control, repair of public buildings and private residences, and construction of new roads, bridges, canals, and port facilities. All these were paid for with money that no longer came from the private international Zionist bankers.

    The projected cost of these various programs was fixed at one billion units of the national currency. To pay for this, the German government (not the international Zionist bankers) issued bills of exchange, called Labor Treasury Certificates. In this way the National Socialists put millions of people to work, and paid them with Treasury Certificates.

    Under the National Socialists, Germany’s money wasn’t backed by gold which was owned by the international Zionist bankers. It was essentially a receipt for labor and materials delivered to the government. Adolf Hitler said, “For every mark issued, we required the equivalent of a mark’s worth of work done, or goods produced.” The government paid workers in Certificates. Workers spent those Certificates on other goods and services, thus creating more jobs for more people. In this way the German people climbed out of the crushing debt imposed on them by the international Zionist bankers.

    Within two years, the unemployment problem in Germany had been solved, and Germany was back on its feet. It had a solid, stable currency, with no debt, and no inflation, at a time when millions of people in the United States and other Western countries controlled by international Zionist bankers were still out of work. Within five years, Germany went from the poorest nation in Europe to the richest.

    Germany even managed to restore foreign trade, despite the international Zionist bankers’ denial of foreign credit to Germany, and despite the global boycott by Zionist-owned industries. Germany succeeded in this by exchanging equipment and commodities directly with other countries, using a barter system that cut the private Zionist bankers out of the picture. Germany flourished, since barter eliminates national debt and trade deficits. Today Venezuela does the same thing today when it trades oil for commodities, plus medical help, and so on. Hence the Zionist bankers are trying to squeeze Venezuela.

    Hjalmar Schacht, a Rothschild agent who was temporarily head of the German central bank, summed it up thus… An American banker had commented, “Dr. Schacht, you should come to America. We’ve lots of money and that’s real banking.” Schacht replied, “You should come to Berlin. We don’t have money. That’s real banking.”

    Schacht, the Rothschild agent, actually supported the private international Zionist bankers against Germany, and was rewarded by having all charges against him dropped at the Nuremberg trials.

    This economic freedom made Adolf Hitler extremely popular with the German people. Germany was rescued from English economic theory, which says that all currency must be borrowed against the gold owned by a private and secretive Zionist banking cartel — such as the Federal Reserve, or the Central Bank of Europe — rather than issued by the government for the benefit of the people.

    Canadian researcher Dr. Henry Makow who is Jewish himself says the main reason why the Zionist bankers arranged for a world war against Germany was that Hitler sidestepped the Zionist bankers by creating his own money, thereby freeing the German people. Worse, this freedom and prosperity threatened to spread to other nations. Adolf Hitler had to be stopped!

    Makow quotes from the 1938 interrogation of Christian Rakovsky, one of the founders of Soviet Bolsevism and a Lev Davidovich Bronshtein (Trotsky) intimate. Christian Rakovsky was tried in show trials in the USSR under Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin. According to Christian Rakovsky, Adolf Hitler was at first funded by the international Zionist bankers, through the bankers’ agent Hjalmar Schacht. The bankers financed Adolf Hitler in order to control Joseph Stalin, who had usurped power from their agent Lev Davidovich Bronshtein (Trotsky). Then Adolf Hitler became an even bigger threat than Joseph Stalin when Hitler started printing his own money.

    Joseph Stalin came to power in 1922, which was eleven years before Adolf Hitler came to power.

    Christian Rakovsky said:
    “Adolf Hitler took over the privilege of manufacturing money, and not only physical moneys, but also financial ones. He took over the machinery of falsification and put it to work for the benefit of the people. Can you possibly imagine what would have come if this had infected a number of other states?” (Henry Makow, “Hitler Did Not Want War”).

    Economist Henry C K Liu writes of Germany’s remarkable transformation:
    “The Nazis came to power in 1933 when the German economy was in total collapse, with ruinous war-reparation obligations and zero prospects for foreign investment or credit. Through an independent monetary policy of sovereign credit and a full-employment public-works program, the Third Reich was able to turn a bankrupt Germany, stripped of overseas colonies, into the strongest economy in Europe within four years, even before armament spending began.”
    (Henry C. K. Liu, “Nazism and the German Economic Miracle”).

    In Billions for the Bankers, Debts for the People (1984), Sheldon Emry commented:
    “Germany issued debt-free and interest-free money from 1935 on, which accounts for Germany’s startling rise from the depression to a world power in five years. The German government financed its entire operations from 1935 to 1945 without gold, and without debt. It took the entire Capitalist and Communist world to destroy the German revolution, and bring Europe back under the heel of the Bankers.”

    These facts do not appear in any textbooks today, since Zionist own most publishing companies. What does appear is the disastrous runaway inflation suffered in 1923 by the Weimar Republic, which governed Germany from 1919 to 1933. Today’s textbooks use this inflation to twist truth into its opposite. They cite the radical devaluation of the German mark as an example of what goes wrong when governments print their own money, rather than borrow it from private Zionist cartels.

    In reality, the Weimar financial crisis began with the impossible reparations payments imposed at the Treaty of Versailles. Hjalmar Schacht – the Rothschild agent who was currency commissioner for the Republic — opposed letting the German government print its own money… “The Treaty of Versailles is a model of ingenious measures for the economic destruction of Germany. Germany could not find any way of holding its head above the water, other than by the inflationary expedient of printing bank notes.”

    Schacht echoes the textbook lie that Weimar inflation was caused when the German government printed its own money. However, in his 1967 book The Magic of Money, Schacht let the cat out of the bag by revealing that it was the PRIVATELY-OWNED Reichsbank, not the German government, that was pumping new currency into the economy. Thus, the PRIVATE BANK caused the Weimar hyper-inflation.

    Like the U.S. Federal Reserve, the Reichsbank was overseen by appointed government officials, but was operated for private gain. What drove the wartime inflation into hyperinflation was speculation by foreign investors, who sold the mark short, betting on its decreasing value. In the manipulative device known as the short sale, speculators borrow something they don’t own, sell it, and then “cover” by buying it back at the lower price.

    Speculation in the German mark was made possible because the PRIVATELY OWNED Reichsbank (not yet under Nazi control) made massive amounts of currency available for borrowing. This currency, like U.S. currency today, was created with accounting entries on the bank’s books. Then the funny-money was lent at compound interest. When the Reichsbank could not keep up with the voracious demand for marks, other private banks were allowed to create marks out of nothing, and to lend them at interest. The result was runaway debt and inflation.

    Thus, according to Schacht himself, the German government did not cause the Weimar hyperinflation. On the contrary, the government (under the National Socialists) got hyperinflation under control. The National Socialists put the Reichsbank under strict government regulation, and took prompt corrective measures to eliminate foreign speculation. One of those measures was to eliminate easy access to funny-money loans from private banks. Then Adolf Hitler got Germany back on its feet by having the public government issue Treasury Certificates.

    Schacht , the Rothschild agent, disapproved of this government fiat money, and wound up getting fired as head of the Reichsbank when he refused to issue it. Nonetheless, he acknowledged in his later memoirs that allowing the government to issue the money it needed did not produce the price inflation predicted by classical economic theory, which says that currency must be borrowed from private cartels.

    What causes hyper-inflation is uncontrolled speculation. When speculation is coupled with debt (owed to private Zionist banking cartels) the result is disaster. On the other hand, when a government issues currency in carefully measured ways, it causes supply and demand to increase together, leaving prices unaffected. Hence there is no inflation, no debt, no unemployment, and no need for income taxes.

    Naturally this terrifies the Zionist bankers, since it eliminates their powers. It also terrifies Zionists, since their control of banking allows them to buy the media, the government, and everything else.

  3. Nalliah Thayabharan

    Abraham Lincoln worked valiantly to prevent the Rothschild’s attempts to involve themselves in financing the Civil War. Interestingly, it was the Czar of Russia who provided the needed assistance against the British and French, who were among the driving forces behind the secession of the South and her subsequent financing. Russia intervened by providing naval forces for the Union blockade of the South in European waters, and by letting both countries know that if they attempted to join the Confederacy with military forces, they would also have to go to war with Russia.

    The Rothschild interests did succeed, through their agent Treasury Secretary Salmon P. Chase, to force a bill (the National Banking Act) through Congress creating a federally chartered central bank that had the power to issue U.S. Bank Notes. Afterward, Lincoln warned the American people:
    “The money power preys upon the nation in time of peace and conspires against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me, and causes me to tremble for the safety of our country. Corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people, until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the republic is destroyed. ”
    Lincoln continued to fight against the central bank, and some now believe that it was his anticipated success in influencing Congress to limit the life of the Bank of the United States to just the war years that was the motivating factor behind his assassination.

    Modern researchers have uncovered evidence of a massive conspiracy that links the following parties to the Bank of Rothschild. Lincoln’s Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, John Wilkes Booth, his eight co-conspirators, and over seventy government officials and businessmen involved in the conspiracy. When Booth’s diary was recovered by Stanton’s troops, it was delivered to Stanton. When it was later produced during the investigation, eighteen pages had been ripped out. These pages, containing the aforementioned names,were later found in the attic of one of Stanton’s descendants.
    From Booth’s trunk, a coded message was found that linked him directly to Judah P. Benjamin, the Civil War campaign manager in the South for the House of Rothschild. When the war ended, the key to the code was found in Benjamin’s possession. The assassin, portrayed as a crazed lone gunman with a few radical friends, escaped by way of the only bridge in Washington not guarded by Stanton’s troops.
    “Booth” was located hiding in a barn near Port Royal, Virginia, three days after escaping from Washington. He was shot by a soldier named Boston Corbett, who fired without orders. Whether or not the man killed was Booth is still a matter of contention, but the fact remains that whoever it was, he had no chance to identify himself. It was Secretary of War Edwin Stanton who made the final identification. Some now believe that a dupe was used and that the real John Wilkes Booth escaped with Stanton’s assistance.

    Mary Todd Lincoln, upon hearing of her husband’s death, began screaming, “Oh, that dreadful house!” Earlier historians felt that this spontaneous utterance referred to the White House. Some now believe it may have been directed to Thomas W. House, a gun runner, financier, and agent of the Rothschild’s during the Civil War, who was linked to the anti-Lincoln, pro-banker interests.

    Another myth that all Americans live with is the charade known as the “Federal Reserve.” It comes as a shock to many to discover that it is not an agency of the United States Government.

    The name “Federal Reserve Bank” was designed to deceive, and it still does. It is not federal, nor is it owned by the government. It is privately owned. It pays its own postage like any other corporation. Its employees are not in civil service. Its physical property is held under private deeds, and is subject to local taxation. Government property, as you know, is not.

    It is an engine that has created private wealth that is unimaginable, even to the most financially sophisticated. It has enabled an imperial elite to manipulate our economy for its own agenda and enlisted the government itself as its enforcer. It controls the times, dictates business, affects homes and practically everything.

    It takes powerful force to maintain an empire, and this one is no different. The concerns of the leadership of the “Federal Reserve” and its secretive international benefactors appear to go well beyond currency and interest rates.

    Andrew Jackson was the first President from west of the Appalachians. He was unique for the times in being elected by the voters, without the direct support of a recognized political organization. He vetoed the renewal of the charter for the Bank of the United States on July 10, 1832.
    In 1835, President Andrew Jackson declared his disdain for the international bankers:
    “You are a den of vipers. I intend to rout you out, and by the Eternal God I will rout you out. If the people only understood the rank injustice of our money and banking system, there would be a revolution before morning.”
    There followed an (unsuccessful) assassination attempt on President Jackson’s life. Jackson had told his vice president, Martin Van Buren, “The bank, Mr. Van Buren, is trying to kill me….”
    Was this the beginning of a pattern of intrigue that would plague the White House itself over the coming decades? Was his (and Lincoln’s) death related by an invisible thread to the international bankers?

    President James Abram Garfield, our 20th President, had previously been Chairman of the House Committee on Appropriations and was an expert on fiscal matters. President Garfield openly declared that whoever controls the supply of currency would control the business and activities of all the people. After only four months in office, President Garfield was shot at a railroad station on July 2, 1881.

    President John F. Kennedy planned to exterminate the Federal Reserve System. In 1963 he signed Executive Orders EO-11 and EO-110, returning to the government the responsibility to print money, taking that privilege away from the Federal Reserve System.

    Shortly thereafter, President John F. Kennedy was assassinated. The professional, triangulated fire that executed the President of the United States is not the most shocking issue. The high- level coordination that organized the widespread coverup is manifest evidence of the incredible power of a “hidden government” behind the scenes.

    In the 70′s and 80′s, U.S. congressman Lawrence McDonald from Georgia, spearheaded efforts to expose the hidden holdings and intentions of the international money interests. His efforts ended on August 31, 1983, when he was killed when Korean Airlines 007 was “accidentally” shot down in Soviet airspace. A strange coincidence, it would seem. Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina, Senator Steven Symms of Idaho, and Representative Carroll J. Hubbard, Jr. of Kentucky were aboard sister flight KAL 015, which flew 15 minutes behind KAL 007; they were headed, along with McDonald on KAL 007, to Seoul, South Korea, in order to attend the ceremonies for the thirtieth anniversary of the U.S.-South Korea Mutual Defense Treaty. The Soviets contended former U.S. president Richard Nixon was to have been seated next to Larry McDonald on KAL 007 but that the CIA warned him not to go, according to the New York Post and TASS.

    Senator Henry John Heinz III and former Senator John Goodwin Tower had served on powerful Senate banking and finance committees and were outspoken critics of the Federal Reserve and the Eastern Establishment.

    On April 4, 1991, 52-year-old Henry John Heinz III, Republican Senator from Pennsylvania, crashed in a Piper PA60 Aerostar when it collided with a Bell 412 helicopter near Philadelphia. Burning wreckage fell on the grounds of an elementary school in nearby Lower Merion Township; two of the dead were children playing outside at noon recess.

    On the next day, April 5, 1991, former was also killed when twin-engine turbo-prop Atlantic Southeast Airlines plane flying from Atlanta went down in a thickly wooded area within view of motorists on Interstate 95. The coincidences seem to mount.

    A commuter plane – Flight Atlantic Southeast 2311- twin-engine turbo-prop Atlantic Southeast Airlines plane flying from Atlanta carrying 23 people, including former 65-year old Republican Senator John Tower of Texas, crashed and burned in a thickly wooded area within view of motorists on Interstate 95 – a mile and a half short of the airport killing everyone on board.

    Attempts to just audit the Federal Reserve continue to meet with failure. It is virtually impossible to muster support for any issue that has the benefit of a media blackout. The bizarre but tragic reality that the American people suffer from a managed and controlled media is a subject for another discussion.

    For many years, numerous authors have attempted to sound the alarm that there exists a hidden “shadow government” that actually rules America. Most of us have dismissed these “conspiracy theory” views as extremist and unrealistic. The ignorance in America is overwhelming. Indeed, the contrast in general awareness of world affairs between the average American and the average European is striking. The concentration of power in America is frightening.

Leave a Reply