September11, 2008: American Putsch?

SEPTEMBER 11, 2008: AMERICAN PUTSCH?

With the recession, and President Obama's subsequent stimulus debacle, dominating the media, recent revelations about the true origins of the financial crisis have been (deliberately?) ignored. Contrary to popular perception, the recession and the crisis in the financial markets are two separate and distinct events even though the effects of one affects the other. If you will recall, in September we were led to believe that a financial disaster was imminent. The President, at the urging of Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, insisted that drastic action had to be taken immediately or the financial markets would collapse. The stock market plunged and trillions of dollars in value just evaporated. Therefore congress, in a rush, passed the 700 billion dollar bank bailout known as the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP). Although most of us "informed" citizens are aware of the long term root causes of the financial collapse (the Community Reinvestment Act and the toxic assets it spawned) this in and of itself would not have presented its effects as an emergency of such dire proportions. These assets had been fermenting for decades awaiting a flame to ignite them. Now the revelations are coming forth...

On Thursday at roughly 11 AM The Federal Reserve noticed a tremendous draw down of money market accounts in the USA to the tune of $550 Billion dollars in a matter of an hour or two. Money was being removed electronically.

The Treasury tried to help, opened their window and pumped in $150 Billion but quickly realized they could not stem the tide. We were having an electronic run on the banks. So they decided to closed down the accounts. - Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D) of Pennsylvania

In an interview broadcast on C-Span's Washington Journal, Representative Kanjorski explained what the former Treasury Secretary and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke told congress during the September 2008 closed door session. The meeting was held a few days after the electronic run on the banks on Monday September 15. The Thursday before, that Representative Kanjorski is referring to, was SEPTEMBER 11. Does that day have any significance to anyone??? He continued...

Had they not closed down the accounts they estimated that by 2 PM that afternoon. Within 3 hours. $5.5 Trillion would have been withdrawn and the entire economy of the United States would have collapsed, and within 24 hours the world economy would have collapsed.

So there you have the story, as it was told to President Bush and the congress. Action had to be taken quickly to stabilize the markets due to an electronic bank run. It also goes a long way to explaining why one of the first actions taken was to boost the FDIC deposit insurance up from $100,000 per depositor to $250,000. They were pre-empting a possible run on all banks in the event that word leaked out about what had happened.

In contemplating the timing of this event and the reaction of certain key figures, both before and after the electronic bank run, the obvious must be stated: THE FINANCIAL CRISIS WAS DELIBERATELY PLANNED AND DELIBERATELY EXECUTED!! Just who was it that initiated the bank run? The timing of the event, both in the deliberate choice of September 11 as the attack date and the proximity to a presidential election prohibit any realistic acceptance of a "coincidence." Somebody took 550 billion dollars out of the banks. Even down here in Alabama we know that is a serious amount of money. The question is, who took it out? Why did they take it out? And of course...where is it now? Rest assured SOMEBODY knows!

All of those transactions produced records. You can be certain that all of this was investigated and fast. Yet no-one has revealed any information. Hell, if it weren't for Representative Kanjorski we wouldn't even now know that there was a run on the banks. Why is he now talking? Was the United States the victim of an economic terrorist attack? Certainly the choosing of the September 11 date for the bank run leads one to consider Islamic terrorism. However the extreme amount of money involved would eliminate any possibility of any known terrorist group, unless of course they were supported by a wealthy state with the economic resources to pull this off...Saudi Arabia anyone? Venezuela? The attack occurred at a time of surging oil prices, which just happens to financially benefit countries that would like to do the United States harm. The time would never be better for one of these known enemies to make their move. It is also rather telling how swiftly afterward world oil prices plummeted...U.S. economic counterattack?

Certainly we can see how this could have perplexed President Bush. Evidence suggests that the attack was, essentially, repulsed and perhaps the sudden drop in oil prices could have been a U.S. reprisal. However, you must ask yourself how the President would be able to present this to the American people? If he had suggested that the U.S. was attacked the American media, already swooning in their adoration of Barack Obama, would have accused him of playing the "terrorism" card. They would never have acknowledged the reality of such an attack and announcing it may have hurt John McCain's chances even more than the subsequent stock market crash. Also, a significant part of Bush's legacy rests on the fact that he prevented further terrorist attacks after September 11, 2001. Even though this was a different type of attack, he may have felt a desire to not acknowledge it publicly to preserve that impression.

It is clear that one of, if not THE, overriding motives for the attack was to influence the election results. If you will recall that in March of 2004 there was an Islamic terrorist attack in Madrid, Spain. This attack also was presented just before an election. It resulted in the appeasement party winning the elections and the government subsequently pulling Spanish troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan. This is exactly the result the terrorists were seeking.

If a bombing such as the one in Madrid were replicated in the United States, the result would have almost certainly been just the opposite. The country would have been, once again, wakened from the slumber that seven years of successfully preventing an attack had induced. John McCain, the tough military man, would have won in a landslide. By contrast, if you want to do something that will help Barack Obama...you have to hurt the economy. Remember Bill Clinton got elected by riding a minor recession and repeating the slogan: "it's the economy, stupid." Therefore it would need to be an attack on the U.S. economy that would have the effect of sending a democrat to the White House.

Interpreting the motive for the attack opens still more possibilities. I have thus far suggested that the most likely motive for striking the U.S. financial markets would be to alter the presidential election. It is not likely than an external adversary would have really suspected they could actually destroy the U.S, economy, nor would any country on earth benefit from such a result as we would take every other economy down with us. Therefore if influencing the election was the most reasonable motive for the attack we must also entertain another possibility...that the attack originated from elements WITHIN the United States.

A person, or group of people are absolutely within their rights to take money from their own accounts. It is 100% legal and can only be prevented by the government shutting down the market as it eventually did. We are told that as much as 5 trillion dollars would have been removed had they not interceded. How could they know that? That presumes that an uncontrollable panic involving large numbers of investors had to be involved. If this was designed as an action to induce a stampede of withdrawals then this would have had to be done in a way that was visible so the bank run could continue to build momentum on itself. Was this panic induced by several key investors who went out of there way to be seen withdrawing large amounts of money? Was it their intention to be noticed and subsequently have their actions followed and repeated by thousands of other investors? For it to work, it had to be noticed, observed and recorded. A record of all the withdrawals exists. Therefore the people who monitor such things, The Securities and Exchange Commission, has to be able to know, and most certainly does know, who was responsible. And yet we have been told nothing. Why?

One news story comes to mind immediately. It involves New York Senator Charles Schumer who is credited with initiating a run on the banks a short time before the financial attack of September 11, 2008:

OTS (Office of Thrift Supervision) announced Friday that it was taking over the $32 billion IndyMac and transferring control to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation - and the agency pointed the finger directly at Schumer for the failure, accusing him of sparking a bank run by releasing a letter that "expressed concerns about IndyMac's viability."

"In the following 11 business days, depositors withdrew more than $1.3 billion from their accounts," the OTS said in a statement announcing the California-based lender's takeover. The statement included a quote from OTS Director John Reich saying, "Although this institution was already in distress, I am troubled by any interference in the regulatory process."

Schumer's letter on June 26 said he was "concerned that IndyMac's financial deterioration poses significant risks to both taxpayers and borrowers." - CNN

Charles Schumer is certainly no stranger to hardball partisan politics, so finding him entangled in a premeditated ploy to intimidate the public into voting democratic is hardly a surprise. As always George Soros' name also comes up as a likely major player in this affair. After all, he does have the financial resources to initiate a panic and he likewise has a history of trying to use his vast wealth to interfere with government policy. You will recall that in 1992 he sold short more than $10 billion worth of British money thereby forcing The Bank of England to withdraw its currency from the European Exchange Rate Mechanism causing the pound sterling to be devalued. Soros earned an estimated 1.1 billion in the process. Of course George Soros is also a known supporter of various liberal causes including bankrolling the legal team currently trying to Railroad Al Franken into the Senate.

Once again we have to put ourselves in the position of President Bush. How can he possibly present this scenario to the public without himself being accused of trying to mislead the public? Who would have believed him if he had presented evidence that democratic supporters were sabotaging the economy in order to acquire a victory for themselves? Considering his approval ratings, he had almost no choice but to sit on the information. Even if he had released the names of all involved after the election it could have had a devastating effect on our population. But do we not need to know this? Should this be allowed to go unacknowledged? Should we not consider the penalty we must pay as a nation if we allow people to deliberately damage our economy just to further their own political objectives? And what of those political objectives? Considering the damnable stimulus bill they just rammed through the congress do we dare assume they have our best interests at heart? Perhaps President Bush let us down. This will come out, and its effects on the social order of our country will be catastrophic. This of course will be no problem for our current President who will use this impending threat to social order as an opportunity to consolidate more power. H.R. 645 anyone?

Before you write this off as making a worst case scenario out of the, thus far, limited revelations of a little known house member, it would be wise to consider the actions of both Barack Obama and John McCain at the time of the attack. If you will recall, John McCain famously suspended his campaign to return to Washington and lead the efforts that would result in the TARP bill. This put the first presidential debate in serious jeopardy of being canceled or delayed. What, pray-tell, did Barack Obama do? Insisting that the debates should go on as scheduled, he uttered one of his most infamous statements:

"There are times for politics, and then there are times to rise above politics and do what's right for the country. And this is one of those times. It is going to be part of the president's job to deal with more than one thing at once. I think there's no reason why we can't be constructive in helping to solve this problem and also tell the American people what we believe, and where we stand, and where we want to take the country. You know, what I'm going to do is, I'm going to -- what I have told the leadership in Congress is that, if I can be helpful, then I am prepared to be anywhere any time." - Barack H. Obama

Ahh, the the notorious "call me if you need me" line. Not the kind of reaction you expect from a presidential hopeful concerning a crisis of an uncertain nature. No, this is the kind of reaction you get from someone who figures things are going according to the plan. A plan that was designed entirely for his benefit. A plan that succeeded in making him the President of the United States. What wouldn't a man such as this do to fulfill his ambitions? Dare we want to know what those ambitions portend?

FOR THE LOVE OF HATE: The Prosecution of Geert Wilders

"And you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free." [John 8:32].

There is a belief that permeates our legal system. It is the idea that the truth is an absolute defense in all things. Well, it turns out this old judicial truth may not be true after all. "The times they are a changin," and not for the better! The greatest test Western Civilization will face is happening now in the Netherlands as the truth is actually on trial. The mere fact that this trial is happening is a great victory for all those who oppose freedom, let alone what the consequences will be for the outcome...

Islam film Dutch MP to be charged (BBC News)
A Dutch court has ordered prosecutors to put a right-wing politician on trial for making anti-Islamic statements. Freedom Party leader Geert Wilders made a controversial film last year equating Islam with violence and has likened the Koran to Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf.
"In a democratic system, hate speech is considered so serious that it is in the general interest to... draw a clear line," the court in Amsterdam said.

Mr Wilders said the judgement was an "attack on the freedom of expression. Participation in the public debate has become a dangerous activity. If you give your opinion, you risk being prosecuted," he said. Not only he, but all Dutch citizens opposed to the "Islamisation" of their country would be on trial, Mr Wilders warned. "Who will stand up for our culture if I am silenced?" he added.

Who indeed? In March of 2008 Geert Wilders posted a short film that he made called "Fitna." Fitna is an Islamic term meaning "strife." Predictably this film was called an abomination and an offense to Islam even though there is not one false statement presented. The film featured quotes from the Qu'ran dubbed over video of actual scenes of these verses being brought to their full and violent fruition. Mr Wilders even had the audacity to compare the Qu'ran to Hitler's famous book "Mein Kampf" and likened Islam to Nazism. Gee, I wonder where he got that idea...

“Muslims responded to the call of Muslim leaders and joined our side because of their hatred of our joint Jewish-English-Bolshevik enemies, and because of their belief and respect for, above all — Our Fuehrer.” - Heinrich Himmler

“…a religion that believed in spreading the faith by the sword and subjugating all nations to that faith. Such a creed was perfectly suited to the Germanic temperament. The Mohammedan religion…would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?” - Adolf Hitler

That truth stuff sure does get in the way of a good hate crimes prosecution doesn't it? One might even call it..."inconvenient!" The two leading Nazi's of the Third Reich are not only endorsing Islam with all of its Jew-hating consistencies with their own regime, but also, as clearly pointed out by Himmler, noting the fact that Islamic nations did ally themselves with the Nazi cause. So how are they going to prosecute Mr. Wilders for telling the truth? Well, obviously there has to be a higher authority. Something, or someone, whose interests outweigh the value of spreading TRUE information throughout a society. Reckon what that could be?

The three judges said that they had weighed Mr Wilders's "one-sided generalisations...which can amount to inciting hatred" against his right to free speech, and ruled that he had gone beyond the normal leeway granted to politicians. The Amsterdam appeals court has ordered the prosecution of member of parliament Geert Wilders for inciting hatred and discrimination, based on comments by him in various media on Muslims and their beliefs."
The court also considers appropriate criminal prosecution for insulting Muslim worshippers because of comparisons between Islam and Nazism made by Wilders," it added.

"This is a happy day for all followers of Islam who do not want to be tossed on the garbage dump of Nazism" - Gerard Spong, lawyer

So there you have it. "Offensive" speech is now a prosecutable offense. Never mind that the offending speech is all true or the offended are all guilty. The complaint alleges it is "one sided," and of course, it just happens to be the provably true side. Nevertheless Muslims have been offended and everything must be done to ease their inability to handle the truth. Offensive speech a.k.a. "hate speech" is the natural and necessary by-product of the foolish concept known as a hate crime. The idea of punishing people for "insulting" religious beliefs is exactly what Islamic countries have been practicing within their own societies and have long been clamouring for similar laws in the West. They desire that Western nations adopt blasphemy laws and stop the "defamation" of Islam. Defamation being defined as saying anything they decide they don't like, which can and often does, include the simple act of repeating their own words.

There are, of course, limits to free speech, such as calls for violence but one doesn't have to agree with Mr. Wilders to realize that he hasn't even approached that line. In fact, he is only guilty of reporting the violent actions of Muslims. Some Muslims say they are outraged by his statements, but why are they not equally outraged by the violence done in the name of Islam? It seems their outrage would be better spent persecuting the actions of their own people rather than wasting it on the righteous condemnation of those act by others. They make a controversial issue about the speech while ignoring the action that is the subject of that speech. Nonetheless, if freedom of speech has any meaning, it must apply to the freedom of controversial speech. Non-controversial speech needs no protection. Without the right of free speech, all the other freedoms we cherish will soon perish.

For his part, Geert Wilders is convinced he has already been convicted and will go to prison:

"The decision of the court today was so strong that there is a real chance unfortunately that there will be a guilty verdict. In fact, it was so bluntly motivated that it already looks like a verdict instead of just ordering the public prosecutor to start a trial. I lost my freedom already four and a half years ago in October 2004, when my 24-hour police protection started because of threats by Muslims in Holland and abroad to kill me. So of course I don't want to go to jail as a criminal, but I don't fear losing my freedom since I already lost my freedom in 2004." - Geert Wilders

And yet, this is not an isolated incident:

Vienna - Austrian far-right parliamentarian Susanne Winter was convicted Thursday of incitement because of her anti-Muslim statements, including the claim that Islam's prophet Mohammed was a paedophile. A court in Winter's home town of Graz also found the 51-year-old politician guilty of humiliating a religion. She was sentenced to a fine of 24,000 euros (31,000 dollars) euros and a suspended prison term of three months, Austrian news agency APA reported.

The politician, who took a seat in parliament last fall for the Freedom Party (FPOe), made the anti-Islamic remarks in January 2008. She also proposed in a discussion with students that Muslim men should commit bestiality rather than making "indecent advances" on girls. The politician had pleaded innocent Thursday, claiming that she "did not want to insult anyone, but only to point out problems." The verdict is not yet legally binding.

Once again the truth was not allowed to be a defense. Muhammad's consummation of his marriage with his wife Aisha is in the Hadith collection, Bukhari, several times. Of course you will remember that the girl was NINE YEARS OLD at the time of this consummation. Muslims consider Muhammad to be their "perfect example" and take emulating his behavior very seriously. How seriously you ask? Well consider the case of the infamous Ayatollah Khomeini. The leader of the Islamic Revolution in Iran married a ten year old girl when he was twenty eight. Of course he didn't call it pedophilia. No, he referred to it as a "Divine Blessing."

“Do your best to ensure that your daughters do not see their first blood in your house.” - Ayatolla Khomeini

It will probably come as no surprise to learn that the the legal age for marriage in Iran is nine for girls and fourteen for boys. Where do you suppose that magic number of nine years old came from? One could call Iran a pedophiles paradise. Certainly a Westerner speaking in a Western country should not be convicted of "incitement" for pointing out that the values of Islamic civilization are in conflict with the values of our own, especially when the "incitement" consists of citing examples from Islam's own accepted traditional writings. Yet here it stands as another example of Western culture bending over and grabbing our ankles while the ever uncompromising ambassadors of Islam proudly mount us saying: "who's your daddy?" Is our only response always going to be the infamous Kevin Bacon line from the Animal House movie? (Thank you sir, may I have another)

You are probably thinking to yourselves that this could never happen here. Perhaps President Obama would even be willing to grant Geert Wilders political asylum in America. After all, do we in America not have an absolute right to free speech as granted by the first amendment to the Constitution? Well don't be so sure about that. Our new president is a "sensitive" sort of fellow to the feelings of certain groups of people, particularly those who like to fabricate the illusion of their own victim-hood, as is evidenced by the official White House website:

President Obama and Vice President Biden will strengthen federal hate crimes legislation, expand hate crimes protection by passing the Matthew Shepard Act, and reinvigorate enforcement at the Department of Justice's Criminal Section.

Uh oh. There are those words again. Hate Crimes. As if there are any other kind. This is the kind of nonsense that leads to "incitement" laws prohibiting offensive speech. Slowly but surely, every group of people who perceives themselves as having been aggrieved by someone else seeks to have themselves added to the list of those "protected" classes of citizens who shall not be offended. You might as well call them "blasphemy laws" because Muslims will use them to stifle all criticism of their religion just as surely as the homosexuals will use them to repulse the condemnation of their deviant lifestyle. However you can be certain that speech offending Christians and Jews will somehow find a way to be excluded from such protections. We wouldn't want to stifle all the "artistic creativity" in Hollywood now would we? Their freedom to mock all things decent, traditional and Judeo-Christian must not be infringed!

How is it you can be charged with offending someone's beliefs, even as those very beliefs insult you and everything you stand for? Whenever we hear the words 'human rights' in connection with Islam, we are repeatedly confronted with ugly opportunism that spits in the face of real and genuine human rights and insults everyone's intelligence. They get away with saying one thing to us while saying something entirely different and considerably more unsavory amongst themselves. We should not be expected to respect an ideology that doesn't respect us. Be very clear about this: Islam respects nobody. It claims the right to dominate. Our portion is OBEDIANCE. They have not been shy about making that clear:

"Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Qur'an should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth" - Omar Ahmed, Chairman of the Board of CAIR (Council of American Islamic Relations)

It could be fairly said that I have a somewhat biased view on the issues of free/hate speech. After all, I am guilty of exactly the same crime as Geert Wilders. The Babylon Mystery Orchestra CD essentially does the same thing as Mr. Wilders movie Fitna. There are direct quotes from Muslims and the Qu'ran and an intentional linking of Muslim words to violent Muslim actions. I even went as far as to construct the lyrics of one song, God Given Right, entirely out of very offensive statements made by very offensive Muslims. However if Fitna or BMO's "Axis Of Evil" are to be considered "hate speech" and guilty of the crime of "incitement," might the same also be said of the Qu'ran itself or Muslim clerics like Omar Ahmed? Isn't it amusing how much you can get away with if you simply claim yourself to be oppressed?

It does worry me that the first major interview our new President has done was with Al Arabiya, where he went out of his way to pacify the sensitivities of the Islamic world. It makes me wonder how far he is willing to go to placate them. These are dark days for the West if we don't stand against Islam's desire to remain beyond criticism. "Tolerance" and "multiculturalism" may seem like noble pursuits to some people but there is one group of people who have never and will never acquiesce to such ideas...Muslims. They can't. Although the very act of saying that may soon be a prosecutable offense here too! Incitement crimes are coming to America! Still don't believe me? Observe this:

The National Emergency Centers Act or HR 645 mandates the establishment of “national emergency centers” to be located on military installations for the purpose of to providing “temporary housing, medical, and humanitarian assistance to individuals and families dislocated due to an emergency or major disaster,” according to the bill. The legislation also states that the camps will be used to “provide centralized locations to improve the coordination of preparedness, response, and recovery efforts of government, private, and not-for-profit entities and faith-based organizations.”

Ominously, the bill also states that the camps can be used to “meet other appropriate needs, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security,” an open ended mandate which many fear could mean the forced detention of American citizens in the event of widespread rioting after a national emergency or total economic collapse. Many credible forecasters have predicted riots and rebellions in America that will dwarf those already witnessed in countries like Iceland and Greece.

With active duty military personnel already being stationed inside the U.S. under Northcom, partly for purposes of “crowd control,” fears that Americans could be incarcerated in detainment camps are all too real. (PrisonPlanet.com)

There is coming a time when Americans will be locking away people who say things that incite others in the name of "crowd control." Freedom of speech is a dying principle. Such "emergency centers" are an ideal place to locate the incorrigible dissenters who fail to quietly follow the edicts of this, or any, administration. Dissent, which we were told was patriotic when Bush was President can now be seen as "incitement." A wonderful method for making sure that everyone accedes to the will of the new Socialist Godhead that is Messiah Obama. It begins by failing to uphold the right of someone to offend someone else with simple words. It ends with the incarceration, or worse, of all those who dare oppose the all powerful state. What is happening to Geert Wilders in The Netherlands is going to come here.

Perhaps there is a place being prepared for me in one of President Obama's new gulags. Guantonemo Bay may not be closed down after all. We will just change the kind of people we incarcerate there! If we do not act to restrain the coming speech codes soon, there are going to be a lot of you in there with me. But hey, at least we will get to meet Rush Limbaugh! The President has actually went so far as mentioning him by name. How long will it be before he decides he has to do something about all of us who won't go along with his social engineering ideas. Hate speech and incitement laws are a fine way to get rid of us.