Many wondered if this was a conspiratorially engineered financial apocalypse designed to bring about the long cherished global monetary architecture which has been the vision of The Learned Elders of Zion.
Or was this part of the realignment of global socioeconomic assets on the part of those who are still manipulating the processes which will align the whole world into (ONE) monetary union, (ONE) autocratic political union and (ONE) religious union?
Whatever analysis is arrived at, “one” thing is sure – the world’s financial markets will never be the same again.
Just as 9/11 changed the geopolitical landscape forever at the turn of a new Millennium; last year October the world changed forever with the collapse of the world’s Stock Markets.
Americans will remember the SAVINGS & LOANS debacle of the 1970’s. Some of us agree that it was probably the largest HEIST* in world banking history.
Think about this for a moment - we are fighting (2) wars to the tune of billions per month.
Who profits from wars?
If you answered the “BANKERS ” - then you are correct.
But there’s one qualifier. Companies like Raytheon*** and Bombardier*** are the military munitions companies who earn billions for the bank’s coffers which is then in turn reinvested into the war effort.
Look at back at recent history and you will realize that after every major conflict will come a boom in the world economy.
What the bankers and the government did not envision was the lurking scepter of gambling derivatives debt which would unfold in an avalanche of monetary toxicity which would spread like a massive virus throughout the world markets destroying the economies, industries and the livelihoods of countless millions of hardworking, industrious individuals.
So on 10/10/08 the talking “Heads” of the G7 of all the world’s major financial institutions rallied in a historic convocation of Biblical proportions to arrest the free-fall of the world’s financial markets and to stem the tide of systemic panic, paranoia and pugnacious decline. Again in April ’09, these same talking-heads will meet in London to frame the architecture for a new world economic order – this time with a new president in the White House in Washington.
World leaders will have set aside their political wrangling (this will include Russia) to address the bailout of global banks; the spiraling depreciation of US mortgage companies; the bloodletting of Wall Street institutions and other capital enterprises, but above, the untested terrain of quantitative easing which will pumps Trillions of dollars into the world economy with no one knowing what the residual effects will be..
Most taxpayers are asking – what else is left for governments to control?
In some schools of thought, some are arguing that governments are fallaciously using the concept of taxpayer’s money as a means of power and control…
But is this the truth or is this a major Con in the making?
How do we as taxpayers benefit from government ownership of the major institutions and engines of socioeconomic growth, while using tax-payers dollars under a false pretext?
If our tax dollars is being used to bailout “Fat-Cats”, Hedge Fund imbeciles and greedy banking CEO’s, does it mean we now have controlling interests and a major “say-so” in how these institutions work and is our financial creditability adequately represented through a process of transparency and accountability?
When the dust settles and the smoke clears – will we be any better off?
Now back to the context of our discussion.
As we have witnessed the collapse of the major financial houses, i.e. Bear Stearns, Fannie/Freddy Mae/Mac, Lehman Brothers and we expect within the next few months that some other major players will be added to that growing list, the scope of optimism is gradual losing traction.
So far the US government’s TWO major bailout packages have been the Mother of all bailouts. The taxpayer cost for just the two major mortgage companies (Fannie & Freddie) — is roughly $200 billion, which is more than the total cost of bailing out thousands of S & L’s in the 1970s.
In short, the Federal government is buying a pig in a poke — a bottomless pit that will suck up many times more capital than they’re revealing.
Let’s look at the numbers:
Mortgages owned or guaranteed by Fannie and Freddie: $5.3 Trillion.
Treasury Securities outstanding as of March 31, according to the Fed’s Flow of Funds (report page 87, pdf. page 95): Also $5.3 Trillion.
Here’s the dilemma:-
What if foreign investors and all those who hold government bonds and securities decide to dump them?
To add insult to injury according to Dr. Martin D. Weiss, it is actually worse than that, for if foreign investors, who are most likely to dump their holdings if they lose confidence in the United States, hold an estimated 20% of the Fannie and Freddie backed mortgages outstanding - but also these said foreign investors who own 52.7% of the Treasury Securities outstanding (excluding those held by the Fed) decide to make a clean break because of the bankrupt nature of these institutions - could you imagine the fallout?
So based on the above stats, Treasury Securities are actually more vulnerable to foreign selling than Fannie and Freddie bonds.
An ominous scenario for most American families - notwithstanding the global impact this would cause as a ripple effect.
The crisis could easily move from plague to pandemic according to Dr. Weiss. The safety of every stock, mutual fund and ETF you own now hangs in the balance … This great credit crisis is rapidly spreading beyond banks … beyond brokers … beyond the entire financial sector … to many of the most widely held non-financial stocks in America and internationally!!!
The U.S government saw this coming and did nothing to avert it. The question is - can we trust our government with our financial affairs or are we going to look back a decade from now to realize we didn’t learn anything from the S & L fiasco of the 70’s and we simply sat and watched the government and the captains of industry cock-up our investments and life savings in another Herculean “heist” of Titanic proportions?
So what’s next for the government?
Moves are afoot to control even our religion and our freedom to worship the “god” of our choosing.
This is what history has taught us:
In 16th century Britain, when the government started to use the church in order to advance their own agenda, King Henry VIII, was so revered, he had been given the title “Defender of the Faith” by Pope Leo X.
Then, in 1534, a Parliamentary Act made the melding of Church and State in England official, and gave Henry VIII legal sanction to assume clerical powers as the Head of the Church of England.
The State now had control over the Church.
Henry VIII, now being “the only Supreme Head in Earth of the Church of England” decided he didn’t want to be married to his wife Anne Boleyn anymore, so being the “Head” of his country’s religion, he decided to have Anne’s pretty “head” on a platter, as a political act of madness.
After being granted power by Parliament over all churches in England, Henry promptly decided he wanted to confiscate all properties of Roman Catholic churches in England and use their wealth to pay off State debts.
The madness continued with King Henry VIII’s successor, Edward VI, who changed the Prayer Book that was to be used in churches throughout England, declaring it illegal to use the Old Prayer Book.
Many people rebelled and took to the streets to demand the withdrawal of the new English prayer books.
The king ordered that they be contained and an army of mercenaries was set upon the protesters. In total 4,000 people lost their lives in the rebellion.
Edward VI’s successor, Mary I (appropriately nicknamed Bloody Mary – how appropriate), decided, she wanted to move the State Church of England away from Protestantism (which it had become under Henry VIII and Edward VI) and back to Roman Catholicism.
Many people however, didn’t want to change their faith at the State’s decree.
Mary said, “That just won’t do”.
The State controls the Church.
“You have to do what I say, or else.”
The question I pose is this:
Would we want the President of the United States to be, besides the leader of our government, also the leader who decides what is morally correct in the country in matters of faith and in liberty of conscience?
What if the President decided that it should be morally acceptable for men to falsely imprison and execute their wives?
Or, perhaps, decide that it should be morally acceptable for this country to engage in torture?
Would you want the United States government to be given ownership of all religious property in the country?
What if the United States Government decided it needed to take some of the church property in this country and sell it so that it could pay off debts owed to other countries like China?
Suppose a church that has defaulted on a loan is forced to move out of its building - if the government holds that mortgage then isn’t this a law that prohibits the free exercise of religion for that congregation?
Would you like the President of the United States to be able to dictate which religious books should be used in all churches throughout the country?
What if the Bible was banned?
Would you find it acceptable that you either change or be punished?
Would you want the President of the United States to dictate that only one religion should be practiced in the country?
What if a new President wanted to change which religion will be the official religion of the country making us all Roman Catholics?
Would you find it acceptable that you either change your religion at the order of the government or face punishment even in fear of death?
Haven’t certain religious and moral leaders in the country sided with Bush & Cheney in trying to excuse the use of torture by US interrogators in Guantanamo Bay, Iraq and other military domiciles around the world?
The First Amendment says in part states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …”
Ruth Moon in a poignant article in Christianity Today poses an interesting anomaly. She argues that:
“If any bailout legislation passes, the government will likely hold mortgages purchased from banks and attempt to sell them as soon as their value climbs high enough.
So what happens if the government buys out a bank on the verge of bankruptcy and obtains church mortgages?
Would the government directly or indirectly be entangled with religion?
Would such an arrangement amount to a violation of the First Amendment’s bar against establishing religion?”
The reason this poses challenges is for the same reason that the framers of the Constitution envisioned a time where there would be no clear dividing line or demarcation between Church and State.
Ruth Moon further argues that “the problem would be in the gap between when the government gets the mortgage and when it is sold. Having a government-owned church is probably in theory an Establishment Clause problem…
It gets a little more dicey if the Church defaulted on the mortgage while the government was holding it — do you give them special consideration?
If you don’t want to foreclose on them, do you foreclose on one Church or not foreclose on another?
The Secretary of the Treasury would likely make an effort not to foreclose on churches but if he did foreclose, they would sell the property to a private owner or evict the defaulting church.
There are few things as entangling as ownership of religious real estate.
When we talk about separation protecting churches, we are historically talking about the Monarchical practice in Europe of seizing church lands and assets when the treasury was strapped or when the Crowned Head converted.
If the U.S. government were to end up holding the actual mortgages on property, which is where we are headed, if all this over-leveraged real estate were to fall into HUD’s lap, then the U.S. government would face having to refurbish and sell off those properties directly, and if Church mortgages were covered in the nationalization plans, that would include the U.S. government owning and selling church lands.
It may sound callous and hard-hearted, particularly coming from a market driven ethos, but from a constitutional, legal, and ethical standpoint, it might be best to disqualify church mortgages from the buy ups and allow delinquent ones to fail.
When our economies (which is merely buying time) as I believe will slip into further meltdown as the subprime mortgage debacle completely unfolds and the toxic assets which has so far crippled the entire economy of Iceland resulting in Britain having to inject a further £200 billion in liquid taxpayers capitalization to keep the country’s banks from sinking into dark, cold, Arctic water of the North Atlantic – we will see another run on the global world economies by government leaders as they continue to throw money at an insatiable monster of bad, toxic debt which now totals somewhere in the region of $1400 Trillion.
Be under no illusion folks, even our religious freedoms will be constrained as governments move to have greater and greater control of our lives.
Is it any wonder that the Apostle John in the greatest book in the Bible – Revelation - states categorically that in the days just up ahead - “No one will be able to buy or sell unless they have the ‘Mark of the Beast’…”
Buying and selling is a market driven enterprise.
If governments tell who can and who can’t buy or sell unless certain criteria is met – then that control becomes evil autonomy and diabolically divisive.
The Founding Fathers (and the First Amendment of the Constitution) forbid religion at ALL in government, much less at the “center” of it.
Separation of Church and State is a political and legal doctrine that government and religious institutions are to be kept separate and independent from each other.
The term most often refers to the combination of two principles: secularity of government and freedom of religious exercise.
The phrase separation of Church and State is generally traced to a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists, in which he referred to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as creating a “wall of separation” between Church and State.
The Spirit Of the Laws (1748), Montesquieu notes:
State Favors Result in State Control of the Church.
“Therefore, one does not succeed in detaching the soul from religion by filling it with this great object, by bringing it closer to the moment when it should find religion of greater importance.
A more certain way to attack religion is by favor, by the comforts of life, by the hope of wealth; not by what reminds one of it, but by what makes one forget it; not by what makes one indignant, but by what makes men lukewarm, when other passions act on our souls, and those which religion inspires are silent.
In the matter of changing religion, State favors are stronger than penalties.”
This is precisely the formula that has been followed by our own government, in recent years, as it grows ever more hostile toward Christian values.
Rather than attack Christianity through various “penalties”, the modern method is to render the Church “lukewarm” by doling out “State favors.”
The most prominent of “favors” today is the tax−exempt license.
But in reality, the granting of a tax exemption to the church is a monumental Con job.
I know this will be very difficult for many to swallow.
I realize millions of people will have to make great sacrifices in the very near future.
The choice is clear!!!