New post on ANMilitia |
|
Friday, September 14, 2012
Trans Pacific Partnership by Drake
The Roll of the CFR by Drake
|
Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions. Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http:// |
James H. Fetzer: Mossad Played a Crucial Role in 9/11 Attacks
James H. Fetzer: 9/11 IRAN REVIEW Interview
Iran Review – Interviews
James H. Fetzer: Mossad Played a Crucial Role in 9/11 Attacks
Interview with James H. Fetzer
By: Kourosh Ziabari
(THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2012) - More than one decade after the 9/11 attacks which completely diverted the path of the U.S. foreign policy and led to the waging of two lethal, erosive wars on Afghanistan and Iraq and killing of thousands of innocent civilians, an influential, diligent group of researchers and authors have dared to question the authenticity and veracity of the claims made by the U.S. government that they were Islamist terrorists who crashed hijacked planes into the World Trade Center towers and Pentagon and killed some 3,000 people.One of these high-ranking, renowned researchers is Dr. James H. Fetzer, a retired professor of philosophy at the University of Minnesota Duluth. He has written on the philosophy of science and on the theoretical foundations of computer science, artificial intelligence, and cognitive science.
According to Dr. Fetzer, George W. Bush and his administration officials were responsible for the atrocities which happened on September 11, 2001. He firmly believes that Israel’s Mossad was involved in the 9/11 attacks and that the U.S. government tries to withhold this truth from the public; however, he has written tens of articles for different magazines and news websites, providing evidence of the involvement of Israel’s intelligence service in the attacks.
Dr. Fetzer has edited several books, such as “Murder in Dealey Plaza: What we know now that we didn’t know then”, which are dedicated to the study of the assassination of former U.S. President John F. Kennedy. Among his seven authored scientific books are “Artificial Intelligence: Its Scope and Limits” and “The Evolution of Intelligence: Are Humans the Only Animals with Minds?”
Dr. James H. Fetzer took part in an exclusive interview with Iran Review on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks and answered some questions about the uncertainties about the horrendous incident which took place 11 years ago in the heart of New York.
Q: Would you please talk about the difficulties and problems the 9/11 Truth movement has faced during the past decade? Does the U.S. government directly persecute or put pressure on independent researchers and authors who cast doubt on the official accounts given of the 9/11 events? What about the mainstream media? Have they made efforts to silence you and other researchers such as David Ray Griffin, Christopher Bollyn, Webster Tarpley, etc. who believe that 9/11 attacks was a false flag operation?
A: The most serious problems confronting the 9/11 Truth movement have arisen from conflicts internal to the movement coming from various factions, which have adopted negative and even hostile attitudes toward the others. One branch is the conservative, public-relations oriented branch, such as the 9/11 movement in the UK led by Ian Henshall, which doesn’t want to ruffle feathers by addressing the discoveries that make a difference, such as the use of mini-nukes to blow apart the Twin Towers, that no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon, that all four of the crash sites were fabricated or faked, albeit in different ways, and that the Mossad played a crucial role in 9/11. We have all heard about WTC-7 and other hum-drum aspects of 9/11, but it has not done what was originally hoped by arousing the public. More of the same is not going to do it, either.
Then we have the “thermite sniffers”, led by Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan, who insist that this obscure incendiary could have blown apart the buildings, which, as T. Mark Hightower has shown, turned out to be physically impossible, and the “plane huggers,” such as Rob Balsamo, the head of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, who want to hang onto the myth that these big Boeings actually crashed on 9/11, when all the evidence contradicts them. Ironically, Pilots has done some of the most important work on this subject, including establishing that Flight 93 was over Urbana, IL, after it had allegedly crashed in Shanksville; and that Flight 175 was over Pittsburgh, PA, long after it had allegedly entered the South Tower. With friends like these, 9/11 Truth doesn’t have to have disinformation ops working against us to be fragmented, even though there are plenty of them, too.
Q: Some authors and researchers have argued that there were explosive materials which caused the Twin Towers to collapse after the planes associated with Flight 11 and Flight 175 crashed into the North Tower and South Tower. Is there compelling evidence confirming this? Somewhere you argued that these flights were formally taken out of service until September 28, 2005 and non-existent planes cannot crash into a colossal building in the heart of Manhattan. Would you please expand more on these two points?
A: Bureau of Transportation Statistics records show that Flights 11 and 77 were not even scheduled to fly that day, while FAA Registration data show that the planes associated with Flights 93 and 175 were not de-registered or
formally taken out of service until 28 September 2005, which raises the questions, How could planes that were not even in the air have crashed on 9/11? And how could planes that crashed on 9/11 have still been in the air four years later? Although it sounds like a stretch, the hits on both of the towers appear to have involved the projection images of planes–though in the case of the North Tower, it really does not look much like a plane at all–as I have explained in many places, including “Planes/No Planes and Video Fakery” and “Reason and Rationality in Public Debate: The Case of Rob Balsamo.” Until you study the evidence,
formally taken out of service until 28 September 2005, which raises the questions, How could planes that were not even in the air have crashed on 9/11? And how could planes that crashed on 9/11 have still been in the air four years later? Although it sounds like a stretch, the hits on both of the towers appear to have involved the projection images of planes–though in the case of the North Tower, it really does not look much like a plane at all–as I have explained in many places, including “Planes/No Planes and Video Fakery” and “Reason and Rationality in Public Debate: The Case of Rob Balsamo.” Until you study the evidence,“Were the 9/11 crash sites faked?” (13 June 2012):
- Part 1: http://archive.org/details/scm-75926-drjamesfetzerinseattlejune1320
- Part 2: http://archive.org/details/scm-75938-drjamesfetzerinseattlejune1320
it is very difficult to believe. I resisted the very idea for a year and a half until Morgan Reynolds convinced me that I had to study the evidence. Now that I have, I can’t believe we were taken for such a ride! If there were no “Big Boeing” plane crashes, after all, and these were phantom flights, then the passengers were imaginary. And if the passengers were imaginary, then there were no Islamic hijackers aboard any of those planes. And if there were no Islamic hijackers aboard any of those planes, the whole “War on Terror” has been justified by an elaborate hoax.
Q: Do you have any information of the possible complicity of Israel’s Mossad in carrying out the 9/11 attacks? We’ve heard of the story of 5 dancing Israelis who had set up cameras directed at the Twin Towers before the planes crashed into the buildings, and were seen celebrating and congratulating each other after the towers collapsed. What’s your take on that?
A: The evidence of Israeli involvement and Mossad participation in 9/11 is abundant and compelling. Christopher Bollyn has a book about it, which goes overboard about nanothermite, but otherwise offers important evidence about this aspect of the case. Articles by Alan Sabrosky whom I had invited to speak during The Vancouver Hearings but medical problems intervened, elaborate on many aspects of Israeli involvement. And the web site, “Israel did 9/11–all the proof in the world” does an exceptional job of brining together an enormous body of proof that even the transfer of the World Trade Center from the New York Port Authority into the hands of Larry Silverstein was part and parcel of the larger plan. An exceptional study, “9/11 and Zion: What was Israel’s role?”, by Nicholas Kollerstrom, a historian of science from the UK and an expert on the London 7/7 subway bombings, which recently appeared in Veterans Today, is required reading on this issue.
Q: What’s your viewpoint regarding the possible involvement of Osama bin Laden in the 9/11 attacks? The FBI website had blacklisted him as the world’s most wanted terrorist, but did not attribute the 9/11 attacks to him due to a lack of sufficient evidence. We also know that in the 1970s and 1980s, CIA and other Western intelligence agencies along with the Saudi government armed, equipped and financed him to fight the Soviet forces in Afghanistan. So, is it rational to claim that bin Laden has revolted against his former allies and the ones who had once backed him unconditionally?
A: Osama bin Laden was “our man in Afghanistan.” When first asked about 9/11, he explained that he had nothing to do with it, that it was contrary to the tenets of the Koran to murder innocent women and children and that, while he had differences with the U.S., especially over stationing its forces in Saudi Arabia, the home of Mecca and Medina, the most holy sites in Islam, that there is a “government within the government” that brought 9/11 about and wanted to blame Muslims, even though they had nothing to do with it. And, indeed, as Elias Davidsson has documented, the U.S. has never been able to prove that any of the alleged hijackers were aboard any of those planes, while David Ray Griffin has noted that a half-dozen or more of those alleged to have been aboard them were found alive and well after 9/11. Interestingly, another expert who remarked that there is a “government within the government” of the U.S. was former President William Clinton.
Q: In one of your articles, you cited the accounts of William Rodriguez, the janitor of the North Tower and reports by a scientific lab at the Columbia University which attested that huge explosions took place at least 16 or 17 seconds before the planes crashed into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center. What does this fact indicate?
A: Willie’s reports have been confirmed by Craig Furlong and Gordon Ross, “Seismic Proof: 9/11 was an inside job,” where they compared very precise seismic data from a geological lab run by Columbia University with FAA and military radar data for the alleged impact times of the planes and found that they occurred 14 and 17 seconds prior to the alleged impacts. Since that would have been rather difficult for Islamic terrorists to have arranged, it provides powerful proof that 9/11 was indeed an “inside job.” The graph that summarizes their study, which can be found on-line at Scholars for 9/11 and 911studies.org, also appears in “Seven Questions about 9/11,” which can be found at Veterans Today along with photographs substantiating that no Beoing 757 hit the Pentagon, substantiated in Vancouver, as I explain, “9/11 Truth will out: The Vancouver Hearings I.”
Q: At the Vancouver Hearings, you submitted the names of George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld as the possible accomplices of the 9/11 atrocities. Would you please talk about the reasons you named them, along with Philip Zelikow, Richard B. Cheney and Lt. Col. Steve O’Brien, as those who should be held accountable with regards to the 9/11 events?
A: The key players in relation to 9/11 were the neo-conservatives in the Department of Defense and the Israeli Mossad. Philip Zelikow, Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission, for example, had as his area of academic specialization before entering government the creation and maintenance of public myths, M-Y-T-H-S, which is what he gave us in the 9/11 Commission Report. As Elias Davidsson has shown, the government has never shown that the alleged hijackers were abroad any of those planes. As David Ray Griffin and A.K. Dewdney have shown, all of the alleged phone calls from those planes were faked. As Col. George Nelson, USAF (ret.), has observed, although there were millions of uniquely identifiable pieces from those four aircrafts, the government has yet to produce even one! Neither the FBI nor the NTSB even investigated those “crashes,” claiming that it wasn’t necessary because “we saw what happened on television”. But it was all a fraud.Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Cheney, George W. Bush and an obscure Minnesota Air National Guard pilot named Lt. Col. Steve O’Brien, MNANG, all played roles in managing these atrocities or in covering them up, which I have detailed in “9/11 J’accuse: Zelikow, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush, and O’Brien.” The others’ roles are relatively obvious, but Lt. Col. O’Brien was piloting the C-130 that was circling the Pentagon, from which the debris that later showed up on the lawn appears to have been dropped. One especially conspicuous piece of fuselage has been tracked back to a crash in Cali, Columbia, in 1995. I discussed all of this with the BBC, but it misrepresented my position by switching photos that I was talking about with others taken later. See “The BBC’s instrument of 9/11 misinformation.”
Q: Immediately after the 9/11 attacks, President Bush declared the commencement of his War on Terror. As the first move, he attacked and invaded Afghanistan, and two years later, he occupied Iraq. We can think that Iraq was occupied because its vast oil reserves should have been dominated by the U.S., but what was the reason for the occupation of Afghanistan? Was this country of some geopolitical or strategic importance to the United States?
A: Of course, the Taliban offered to surrender Osama bin Laden if we could prove that he had been involved, which we promised to do but of course ignored. The invasion of Afghanistan began on 7 October 2001, less than one month after 9/11. An article that appeared in The New York Times on 13 June 2010 discussed the vast mineral wealth of that nation, including gold, iron, copper and especially lithium, which is used in computers, triggers for nuclear weapons, but especially in electric car batteries and a reported new process to extract cheap energy from sea water. We appear to be there to do for Afghanistan what the first Secretary of the Treasury under Bush, Paul O’Neill, said the Bush administration was doing to the United States: looting! When we are done looting, we will leave Afghanistan.
Q: U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said that the 9/11 attacks created “the kind of opportunities that World War II offered, to refashion the world.” So, do you believe that the U.S. government had been waiting for such an opportunity to find the pretext to go to war with Afghanistan and Iraq and declare Iran, Iraq and North Korea as the Axis of Evil? Can we think of the 9/11 attacks as a broader plan to dominate the Middle East and its vast oil reserves?
A: Our presence there appears to have more to do with the Israeli “master plan” to dominate and control the Middle East than any longing for more oil. Gen. Wesley Clark, the former Supreme Commander of NATO, has reported being informed immediately following 9/11 of a plan to destabilize and overthrow the governments of seven nations in five years, including Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, but working up to Syria and eventually Iran. This appears to be what is driving the US presence there, where the Israeli lobby, AIPAC, which ought to be registered as a “foreign agent,” dominates Congress and U.S. foreign policy. Some wags have suggested this country ought to be renamed “The United States of Israel,” which, I am sorry to say, is very close to the mark, especially with regard to foreign policy.
The ADL (Anti-Defamation League) has made it their practice to condemn anyone remotely critical of the actions of Israel as “anti-Semitic,” including a recent article in which Gordon Duff, Alan Sabrosky, Kevin Barrett and I were offered as examples of “anti-Semitic 9/11 conspiracy theorists.” But I agree with Michael Moore who, when asked if he believes in conspiracy theories, replied, “Only those that are true!” There is abundant and compelling evidence that 9/11 was brought to us by the US neo-conservatives and the Israeli Mossad. When asked who could have had the resources to pull off 9/11, intelligence experts have been unanimous that only two agencies could have done it: the CIA and the Mossad. Astonishingly, California, where I was born, has just passed a law making any criticism of the actions of the government of Israel “anti-Semitic,” which is completely absurd, as I explained in, “Is 9/11 research ‘anti-Semitic’?” It is symptomatic of the political power Israel exercises over the United States.
Q: You have just invited Susan Lindauer to speak at the Vancouver Hearings. We know that she has been a U.S. intelligence asset and helped with the facilitation of talks between the U.S. government and Saddam Hussein. What have been the most revealing and important parts of her testimonies regarding the 9/11 events?
A: What Susan reveals is inside information that 9/11 was an “inside job.” She served as the liaison between the CIA and Saddam Hussein, who was so eager to avoid war with the U.S. that he offered to purchase 1,000,000 cars per year for the next ten years. If that was not enough, he said, make it the next twenty [years]! Imagine where the U.S. would be economically if we had only taken up his proposal? Instead, when Susan learned of plans to attack Iraq, she protested vigorously to President Bush. For taking that step, for speaking out about her concerns over the injustice of it all and the violations of international law that would be involved, she was harassed, intimidated, imprisoned and tortured. This is a stunning case that reveals the depths of depravity to which the U.S. has sunk. I have just published her astonishing, horrific story, “9/11: Confessions of a former CIA Asset,” on Veterans Today.
Q: We are observing the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. As my final question, I would like to ask you to give us an overview of the whole story that happened on that day. What realities have remained obscured and hidden so far?
A: 9/11 was conceived as an elaborate psychological operation to instill fear into the American people in order to manipulate them into supporting the political agenda of the Bush/Cheney administration, which included the invasion of several nations in the Middle East and the creation of a new century of American domination of the world for the next 100 years. The evidence supports the inference that 9/11 was a “national security event” which was authorized at the highest levels of the American government–the CIA, the NSA, the Pentagon and The White House. It facilitated a reversal of US foreign policy and extraordinary constraints on the Constitution of the United States, which have dramatically increased the centralization of political power in the executive branch and dominating the legislative and judicial branches of government.
The creation of the Department of Homeland Security has been especially ominous, where DHS has now requisitioned more than 1.5 billion rounds of .40 caliber hollow point ammo, which is not even permissible in the conduct of warfare under The Geneva Conventions. Combined with more than 300 FEMA camps around the country, which I have discussed in “From America to Amerika: The End Game” (with Dennis Cimino), even American should be alarmed at the parallels with the rise of The Third Reich in Germany before WWII. As a former Marine Corps officer, I am extremely apprehensive over the future of my country, which has been transformed from the most admired and respected nation in the world–along with our “gallant ally”‘ in the Middle East, Israel–to the most despised and reviled. I never expected that the U.S. would turn to “the dark side” in my lifetime, but it already has.
Key Words: 9/11 Attacks, U.S. Foreign Policy, War on Afghanistan and Iraq, Islamist Terrorists, World Trade Center Towers and Pentagon, Israel’s Mossad, Fetzer
NOTE: This article is republished from IRAN REVIEW (13 September 2012) and may be found at this link.
Related Posts:
Short URL: http://www.veteranstoday.com/?p=222538
A Possible Explanation for Obama's Connecticut Social Security Number
September 14, 2012
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.
A Possible Explanation for Obama's Connecticut Social Security Number
By Jack CashillAs I reported on Tuesday, Barack Obama has yet to provide an explanation for how he came to have a Social Security number that begins with the Connecticut prefix "042."
Filmmaker Joel Gilbert read the piece. He has been in Hawaii doing follow-up research on his insightful new documentary, Dreams from My Real Father, and he sent me the single best explanation I have yet to see.
What intrigued me about this story from the moment Ohio private investigator Susan Daniels first came across Obama's Connecticut SSN was the ineptness of the left-wing explanations.
"Numbers are assigned based on the return address on the request envelope, not residency," crowed Jason Linkins in the Huffington Post, as though he had said something meaningful. Linkins suggested two possible explanations, both preposterous.
One is that Obama applied for his SSN as a little boy in Indonesia for no known reason, and the application just happened to be processed in Connecticut for no known reason, too.
For the second, Linkins cited the argument of Carole Gilbert (no relation to Joel Gilbert) in the Yahoo-related "Associated Content." Said Carole Gilbert, presumably with a straight face, "In fact, Barack Obama's dad attended college in Connecticut and in 1977, Obama was college aged; is it beyond reason to consider that he might have checked out his father's alma mater?"
Last time I checked, Harvard was in Massachusetts. The closest town to Harvard in Connecticut is about 90 minutes away, and there is no record at all that Obama Sr. lived there, let alone that Obama visited his imaginary alma mater and just happened to apply for a Social Security card while visiting.
On the respectable right, Fox News host Bill O'Reilly finessed this claim. "[Obama's] father lived in Connecticut for several years," O'Reilly said inaccurately on air last April. He added that "babies sometimes get numbers based on addresses provided by their parents." Wrong again.
The left-leaning fact-checking service Snopes.com addresses the SSN issue, but evasively. It leads with a red herring about a man named Jean Paul Ludwig, whose SSN Obama is allegedly using. "False," says Snopes. But Daniels has never mentioned a Ludwig or anyone else.
Snopes then repeats the irrelevant detail that Obama would only need to have sent his application in from Connecticut, but how or why the 16-year-old Obama could or would have done so is overlooked.
Snopes concludes that "the most likely explanation" is a "simple clerical or typographical error." Obama, they contend, lived in the Hawaii zip code of 96814, while the zip code for Danbury, CT is 06814. As it happens, "clerical error" is the same excuse used to explain away Obama's claim to a Kenyan birth in his literary agent's 1991 promotional piece.
Joel Gilbert suggests a more likely explanation. In doing his research in Hawaii, Gilbert heard from several sources that pre-statehood, every institution or branch of government in Hawaii was dominated by the Japanese syndicate known as the "Yakuza, the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU), and a complicit bureaucracy. "After statehood in 1959 the Federal Government came in, and the syndicate went underground, but maintained the same control, and does so to this day," says Gilbert.
"Hawaii was and is a corrupt state," Gilbert continues. He was told by retired Honolulu police detectives that in the state bureaucracy, "anything could be purchased, including Social Security numbers." These were real numbers, likely available because the original card holder was dead. The sellers trafficked in SSNs that did not originate in Hawaii. That way, if the person using the phony SSN were ever caught, the crime would be traced back to the issuing state, not the Hawaii office.
Gilbert's theory is that the SSN problem is related to the question of Obama's birth certificate, which is required to get a SSN. Lacking a valid birth certificate, Obama was forced to buy an SSN so he could get his first job at the Baskin Robbins in 1977. In this theory, Obama was sold an SSN that was Connecticut-based so it couldn't be traced back to the Hawaii office.
The easiest way to test this theory and establish the truth is to ask the people who know. WND's veteran White House correspondent Les Kinsolving tried to do just this at a press briefing a few years back. Predictably, Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs laughed Kinsolving off and switched the subject to the birth certificate.
In a televised address two years ago, Obama famously said, "The only people who don't want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide." So could someone in the media please ask him about that "042"? We can be sure they would be asking questions if Mitt Romney had a Hawaii-based SSN, and they would not be satisfying themselves with "clerical error."
What intrigued me about this story from the moment Ohio private investigator Susan Daniels first came across Obama's Connecticut SSN was the ineptness of the left-wing explanations.
"Numbers are assigned based on the return address on the request envelope, not residency," crowed Jason Linkins in the Huffington Post, as though he had said something meaningful. Linkins suggested two possible explanations, both preposterous.
One is that Obama applied for his SSN as a little boy in Indonesia for no known reason, and the application just happened to be processed in Connecticut for no known reason, too.
For the second, Linkins cited the argument of Carole Gilbert (no relation to Joel Gilbert) in the Yahoo-related "Associated Content." Said Carole Gilbert, presumably with a straight face, "In fact, Barack Obama's dad attended college in Connecticut and in 1977, Obama was college aged; is it beyond reason to consider that he might have checked out his father's alma mater?"
Last time I checked, Harvard was in Massachusetts. The closest town to Harvard in Connecticut is about 90 minutes away, and there is no record at all that Obama Sr. lived there, let alone that Obama visited his imaginary alma mater and just happened to apply for a Social Security card while visiting.
On the respectable right, Fox News host Bill O'Reilly finessed this claim. "[Obama's] father lived in Connecticut for several years," O'Reilly said inaccurately on air last April. He added that "babies sometimes get numbers based on addresses provided by their parents." Wrong again.
The left-leaning fact-checking service Snopes.com addresses the SSN issue, but evasively. It leads with a red herring about a man named Jean Paul Ludwig, whose SSN Obama is allegedly using. "False," says Snopes. But Daniels has never mentioned a Ludwig or anyone else.
Snopes then repeats the irrelevant detail that Obama would only need to have sent his application in from Connecticut, but how or why the 16-year-old Obama could or would have done so is overlooked.
Snopes concludes that "the most likely explanation" is a "simple clerical or typographical error." Obama, they contend, lived in the Hawaii zip code of 96814, while the zip code for Danbury, CT is 06814. As it happens, "clerical error" is the same excuse used to explain away Obama's claim to a Kenyan birth in his literary agent's 1991 promotional piece.
Joel Gilbert suggests a more likely explanation. In doing his research in Hawaii, Gilbert heard from several sources that pre-statehood, every institution or branch of government in Hawaii was dominated by the Japanese syndicate known as the "Yakuza, the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU), and a complicit bureaucracy. "After statehood in 1959 the Federal Government came in, and the syndicate went underground, but maintained the same control, and does so to this day," says Gilbert.
"Hawaii was and is a corrupt state," Gilbert continues. He was told by retired Honolulu police detectives that in the state bureaucracy, "anything could be purchased, including Social Security numbers." These were real numbers, likely available because the original card holder was dead. The sellers trafficked in SSNs that did not originate in Hawaii. That way, if the person using the phony SSN were ever caught, the crime would be traced back to the issuing state, not the Hawaii office.
Gilbert's theory is that the SSN problem is related to the question of Obama's birth certificate, which is required to get a SSN. Lacking a valid birth certificate, Obama was forced to buy an SSN so he could get his first job at the Baskin Robbins in 1977. In this theory, Obama was sold an SSN that was Connecticut-based so it couldn't be traced back to the Hawaii office.
The easiest way to test this theory and establish the truth is to ask the people who know. WND's veteran White House correspondent Les Kinsolving tried to do just this at a press briefing a few years back. Predictably, Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs laughed Kinsolving off and switched the subject to the birth certificate.
In a televised address two years ago, Obama famously said, "The only people who don't want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide." So could someone in the media please ask him about that "042"? We can be sure they would be asking questions if Mitt Romney had a Hawaii-based SSN, and they would not be satisfying themselves with "clerical error."
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.
Customer Deposits Are Property of the Bank: Close Your Account Now
In June of 2012, Eric Bloom, former chief executive, and Charles Mosely, head trader of Sentinel Management Group (SMG) were indicted for stealing $500 million in customer secured funds.
Both Mosely and Bloom were accused of “exposing” customer segregated funds “to a portfolio of highly risky derivatives.”
These customer funds were used to “back up personal investments” which were part of “collateral for a loan from Bank of New York Mellon” (BNYM).
This loan derived from stolen customer monies was “used to purchase millions of dollars worth of high-risk, illiquid securities, including collateralized debt obligations, or CDOs, for a trading portfolio that benefited Sentinel’s officers, including Mosley, Bloom and certain Bloom family members.”
Fast forward to August 9th of 2012, and the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals (CCA) rules that BNYM can be moved to first in line of creditors over the customers that had their funds stolen by SMG.
When a banking customer deposits their money into their bank account, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) andSecurities Investor Protection Corporation (SPIC) are in place to protect the customer from fraud or theft.
The ruling from the CCA means that these regulatory systems will not insure customer funds, investments, depositors and retirees who hold accounts in banks.
In fact, the banking institution is now legally allowed to use those customer funds deposited as collateral, payment on debts for loans made, or free use on the stock market to purchase investments as the bank sees fit.
Fred Grede, SMG trustee, explained that brokers are no longer required to keep customer money separate from their own. “It does not bode well for the protection of customer funds.”
Since the ruling gives banks the right to co-mingle customer funds with their own, no crime can be committed for the use of customer deposited monies.
According to Walker Todd, former lawyer for the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and Cleveland:
Since the ruling gives banks the right to co-mingle customer funds with their own, no crime can be committed for the use of customer deposited monies.
According to Walker Todd, former lawyer for the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and Cleveland:
“Basically, there is a new 7th Circuit opinion saying that there is no reason to impose a constructive trust on a lender’s takings of customers’ funds from client commodity firms that were used (inappropriately) to secure the firms’ borrowings, as long as the lender can say that it did not know WITH CERTAINTY that customers’ funds were being repledged. Negligence and misappropriation (vs. knowing criminal intent) are now a sufficient excuse for letting the lender keep the money and go to the head of the line for distributions in bankruptcies of the client commodity firms.”
When a customer deposits money into a bank, the bank essentially issues a promise to have those funds available when the customer returns to withdraw the deposited amount.
When the same customer withdraws funds from their account (whether checking or savings) the customer assumes that the bank has enough funds to cover their withdrawal; including the presumption that their monies are separate from the bank’s assets.
Now, those funds are up for grabs by the bank at their discretion without explanation to the customer – nor is the bank obligated to recoup the customer should they “lose” those funds due to bad loans, bankruptcy or stock market loss.
In Texas, Pamela Cobb, manager of Bank of America (BoA), stole an estimated $2 million from customer funds for personal use. Cobb had been taking customer segregated funds since 2002.
Customers have complained of fraudulent charges placed on their accounts that BoA cannot explain. When the customer brings these charges to the in-house fraud department, they are given the run-around until they acquiesce.
Other customers have had their private possessions stolen right out of their safety deposit boxheld at BoA. The safety deposit box was drilled into and the contents shipped to the BoA corporate holding center in South Carolina.
In 1992 to 2003, Citibank called their theft of customer funds “account sweeping” wherein they stole more than $14 million from customers nationally.
Using computerized credit card processes to remove positive and negative balances from customers, the scheme included double payments or funds paid out on returned purchases that were then attributed back to the customer.
At Chase bank, an anonymous employee opened an account under a customer name (targeting an Alzheimer’s sufferer), complete with a personal debit card.
An estimated $300 per day was withdrawn on the fraudulent account. When family representing the victim alerted Chase, they brushed them off with an internal investigation claim – even as the family sought legal action.
Customers have complained of fraudulent charges placed on their accounts that BoA cannot explain. When the customer brings these charges to the in-house fraud department, they are given the run-around until they acquiesce.
Other customers have had their private possessions stolen right out of their safety deposit boxheld at BoA. The safety deposit box was drilled into and the contents shipped to the BoA corporate holding center in South Carolina.
In 1992 to 2003, Citibank called their theft of customer funds “account sweeping” wherein they stole more than $14 million from customers nationally.
Using computerized credit card processes to remove positive and negative balances from customers, the scheme included double payments or funds paid out on returned purchases that were then attributed back to the customer.
At Chase bank, an anonymous employee opened an account under a customer name (targeting an Alzheimer’s sufferer), complete with a personal debit card.
An estimated $300 per day was withdrawn on the fraudulent account. When family representing the victim alerted Chase, they brushed them off with an internal investigation claim – even as the family sought legal action.
Banking fraud against the elderly has risen of late, since banks realize they can steal massive amounts of cash from their aging customers with little to no repercussions.
The recent ruling on SMG has given the banking industry the legal backing they have been lacking when stealing from their customers.
Our financial institutions have been planning for a financial collapse wherein the US government will not offer assistance.
The resolution plans required by the Federal Reserve Bank, described schemes to have the major domestic banks remain afloat by selling off assets, finding alternative sources of funding, reducing risky measures that make a quick buck. These strategies were to be perfected with “no assumption of extraordinary support from the public sector.”
The mega-banks, through Wall Street, are also acquiring firearms, ammunition and control over private mercenary corporations like DynCorp and ‘Blackwater” as authorized by the Department of Defense (DoD) directive 3025.18.
DynCorp is a military-based private mercenary contractor that provides (among other services) intelligence training and support, international security, contingency plans and operations. Ninety-six percent of their funding is based on annual revenues from the US federal government.
The international branch of DynCorp has operated as a “police force” even assisting local law enforcement during Hurricane Katrina.
Named as investors for the amassing of gun and ammunition manufacturers are Citibank, BoA, Barclays and Deutsche Bank who are pouring money into Cerebus and Veritas Equity who have taken over private corporations involved in the controlling riot situations.
The international branch of DynCorp has operated as a “police force” even assisting local law enforcement during Hurricane Katrina.
Named as investors for the amassing of gun and ammunition manufacturers are Citibank, BoA, Barclays and Deutsche Bank who are pouring money into Cerebus and Veritas Equity who have taken over private corporations involved in the controlling riot situations.
The Federal Reserve Bank, one of the heads of banking cartels, has their own police force which operates as a protective security for the Fed against the American public.
As part of the Federal Reserve Act signed in 1913, the designation of a Federal Law Enforcement – special police officers that are exclusively regulated by authority of the Fed (whether in uniform or plain clothes.
These specialized police officers (who train with Special Response Teams) can work in tandem with local law enforcement or US federal agencies. These officers are heavily armed with semi-automatic pistols, sub machine guns and assault rifles as well as body armor.
Of recent, when withdrawing cash from an ATM, the daily allotted amount has decreased with some banks, thereby forcing the customer to go into the branch and extract the difference with a teller.
At this point, according to anonymous informants, the customer is taken into a backroom to be questioned as to why they want the cash, what they are purchasing with the cash, why they are not choosing to use a debit card or another form of digital trade to make the purchase. These questions are not only intrusive, they are illegal.
Some anonymous sources have said that banking representatives who conduct the integrations are directed to keep a record of customer responses on an online application that will be sent to the FBI in conjunction with Patriot Act mandates on tracking banking activity.
These specialized police officers (who train with Special Response Teams) can work in tandem with local law enforcement or US federal agencies. These officers are heavily armed with semi-automatic pistols, sub machine guns and assault rifles as well as body armor.
Of recent, when withdrawing cash from an ATM, the daily allotted amount has decreased with some banks, thereby forcing the customer to go into the branch and extract the difference with a teller.
At this point, according to anonymous informants, the customer is taken into a backroom to be questioned as to why they want the cash, what they are purchasing with the cash, why they are not choosing to use a debit card or another form of digital trade to make the purchase. These questions are not only intrusive, they are illegal.
Some anonymous sources have said that banking representatives who conduct the integrations are directed to keep a record of customer responses on an online application that will be sent to the FBI in conjunction with Patriot Act mandates on tracking banking activity.
Customer funds are no longer secure, no longer backed by the FDIC or other insurance corporations, and banks are legally allowed to co-mingled customer money with other funds of the bank. The only safe place for your money is with you.
Now is the time to close your bank account.
Cancer Cure with a Drink
|
Yes I am ‘Entitled’ to what I paid for by Drake
Drake posted: "SOCIAL SECURITY NOW CALLED 'FEDERAL BENEFIT PAYMENT'/ENTITLEMENT! The art of massive government sleight of hand! Steal from you then make you beg to be given the privelege of getting a pittance of what they stole back while they travel the world in lu"
|
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
