Una fuente que trabajó con George Soros afirma que Soros está orquestando la eliminación de dinero en efectivo con el fin de marcar el comienzo de un "gobierno mundial".
Según un ex colega de Soros,Jim Rogers, muchos gobiernos de todo el mundo ya están eliminando el uso de dinero en efectivo que dice que es parte de un movimiento para avanzar en la agenda del Nuevo Orden Mundial.
"Los gobiernos siempre están mirando hacia fuera para sí mismos en primer lugar, y es la misma cosa que ha estado ocurriendo durante cientos de años", dijo durante una entrevista con el MacroVoices Podcast.
"Los indios hicieron recientemente, la misma cosa. Retiraron el 86 por ciento de la moneda en circulación, y ahora han hecho ilegal que gastar más de $ 4,000 en cualquier transacción en efectivo ".
"En Francia no se puede usar más que € 1,000."
Tras el ataque terrorista de Charlie Hebdo en el año 2015, el gobierno francés prohibió los pagos en efectivo de más de € 1.000, con el entonces ministro de Finanzas, Michel Sapin argumentando que era necesario "luchar contra el uso de dinero en efectivo y el anonimato de la economía francesa."
El primer ministro indio Narendra Modi retiró 500 y 1.000 rupias billetes de curso legal, la eliminación de 86 por ciento de Cuentas de la moneda del país de la circulación.
La Comisión Europea recientemente emitió una "hoja de ruta" para aplicar severas restricciones y obligaciones de información sobre el uso de dinero en efectivo en toda la Unión Europea, con el objetivo final de eliminar el uso de dinero en efectivo todos juntos.
Rogers advirtió la tendencia de los gobiernos para eliminar el uso de dinero en efectivo para las transacciones económicas es parte de un esfuerzo mayor por los gobiernos para poner en práctica un estado de vigilancia mediante la supervisión directa de los hábitos de consumo de sus ciudadanos.
"Muchos países ya lo están haciendo", dijo. "Algunos estados de los EE.UU. que no pueden hacer transacciones en efectivo por encima de una cierta cantidad. A los gobiernos les encanta ".
"Luego pueden controlar todo lo que usted haga."
"Si quiere ir a comprar una taza de café, saben cuantos bebes, en el que los compra, etc., si todos ellos pueden ponerlo en formatos electrónicos y lo harán", agregó. "El mundo entero va online."
Pese a las afirmaciones hechas por los gobiernos que la sustitución de dinero en efectivo con una moneda digital hará más fácil las transacciones económicas, Rogersadvirtió que son una distracción para encubrir la eliminación de las libertades básicas.
"Cuando se hace, los gobiernos van a ser muy, muy feliz de que van a decir que lo están haciendo por nuestro propio bien, esto no es de ellos, esto es para nuestro bien", agregó Rogers.
"Eso que están haciendo esto, pero que llegará, y que va a ser un mundo diferente en el que vivimos."
"Probablemente no vamos a tener tantas libertades como tenemos ahora a pesar de que ya estamos perdiendo nuestras libertades a un ritmo significativo."
El más grande jamás estudio llevado a cabo en el edulcorante artificial aspartamo ha llegado a la conclusión de que el aditivo químico puede causar la muerte como un efecto secundario de consumirlo.
El estudio, elaborado por investigadores de la Universidad de Iowa, miraba a 60.000 mujeres que eran adictos al aspartamo en bebidas no alcohólicas en el transcurso de 10 años.
Los investigadores encontraron que el consumo de dos o más de estas bebidas al día hechas las mujeres más propensas a desarrollar enfermedad cardiovascular - y, posteriormente, una muerte temprana.
El documento compara los resultados de salud de las mujeres que consumen bebidas de dieta para los que no lo hacen, observando que los que lo hacen son 30 por ciento más propensos a sufrir algún tipo de evento cardiovascular, como un ataque al corazón o un derrame cerebral.
Entre los que sufren ese destino, los que consumen aspartame son 50 por ciento más propensas a morir de ella en comparación con los bebedores de bebidas no dietéticas.
El Dr. Ankur Vyas, investigador principal del estudio, señaló que este es uno de los estudios más grandes que han vistazo a aspartamo, y que los resultados son "consistentes con algunos datos anteriores, especialmente aquellas que unen a las bebidas de dieta síndrome metabólico".
"En promedio, las mujeres que consumían dos o más bebidas de dieta al día eran más jóvenes, más propensos a ser fumadores, y tenían una mayor prevalencia de diabetes, presión arterial alta, y el índice de masa corporal más alto", explicó el diario.
El aspartamo, los edulcorantes artificiales engordan
No es de extrañar, entonces, que las ventas de refrescos de dieta han dejado de desplomarse año tras año como la investigación como ésta continúa emergiendo. La gente está tomando conciencia de los peligros del aspartamo y cambiar a alternativas más saludables como la miel local y extracto de estevia. No sólo es peligroso el aspartamo en estas muchas maneras, pero ni siquiera se hace la única cosa que la mayoría de la gente cree erróneamente que no - ayudarles a perder peso.
Hay una serie de razones para esto, no menos importante de los cuales incluyen el hecho de que los edulcorantes artificiales como el aspartamo no activan la vía de recompensas de comida en el cerebro que le dice a las personas que están llenos, y que es el momento de dejar de comer.
En lugar de ello, los consumidores de refrescos de dieta pueden traquetea pueda después de lata y botella tras botella, de su bebida mezclada químico-favorito y simplemente no parar.
El aspartamo específicamente También se ha demostrado en estudios para hacer realidad la gente morehungry que si simplemente consumen azúcar. Ya que cualquier cosa que tiene un sabor dulce aumenta el apetito, los efectos del hambre promotoras de aspartamo terminan llevando a las personas que lo consumen a consumir otros alimentos también - y muchos de ellos!
También hay evidencia para sugerir que el consumo de aspartame aumenta el almacenamiento de grasa en el cuerpo. Desde fenilalanina y aspartato, los dos componentes químicos del aspartamo, interfieren con la insulina y la leptina, los cuales controlan la cantidad de grasa es manejado por el cuerpo, su consumo en realidad hace que la gente embalar en más libras en lugar de arrojar ellos.
Y luego está la ciencia sugiere que el aspartame podría aumentar el riesgo de tumores cerebrales. Un estudio de 1996 publicado en el Diario de Neuropatología y Neurología Experimental identificó una fuerte correlación entre el consumo de aspartamo y tumores cerebrales en ratones, llevando a los investigadores de este estudio a la conclusión de que "no hay necesidad de volver a evaluar el potencial carcinogénico del aspartamo."
Sierra nació en 1937 en un pequeño municipio de Salamanca, Aldearrodrigo. Se trata del cuarto de seis hermanos y en su infancia tuvo que compaginar los estudios con la labor en el campo, tanto en agricultura como en ganadería. Más adelante ingresó en el Cuerpo Nacional de Policía, donde en los años setenta fue destinado a Barcelona. Allí compaginaría este trabajo con otro de vendedor de seguros y se iniciaría en el mundo de la hostelería de la mano de un gran amigo suyo. Actualmente posee prestigiosos restaurantes en la ciudad condal como el ‘Salamanca’ o ‘La Barca del Salamanca’. En suma, también posee varios negocios en la capital del Tormes.
Ningún salmantino duda del gran embajador de su tierra que ha sido y es Silvestre, pues siempre que tiene la oportunidad muestra su amor y cariño a esta provincia. Y lo dice a este diario apesadumbrado, lamentando profundamente el no haber podido venir la pasada Navidad. “Amo a Salamanca y la llevo en el corazón”, recalca desde uno de sus negocios en Barcelona, orgulloso también de que sus hijos y sus nietos sean catalanes.
No obstante, vive con preocupación la situación política que se vive en la región y el sentimiento separatista que se ha expandido en los últimos años desde la Generalitat. Sin haber transcurrido una semana desde la investidura de Carles Puigdemont como presidente de Cataluña, quien abiertamente ha prometido iniciar el proceso de independencia de España, Sánchez Sierra asegura estar disgustado enormemente. “Como dije antes, amo a Salamanca. Pero Cataluña me lo ha dado todo y aquí tengo también a mi familia y mis negocios. Me pregunto dónde querrán llegar los que dicen llamarse separatistas. ¿Qué necesidad hay de meternos en este lío en el que nos ha metido el señor Artur Mas?”, asegura.
Desde el punto de vista empresarial, no esconde la idea de abandonar Cataluña y regresar a su amada Salamanca. Pero es solo eso, una idea, ya que reconoce que sería un paso difícil de dar por el entramado empresarial que tiene en Barcelona. “Si pudiera trasladarme a Salamanca con la mitad de lo que tengo, lo haría. Pero mis negocios me obligan a estar aquí, sobre todo cuando tienes trabajando a cuatrocientas o quinientas personas. Me duele porque nunca he tenido ningún problema con nadie y siempre he sido bien aceptado como un castellano que vive en Cataluña. El problema que hay es político, no de la gente. Me ha disgustado que Puigdemont no haya jurado como presidente servir a España ni a la Constitución”, señala.
Aún con todo, Silvestre Sánchez Sierra considera que el proceso de independencia catalana quedará en agua de borrajas. “España es grande y creo que finalmente no se dará este paso. Hace falta un gobierno que haga frente a todos estos líos. Sé que la soberanía de España no se va a tocar en cuanto he sentido a PP, PSOE y Ciudadanos. La Generalitat tiene una deuda de miles de millones de Euros. En el caso de separación habría que pagar de momento entre un 18% y un 20%. Además, cambia ejército, policía, bancos, etcétera. La independencia catalana sería la ruina para nuestros negocios. Desde la humildad seguiré amando a mi tierra y trabajando al pie del cañón agradecido a Cataluña porque me ha ido bien”, concluye tras recordar el medio siglo de vida que lleva en la ciudad condal.
Las nuevas aplicaciones permitirá a los usuarios retroceder y ver videos de Facebook en el televisor.
El vicepresidente de asociaciones de la red social Facebook, Dan Rose, anunció este martes que en los próximos días estarán disponible nuevas aplicaciones para decodificadores, específicamente para Apple TV, Amazon Fire TV y Samsung Smart TV, que permitirá a los usuarios retroceder y ver videos de Facebook en el televisor.
Tras la exitosa recepción que tuvo el lanzamiento hace un año del streaming de videos desde el móvil hacia el televisor, Facebook busca ampliar esa experiencia con el objetivo que los usuarios aprovechen el formato y las características disponibles actualmente, como los comentarios y las reacciones en un dispositivo de mayor tamaño.
Junto al anuncio de la llegada de Facebook a los televisores, la compañía liderada por Mark Zuckerberg también dio a conocer nuevas funciones para ver videos de forma "flotante", desde un smartphone, como el formato PiP (Picture in Picture) dentro de la misma App de Facebook y, además, en el caso de Android también estarán disponibles, incluso fuera de la aplicación.
La aplicación de Facebook, que busca dominar la televisión bajo un nuevo formato dominado hasta el momento por YouTube y Netflix, recomendará videos a los usuarios y les permitirá ver nuevamente los que han guardado en otros dispositivos.
El aire contaminado mató a 4,2 millones de personas en 2015
La contaminación atmosférica mató a 4,2 millones de personas en 2015, una cifra que la erigió como la principal causa de muerte relacionada con el medioambiente en todo el mundo, según un estudio elaborado por el Health Effects Institutes, con sede en Boston (Estados Unidos).
El estudio, divulgado este miércoles, también indica que el 92 % de habitantes del planeta vive en áreas en las que el aire es nocivo para la salud. China e India, con 1,1 millones de muertes prematuras en 2015, fueron los países más afectados por la contaminación del aire y entre los dos sumaron más de la mitad de defunciones del mundo.
Mientras que el gigante asiático ha logrado estabilizar en los últimos años los efectos de la contaminación atmosférica sobre su población, en India la cifra de muertos ha aumentado desde 1990 en casi un 50 %, de acuerdo con el estudio.
Además de China e India, el aire contaminado también fue un flagelo en el Sudeste Asiático, África Central y la zona occidental de África subsahariana.
Por otro lado, Europa y Estados Unidos experimentaron mejoras en sus niveles de contaminación y la tendencia apunta a que cada año menos gente está expuesta a un aire malsano.
LAS ALERTAS EN ESPAÑA
Este miércoles, coincidiendo con la publicación del estudio, la Comisión Europea ha urgido a España a tomar medidas para evitar el "incumplimiento constante" de los límites de dióxido de nitrógeno (NO2) en el aire de las ciudades. El ultimátum europeo da dos meses al gobierno para adoptar esas medidas.
Los datos remitidos por España al Ejecutivo comunitario en relación al periodo 2010-2014, sujeto al expediente, apuntan que los límites de emisiones de NO2 han sido "sobrepasados continuamente" en Barcelona, Vallès-Baix de Llobregat y en Madrid, según han explicado a Europa Press fuentes comunitarias.
Pese a las mejoras señaladas por el Gobierno y a los planes adoptados, añaden las fuentes, el Ejecutivo comunitario ha concluido que las medidas emprendidas "no han logrado reducir a lo mínimo posible" el periodo de incumplimiento "continuo y persistente".
Por ello, Bruselas reclama a las autoridades nacionales medidas para "garantizar una buena calidad del aire y proteger la salud pública", habida cuenta de que la contaminación por NO2 -gas que proviene mayoritariamente del tráfico rodado- es un riesgo sanitario "grave".
Si España no adopta las medidas y sigue incumpliendo los límites, la Comisión Europea seguirá adelante con el procedimiento de infracción abierto en 2015 y podría llevar el caso ante el Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea.
España no ha sido el único país advertido por el ejecutivo europeo: Alemania, Francia, Reino Unido e Italia también han recibido dictámenes similares.
El arcángel Sandalphon es conocido como el ángel de la música . Él gobierna sobre la música en el cielo y ayuda a las personas en la Tierra utilizan la música para comunicarse con Dios en la oración.
Sandalphon significa "co-hermano", que se refiere a la condición de Sandalfon como el hermano espiritual de arcángel Metatrón . El final de -on indica que subió a su posición como un ángel después de la primera de haber vivido una vida humana, considerado por algunos como el profeta Elías, que ascendió al cielo en un carro tirado por caballos de fuego y luz.
Otras formas de escribir su nombre incluyen Sandalfon y ophan (en hebreo significa "rueda"). Esto se refiere a la identificación de las personas antiguas de Sandalfon como uno de los seres vivos con ruedas espirituales desde una visión registrada en Ezequiel capítulo 1 de la Biblia .
Roles de Arcángel Sandalphon
Sandalphon también recibe las oraciones de la gente en la Tierra cuando llegan en el cielo, y luego teje las oraciones en guirnaldas de flores espirituales para presentar a Dios, de acuerdo con la liturgia de la judía Fiesta de los Tabernáculos.
En el arte, Sandalphon se representa a menudo la música de juego, para ilustrar su papel como el ángel el patrón de la música. A veces Sandalfon también se muestra como una figura extremadamente alto ya que la tradición judía dice que el profeta Moisés tenía una visión del cielo en la que vio Sandalphon, que Moisés describe como siendo muy alto.La gente a veces piden ayuda de Sandalfon para ofrecer sus oraciones y cantos de alabanza a Dios, y para aprender a utilizar sus talentos dados por Dios para hacer del mundo un lugar mejor. Sandalphon se dice que han vivido en la Tierra como el profeta Elías antes de ascender al cielo y convertirse en un arcángel, al igual que su hermano espiritual, el Arcángel Metatrón , vivió en la Tierra como el profeta Enoc antes de convertirse en un paradisiaco arcángel . Algunas personas también dan crédito a Sandalphon de dirigir los ángeles de la guarda ; otros dicen que el Arcángel Barachiel lleva a los ángeles de la guarda.
símbolos
color de la energía
El color del ángel rojo se asocia con el Arcángel Sandalphon. También se asocia con el Arcángel Uriel.
El papel de Sandalfon De acuerdo con los textos religiosos
Sandalphon gobierna uno de los siete niveles del cielo, de acuerdo con los textos religiosos, pero ellos no están de acuerdo en qué nivel. El antiguo libro no canónico judía y cristiana de Enoc dice que Sandalfon gobierna sobre el tercer cielo. El islámica Hadith dice que Sandalfon está a cargo de la cuarta cielo. El Zohar (un texto sagrado de la Cabalá ) Nombres séptimo cielo como el lugar donde Sandalfon conduce otros ángeles. Sandalphon preside la salida de las esferas de Árbol de la Vida de la Cábala.
Otros papeles religiosos
Sandalphon se dice que unirse a los ejércitos angelicales que el Arcángel Michael lleva a luchar contra Satanás y sus fuerzas del mal en el reino espiritual. Sandalphon es un líder entre la clase de los serafines, ángeles que rodean el trono de Dios en el cielo.
En la astrología, Sandalphon es el ángel de la tierra del planeta. Algunas personas creen que Sandalfon ayuda a diferenciar el sexo de los niños antes de que nazcan.
OCTOBER 18, 2013 BY VOLUBRJOTRCOMMENTS OFFON ROTHSCHILD TOO BIG TO JAIL? RUSSIA, EGYPT, ICELAND, IRAN, CHINA, & HUNGARY SAY NO!
The Shooting Of A Rothschild Czar By Vice President Aaron Burr. First Traitor Of The United States Is The Piece Of Shit Alexander Hamilton.
The deal was announced quietly, just before the holidays, almost like the government was hoping people were too busy hanging stockings by the fireplace to notice. Flooring politicians, lawyers and investigators all over the world, the U.S. Justice Department granted a total walk to executives of the British-based bank HSBC for the largest drug-and-terrorism money-laundering case ever.
Yes, they issued a fine – $1.9 billion, or about five weeks’ [worth of HSBC] profit – but they didn’t extract so much as one dollar or one day in jail from any individual, despite a decade of stupefying abuses.
People may have outrage fatigue about Wall Street and more stories about billionaire greedheads getting away with more stealing often cease to amaze. But the HSBC case went miles beyond the usual paper-pushing, keypad-punching sort-of crime, committed by geeks in ties, normally associated with Wall Street. In this case, the bank literally got away with murder – well, aiding and abetting it, anyway.
For at least half a decade, the storied British colonial banking power helped to wash hundreds of millions of dollars for drug mobs, including Mexico’s Sinaloa drug cartel, suspected in tens of thousands of murders just in the past 10 years – people so totally evil, jokes former New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, that “they make the guys on Wall Street look good.”
The bank also moved money for organizations linked to Al Qaeda and Hezbollah, and for Russian gangsters; helped countries like Iran, the Sudan and North Korea evade sanctions; and, in between helping murderers and terrorists and rogue states, aided countless common tax cheats in hiding their cash.
MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD OFFICIALLY BECAME A POLITICAL ORGANIZATION IN 1939
“They violated every ***damn law in the book,” says Jack Blum, an attorney and former Senate investigator who headed a major bribery investigation against Lockheed in the 1970s that led to the passage of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
“They took every imaginable form of illegal and illicit business.”
That nobody from the bank went to jail or paid a dollar in individual fines is nothing new in this era of financial crisis. What is different about this settlement is that the Justice Department, for the first time, admitted why it decided to go soft on this particular kind of criminal.
It was worried that anything more than a wrist slap for HSBC might undermine the world economy. “Had the U.S. authorities decided to press criminal charges,” said Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer at a press conference to announce the settlement, “HSBC would almost certainly have lost its banking license in the U.S., the future of the institution would have been under threat and the entire banking system would have been destabilized.”
As if I & You Are Not Suppose To Realize That The Rothschild Banks Are Not Already Purposely Destroying The World Economy For Their Totalitarian New World Order.
It was the dawn of a new era. In the years just after 9/11, even being breathed on by a suspected terrorist could land you in extralegal detention for the rest of your life. But now, when you’re Too Big to Jail, you can cop to laundering terrorist cash and violating the Trading With the Enemy Act, and not only will you not be prosecuted for it, but the government will go out of its way to make sure you won’t lose your license. Some on the Hill put it to me this way: OK, fine, no jail time, but they can’t even pull their charter? Are you kidding?
China Executes Bankers
Rothschild Bankers Are Pulled In Russia, Iceland, China, Iran, & Hungary!
But the Justice Department wasn’t finished handing out Christmas goodies. A little over a week later, Breuer was back in front of the press, giving a cushy deal to another huge international firm, the Swiss bank UBS, which had just admitted to a key role in perhaps the biggest antitrust/price-fixing case in history, the so-called LIBOR scandal, a massive interest-raterigging conspiracy involving hundreds of trillions (“trillions,” with a “t”) of dollars in financial products. While two minor players did face charges, Breuer and the Justice Department worried aloud about global stability as they explained why no criminal charges were being filed against the parent company.
“Our goal here,” Breuer said, “is not to destroy a major financial institution.”
A reporter at the UBS presser pointed out to Breuer that UBS had already been busted in 2009 in a major tax-evasion case, and asked a sensible question.
“This is a bank that has broken the law before,” the reporter said. “So why not be tougher?”
“I don’t know what tougher means,” answered the assistant attorney general.
Also known as the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, HSBC has always been associated with drugs. Founded in 1865, HSBC became the major commercial bank in colonial China after the conclusion of the Second Opium War.
If you’re rusty in your history of Britain’s various wars of Imperial Rape, the Second Opium War was the one where Britain and other European powers basically slaughtered lots of Chinese people until they agreed to legalize the dope trade (much like they had done in the First Opium War, which ended in 1842).
Dreams of centralization by pushing mind altering drugs into the United States. Happened In China First.
A century and a half later, it appears not much has changed. With its strong on-the-ground presence in many of the various ex-colonial territories in Asia and Africa, and its rich history of cross-cultural moral flexibility, HSBC has a very different international footprint than other Too Big to Fail banks like Wells Fargo or Bank of America.
Bill Clinton Repeals The Glass Steagall Act in 1999 allowing Banks to invest depositor’s hard earned cash to create the high risk 2008 Housing Bubble.
While the American banking behemoths mainly gorged themselves on the toxic residential-mortgage trade that caused the 2008 financial bubble, HSBC took a slightly different path, turning itself into the destination bank for domestic and international scoundrels of every possible persuasion.
Three-time losers doing life in California prisons for street felonies might be surprised to learn that the no-jail settlement Lanny Breuer worked out for HSBC was already the bank’s third strike. In fact, as a mortifying 334-page report issued by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations last summer made plain, HSBC ignored a truly awesome quantity of official warnings.
An arrestable class and an unarrestable class. We always suspected it, now it’s admitted. So what do we do?
Photograph of statue of Alexander Hamilton in the rotunda of the United States Capitol. Statue Should Be Put To A Vote By The American People For Removal.
Hamilton exemplified the contempt which the Eight Banking Cabal Families hold towards “”common people””, once stating:
“All communities divide themselves into the few and the many. The first are the rich and the well born, the others the mass of the people… The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge and determine right. Give therefore to the first class a distinct, permanent share of government. They will check the unsteadiness of the second.”
– Alexander Hamilton
Alex H. was born on the Caribbean island of Nevis on January 11, 1755. Alex’s father James abandoned the family, fearful that the mother of his child would be charged with bigamy.
You see Alex was a product of adultry. Perhaps Alex’s position above was to over compensate for his own shady ‘well born’ beginnings.
It of course is not his fault and that never should be held against him. But the above quote by Alex is callous, narcissistic, and in keeping with how the banking sociopath feels toward his fellow man.
An arrestable class and an unarrestable class.
We always suspected it, now it’s admitted. So what do we do?
In April 2003, with 9/11 still fresh in the minds of American regulators, the Federal Reserve sent HSBC’s American subsidiary a cease-and-desist letter, ordering it to clean up its act and make a better effort to keep criminals and terrorists from opening accounts at its bank.
One of the bank’s bigger customers, for instance, was Saudi Arabia’s Al Rajhi bank, which had been linked by the CIA and other government agencies to terrorism. According to a document cited in a Senate report, one of the bank’s founders, Sulaiman bin Abdul Aziz Al Rajhi, was among 20 early financiers of Al Qaeda, a member of what Osama bin Laden himself apparently called the “Golden Chain.”
In 2003, the CIA wrote a confidential report about the bank, describing Al Rajhi as a “conduit for extremist finance.” In the report, details of which leaked to the public by 2007, the agency noted that Sulaiman Al Rajhi consciously worked to help Islamic “charities” hide their true nature, ordering the bank’s board to “explore financial instruments that would allow the bank’s charitable contributions to avoid official Saudi scrutiny.” (The bank has denied any role in financing extremists.)
In January 2005, while under the cloud of its first double-secret-probation agreement with the U.S., HSBC decided to partially sever ties with Al Rajhi. Note the word “partially”:
The decision would only apply to Al Rajhi banking and not to its related trading company, a distinction that tickled executives inside the bank.
In March 2005, Alan Ketley, a compliance officer for HSBC’s American subsidiary, HBUS, gleefully told Paul Plesser, head of his bank’s Global Foreign Exchange Department, that it was cool to do business with Al Rajhi Trading. “Looks like you’re fine to continue dealing with Al Rajhi,” he wrote. “You’d better be making lots of money!”
But this backdoor arrangement with bin Laden’s suspected “Golden Chain” banker wasn’t direct enough – many HSBC executives wanted the whole shebang restored.
In a remarkable e-mail sent in May 2005, Christopher Lok, HSBC’s head of global bank notes, asked a colleague if they could maybe go back to fully doing business with Al Rajhi as soon as one of America’s primary banking regulators, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, lifted the 2003 cease-and-desist order:
“After the OCC closeout and that chapter is hopefully finished, could we revisit Al Rajhi again? London compliance has taken a more lenient view.”
After being slapped with the order in 2003, HSBC began blowing off its requirements both in letter and in spirit – and on a mass scale, too. Instead of punishing the bank, though, the government’s response was to send it more angry letters. Typically, those came in the form of so-called “MRA” (Matters Requiring Attention) letters sent by the OCC.
Most of these touched upon the same theme, i.e., HSBC failing to do ‘due diligence’ on the shady characters who might be depositing money in its accounts or using its branches to wire money.
HSBC racked up these “You’re Still Screwing Up and We Know It” orders by the dozen and in just one brief stretch between 2005 and 2006, it received 30 different formal warnings.
Nonetheless, in February 2006 the OCC under George Bush suddenly decided to release HSBC from the 2003 cease-and-desist order.
In other words, HSBC basically violated its parole 30 times in just more than a year and got off anyway. The bank was, to use the street term, “off paper” – and free to let the Al Rajhis of the world come rushing back.
After HSBC fully restored its relationship with the apparently terrorist-friendly Al Rajhi Bank in Saudi Arabia, it supplied the bank with nearly 1 billion U.S. dollars. When asked by HSBC what it needed all its American cash for, Al Rajhi explained that people in Saudi Arabia need dollars for all sorts of reasons. “During summer time,” the bank wrote, “we have a high demand from tourists traveling for their vacations.”
The Treasury Department keeps a list compiled by the Office of Foreign Assets Control, or OFAC, and American banks are not supposed to do business with anyone on the OFAC list. But the bank knowingly helped banned individuals elude the sanctions process.
One such individual was the powerful Syrian businessman Rami Makhlouf, a close confidant of the Assad family. When Makhlouf appeared on the OFAC list in 2008, HSBC responded not by severing ties with him but by trying to figure out what to do about the accounts the Syrian power broker had in its Geneva and Cayman Islands branches.
“We have determined that accounts held in the Caymans are not in the jurisdiction of and are not housed on any systems in, the United States,” wrote one compliance officer. “Therefore, we will not be reporting this match to OFAC.”
Translation:
We know the guy’s on a terrorist list, but his accounts are in a place the Americans can’t search, so screw them.
Remember, this was in 2008 – five years after HSBC had first been caught doing this sort of thing. And even four years after that, when being grilled by Michigan Sen. Carl Levin in July 2012, an HSBC executive refused to absolutely say that the bank would inform the government if Makhlouf or another OFAC-listed name popped up in its system – saying only that it would “do everything we can.”
The Senate exchange highlighted an extremely frustrating dynamic government investigators have had to face with Too Big to Jail megabanks: The same thing that makes them so attractive to shady customers – their ability to instantaneously move money around the world to places like the Cayman Islands and Switzerland – makes it easy for them to play dumb with regulators by hiding behind secrecy laws.
Barney Frank and Herb Moses Of Fannie Mae. Congressman sleeping with an Executive Of Fannie Mae ~ How Convoluted, How It Smells Of ‘Conflict Of Interest’, How ruse! Did you know that they were married and divorced?
When it wasn’t banking for shady Third World characters, HSBC was training its mental firepower on the problem of finding creative ways to allow it to do business with countries under U.S. sanction, particularly Iran.
In one memo from HSBC’s Middle East subsidiary, HBME, the bank notes that it could make a lot of money with Iran, provided it dealt with what it termed “difficulties” – you know, those pesky laws.
“It is anticipated that Iran will become a source of increasing income for the group going forward,” the memo says, “and if we are to achieve this goal we must adopt a positive stance when encountering difficulties.”
The “positive stance” included a technique called “stripping,” in which foreign subsidiaries like HSBC Middle East or HSBC Europe would remove references to Iran in wire transactions to and from the United States, often putting themselves in place of the actual client name to avoid triggering OFAC alerts. (In other words, the transaction would have HBME listed on one end, instead of an Iranian client.)
For more than half a decade, a whopping $19 billion in transactions involving Iran went through the American financial system, with the Iranian connection kept hidden in 75 to 90 percent of those transactions.
HSBC has been headquartered in England for more than two decades – it’s Europe’s largest bank, in fact – but it has major subsidiary operations in every corner of the world.
What’s come out in this investigation is that the chiefs in the parent company often knew about shady transactions when the regional subsidiary did not.
In the case of banned Iranian transactions, for instance, there are multiple e-mails from HSBC’s compliance head, David Bagley, in which he admits that HSBC’s American subsidiary probably has no clue that HSBC Europe has been sending it buttloads of banned Iranian money.
“I am not sure that HBUS are aware of the fact that HBEU are already providing clearing facilities for four Iranian banks,” he wrote in 2003. The following year, he made the same observation. “I suspect that HBUS are not aware that [Iranian] payments may be passing through them,” he wrote.
What’s the upside for a bank like HSBC to do business with banned individuals, crooks and so on?
The answer is simple:
“If you have clients who are interested in ‘specialty services’ – that’s the euphemism for the bad stuff – you can charge ’em whatever you want,” says former Senate investigator Blum. “The margin on laundered money for years has been roughly 20 percent.”
Those charges might come in many forms, from upfront fees to promises to keep deposits at the bank for certain lengths of time.
However you structure it, the possibilities for profit are enormous, provided you’re willing to accept money from almost anywhere.
HSBC, its roots in the raw battlefield capitalism of the old British colonies and
its strong presence in Asia, Africa and the Middle East, had more access to customers needing “specialty services” than perhaps any other bank.
And it worked hard to satisfy those customers. In perhaps the pinnacle innovation in the history of sleazy banking practices, HSBC ran a preposterous offshore operation in Mexico that allowed anyone to walk into any HSBC Mexico branch and open a U.S.-dollar account (HSBC Mexico accounts had to be in pesos) via a so-called “Cayman Islands branch” of HSBC Mexico. The evidence suggests customers barely had to submit a real name and address, much less explain the legitimate origins of their deposits.
If you can imagine a drive-thru heart-transplant clinic or an airline that keeps a fully-stocked minibar in the cockpit of every airplane, you’re in the ballpark of grasping the regulatory absurdity of HSBC Mexico’s “Cayman Islands branch.” The whole thing was a pure shell company, run by Mexicans in Mexican bank branches.
At one point, this figment of the bank’s corporate imagination had 50,000 clients, holding a total of $2.1 billion in assets. In 2002, an internal audit found that 41 percent of reviewed accounts had incomplete client information. Six years later, an e-mail from a high-ranking HSBC employee noted that 15 percent of customers didn’t even have a file. “How do you locate clients when you have no file?” complained the executive.
It wasn’t until it was discovered that these accounts were being used to pay a U.S. company allegedly supplying aircraft to Mexican drug dealers that HSBC took action and even then it closed only some of the “Cayman Islands branch” accounts.
As late as 2012, when HSBC executives were being dragged before the U.S. Senate, the bank still had 20,000 such accounts worth some $670 million – and under oath would only say that the bank was “in the process” of closing them.
Meanwhile, throughout all of this time, U.S. regulators kept examining HSBC.
In an absurdist pattern that would continue through the 2000s, OCC examiners would conduct annual reviews, find the same disturbing shit they’d found for years, and then write about the bank’s problems as though they were being discovered for the first time.
From the 2006 annual OCC review:
“During the year, we identified a number of areas lacking consistent, vigilant adherence to BSA/AML policies. . . . Management responded positively and initiated steps to correct weaknesses and improve conformance with bank policy. We will validate corrective action in the next examination cycle.”
Translation: These guys are assholes, but they admit it, so it’s cool and we won’t do anything.
A year later, on July 24th, 2007, OCC had this to say: “During the past year, examiners identified a number of common themes, in that businesses lacked consistent, vigilant adherence to BSA/AML policies. Bank policies are acceptable. . . . Management continues to respond positively and initiated steps to improve conformance with bank policy.”
Translation: They’re still assholes, but we’ve alerted them to the problem and everything’ll be cool.
By then, HSBC’s lax money-laundering controls had infected virtually the entire company. Russians identifying themselves as used-car salesmen were at one point depositing $500,000 a day into HSBC, mainly through a bent traveler’s-checks operation in Japan. The company’s special banking program for foreign embassies was so completely fucked that it had suspicious-activity alerts backed up by the thousands. There is also strong evidence that the bank was allowing clients in Sudan, Cuba, Burma and North Korea to evade sanctions.
When one of the company’s compliance chiefs, Carolyn Wind, raised concerns that she didn’t have enough staff to monitor suspicious activities at a board meeting in 2007, she was fired.
The sheer balls it took for the bank to ignore its compliance executives and continue taking money from so many different shady sources while ostensibly it had regulators swarming all over its every move is incredible.
“You can’t make up more egregious money-laundering that permeated an entire institution,” says Spitzer.
By the late 2000s, other law enforcement agencies were beginning to catch HSBC’s scent. The Department of Homeland Security started investigating HSBC for laundering drug money, while the attorney general’s office in West Virginia snooped around HSBC’s involvement in a Medicare-fraud case. A federal intra-agency meeting was convened in Washington in September 2009, at which it was determined that HSBC was out of control and needed to be investigated more closely.
The bank itself was then notified that its usual OCC review was being “expanded.” More OCC staff was assigned to pore through HSBC’s books, and, among other things, they found a backlog of 17,000 alerts of suspicious activity that had not been processed. They also noted that the bank had a similar pileup of subpoenas in money-laundering cases.
Finally it seemed the government was on the verge of becoming genuinely pissed off.
In March 2010, after seeing countless ultimatums ignored, they issued one more, giving HSBC three months to clear that ***damned 17,000-alert backlog or else there would be serious consequences. HSBC met that deadline, but months later the OCC again found the bank’s money-laundering controls seriously wanting, forcing the government to take, well . . . drastic action, right?
Sort of! In October 2010, the OCC took a deep breath, strapped on its big-boy pants and . . . issued a second cease-and-desist order!
In other words, it was “Don’t Do It Again” – again.
The punishment for all of that dastardly defiance was to bring the regulatory process right back to the same kind of double-secret-probation order they’d tried in 2003.
Not to say that HSBC didn’t make changes after the second Don’t Do It Again order. It did – it hired some people.
In the summer of 2010, 25-year-old Everett Stern was just out of business school, fighting a mild case of wanderlust and looking for a job but also for adventure. His dream was to be a CIA agent, battling bad guys and snatching up Middle Eastern terrorists. He applied to the agency’s clandestine service, had an interview even, but just before graduation, the bespectacled, youthfully exuberant Stern was turned down.
He was crushed, but then he found an online job posting that piqued his interest. HSBC, a major international bank, was looking for people to help with its anti-money-laundering program. “I thought this was exactly what I wanted to do,” he says. “It sounded so exciting.”
Stern went up to HSBC’s offices in New Castle, Delaware, for an interview, and that October, just days after the OCC issued the second Don’t Do It Again letter, he started work as part of HSBC’s “expanded” antimoney-laundering program.
From the outset, Stern knew there was something weird about his job. “I had to go to the library to take out books on money-laundering,” Stern says now, laughing. “That’s how bad it was.” There were no training courses or seminars on money-laundering – what it was, how to detect it. His work mainly consisted of looking up the names of unsavory characters on the Internet and then running them through the bank’s internal systems to see if they popped up on any account names anywhere.
Even weirder, nobody seemed to care if anybody was doing any actual work. The Delaware office was mostly empty for a long while, just a giant unpainted room with a few hastily arranged cubicles and only a dozen or so people in it, and nobody really watching any of the workers. Stern and a fellow co-worker would routinely finish all their work by 10:30 in the morning, then spend a few hours throwing rocks into a quarry located behind the bank offices. Then they would go back to their cubicles and hang out until 3 p.m. or so, or until it was at least plausible that they’d put in a real workday. “If we asked for any more work,” Stern says, “they got angry.”
Overthrown illuminati goon Mohamed Morsi of Egypt’s Obama Muslim Brotherhood & Clinton. Morsi is now in prison in Egypt for murder and inciting violence.
Stern earned a starting salary of $54,900.
Soon enough, though, out of boredom and also maybe a little bit of patriotism, Stern started to sift through some of the backlogged alerts and tried to make sense of them.
Almost immediately, he found a series of deeply concerning transactions. There was an exchange company wiring large sums of money to untraceable destinations in the Middle East.
A Saudi fruit company was sending millions, Stern found with a simple Internet search, to a high-ranking figure in the Yemeni wing of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Stern even learned that HSBC was allowing millions of dollars to be moved from the Karaiba chain of supermarkets in Africa to a firm called Tajco, run by the Tajideen brothers, who had been singled out by the Treasury Department as major financiers of Hezbollah.
Every time Stern brought one of these discoveries to his bosses, they rolled their eyes at him, if not worse.
When he alerted his boss that a shipping company with ties to Iran was doing a lot of business with the bank, he blew up. “You called me over for this?” the boss snapped.
Soon after, the empty office started to fill up. What HSBC did in the way of hiring new staff was actually pretty clever. It liquidated its credit-card-collections unit and moved the bulk of the employees over to the anti-money-laundering department. Again, without really training anyone at all, it put hundreds of loud, gum-chewing, mostly uneducated, occasionally rowdy call-center workers on a new gig, turning them into money-laundering investigators.
Stern says his co-workers not only sucked at their jobs, they didn’t even know what their jobs were.
“You could walk into that building today,” he says, “and ask anyone there what moneylaundering is – and I guarantee you, no one will know.”
When something fishy pops up in connection with a bank account, the bank generates an alert. An alert can be birthed by almost anything, from someone wiring $9,999 (to keep under the $10K reporting level) to someone wiring large sums in round numbers to someone else opening an account with a phony-sounding name or address.
When an alert gets generated, the bank is supposed to promptly investigate the matter. If the bank doesn’t clear the alert, it creates a “Suspicious Activity Report,” which is handed over to the Treasury Department to be investigated.
Stern then found himself in the middle of a perverse sort-of anticompliance mechanism.
HSBC had “complied” with the government’s Don’t Do It Again, Again order by hiring hundreds of bodies whom it turned into an army for whitewashing suspicious transactions. Remember, the complaint against HSBC was not so much that it had specifically allowed terrorist or drug money through, but that it had allowed suspicious accounts to pile up without being checked.
The boss at Stern’s Delaware office gave his new team goals:
Everyone was to try to clear 72 alerts a week.
For those of you keeping score at home, that’s nearly two alerts investigated and cleared every hour.
According to Stern, almost any kind of information was good enough to clear an alert.
“Basically, if a company had a website, you could clear them,” he says.
Soon enough, HSBC’s compliance executives were circulating cheery e-mails. “Great job by some Delaware professionals in the early part of the week,” wrote Stern’s boss on June 30th, 2011. The e-mail was subject-lined, “The 60-plus crowd,” signifying accolades to employees who had cleared more than 60 suspicious transactions that week.
After trying in vain to convince his bosses to at least let him do his job and look for money-laundering, Stern decided to turn whistle-blower, telling the FBI and other agencies what was going on at the bank. He left work at HSBC in 2011, fully expecting that the government would drop the hammer on his former employers.
By that time, numerous agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, had crawled all the way up HSBC’s backside, among other things examining it as part of a major international narcotics investigation.
In one four-year period between 2006 and 2009, an astonishing $200 trillion in wire transfers (including from high-risk countries like Mexico) went through without any monitoring at all.
The bank also failed to do due diligence on the purchase of an incredible $9 billion in physical U.S. dollars from Mexico and played a key role in the so-called Black Market Peso Exchange, which allowed drug cartels in both Mexico and Colombia to convert U.S. dollars from drug sales into pesos to be used back home.
Drug agents discovered that dealers in Mexico were building special cash boxes to fit the precise dimensions of HSBC teller windows.
Former bailout inspector and federal prosecutor Neil Barofsky, who has helped secure numerous foreign money-laundering indictments, points out that the people HSBC was doing business with, like Colombia’s Norte del Valle and Mexico’s Sinaloa cartels, were “the worst trafficking organizations imaginable” – groups that don’t just commit murder on a mass scale but are known for beheadings, torture videos (“the new thing now,” he says) and other atrocities, none of which happens without money launderers.
It’s for this reason, Barofsky says, that drug prosecutors are not shy about dropping heavy prison sentences on launderers. “Frankly, our view of money-laundering was that it was on par with, and as significant as, the traffickers themselves,” he says.
Barofsky was involved in the first extradition of a Colombian national (Pablo Trujillo, a member of the same cartel that HSBC moved money for) on moneylaundering charges.
“That guy got 10 years,” says Barofsky. “HSBC was doing the same thing, only on a much larger scale than my schmuck was doing.”
Clearly, HSBC had violated the 2010 Don’t Do It Again, Again order. Everett Stern saw it with his own eyes; so did the OCC and the U.S. Senate, whose Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations decided to target the company for a yearlong investigation into global money-laundering.
The bank itself, in response to the Senate investigation, acknowledged that it had “sometimes failed to meet the standards that regulators and customers expect.” It would later go on to say that it was even “profoundly sorry.”
Rothschild Czar John Boehner – Profoundly Sorry. But America Pays Fot it Just The Same. He’s A Fraud.
A few days after Thanksgiving 2012, Stern heard that the Justice Department was about to announce a settlement. Since he’d left HSBC the year before, he’d had a rough time. Going public with his allegations had left him emotionally and financially devastated. He’d been unable to find a job, and at one point even applied for welfare. But now that the feds were finally about to drop the hammer on HSBC, he figured he’d have the satisfaction of knowing that his sacrifice had been worthwhile.
So he went to New York and sat in a hotel room, waiting for reporters to call for his comments. When he heard the news that the “punishment” Breuer had announced was a deferred prosecution agreement – a Don’t Do It Again, Again, Again agreement, if you will – he was flabbergasted.
“I thought, ‘All that, for nothing?’ ” he says. “I couldn’t believe it.”
The writer Ambrose Bierce once said there’s only one thing in the world worse than a clarinet: two clarinets. In the same vein, there’s only one thing worse than a totally corrupt bank: many corrupt banks.
Rothschild Stooge Wilson. Wilson Profoundly Sorry For Signing The Rothschild Federal Reserve To Print Our Money And Tax Us For It. In office from 1913 to 1921. Rothschild Federal Reserve started 1913.
If the HSBC deal showed how much dastardly crap the state could tolerate from one bank, Breuer was back a week later to show that the government would go just as easy on banks that team up with other banks to perpetrate even bigger scandals. On December 19th, 2012, he announced that the Justice Department was essentially letting Swiss banking giant UBS off the hook for its part in what is likely the biggest financial scam of all time.
Obama Attorney General Eric Holder (R) and Obama Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer of the Criminal Division (L) are sworn in during a hearing before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission January 14, 2010 on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. The commission continued its hearing to examine the root causes of the recent financial crisis and how now to prevent it in the future.
The so-called LIBOR scandal, which is at the heart of the UBS settlement, makes Enron look like a parking violation.
Many of the world’s biggest banks, including Switzerland’s UBS, Britain’s Barclays and the Royal Bank of Scotland, got together and secretly conspired to manipulate the London Interbank Offered Rate, or LIBOR, which measures the rate at which banks lend to each other.
Many, if not most, interest rates are pegged to LIBOR.
The prices of hundreds of trillions of dollars of financial products are tied to LIBOR, everything from commercial loans to credit cards to mortgages to municipal bonds to swaps and currencies.
If you can imagine executives at Ford, GM, Mitsubishi, BMW and Mercedes getting together every morning to fix the prices of aluminum and stainless steel, you have a rough idea of what the LIBOR scandal is like, except that in the car-company analogy, you’d be dealing with absurdly smaller numbers. These are the world’s biggest banks getting together every morning to essentially fix the price of money. Low LIBOR rates are an indicator that banks are strong and healthy. These banks were faking the results of their daily physicals. In banking terms, they were juicing.
Two different types of manipulation took place. In 2008, during the heat of the global crash, banks artificially submitted low rates in order to present an image of financial soundness to the markets. But at other times over the course of years, individual traders schemed to move rates up or down in order to profit on individual trades.
There is nobody anywhere growing weed strong enough to help the human mind grasp the enormity of this crime. It’s a conspiracy so massive that the lawyers who are suing the banks are having an extremely difficult time figuring out how to calculate the damage.
Here’s how it works:
Every morning, 16 of the world’s largest banks submit numbers to a London based panel indicating what interest rates they’re charging other banks to borrow money and what they themselves are charged.
The LIBOR panel then takes those 16 different interest rates, tosses out the four highest and the four lowest, and averages out the remaining eight to create that day’s LIBOR rates – the basis for interest rates almost everywhere in the world.
The fact that the LIBOR panel tosses out the four highest and lowest numbers every day is an important detail, because it means that it is difficult to artificially influence the final rate unless multiple banks are conspiring with each other.
One bank lying its ass off and reporting that banks are lending money to each other basically for free doesn’t move the needle much.
To really be sure you’re creating an artificially low or high interest rate, you need a bunch of banks on board – and it turns out that they were.
For perhaps as far back as 20 years, banks have been submitting phony numbers, often in concert with other banks.
They did it for a variety of reasons, but the big one, typically, is that a bank trader is holding some investment tied to LIBOR – bundles of currencies, municipal bonds, mortgages, whatever – that would earn more money if the interest rate was lower.
So what would happen is, some schmuck trader at Bank X would call the LIBOR submitter and offer him cash, booze, a blow job or just a pat on the back to get him to submit a fake number that day.
United Kingdom’s Barclay ~ At The Center Of NWO Banker’s Scandal.
The scandal first blew up last year when the British megabank Barclays admitted to its part in the fixing of LIBOR rates.
British regulators released a cache of disgusting e-mails showing traders from many different banks cheerfully monkeying around with your credit-card bills, your mortgage rates, your tax bill, your IRA account, etc., so that they could make out better on some sordid trade they had on that day.
In one case, a trader from an unnamed bank sent an e-mail to a Barclays trader thanking him for helping to fix interest rates and promising a kickass bottle of bubbly for his efforts:
“Dude. I owe you big time! Come over one day after work, and I’m opening a bottle of Bollinger.”
UBS was the next bank to confess, and its settlement – $1.5 billion in fines – was much the same, only the e-mails released were, if anything, more disgusting and damning.
The British Financial Services Authority – equivalent to our SEC – discovered thousands of requests to fudge rates over a period of years involving dozens of different individuals and multiple banks.
In many cases, the misdeeds were committed more or less openly, in writing, with traders and brokers baldly offering bribes in texts and e-mails with an obvious unconcern for punishment that later, sadly, proved justified.
“I will fucking do one humongous deal with you,” begged one UBS trader who wanted a broker to fix the rate. “I’ll pay, you know, $50,000, $100,000.”
British regulators aren’t hiding the size of the scandal. The UBS settlement demonstrated, without a doubt, that the LIBOR scandal involved more than just one or two banks, and probably involved hundreds of people at many of the world’s largest and most prestigious financial institutions – in other words, a truly epic case of anti-competitive collusion that called into question whether the world’s biggest banks are innovating a new, not-entirely capitalist form of high finance.
“We have said there are five further institutions under investigation,” says Christopher Hamilton of the FSA. “And there is a large number of individuals as well.”
(At press time, another bank, the Royal Bank of Scotland, also settled for LIBOR-related offenses.)
This dovetailed with what Bob Diamond, the former head of Barclays, told the British Parliament the day after he stepped down last year.
“There is an industrywide problem coming out now,” he said. Michael Hausfeld, a famed class-action lawyer who is suing the banks over LIBOR on behalf of cities like Baltimore whose investments lost money when interest rates were lowered, says the public still hasn’t grasped the importance of comments like Diamond’s. “Diamond essentially said, ‘This is an industrywide problem,'” Hausfeld says. “But nobody has defined what this is yet.”
Hausfeld’s point – that Diamond’s “industry wide problem” might be more than just a few guys messing with rates; it could be a systemic effort to pervert capitalism itself – underscores the extreme miscalculation of both recent no-prosecution deals.
At HSBC, the bank did more than avert its eyes to a few shady transactions.
It repeatedly defied government orders as it made a conscious, years-long effort to completely stop discriminating between illegitimate and legitimate money.
And when it somehow talked the U.S. government into crafting a settlement over these offenses with the lunatic aim of preserving the bank’s license, it succeeded, finally, in making crime mainstream.
Rothschild Banking Mafia Developed Keynesian Economic To Swindle!
UBS, meanwhile, was a similarly elemental case, in which the offenses didn’t just violate the letter of the law – they threatened the integrity of the competitive system.
If you’re going to let hundreds of boozed-up bankers spend every morning sending goofball e-mails to each other, giving each other superhero nicknames while they rigged the cost of money (spelling-challenged UBS traders dubbed themselves, among other things, “captain caos,” the “three muscateers” and “Superman”), you might as well give up on capitalism entirely and just declare the 16 biggest banks in the world the International Bureau of Prices.
AIG Officials Sporting Che Guevara And Celebrating Their Multi-Million Dollar Bonus Checks – Bailouts Are Nice Eh?
Thus, in the space of just a few weeks, regulators in Britain and America teamed up to declare near-total surrender to both crime and monopoly. This was more than a couple of cases of letting rich guys walk. These were major policy decisions that will reverberate for the next generation.
Even worse than the actual settlements was the explanation Breuer offered for them.
“In the world today of large institutions, where much of the financial world is based on confidence,” he said, “a right resolution is to ensure that counter-parties don’t flee an institution, that jobs are not lost, that there’s not some world economic event that’s disproportionate to the resolution we want.”
In other words, Breuer is saying the banks have us by the balls, that the social cost of putting their executives in jail might end up being larger than the cost of letting them get away with, well, anything.
This is bullshit, and exactly the opposite of the truth, but it’s what our current government believes.
From Jon Benet to O.J. to Robert Blake, Americans have long understood that the rich get good lawyers and get off, while the poor suck eggs and do time.
But this is something different.
This is the government admitting to being afraid to prosecute the very powerful – something it never did even in the heydays of Al Capone or Pablo Escobar, something it didn’t do even with Richard Nixon.
And when you admit that some people are too important to prosecute, it’s just a few short steps to the obvious corollary – that everybody else is unimportant enough to jail.
An arrestable class and an unarrestable class. We always suspected it, now it’s admitted. So what do we do?
How did England deal with a corrupt puritan government/parliament?
When King Charles I was executed by the Oliver Cromwell mob, his son King Charles II made it his mission to search out retribution, producing the biggest manhunt Britain had ever seen, one that would span Europe and America and would last for thirty years.
Men who had once been among the most powerful figures in England ended up on the scaffold, on the run, or in fear of the assassin’s bullet. History has painted the regicides and their supporters as fanatical Puritans, among them were John Milton and Oliver Cromwell.
After Cromwell Beheaded King Charles I, he became the ‘dictator’ of England.
This corrupt Puritan Parliament also murdered Guy Fawkes in 1606, they were ultimately executed by the returning King Charles II in 1660, for regicide (the killing of a King) & usurping the laws of England The Magna Carta which is similar to our U.S. Constitution.
Cromwell’s severed head was displayed on a pole outside Westminster Hall From 1661 until 1685.
A drawing of Oliver Cromwell’s head on a spike from the late 18th century
Our Forefathers Knew What To Do
Beginning With The Upswells From William Wallace & Guy Fawkes, They Started The United States Of America.
“There comes a point when a man must refuse to answer to his leader if he is also to answer to his own conscience.” ~ Hartley Shawcross (1902-2003), prosecutor at Nuremberg War Crimes tribunal
OCTOBER 18, 2013 
