While this may seem unrelated to the theme of most Corruption Radio broadcasts remember that when everyone in the media agrees on something they are usually wrong. Everyone thinks, or seems to know, that OJ is guilty. But if you actually ask people why they think he is guilty you get some very strange responses. Usually they know almost nothing about the case and respond unintelligently with “well, if he didn’t do it who did?” or they incorrectly assert “he beat her and finally killed her”. The latter assertion has zero basis in fact but with every talking head on the network news stations drumming in unison facts don’t seem to matter.

The following video does much to exonerate OJ presenting the very real possibility that Glen Rogers committed the double homicide attributed by most to OJ, but we will be getting even deeper into on our November 21st broadcast:

Okay, so there are other possibilities which we will get into but first to add a few things the video leaves out. First of all the Glen Rogers they are talking about not only painted the home of Nicole Brown Simpson, but the prosecution is said to have had a photo of Glen Rogers and Nicole Brown Simpson at a bar together the night before and some say they had dated briefly. And who is this Glen Rogers? Glen Rogers has confessed to killing multiple woman with knives and was an associate of Nicole Brown Simpson at the very least. He is sometimes known as the “Cross Country Killer”.

In addition to that possibility, and often overlooked fact is that Ron Goldman was not the only person working at his restaurant that was murdered that year. The motive of that murder is up for questioning, but apparently several of the people working at the Mezzaluna were involved in shady dealings with illicit drugs.

The Coroner Keeps Silent

Another strong piece of evidence is a sort of evidence by omission:

Why did they take the unusual step of not having the coroner who performed the autopsy testify? Most likely this is because he would have said two important things. First, he would have said there were two murderers which would have destroyed the scenario that OJ committed these crimes, at least on his own. Second he would have testified that there was clear evidence that Ron Goldman made vigorous attempts to defend himself that would likely leave the killer with observable bruises (of which OJ had none).

Just A Phone Call?

There is a possibility that Nicole Brown Simpson was alive when OJ was already on a plane to Chicago. See, the family originally told the coroners investigator that they knew of Nicole Brown Simpson, their daughter, being alive as late as 11 PM (while OJ was on a plane) when they were on the phone with her. The following video shows that the family has since REFUSED to release their phone records showing what time the phone conversation with their daughter took place:

You can now hear the related broadcast at the following link (please listen and leave comments):

http://kaufman.podbean.com/2009/11/29/corruption-radio-november-28th-2009/

By

Jordan Robert K.

Jordan is host of the Las Vegas based radio program Corruption Radio, on KDWN 720 AM and is editor and main contributor of CorruptionRadio.com

Send Jordan your comments to Jordan@CorruptionRadio.com (VM: 702-560-1948).

Follow on Twitter: CorruptionShow

Pia Varma - Brilliant Commentator on Current Events

We will also discuss the stranglehold TV, sports, and other forms of entertainment have on peoples lives and patterns of thinking.

Often referred to affectionately as The Liberty Belle by admirers, she has also garnered harsh criticism from the likes of Ms. Garofalo who unduely called her a “racist redneck”.

Find out much more about Pia and her work at:

http://www.piavarma.com

The following firms are ranked in order of their total contributions for 2008.  But, the chart below illustrates their total contributions over the last 20 years.  Every firm on this list is defined as “on the fence”, meaning they have leaned neither Republican, nor Democrat and have largely donated to both parties.  This information was compiled fromhttp://www.opensecrets.org/.

(The asterisk [*] denotes companies who have recently made equal contributions, despite their 20 year history of a party preference.  Contact the Federal Election Committee or opensecret.org for more information.)

[...]

Wanna start to see how?

READ ENTIRE ARTICLE

In a study sure to ruffle the feathers of the Global Warming cabal, Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT has published a paper which proves that IPCC models are overstating by 6 times, the relevance of CO₂ in Earth’s Atmosphere. Dr. Lindzen has found that heat is radiated out in to space at a far higher rate than any modeling system to date can account for.

READ ENTIRE STORY

Top Left Graph is Reality - The Rest Are Fantasy

They Are Taking Their Chances

After months of drum-beating, that the so-called late-2009 season H1N1 “swine flu” could develop into a more severe pandemic with greater loss of life as the winter flu season approached, Americans have not bought into government-generated flu hysteria.

Americans are hearing just 22.4 million doses of flu vaccine are available, which is posed as a vast shortage.  But news sources indicate only about 11 million Americans have been vaccinated to date, an underwhelming public response to the government’s massive crusade to vaccinate up to 70–80% of the population (210–240 million Americans).  That goal has been trimmed to 159 million, about half the population, and production delays mean millions of Americans would have to wait till the flu season is almost over to undergo inoculation next spring.

Vaccine Alternative: Silver

Why get vaccinated at all?

What prompted the national emergency?

Did such strong opposition to flu vaccination prompt the President to announce a contrived national emergency, which really had nothing to do with public health or saving lives, but rather whether hospitals were going to be able to collect Medicare and Medicaid payments for flu-related illness.

READ ENTIRE ARTICLE

American Eugenicist - Charles Davenport

Hitler was inspired mainly by American and British Eugenicists, many of which were based in my home town of Cold Spring Harbor, New York at the Eugenics Records Office and funded by the Harriman and Carnegie families and other like-minded elites. The German counterpart to the Eugenics Records Office was funded by the Rockefeller family and became the intellectual nucleus for the Nazi movement.

In reaction to Nazi abuses, eugenics became almost universally reviled in many of the nations where it had once been popular (however, some eugenics programs, including sterilization, continued quietly for decades). Many pre-war eugenicists engaged in what they later labeled “crypto-eugenics”, purposefully taking their eugenic beliefs “underground” and becoming respected anthropologists, biologists and geneticists in the postwar world (including Robert Yerkes in the U.S. and Otmar von Verschuer in Germany).

For example, after WWII a prominent eugenicist, namely Julian Huxley, became the Director-General of UNESCO and a founder of the World Wildlife Fund but he also remained a Eugenics Society president and a strong supporter of eugenics. In fact notice the following quote from him on what the purpose of UNESCO would be:

• Even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable. –Julian Huxley

Whenever discussing Julian Huxley it is important to remember that he was the brother of Aldous Huxley who was the writer of Brave New World. While published as a science fiction novel, Aldous on many occasions clarified that he wrote the book based on what he had found was the basic plan of Eugenicists for the world.

Now when you hear the term “Birth Control” you probably think of “the pill”. But in actuality the term Birth Control was synonymous with Eugenics, so the term “birth control pill” was simply describing the purpose of such a pill. But in the broader sense of the term “Birth Control” notice the following quote:

• “Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race“. –Margaret Sanger, 1922

American Eugencist - Margaret Sanger

Margaret Sanger was the founder of the American Birth Control League, which after WWII changed its name to Planned Parenthood to distance themselves from the Nazi Eugenics-related atrocities.

Most of the eugenicists believed in “racial hygiene” and that Nordic people had the purest genes, while other races were “degradations”. Now the above quote from Sanger was pretty mild but by 1939 her statements got bolder. Notice the following quote detailing the methods to be used to get America’s black population to accept birth control and abortion:

• “We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” –Margaret Sanger’s December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble

So what has been the effect on the black community by the wide-scale acceptance of the Planned Parenthood agenda? Well the below table stops at 1994, but at that time the percentage of abortions done on black woman had risen to 34.7 percent. By some indications this has risen to over 37% by the year 2000, the last year for which reliable statistics are currently available.

Source: Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, January 3, 1997, Vol. 45 / Nos. 51 & 52. Published by Centers for Disease Control, Atlanta.

With over 1.3 million abortions performed annually (with over 480,000 of them performed on African-American mothers) in the United States how has this changed the demographic of the nation? With African-Americans making up just 12% of the population and 37% of the abortions we can see that if no abortions had taken place in this time the population and prominence of the African-American community would have been much greater. Today black representation in congress is roughly commensurate with population so we could extrapolate that the make-up of congress would also have been drastically affected.

What would it have been without Eugenics?

When you think of the quote earlier from Julian Huxley “thinking the unthinkable” it makes you wonder what their plans are for the future. I mean if eliminating 12 – 20 million African-Americans (plus their offspring) from the general population via abortion was Act I, what is Act II? Now that I think about it I wouldn’t mind if they skipped the third act dénouement altogether.

By

Jordan Kaufman

Jordan is host of the Las Vegas based radio program Corruption Radio, on KDWN 720 AM and is editor and main contributor of CorruptionRadio.com

Send Jordan your comments to Jordan@CorruptionRadio.com (VM: 702-560-1948).

Follow on Twitter: CorruptionShow

Step Towards World Currency Disguised As Arab Plot

Reuters Article By Daliah Merzaban – Analysis:

DUBAI (Reuters) – Gulf Arab oil producers, torn between rising inflation and exchange rates fixed to a sliding dollar, could consider switching together to a currency basket to buy time for a troubled monetary union project.

A region-wide shift could catch investors unawares after months of market speculation that the United Arab Emirates or Qatar would break ranks with their neighbors and unshackle their currencies from the dollar as Kuwait did this year.

READ ENTIRE ARTICLE

Is There a Common Thread?

However, I am quite interested on a more “macro” level and looking at not just the assassination of JFK, but at all of the Presidential assassinations to see if there is a common thread. To that end some basic details need to be reviewed.

Lincoln

First there have been four successful Presidential assassinations, at least three of which were ardent opponents to the central banking monopoly of power. Starting with Abraham Lincoln, the first successful Presidential assassination, we see that the bankers and the President were diametrically opposed. Lincoln did serve the interest of the bankers in bringing the country into Civil War (both sides of which the banks financed). While engaging in the war Lincoln made two very significant changes in monetary policy, both were done to raise money for the civil war.

The first measure was the signing of the National Banking Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Banking_Act). This act tied the issuing of Bank Notes to government debt. In other words, it allowed National banks (and all but forbade smaller State chartered banks) to issue bank notes, or paper promises to provide real money, which circulated as currency. The reason this war time measure was taken was because the National bank reserves now had to be in the form of government bonds (debt). This is one of the main factors that funded the Civil War. The more money the National Banks created and used to buy government bonds, the more the government was going into debt to the bankers.

National Bank Notes - Created by Banks and Backed By Government Debt

The second measure, which was much less popular with the bankers, was the issuance of “greenbacks” from the Treasury. These greenbacks, or United States Notes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Note), were actually issued by the government whereas today there are “Federal Reserve Notes” which are issued by the Federal Reserve, a corporation whose stock is owned by powerful multi-national banks. Greenbacks were the first non-debt based national currency since the Revolutionary War. This meant that when the government authorized and printed these greenbacks they could spend them into the economy (largely for the war effort) and there was no debt to pay back left in their wake. In most other cases the government needs to “borrow” new money that is created by bankers and pay the bankers back plus interest.

Does Your Money Say "United States Note"?

So Lincoln’s greenbacks were in direct competition with the National Bank notes. The more the government printed and used the greenbacks (US Notes) the less they were dependent on selling debt to the bankers in exchange for money (National Bank Notes) they created. Since the government’s war-time need for money was so huge the bankers didn’t mind too much sharing the market with the greenbacks. After the civil war ended, when the governments demand for cash was drastically reduced, the bankers wanted to kill the issuance of greenbacks so that any deficit spending of the government would mean the government, or by extension the general public, would become more and more indebted to the bankers.

While they did successfully stall any further issuance of greenbacks, Lincoln had big plans for the post-Civil War Reconstruction period. Notice the following quote from Lincoln taken from Senate document 23, page 91 from 1865:

• The Government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency… needed to satisfy the spending power of the Government and the buying power of consumers. By the adoption of these principles, the taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest. Money will cease to be master and become the servant of humanity.”

Not exactly music to the ears of the bankers who were planning to have the power to issue all the currency in the form of national bank notes that were built on government debt. They would one day have their wish as is the case today when none of the money in your wallet says “United States Note” instead it is all issued by the authority of the “Federal Reserve” which is a privately owned bank under very limited government regulation. However, this dream may never had been able to be realized if Lincoln had been able to expand the US Notes to the point where they would have satisfied the nations need for currency and the public would have enjoyed the benefits of having money provided without the government going into debt in the process (as is the case today).

The Monetary War

So, what did the bankers do about it? Well, I must pause a moment just to say that the implication that is about to follow is somewhat speculative. In life there is always a difference between what you believe and what you can prove definitively, I just like to make it clear when I am presenting a belief. However, in the context of the other assassinations you will see that this is not such an unreasonable belief. I am of course referring to the fact that 5 days after General Lee surrendered, officially ending the war and opening the way for Lincoln to phase out National Bank Notes in favor of United States Notes, he was shot dead.

Again, all of the above is 100% fact, the only speculative portion being the implication that the bankers arranged the assassination. Look, of course Booth was the one who shot him and he was a Confederate that wanted to be immortalized in history. The stories we are taught in school about these events are “true” but are they the whole truth? Was he helped along, given access and other help to complete the difficult act of assassinating a world leader? In Latin there is an expression that is used to cut right to the heart of a matter: Cui Bono, which means “to whose benefit?”. I leave you with the facts above showing how the ones who had the most to gain from Lincolns death were the central (or national) bankers that wanted to keep control of the power to issue money.

In this context, notice what a contemporary had to say about Lincoln’s assassination, namely the statesman of Germany, Otto Von Bismark:

• “The death of Lincoln was a disaster for Christendom. There was no man in the United States great enough to wear his boots… I fear that foreign bankers with their craftiness and tortuous tricks will entirely control the exuberant riches of America, and use it systematically to corrupt modern civilization. They will not hesitate to plunge the whole of Christendom into wars and chaos in order that the earth should become their inheritance”.

Unfortunately, this would not be the only President he would live to see assassinated. It is interesting how he puts the onus on foreign bankers that had been seeking to gain control of the issuance of money in the U.S. since its independence from Great Britian. What’s interesting is that often times xenophobia is blamed for any mention of “international bankers” but Bismark also being foreign to the United States was not speaking out of xenophobia but was just plainly explaining the state of affairs that was understood then but which has been obscured in modern history books and in the media.

Garfield

James A. Garfield was not a friend of the central bankers. Unfortunately for the bankers they didn’t know this until after he was inaugurated. Notice the speech he gave shortly after his rise to the office of President:

• “Whoever controls the volume of money in our country is absolute master of all industry and commerce… when you realize that the entire system is very easily controlled, one way or another, by a few powerful men at the top, you will not have to be told how periods of inflation and depression originate”.

Quote is from just weeks before his assassination!

To give some context to the above statement, Garfield became in favor of forcing banks to provide the gold they claimed to have when customers came in to redeem their Bank Notes or withdraw their demand deposits. In the National Banking Act we discussed there were several loop holes where banks could avoid having to fork up the real money the certificates claimed to represent.

For banks this meant that their ability to, not just loan out their money but to create new money that had no gold to back it would be greatly reduced. In a sense, depositors would have a means of keeping a bank “honest” if Garfield had his way.

Now before his election the bankers may have thought he would be useful since he did oppose silver which the banks hated because again it competed with their National Bank notes. However, the reason Garfield opposed silver was because it had been overvalued as compared to gold but it became clear that he would be open to silver money if the exchange of Gold to Silver would be more equitable.

Anyway, to get back to the main point here, we can plainly see that President Garfield was not happy with the fact that a few powerful bankers had the power to control the volume of money in circulation, which he rightly equated with them being the unknown masters of society.

A few weeks after he is recorded as making that daring attack on the banking elite, he was shot by his eventual assassin. I say eventual because he did not die on the spot. It was a slow death that was hastened by his doctors that ruptured his liver while apparently attempting to remove a bullet. Thomas Edison even tried to help with this difficult bullet inventing a metal detector to find it, but to no avail.

What was the result? Ten years later the letter below was issued by the American Bankers Association in 1881. While reading the quote keep in mind that they are talking about what they will do three full years in advance:

• “On September 1st, 1894, we will not renew our loans under any consideration. On September 1st we will demand our money. We will foreclose and become mortgagees in possession. We can take two-thirds of the farms west of the Mississippi, and thousands of them east of the Mississippi as well, at our own price… Then the farmers will become tenants as in England.”

So the letter, while sounding sinister also sounds like they will just be enforcing their legal options – which is true. However, if Garfield had lived he would have drastically limited the power of the banks, or at least attempted to by limiting their ability for the banks to create money out of thin air. With the laws remaining in their favor it made the above letter more than idle words.

It may be wise to reflect on these statements made by Lincoln and Garfield and ask yourself this question: when was the last time you heard a President ardently denounce the banking system (not just bonuses to banking CEO’s which ironically could be considered one of the more legitimate aspects of banking by comparison)? Well, while you are thinking of the answer we will just tell you to make it easier: John F. Kennedy.

John F. Kennedy

Now, historically speaking, the Kennedy family was involved in many shady business dealings that are well documented and don’t need to be harped on here. My point in bringing it up is not to brand the Kennedy family as corrupt boot-legging Nazi-collaborators (although there is evidence to that effect) but to point out that the banking establishment had reason to believe that JFK would have been easy to manipulate. Also, he expressed in his campaign support for various spending programs that had the potential to put the government in greater debt to the banks by running deficits.

Banker Friend or Foe?

However, shortly after JFK became President they were abruptly woken up by the fact that JFK was not afraid to discuss some touchy topics. Indulge me a bit in the following simplified timeline:

January 20th, 1961 – JFK enters office as the President of the United States. Three months later he gives what is often referred to as the “Secret Societies” speech to the American Newspaper Publishers Association. In this speech he says that America had been “inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and secret proceedings.” He then went on to describe what can only be a description of the international banking elite when he said “we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence–on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations. Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed.”

Some may say he was simply referring to the soviet empire, but yet if so there would be no reason to leave out any reference to the Russians. Also the connection to secret societies would have no relevance in the context of the Cold War. Not too say that they didn’t play a part in this “monolithic conspiracy” of which he was referring. We could speculate all day about the finer details but what is of much greater use is to examine the public record.

There were a few significant steps that Kennedy was taking that would have been hubris in the banking community. First, on October 11, 1963, Kennedy signed NSAM 263, initiating a withdrawal of 1,000 troops (roughly 5 – 10%) from the American presence in Vietnam. Other documents, including planning documents from the spring of 1963, show that this was the first step in a planned complete withdrawal. There is always some question with regard to government documents because often times there are several contradictory plans that are being championed by different interests in an administration.

The Role of Bankers Is Downplayed

What is known for a certainty is that the bankers, who had financed both sides of every war since the days of Napoleon, made major profits financing the war. In recent history, the banks are set up in multiple ways to profit from war. The most direct way is by ownership in most of the defense companies. Every company, individual and even government are in debt to the banks paying vast sums of interest to them annually which they shrewdly use to increase their ownership of not only defense companies but the Fortune 500 which they own directly and indirectly via holdings of the Federal Reserve. Another way the bankers, who own and control the Federal Reserve Corporation, make out in war time is by the debt built up by the Government which is justified as needed to win the war. Remember when the Government goes into deficit territory it makes up the budget difference by going to the federal reserve and giving them an IOU (or treasury bond) in exchange for newly created money.

What is also a matter of public record is what happened in Vietnam after JFK was assassinated; President Johnson drastically escalated the logistics police action into an all out war. I bring up Vietnam first because in actuality there was something much more threatening JFK had done to the banking elite. Wars come and go, but one thing the bankers don’t ever want to lose is their authority to create money.

Now JFK wasn’t about to take that power away from banks, but he did take an enormously significant step in that direction with the signing of Executive Order 11110. There is a scant description of the order on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_11110) but it does not express the significance of this order.

Executive Order 11110 ordered the re-circulation of more silver certificates, among other provisions. This may sound in itself insignificant, but remember that these silver certificates were “United States Notes” that were issued by the Treasury and represented real silver. This form of money, which was essentially Lincoln’s greenbacks, could be issued by the government and spent without creating debt. Just like the Vietnam troop withdrawal this was just a first step towards fulfilling Lincoln’s dream that “The Government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency…” as we discussed earlier. This would have put the power to issue money back in the hands of the government and taken it away (at least partially) from private bankers. That should strike the average person as strange that bankers can, in any way, create or issue money. This strange privileged has been compared to putting the police department under the control of the Mafia.

It took just five months after the signing of Executive Order 11110, and just one month after the signing of the first troop withdrawal from Viet Nam, for John F. Kennedy to be assassinated. Every President since has steadily increased the power of the privately owned Federal Reserve and none has said so much as a word about the reintroduction of the “greenbacks”, the United States Notes. The 150 year struggle for the central bankers not to take over has been nearly erased from the history books and no one in the media ever questions why we all walk around with money that proudly declares it was issued by a privately owned bank with the words “Federal Reserve Note”.

AJ on a Federal Reserve Note?

By

Jordan Kaufman

Jordan is host of the Las Vegas based radio program Corruption Radio, on KDWN 720 AM and is editor and main contributor of CorruptionRadio.com

Send Jordan your comments to Jordan@CorruptionRadio.com (VM: 702-560-1948). Follow on Twitter: CorruptionShow

Two areas that show this steady shift of power are Campaign Finance Reform and the 17th Amendment. Starting with the 17th Amendment, most people have never even heard of it. What this amendment did was to fundamentally change the way Senators are elected. Before the amendment the state legislators would be the ones to vote for the Senator, thus proving the United States to be a Republic. The fundamental difference between a Republic and a Democracy is that in a republic elected representatives make decisions whereas in a Democracy direct voting, or mob rule, wins the day. It is interesting to note that some of the founding fathers of the United States referred to a Democracy as “two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner”.

What's For Dinner?

So, in the creation of the Constitution the Senate was put in place to make sure that somewhere in the process there would be representatives with cool heads, so that when the mob would be angered about something and the House of Representatives knew they were all up for re-election in less than 2 years, then the House would be respond to the whim of the people but the Senate would have cooler heads since they were elected by state legislators creating a level of abstraction between them and the mob. Then these two houses would come to some agreement so that the will of the people would be expressed but it would be tempered. In this way they referred the Senate to being like the saucer that a cup of tea sits on. Apparently people used to pour their tea on the saucer if it was too hot to cool it down, and this was the intention of the Senate.

While the founders expounded on the various benefits of this arrangement it does create a problem. The senators were hard to manipulate. If you think about it, the senators answered to one or two hundred of their counterparts in the state legislatures. If a company, bank, or other financial interest wanted to get the senator to do what they wanted they would have to curry the favor of hundreds of state legislators in order to put the pressure on the senator that would answer to the state legislature at the next election.

This was tedious for the banking elite, or for anyone wishing to manipulate legislation, and discouraged consolidation of power by dispersing it to hundreds of state legislators. Also, as the country expanded and new states joined the union the decentralization of power spread. For every 2 senators came another couple of hundred legislators that divided up the nations power.

A Different Sort of Senate

The solution to this problem for the bankers, and other moneyed interests, was the 17th Amendment. This 17th provided for direct election of senators. Sounds good to some; why should the state legislators decide? Why not let “the people” decide for themselves, was the argument. But understanding the nature of people the banking elite knew that the number one determining factor in most elections is name recognition. After the 17th amendment the banking elite could inject huge sums of money into any election where they wanted to decide the outcome. Most campaigns are determined by small sums of money in comparison to the wealth of the most powerful bankers. For example in the last presidential election the winning candidate raised 700 million in campaign contributions, mainly from large corporations filtered through the 527 groups. In the banker bailout alone the bankers are walking away with over 700 billion! And that is truly just the tip of the iceberg. One of the most powerful banking families are the Rockefeller family who, by some estimations, may have as much as 11 trillion (thats trillion with a “T”) under their control. In this light, the money to determine even the top election is tiny. Senators come even cheaper.

The next major change has come with “Campaign Finance Reform”. Now I know when people hear that they think “McCain-Feingold”, but lets take it back to the much more significant Campaign Finance Reform that took place in the early 1970s.

Before discussing the reform we should take a moment to see how elections worked and why they wanted to reform it in the first place. The way most congressional races worked were that they were determined by local or state party bosses. The way it would work is this: say you had a democratic stronghold like Chicago, for example. In Chicago whoever is run by the democrat party for congress is going to win (because most districts are either predominately democrat or republican). So if you can choose who will run in the general election you choose who is going to be elected. Unlike today, before the reform in the ’70s, there was not always a primary to decide who would be the Democrat candidate (or Republican). In fact, in most cases it was up to the local party boss. So if you were head of the Chicago Democrat party you essential got to decide who would be the congressmen representing the districts that fell in your city. This is the problem they were trying to fix when the put in the reforms of the early 1970’s that forced a primary if an appropriate amount of signatures were collected by more than one primary candidate.

However, as is the case much of the time the cure was worse than the disease. We see again that the pre-1970’s system, while having its problems for sure, spread power to local and state party bosses. Therefore if you are trying to consolidate power it is more difficult because you need to curry favor with hundreds of party bosses around the country. Also, the amount of corruption was limited since the congressman only had to please one party boss. Of course the party boss would have all his family members in plush government jobs, he would likely have business interests that would receive lucrative government contracts, along with various other favors. But the point is that the congressman only had to please one local party boss who was satisfied with a relatively small amount of privileges.

Transfering Power to Whom?

Campaign Finance “Reform”

Now with the 1970’s campaign finance reform a few things changed. As mentioned, it made it much easier for candidates to force a primary election to decide who would be the party’s candidate. Now money could be injected into campaigns to determine who would come out on top. With this change came the creation of Political Action Committees (PAC) which created the “Special Interest Groups” that everyone has been beating up on. It also shifted power from the local party bosses to the national parties who could receive an almost unlimited amount of “soft money” that could be spent to elect their candidates.

Now a congressional candidate needs to please every special interest group, not to mention every corporate and banker interest that provided the soft money through the national parties.

We hardly have time to get too deep into the most recent Campaign Finance Reform, McCain-Feingold, but suffice it to say that it has not “taken money out of politics” nor has it returned the “power to the people”. What it has done is drastically increase the power of the 527 groups that are not as restricted as the PAC’s. It took this power from the national parties that were the brokers of the large corporate and banker contributions of the past.

Their Names Were Known

So by all this power is even more consolidated. Those flush with cash, mainly the small banker elite and the companies that are under their control, can directly inject money to determine the outcome of elections. The power has slowly shifted from state legislators, to local party bosses, then to national parties, and now directly to the wealthiest banking elite. While bankers have been the dominate holders of power since the demise of the Monarchs, never before in history has so much power been so consolidated in the hands of a few than it is today. And unlike the pharaohs, the Caesars, the kings and emperors, most people don’t even know their names.

By

Jordan Kaufman

Jordan is host of the Las Vegas based radio program Corruption Radio, on KDWN 720 AM and is editor and main contributor of CorruptionRadio.com

Send Jordan your comments at Jordan@CorruptionRadio.com (VM: 702-560-1948)

The continuing financial crisis has made clear to many people the deep problems that exist within our financial system. One of the key decisions to be made in any of the reform proposals floating around deals with the Federal Reserve System and its powers.

Federal Reserve: Beyond The Reach of an Audit

For nearly 100 years the Federal Reserve has operated largely in the shadows. The Fed’s monetary policy operations, including open-market operations and agreements with foreign governments and central banks, are exempt from audit by the Government Accountability Office.

Congress itself never delves into these areas in the limited time it has during the Fed chairman’s semiannual appearances before the House Financial Services Committee, and any pointed questions are evaded. Former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan was adept at this — his “Greenspan-speak” was legendary — but Chairman Ben Bernanke is no slouch, either, at giving vague and nonresponsive answers to direct questions.

READ ENTIRE ARTICLE

]]> http://corruptionradio.com/2009/10/ron-paul-seeks-federal-reserve-transparency/feed/ 0