Monthly Archives: June, 2020

Donald Barr: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know

Donald Barr

Twitter screenshots Donald Barr hired Jeffrey Epstein to teach secondary school math and science when the now dead sexual predator was just 21 and sans a college degree. Barr’s son is William Barr, the US Attorney General.

The father of US Attorney General William Barr hired a young college dropout named Jeffrey E. Epstein to teach math at the Dalton School in the 1970s. The convicted sexual predator was 21 when the college prep school headmaster Donald Barr engaged him in the early 1970s as a physics and calculus instructor. A report said he was hired in 1973, but it appears Barr hired him in 1974, the same year that Barr would leave the school after a decade as headmaster.

Epstein, in jail awaiting trial on federal sex trafficking charges, died Saturday while in custody of the federal Bureau of Prisons, which is overseen by the Department of Justice. Epstein is reported to have hanged himself, but the New York City Medical Examiner has not yet ruled on the former billionaire’s cause and manner of death, per an email to Heavy.

It’s been widely reported that the accused pedophile had been on suicide watch but was recently taken off that close surveillance. His death is under investigation, including a report that Epstein was not checked for hours and one guard was not an corrections officer, AG Barr said Monday.

Donald Barr died in 2004 at age 82. He ran the tony Upper East Side Ivy League college prep school for 10 years before stepping down. In 1976, Epstein too would leave the school for reasons unknown. But in a recent exposé, it’s revealed that Epstein was seen as both flashy and unconventional and perhaps too interested in the teenage girls that were his pupils.

Here’s what you need to know:


1. Epstein Had Taken Classes But Ultimately Dropped Out of Two Prestigious New York Universities. Donald Barr Hired Him to Teach at the Famous Prep School

Steve Silberman

@stevesilberman

Don’t forget: Barr’s father hired Epstein at the Dalton School despite the fact that he had no teaching experience, where he made the connections that made him a rich man. Must not have been lost on Epstein that the Barrs had shaped his whole life. https://hillreporter.com/the-ties-that-bind-jeffrey-epstein-william-barr-donald-trump-34107 

The Ties That Bind Jeffrey Epstein, William Barr & Donald Trump

During Attorney General, William Barr’s confirmation hearing, he was mostly peppered with questions about how

hillreporter.com

Epstein was born in Brooklyn in 1953 and grew up in the Coney Island section of the borough and graduated from now-closed Lafayette High School in the Bath Beach (Gravesend) neighborhood in Brooklyn. Epstein took classes at the Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art (known colloquially as Cooper Union) and the New York University. But he never earned a degree.

It’s not clear how and when they met, but Barr hired the 21-year-old Epstein to teach mathematics and science courses at the Upper East Side school and he began work there in the fall of 1974 without a college degree. A report in the Times had an alumni say that Barr was less interested in credentials than in know-how.

While Mr. Barr was strict on the school culture, he made it a point to hire teachers from unconventional backgrounds, recalled Susan Semel, a social studies teacher at Dalton from the 1960s to 1980s who later wrote a book on the history of the school.

“Barr didn’t care about credentials as long as you were interesting and knew your stuff,” Ms. Semel said.


2. Barr Taught English at Columbia University, Was a New York Times Book Reviewer & Was Headmaster at 2 Prestigious New York Private College Prep Schools

donald barr

Donald Barr was born in New York City to a psychologist mother and economist father in 1921. Born Jewish, he would covert to Catholicism.

Barr taught English at Columbia University, was headmaster at Dalton and the Hackley School in Tarrytown, New York. In his obituary, it was noted that Barr was a “traditionalist in academic matters, took a no-nonsense approach that rated good conduct as a virtue.”

In the Times obit, it was reported that while at Columbia, he studied mathematics and anthropology at Columbia, and after graduating in 1941, joined the Army and served with the Office of Strategic Services in Washington and Europe. After the war, he returned to Columbia to teach, earned his masters degree and then completed coursework for a Ph.D. He segued from English to math and the sciences, social and physical and wrote elementary and middle school science and math textbooks. He taught at Columbia’s School of Engineering and led a program to recruit “promising elementary and secondary science students, including girls, and enlist them for advanced training at the school to help them rise to the college level.” Barr developed the University’s Science Honors Program which would be modeled by the National Science Foundation for similar programs.

Donald Barr, who died at 82 in 2004 was the father of William Barr, who was Attorney General from 1991 to 1993 in the George H. W. Bush Administration and currently serves as the 85th U.S. Attorney General in the Trump Administration.


3. Barr Wrote 2 Science Fiction Books; One About Interplanetary Slavery & Sexual Domination

Loren Coleman@CryptoLoren

Who was the headmaster of the Dalton School & gave Jeffrey Epstein a job teaching in 1973? Donald Barr, AG William Barr’s father. Who wrote a sci-fi novel about outer space sex slave trade? Donald Barr, Space Relations: A Slightly Gothic Interplanetary Tale (1973).~ @CryptoLoren

View image on Twitter
111 people are talking about this

In his 1973 science fiction book ‘Space Relations: A slightly gothic interplanetary tale,’ Barr wrote about a future where after “…galaxies are colonized, John Craig, a young space diplomat, is captured by interplanetary pirates and sold into slavery.” The blub for the book reads, that on the planet Kossar, “boredom and absolute power have driven the rulers to a special kind of madness,” and Craig is captured and sold into slavery until he’s bought by “the exquisite lady Morgan Sydney, a beautiful, sensual woman. He soon makes his way from the hellish slavery into her bed in the tower of her castle.”

An Amazon reviewer noted that Barr’s, “… exploration of slavery is neither sensitive nor telling. Despite repeatedly and officiously informing the reader that slavery is wrong at every turn (go figure), Barr creates two openly ‘superior’ characters as his leads. Craig and Morgan freely kill, torture, seduce and make sweeping political decisions on behalf of thousands of people – but this is acceptable, because they’re somehow imbued with ‘natural heroism.’ Slavery and oppression are wrong, unless you’re someone as wise and talented as Craig or Morgan, in which you’re perfectly justified in forcing decisions on other people.”

His book ‘A Planet In Arms,’ from 1981 is about “a planet in chaos,” where a man and woman “try to stop another man trying to rule their planet.”


4. US Attorney General William Barr Said he Was ‘Appalled’ to Hear of Epstein’s Death & Promised ‘To Get to the Bottom of What Happened’

NoelCaslerComedy@CaslerNoel

AG Barr repeatedly refers to the Epstein case in past tense at the same time he assures us it will go forward. Double speak at it’s finest from the master himself. https://twitter.com/ABC/status/1160928687052562437 

ABC News

@ABC

NEW: Attorney General Bill Barr: “Let me assure you that this case will continue on against anyone who was complicit with Epstein. Any co-conspirators should not rest easy.” https://abcn.ws/2ySYcAC 

Embedded video

NoelCaslerComedy@CaslerNoel

We will find out what happened to Jeffrey Epstein from AG Barr’s DOJ just like we will see Trump’s Tax Returns and the un-redacted Mueller Report. (Or learn why his father Donald hired Epstein at Dalton w/o a college degree)

In a statement issued Saturday after the news that Epstein was dead, AG Barr said the death of the disgraced financier and sexual predator “raises serious questions.”

“I was appalled to learn that Jeffrey Epstein was found dead early this morning from an apparent suicide while in federal custody. Mr. Epstein’s death raises serious questions that must be answered. In addition to the FBI’s investigation, I have consulted with the Inspector General who is opening an investigation into the circumstances of Mr. Epstein’s death.”

Monday afternoon, the Times reported that one of the people guarding Epstein was not a “full-fledged” corrections officer and that neither that person or the other guard had checked on the inmate for several hours when he was found hanged. Barr told the paper he’d been told about “serious irregularities” at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Lower Manhattan “that are deeply concerning and demand a thorough investigation.” he said the the Department of Justice “will get to the bottom of what happened. There will be accountability.


5. Donald Barr May Not Have Cared About Credentials When he Hired Epstein, But Questions Are Being Asked Now That His Son is Investigating Epstein’s Death

“I don’t even have a theory to fill out a conspiracy theory with, but it’s wild that Bill Barr’s dad hired young college dropout Jeffrey Epstein to be a high school calculus teacher.”

“The ties that bind. Donald Barr, headmaster, the father of Attorney General William Barr #EpsteinBarr”

Sandi Bachom@sandibachom

Trump’s lawyer AG Bill Barr wants to bring to justice anyone complicit with Jeffrey Epstein. I guess that means his father who first introduced Epstein to young girls when he hired him at the Dalton School when he didn’t have a degree

“Trump’s lawyer AG Bill Barr wants to bring to justice anyone complicit with Jeffrey Epstein. I guess that means his father who first introduced Epstein to young girls when he hired him at the Dalton School when he didn’t have a degree.”

READ NEXT: Jeffrey Epstein’s Longtime Confidante, Girlfriend, & Alleged Procurer of Young Girls

WATCH: ERIN, THE UNDERCOVER COVID NURSE EXPOSES NY ELMHURST HOSPITAL

Registered nurse, Erin Olszewski, spent a month at the epicenter of the epicenter, Elmhurst Hospital in NY. After witnessing the same malpractice matching testimonies of other outspoken nurses in the U.S., she decided to wear a hidden camera to prove to the world there is a bigger threat than Coronavirus taking place in this hospital. Del sat down with Erin for an emotional interview on The HighWire.
VIDEO: https://videos.utahgunexchange.com/watch/c5yNjwcaMhlYeyZ

What did Henry Kissinger say about The Greeks in 1974?

Henry Kissinger quote about Greeks

 

The Greek people are anarchic and difficult to tame. For this reason we must strike deep into their cultural roots: Perhaps then we can force them to conform. I mean, of course, to strike at their language, their religion, their cultural and historical reserves, so that we can neutralize their ability to develop, to distinguish themselves, or to prevail; thereby removing them as an obstacle to our strategically vital plans in the Balkans, the Mediterranean, and the Middle East.

(As reported in the popular Greek magazine, Oikonomikos Tachydromos on 14 Aug. l997, Henry Kissinger, while addressing a group of Washington, D.C. businessmen in Sept.1974)

But for those to whom these arguments do not persuade we offer the following: Father Yiorgos Mettalinos was one of the guests on…TV program Me Apopsi (Μέ ΄Αποψι) which aired on the 30th of June ’03. Father Mettalinos is one of the most widely respected individuals in Greece, right up there with Archbishop Christodoulos. He also happens to be a professor of Ecclesiastical History at Athens University (he holds five university degrees, including two doctorates). A man beloved and admired by even those who may disagree with him, his words are not ever taken lightly nor are they uttered frivolously. When Father Mettalinos speaks, most Greeks pay attention. And you can be sure that one of our staff members was paying enough attention to turn on the video recorder when Father Yiorgos mentioned Kissinger during the discussion. Here he is in his own words:

I was studying in Germany when Kissinger made this speech. It
was in 1974, and I was listening to the late Pavlo Bakoyianni’s Greek
program out of Munich. The speech was in the English language with
a Greek overvoice translation. I know English and can tell you with
absolute certainty that he made those comments because I heard him
make them.

“Are you guys really trying to kill everybody like everybody thinks?” Undercover Nurse Erin Marie Olszewski Recording

Nurse 2: “Are you guys really trying to kill everybody like everybody thinks?” 🕵️‍♂️🙏👩‍⚕️🙏

Ex Military Nurse goes Underground in #NYC‘s Elmhurst Hospital. The Epicenter of the Epicenter of #Covid19 where EVERYBODY was expected to die.

Alfred C. Kinsey: A Pioneer Of Sex Research

Just here to show the attitude of US Public Health’s towards a guy who sexually abused thousands of children.

. 2003 June; 93(6): 896–897.
PMCID: PMC1447862
PMID: 12773347

Alfred C. Kinsey: A Pioneer Of Sex Research

ONE OF THE MOST INFLUENTIAL Americans of the 20th century, Alfred Charles Kinsey conducted landmark studies of male and female sexual behavior that helped usher in the “sexual revolution” of the 1960s and 1970s. He was born in Hoboken, NJ, on June 23, 1894, the son of Alfred Seguine Kinsey and Sarah Ann Charles. His father, a zealously religious and intimidating man, and a teacher at Stevens Institute of Technology, insisted that his son put aside his early interest in biology and instead enroll in Stevens to study engineering. After 2 lackluster years, Alfred rebelled and left for Bowdoin College in Maine, where he enrolled as a biology student. Father and son never reconciled; when Alfred graduated with high honors in 1916, his father refused to attend commencement.

Alfred became a student of applied biology at Harvard, where he came under the influence of William Morton Wheeler, an eminent field biologist, staunch Darwinian, and confidant of the irreverent H. L. Mencken. With Wheeler as his mentor, Kinsey jettisoned most of his religious ideas—although not all of his repressive upbringing—and embarked on a massive and meticulous Darwinian case study of the evolutionary taxonomy of the gall wasp. After identifying several new species, Kinsey received his doctor of science degree in 1919 and joined the faculty of Indiana University the following year. In 1924, he married Clara Bracken McMillen, then an outstanding chemistry student at Indiana University. Alfred and Clara had 4 children, 3 of whom survived into adulthood.

Kinsey advanced up the academic ranks, becoming full professor in 1929. In 1936, he published The Gall Wasp Genus Cynips: A Study of the Origin of Species in 1930 and The Origin of Higher Categories in Cynips. Although both were well received by specialists, Kinsey was deeply disappointed that he was not offered a professorship at a more prestigious university.

Perhaps because of this disappointment, Kinsey made an unusual career move in 1938: he agreed to lead a team-taught course on marriage and the family instituted in response to a student petition. High points of the course were Kinsey’s illustrated lectures on the biology of sexual stimulation, the mechanics of intercourse, and the techniques of contraception, as were his spirited denunciations of repressive laws and social attitudes. He also attempted to replace conventional ideas of normal sexual behavior with a new biological definition: “nearly all the so-called sexual perversions fall within the range of biological normality.” As his recent biographer James H. Jones observes, Kinsey was using the marriage course to “transform his private struggle against Victorian morality into a public crusade” and to “protest issues that had bedeviled him for decades.” The Indiana students responded enthusiastically, and his course enrollments grew to 400 by 1940.

Kinsey now shifted his research focus as well, transferring his obsessive concern with variation among gall wasps to the varieties of human sexual experience. He required students in his marriage course to have private conferences in which he took their sexual histories. On weekends and vacations, he conducted similar interviews in nearby communities, and later in such cities as Gary, Chicago, St. Louis, and Philadelphia. Kinsey received research support from the National Research Council and the Rockefeller Foundation, which allowed him to hire research assistants, expand the geographic scope of his work, and found the Institute of Sex Research at Indiana University in 1947.

In January 1948, Kinsey and his collaborators published Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, the source of the excerpt reprinted here. It made the best-seller list within 3 weeks, despite its 804 pages, generally dry scientific style, and ponderous weight of statistics, tables, and graphs. By mid-March, it had sold 200 000 copies. The book, based on over 5000 sexual histories, provided a series of revelations about the prevalence of masturbation, adulterous sexual activity, and homosexuality. One religious leader attacked Kinsey for publishing “the most anti-religious book of our times.” Some criticized his methods (and conclusions) because of inadequate sampling techniques; others extravagantly praised him as another Galileo or Darwin.

Kinsey’s next major project was Sexual Behavior in the Human Female, published in 1953. Based on almost 6000 sexual histories, this book contained many revelations about such matters as women’s masturbatory practices, premarital sexuality, and orgasmic experiences. As before, Kinsey documented an enormous gap between social attitudes and actual practices. Also as before, the book was a media sensation, but this time the counterattack was so ferocious—including a congressional investigation of his financial support—that the Rockefeller Foundation terminated its funding.

Kinsey’s health deteriorated under the strain of public attack and uncertainty about the future of his institute. He suffered from heart disease and, after a brief hospitalization for pneumonia, died in Bloomington on August 25, 1956. In his own mind, his principal legacy was to have brought scientific rigor to the study of human sexuality. But as his biographer James H. Jones points out, Kinsey was not only a scientist; he was a reformer who sought to rid himself of his personal sexual demons, while at the same time revolutionizing the repressive society in which he had grown up:

His formative years were spent in a home and in a nation where many middle-class parents enshrouded sex in shame, heaping more than enough guilt on young people to mangle and twist them. This was particularly true for those like Kinsey who aspired but failed to achieve moral perfection. His great accomplishment was to take his pain and suffering and use it to transform himself into an instrument of social reform, a secular evangelist who proclaimed a new sensibility about human sexuality.

References

1. Holt TC. W E. B. DuBois. In: Garraty JA, Carnes MC, eds. American National Biography. Vol 6. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1999:944–949.
2. DuBois W. E. B. The Philadelphia Negro: A Social Study. New York, NY: Benjamin Blom; 1899.
3. Hoffman FL. Race Traits and Tendencies of the American Negro. New York, NY: American Economic Association; 1896.
4. Rampersad A. DuBois, William Edward Burghardt. In: Garraty JA, ed. Dictionary of American Biography. Suppl. 7, 1961–1965. New York, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons; 1981:200–205.

Articles from American Journal of Public Health are provided here courtesy of American Public Health Association

 

The Federal Reserve Is A PRIVATELY OWNED Corporation

By Thomas D. Schauf
© 1992

Note – Even though this was originally released in 1992, the essential information in it is more relevant today than ever.

Acknowledgements:

Our country likes to thank our forefathers for the Constitution.

I wish to thank Mr. Lou Gamboa for his research of the Constitution and our banking system. Lou Gamboa is a national speaker on the subject, and has spoken on numerous radio programs in an effort to educate the public.

I also want to thank Bob Corcoran for his research and encouragement.

I applaud the thousands of patriotic Americans who are spreading the word so we can live in economic prosperity and uphold our Constitutional rights.

ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8 OF THE CONSTITUTION STATES THAT CONGRESS SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO COIN (CREATE) MONEY AND REGULATE THE VALUE THEREOF.

IN 1935 THE SUPREME COURT RULED THAT CONGRESS CANNOT CONSTITUTIONALLY DELEGATE ITS POWER TO ANOTHER GROUP. (Reference 22, P. 168)

Rothschild, a London Banker, wrote a letter saying “It (Central Bank ) gives the National Bank almost complete control of national finance. The few who understand the system will either be so interested in its profits, or so dependent on its favours, that there will be no opposition from that class… The great body of the people, mentally incapable of comprehending, will bear its burden without complaint, and perhaps without even suspecting that the system is inimical (contrary) to their interests.” [The bankers created the legislation for the FED]

In 1913, before the Senate Banking and Currency Committee, Mr. Alexander stated: “But the whole scheme of a Federal Reserve Bank with its commercial-paper basis is an impractical, cumbersome machinery, is simply a cover, to find a way to secure the privilege of issuing money and to evade payment of as much tax upon circulation as possible, and then control the issue and maintain, instead of reduce, interest rates. It is a system that, if inaugurated, will prove to the advantage of the few and the detriment of the people of the United States. It will mean continued shortage of actual money and further extension of credits; for when there is a lack of real money people have to borrow credit to their cost.”

Dear American:

Pursuant to your request, I will attempt to clear up questions you have about the Federal Reserve Bank (FED). I spent much time researching the FED and these are the shocking and revealing conclusions.

THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK IS A PRIVATE COMPANY.

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution states that Congress shall have the power to coin (create) money and regulate the value thereof. Today however, the FED, which is a privately owned company, controls and profits by printing money through the Treasury, and regulating its value.

The FED began with approximately 300 people or banks that became owners (stockholders purchasing stock at $100 per share – the stock is not publicly traded) in the Federal Reserve Banking System. They make up an international banking cartel of wealth beyond comparison (Reference 1, 14). The FED banking system collects billions of dollars (Reference 8, 17) in interest annually and distributes the profits to its shareholders. The Congress illegally gave the FED the right to print money (through the Treasury) at no interest to the FED. The FED creates money from nothing, and loans it back to us through banks, and charges interest on our currency. The FED also buys Government debt with money printed on a printing press and charges U.S. taxpayers interest. Many Congressmen and Presidents say this is fraud (Reference 1,2,3,5,17).

Who actually owns the Federal Reserve Central Banks? The ownership of the 12 Central banks, a very well kept secret, has been revealed:

Rothschild Bank of London Warburg Bank of Hamburg Rothschild Bank of Berlin Lehman Brothers of New York Lazard Brothers of Paris Kuhn Loeb Bank of New York Israel Moses Seif Banks of Italy Goldman, Sachs of New York Warburg Bank of Amsterdam Chase Manhattan Bank of New York (Reference 14, P. 13, Reference 12, P. 152)

These bankers are connected to London Banking Houses which ultimately control the FED. When England lost the Revolutionary War with America (our forefathers were fighting their own government), they planned to control us by controlling our banking system, the printing of our money, and our debt (Reference 4, 22).

The individuals listed below owned banks which in turn owned shares in the FED. The banks listed below have significant control over the New York FED District, which controls the other 11 FED Districts. These banks also are partly foreign owned and control the New York FED District Bank. (Reference 22)

First National Bank of New York James Stillman National City Bank, New York Mary W. Harnman

National Bank of Commerce, New York A.D. Jiullard

Hanover National Bank, New York Jacob Schiff

Chase National Bank, New York Thomas F. Ryan Paul Warburg William Rockefeller Levi P. Morton M.T. Pyne George F. Baker Percy Pyne Mrs. G.F. St. George J.W. Sterling Katherine St. George H.P. Davidson J.P. Morgan (Equitable Life/Mutual Life) Edith Brevour T. Baker (Reference 4 for above, Reference 22 has details, P. 92, 93, 96, 179)

How did it happen? After previous attempts to push the Federal Reserve Act through Congress, a group of bankers funded and staffed Woodrow Wilson’s campaign for President. He had committed to sign this act. In 1913, a Senator, Nelson Aldrich, maternal grandfather to the Rockefellers, pushed the Federal Reserve Act through Congress just before Christmas when much of Congress was on vacation (Reference 3, 4, 5). When elected, Wilson passed the FED. Later, Wilson remorsefully replied (referring to the FED), “I have unwittingly ruined my country” (Reference 17, P. 31).

Now the banks financially back sympathetic candidates. Not surprisingly, most of these candidates are elected (Reference 1, P. 208-210, Reference 12, P. 235, Reference 14, P. 36). The bankers employ members of the Congress on weekends (nickname T club -out Thursday…-in Tuesday) with lucrative salaries (Reference 1, P. 209). Additionally, the FED started buying up the media in the 1930’s and now owns or significantly influences most of it Reference 3, 10, 11, P. 145).

Presidents Lincoln, Jackson, and Kennedy tried to stop this family of bankers by printing U.S. dollars without charging the taxpayers interest (Reference 4). Today, if the government runs a deficit, the FED prints dollars through the U.S. Treasury, buys the debt, and the dollars are circulated into the economy. In 1992, taxpayers paid the FED banking system $286 billion in interest on debt the FED purchased by printing money virtually cost free (Reference 12, P. 265). Forty percent of our personal federal income taxes goes to pay this interest. The FED’s books are not open to the public. Congress has yet to audit it.

Congressman Wright Patman was Chairman of the House of Representatives Committee on Banking and Currency for 40 years. For 20 of those years, he introduced legislation to repeal the Federal Reserve Banking Act of 1913.

Congressman Henry Gonzales, Chairman of a banking committee, introduces legislation to repeal the Federal Reserve Banking Act of 1913 nearly every year. It’s always defeated, the media remains silent, and the public never learns the truth. The same bankers who own the FED control the media and give huge political contributions to sympathetic members of Congress (Reference 12, P. 155-163, Reference 22, P. 158, 159, 166).

THE FED FEARS THE POPULATION WILL BECOME AWARE OF THIS FRAUD AND DEMAND CHANGE

We, the People, are at fault for being passive and allowing this to continue.

Rep. Louis T. McFadden (R. Pa.) rose from office boy to become cashier and then President of the First National Bank in Canton Ohio. For 12 years he served as Chairman of the Committee on Banking and Currency, making him one of the foremost financial authorities in America. He fought continuously for fiscal integrity and a return to constitutional government (Reference 1). The following are portions of Rep. McFadden’s speech, quoted from the Congressional Record, pages 12595-12603:

“THE FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD, A GOVERNMENT BOARD, HAS CHEATED THE GOVERNMENTOF THE UNITED STATES AND THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OUT OF ENOUGH MONEY TO PAY THE NATIONAL DEBT.

The depredations and the iniquities of the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks acting together have cost this country ENOUGH MONEY TO PAY THE NATIONAL DEBT SEVERAL TIMES OVER.”

About the Federal Reserve banks, Rep. McFadden said, “They are private credit monopolies which prey upon the people of the United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; the rich and predatory money lenders. This is an era of economic misery and for the reasons that caused that misery, the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks are fully liable.”

On the subject of media control he state, “Half a million dollars was spent on one part of the propaganda organized by those same European bankers for the purpose of misleading public opinion in regard to it.”

Rep. McFadden continued, “Every effort has been made by the Federal Reserve Board to conceal its power but the truth is the Federal Reserve Board has USURPED THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES. IT CONTROLS EVERYTHING HERE AND IT CONTROLS ALL OUR FOREIGN RELATIONS. IT MAKES AND BREAKS GOVERNMENTS AT WILL.

No man and no body of men is more entrenched in power than the arrogant credit monopoly which operates the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks. These evil-doers have robbed this country of more than enough money to pay the national debt. What the Government has permitted the Federal Reserve Board to steal from the people should now be restored to the people.”

“Our people’s money to the extent of $1,200,000,000 has within the last few months been shipped abroad to redeem Federal Reserve Notes and to pay other gambling debts of the traitorous Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks. The greater part of our monetary stock has been shipped to foreigners. Why should we promise to pay the debts of foreigners to foreigners? Why should American Farmers and wage earners add millions of foreigners to the number of their dependents? Why should the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks be permitted to finance our competitors in all parts of the world?” Rep. McFadden asked.

“The Federal Reserve Act should be repealed and the Federal Reserve banks, having violated their charters, should be liquidated immediately.

FAITHLESS GOVERNMENT OFFICERS WHO HAVE VIOLATED THEIR OATHS SHOULD BE IMPEACHED AND BROUGHT TO TRIAL”, Rep. McFadden concluded (Reference 1, contains an entire chapter on <http://www.myfreeoffice.com/dwi/McFadden.htmlRep. McFadden’s speech).

If the media is unbiased, independent and completely thorough, why haven’t they discussed the FED? Currently, half the states have at least a grass roots movement in action to abolish the FED, but there’s no press coverage. In July, 1968, the House Banking Subcommittee reported that Rockefeller, through Chase Manhattan Bank, controlled 5.9% of the stock in CBS. Furthermore, the bank had gained interlocking directorates with ABC.

In 1974, Congress issued a report stating that the Chase Manhattan Bank’s stake in CBS rose to 14.1% and NBC to 4.5% (through RCA, the parent company of NBC). The same report said that the Chase Manhattan Bank held stock in 28 broadcasting firms. After this report, the Chase Manhattan Bank obtained 6.7% of ABC, and today the percentage could be much greater. It only requires 5% ownership to significantly influence the media (Reference 14, P. 56-57). This is only one of 300 wealthy shareholders of the FED. It is believed other FED owners have similar holdings in the media. To control the media, FED bankers call in their loans if the media disagrees with them (Reference 25, P. 134-137).

Rockefeller also controls the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the sole purpose of which is to aid in stimulating greater interest in foreign affairs and in a one world government. Nearly every major newscaster belongs to the Council on Foreign Relations. The Council on Foreign Relations controls many major newspapers and magazines. Additionally, major corporations owned by FED shareholders are the source of huge advertising revenues which surely would influence the media (Reference 14, P. 56-59). It can be no wonder why groups such as FED-UP(tm) receive minimal, if any, press attention.

How do taxpayers stop financing those whose purpose it is to destroy us? First, expose their activity, then demand change.

THE SOLUTION

Currently all we do is exchange FED money (interest attached) for real U.S. money (interest-free) dollar for dollar as Kennedy tried to do. We should not be required to pay interest on our own currency. According to Benjamin Franklin, this was one of the primary reasons we fought the Revolutionary War. Today we are still fighting the same family of bankers (Reference 4, Reference 1, P. 211, 212).

The U.S. Government can buy back the FED at any time for $450 million (per Congressional record). The U.S. Treasury could then collect all the profit on our money instead of the 300 original shareholders of the FED. The $4 trillion of U.S. debt could be exchanged dollar for dollar with U.S. non- interest bearing currency when the debt becomes due. There would be no inflation because there would be no additional currency in circulation. Personal income tax could be cut if we bought back the FED and therefore, the economy would expand. According to the Constitution, Congress is to control the creation of money, keeping the amount of inflation or deflation in check. If Congress isn’t doing their job, they should be voted out of office. Unfortunately, voters can’t vote the FED or its Chairman out of office.

If the government has a deficit, we could handle it as Lincoln and Kennedy did. Print money and circulate it into the economy, but this time interest-free. Today the FED, through foreign banks, owns much of our debt and therefore controls us. The FED will cease to exist as taxpayers become informed and tell other taxpayers. The news media and Congress will have no choice but to meet the demands of grass roots America. (Reference 1, P. 17, 22)

AMERICA DECEIVED

By law (check the Congressional record), we can buy back the FED for the original investment of the FED’s 300 shareholders, which is $450 million (Reference 1, P. 227, Reference 17, P. 36). If each taxpayer paid $25, we could buy back the FED and all the profit would flow into the U.S. Treasury. In other words, by Congress allowing the constitutionally illegal FED to continue, much of your taxes go to the shareholders of the FED and their bankers. Note: The people who enacted the FED started the IRS, within months of the FED’s inception. The FED buys U.S. debt with money they printed from nothing, then charges the U.S. taxpayers interest. The government had to create income tax to pay the interest expense to the FED’s shareholders, but the income tax was never legally passed (Reference 20 shows details, state-by-state why it was not legally passed). The FED is illegal, per Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution. Not one state legally ratified the 16th Amendment making income tax legal.

Currently, fewer and fewer Americans are being convicted for refusal to pay income taxes. In IRS jury trials, the jury, by law, must decide if the law is just. If taxpayers do not believe the law is just, the jury may declare the accused innocent. Judges are legally bound to inform juries of their right to determine the fairness of a law. Judges often do not disclose this information so they can control the court outcome. Luckily, more and more citizens are becoming informed. If one juror feels the law is unfair, they can find the defendant innocent (Reference 19). In Utah, the IRS quit prosecuting taxpayers because jurors verdict is not guilty. Please tell your friends and sit in the next jury.

If we eliminate the FED and uphold the Constitution, we could balance the budget and cut personal income tax to almost nothing. In Congressional hearings on September 30, 1941, FED Chairman Eccles admitted that the FED creates new money from thin air (printing press), and loans it back to us at interest (Reference 17, P. 93). On June 6, 1960, FED President Mr. Allen admitted essentially the same thing (Reference 22, P. 164). If you or I did this we would go to jail.

It is time to abolish the FED! Tell your friends the truth and win America back. We don’t even need to buy back the FED. We only need to print money the way the Constitution requires, not the new proposed international money. We want to keep our sovereignty and print real U.S. money.

Why has Congress allowed the FED to continue? If a Congressperson tries to abolish the FED, the banks fund the Congressperson’s opponent in the next election (Reference 17, P. 35). The new Congressperson will obviously support the FED. When Congresspeople retire, political campaign funds are not taxed. Get elected and be a millionaire if you vote right. By the way, the profit of the FED is not taxed either (Reference 1, 9). Once America understands, and takes action, Congresspeople will then gladly abolish the FED. In 1992, Illinois Congressman Crane introduced a bill, co-sponsored by 40 other Congressman, to audit the FED. This is a step in the right direction.

America is a great nation. As “We the People” become informed, the media and Congress will be forced to buy back the FED, balance the budget, significantly cut taxes, and stop allowing bribes to determine voting strategies. I have already heard from politicians who claim they will change their platform to include abolishing the FED if enough people become informed.

IT IS UP TO YOU TO INFORM THE PEOPLE

The FED hopes you will be passive and not act on this information. We believe in grass roots America – we are waking up America. Ultimately, the battle plan is to inform all Americans and demand change in the media and Congress. True Americans should run for office and throw out the politicians who allow this fraud to continue. Congress may refuse to deal with this issue. That’s why each person needs to go to their local county/state government with the proper paperwork and ask them to abolish the FED. With the proper documents, they are legally obligated to do it.

WE NEED LEADERS TO BEGIN THIS ACTION. WILL YOU HELP?

Consider this fact. Most of the given sources in this booklet show how the bloodline of family bankers who own the FED funded both sides of all major wars. They created fake colonial money to destroy the Americans during the Revolutionary War and tried to finance both sides in the American Civil War. Abraham Lincoln refused and the South accepted. Many publications show that these bankers financed World War I, World War II, and the Russian Revolutionary War, which helped Napoleon, Lenin, and Hitler come to power. They financed both sides from money created from nothing and profited greatly. These same bankers created a number of American depressions to change the U.S. legislation and seize our wealth. Read the sources for details. This is why our forefathers wrote in the Constitution that only Congress can issue money – not private banks (Reference 18).

More wars create more debt which means more profit to the bankers (Reference 1, 21). These bankers planned three world wars so people would welcome United Nations intervention to govern the world in peace, not war. (Reference 22 gives specific details on World War I and World War II, showing exactly how the bankers were responsible for the beginning and continuation of these wars for their profit).

The banks have publicly announced they will force us to a cashless society by 1997. Furthermore, they plan to create a one world government through the United Nations headed by the FED, Trilaterals, and the Council on Foreign Relations (Reference 3). By the definition of treason, they have committed treason! This means you lose your rights under the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Does this sound far fetched? Twenty-four U.S. Senators (two of them presidential candidates, Harkin & Tsongas) and 80 Representatives have signed a “Declaration of Interdependence.” This Declaration, designed to make a one world government, is treason to the oath of office they took. The media remained silent. The FED announced publicly that their first objective was to get nationalism out of the American people’s heads because patriotism to a country would not be of value in the future. The media makes us think the U.N. has all the answers, and to “think globally.” Congress passed a law stopping certain individuals from being tried for this treason (Reference 6, Reference 1, P. 191-198). Why pass this law if no treason was committed? State Department document 7277 calls for the disarming of America, thus turning our sovereignty over to a one-world government. Again, the media is pushing to eliminate guns. Our forefathers believed that the right to bear arms would prevent a takeover of our government. History shows that before any government took over, they disarmed the citizens. Hitler did it, and before our Revolutionary War, King George told us to disarm – good thing we didn’t!

Under the Federal Reserve Bank Act, the bankers control our economy. The FED controls interest rates and the amount of money in the economy. These factors determine either economic prosperity or the lack thereof. Bankers are now pushing for a one world government and a cashless society. Why cashless? No cash means no money for drugs, no theft, and the ability to collect taxes on the underground economy. Anyone who wouldn’t support a cashless society must be a drug dealer, thief, or tax evader, right? What a cashless society really means is the banks can now control you. Today you fear the IRS. In a cashless society, if you disagree with the bankers’ political goals, you’ll find your money gone via computer error. (For additional information on a cashless society, read Reference 13, P. 174; Reference 3; Reference 14, P. 9-12; Reference 15, P. 136; Reference 25, P. 216).

If you could accurately predict future interest rates, inflation and deflation, you would know when to buy or sell stocks and make a bundle of money. The FED has secret meetings (per Congressional Record) to determine future interest rates and the amount of money to be printed. The Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) by law, stops insiders from profiting by privileged information. Congressional records prove that FED bankers routinely hold secret meetings to profit by manipulating the stock market via interest rates and the amount of money they create. FED bankers also profit greatly from economic disasters like the Depression (Reference 22, P. 56). The bankers create inflation, sell their stocks before the market crashes, then buy up stocks at cheaper prices. Bankers admitted this to Congress. This violates the law, yet Congress does not act because these bankers are large political contributors (Reference 17, P. 96-98; Reference 1, P. 162-163; Reference 22, P. 114-170 & P. 136). Thomas Jefferson predicted this scenario if we ever allowed a private bank, like the FED, to create our currency (Reference 1, P. 247).

FED Chairman Burns states “Killing can be made simply by knowing the next few months newspapers ahead of time.” Congressman Patman said “The FED officials own more than 100 million dollars (of stocks) while making decisions influencing these stock prices…” (Reference 24, P. 123). History proves that banks profit from bankrupting a nation (Reference 22, P. 56).

Congress consistently defeats balanced budget amendments. In the past 30 years, Congress has raised our taxes 56 times and balanced the budget only once. We need the sound banking system our forefathers wanted us to have. History proves that banking systems like the FED don’t work. Major world powers have been destroyed over similar banking systems (Reference 1). If we don’t change this system NOW, in five years the only thing our taxes will pay is the interest on the national debt.

Section 7 of the Federal Reserve Act, passed December 23, 1913, states that much of the profit of the FED should flow into the U.S. Treasury. In 1959, new legislation allowed the FED to transfer bonds to commercial banks at no cost to the bank. Now the FED receives less interest income and less profit for the U.S. Treasury because the money is diverted to other banks through an accounting entry (Reference 17, P. 115-130). Congress and the IRS do not have access to the financial records of the FED. Every year Congress introduces legislation to audit the FED, and every year it is defeated. The FED banking system could easily be netting 100s of billions in profit each year. Through “creative accounting” profit can easily be reclassified as expense (Reference 14, P. 20, Reference 17, P. 239). Within the first few years, the shareholders of the FED received their initial investment back with no risk. All the income is tax-free, except for property tax, according to the Federal Reserve Act. When are the profits of the FED going to start flowing into the Treasury so that average Americans are no longer burdened with excessive, unnecessary taxes? Clearly, Congress cannot or will not control the FED. IT IS TIME TO ABOLISH IT!

3 WAYS TO ABOLISH THE FED AND ISSUE MONEY PER THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8:

* Buy back the FED and have the U.S. Government collect all profits.

* Abolish the FED by printing real U.S. dollars as President Kennedy attempted (Executive Order 11.110, 1963) (Reference 4).

* Request your county/state to use their Constitutional powers to abolish the FED. This is the BEST SOLUTION. Nearly half the states are attempting or considering this action (Reference 5). Congress has had 80 years to follow the Constitution, and has refused to abolish the illegal FED. The state/county effort is working faster than any other method. We need your support to start a local chapter of FED-UP(tm) Inc. and petition your county.

THE WRONG SOLUTION THAT HAS FAILED FOR 80 YEARS

Congress and the media may want to require the FED to return the required profits into the U.S. Treasury (per the Federal Reserve Act, 1913). The problem is that with “creative accounting” techniques, profit can be easily masked as expense. The FED has expensed items illegally to lower profit (Reference 17).

“We the People” have pushed the following states to pass or introduce legislation calling for an end to the FED: Arizona, Washington, Arkansas, Idaho, Oregon, Indiana, and Texas. We still need your signatures on petitions, even if you live in these states. Many other states are considering such action due to your petitions. These states and a few honest Congresspeople are powerless until all Americans become informed and demand change. Please pass out the petition. Once we demand change, the media will have to report the whole truth and not just push their own agenda. FED-UP(tm) challenges the media to expose the facts on prime time talk shows or news programs.

By abolishing the FED, we would not pay interest on Federal Reserve Notes. Until it is abolished, the FED has a monopoly on profit on our currency and whether our money supply will be increased or decreased, inflation or depression. The banks are capable of controlling business by controlling who can or cannot obtain a loan.

WE’VE DONE OUR PART – NOW IT IS UP TO YOU TO SPREAD THE WORD. Please take the brochure (Cutting taxes $6,000 per family per year) to VFW, Moose/Elk Lodges, Bars, Union Halls, Churches, and Association groups. Make copies of the “single-page” brochure for everyone at work and ask your friends to do the same. Ask small business owners in your community to tell other business owners and spread the brochure and petition through the local Chamber of Commerce. CPAs should be interested in saving their clients taxes. Ask your CPA to mail the brochure and petition out to his/her clients. Upon receiving this petition, many presidents of large corporations made this brochure and petition available to all employees. Once people are informed, we can force a change. People will have more money to spend, the economy will be strong, and we can keep our Constitutional rights, liberties, and freedoms.

Contact your library for the names and addresses of your local and federal Congresspeople. MAIL THEM AN ENVELOPE WITHOUT YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS ATTACHED. In the envelope, say “FED-UP(tm) Inc. Abolish the FED.” Also enclose one teabag (Boston Tea Party). Ask your friends to do the same (give them the addresses). Politicians are aware of the “Teabag Protest.” If you don’t mail it in, they’re going to believe that we’re not organized or we just don’t care. IF YOU DON’T DO IT NO ONE ELSE WILL!

Many Congresspeople want to make this change, but can’t without the support of the people.

WHY OUR FOREFATHERS FOUGHT THE FED

“Allow me to control the issue and the nation’s money and I care not who makes its laws!” The above quote has long been attributed to the 18th century banker Amshell Rothschild (his blood line controls the FED). For if one unscrupulous group is allowed to print a nation’s money – it can eventually use that money to gain control of the press AND the politicians – and thus gain control of making the nation’s laws – and finally – control of the nation itself. (Reference 4)

If you will take the time to read the reference material listed which has been researched by Professors of Universities, Congresspeople, etc, you will turn up information that might frighten you. For instance, in 1921 the stockholders of the Federal Reserve financed an organization called the “Council on Foreign Relations” (CFR). Harpers magazine called this the most powerful organization in the United States. Ninety percent of the people in the State Department and key positions in the Executive Branch are members of the CFR. The CFR publishes a magazine called “Foreign Affairs.” Read it if you want to know what is going to happen in coming years. The CFR is in favor of a New World Order (Reference 3).

Congressman Patman re-quoted Thomas Jefferson showing that our founding fathers knew this banking principle very well. “I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies….” “Already they have raised up a money aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power (of money),” he said, “should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs.” The American Revolution was a struggle to wrest control of wealth from the Bank of England and to restore the centers of power to the People where it “properly belongs.” The Constitution is specific about the authority of the People, through their elected officials, to control the money, and thus, the affairs of their government. (Reference 5, P. 32).

Ben Franklin said in his autobiography that the inability of the colonists to get the power to issue their own money permanently out of the hands of George III and the international bankers was [one of] the PRIME reason[s] for the Revolutionary War. (Quoted in Reference 4)

Thomas Jefferson stated, “If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.” (Reference 1, P. 247)

Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh of Minnesota said: “This [Federal Reserve] Act establishes the most gigantic trust on Earth. When the President [Wilson] signs this bill, the invisible government of the Monetary Power will be legalized… the worst legislative crime of the ages, perpetuated by this banking and currency bill.” (Reference 5, P. 33)

Robert H. Hemphill (Credit Manager, Federal Reserve Bank in Atlanta): “We are completely dependent on the commercial banks. Someone has to borrow every dollar we have in circulation, cash, or credit. If the banks create ample synthetic money we are prosperous; if not, we starve. We are absolutely without a permanent money system. When one gets a complete grasp of the picture, the tragic absurdity of our hopeless position is almost incredible, but there it is. It [the banking problem] is the most important subject intelligent persons can investigate and reflect upon. It is so important that our present civilization may collapse unless it becomes widely understood and the defects are remedied very soon.” (Reference 1, P. 247)

Napoleon, a sympathizer for the international bankers, turned against them in the last years of his rule. He said: “When a government is dependent upon bankers for money, they and not the leaders of the government control the situation, since the hand that gives is above the hand that takes… Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency; their sole object is gain.” (Reference 4)

Congresspeople have referred to Federal Reserve Notes as “FIAT” (no- backing) money. (Reference 1, P. 128, 169)

In 1879 the Supreme Court declared that the U.S. Government can legally issue United States Notes, debt and interest-free, just as Lincoln and Kennedy attempted. (Reference 1, P. 233)

A bank that attempted to repossess property on the basis of default faced Judge Mahoney in a jury trial. Jerome Daly was found innocent. The bank could not foreclose on the property because it created the loan money from thin air, as many banks do. Use this as a precedent the next time any bank tries to foreclose on your house. (Reference 17, P. 82, 83 for court records)

The FED violates Security & Exchange Commission (SEC) rules. (Reference 17, P. 96-98)

California 9th Circuit Court declared FED banks are private, not government. (Reference 17, P. 273)

Mr. Marriner Eccles, who was Chairman of the board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System longer than any other man, testified before the Joint Economic Committee in August 1962. When Chairman Rep. Wright Patman asked whether it was not a fact that the Federal Reserve System has more power than either the Congress or the President, Eccles replied: “In the field of money and credit, yes.” (Reference 1, P. 206)

Dr. Hans F. Sennholz, Chairman of the Department of Economics at Grove City (PA) College stated: “The Federal Reserve System facilitates the government’s own inflationary financing in “periods of emergency.” It makes easy the inflationary financing of budget deficits and the inflationary refunding of government loans. It stabilizes the government bond market through inflationary methods and manipulates this market to the advantage of the government. It does all this by wrecking the purchasing power of the dollar; by subtly stealing from the people of this country what it thus provides for the government, through a process exactly on par with the coin clipping of ancient kings but much less visible.” (Reference 1, P. 250, 251)

Source: Banking Act of 1935, Hearings before a Subcommittee of the Banking and Currency Committee, U.S. Senate, 74th Congress, 1st Session, on S.1715, May 1935, pp 871-2. “The Federal Reserve System is in the wrong hands. No Constitutional republic can function when the government’s money powers are in the hands of the financial oligarchy such as New York financiers.

A Republican Senator, who preferred to remain unnamed, stated: “Congress is too much motivated by fears and anxieties concerning pressure groups and the “non election.” (Reference 1, P. 210)

By controlling Congress, the FED has been able to control the nominating conventions of both political parties. In this way, it has been able to hand-pick the presidential nominees so that no matter which party wins, their nominee for President is under definite obligations to the FED… (Reference 1, P. 210; Reference 22)

In 1975, the Rockefeller Foundation Report discussed the “Interdependence” of the countries of the world on each other. It stated we are one world and America shall become a nation-state under one government. They also say we must reach a zero state population growth. The Rockefeller Foundation stated that they have in excess of 747 million dollars to achieve this with. (Reference 3)

Congressman John R. Rarick states that the Council on Foreign Relations CFR) is dedicated to a one world government. The media remains conspicuously quiet. The CFR wants to convert the U.S. from a sovereign, constitutional republic into a servile member state of a one world dictatorship. On February 17, 1950, CFR member James Warburg (banker, and architect of the Federal Reserve System) stated before a Senate Foreign Relations Committee, “We shall have one world government whether or not you like it, by conquest or consent.” Again, the media remained silent. In the April 1974 issue of the CFR journal, “Foreign Affairs”, page 558, Richard Gardener states that the new world order “will be built… but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old fashioned frontal assault.” Congressman McDonald, Heinz and Tower stated that this is a conspiracy. Again, the media remained silent. (Reference 14, P. 17, 18, 32, 33).

THE CFR WANTS TO ABOLISH THE CONSTITUTION. (Reference 14)

In a letter to Thomas Jefferson, John Adams wrote: “All the perplexities, confusions, and distresses in America arise, not from defects in the Constitution or confederation, not from want of honor or virtue, as much as from downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit, and circulation”.

; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by prosperity, under the same name of funding is swindling futurity on a large scale.” (Reference 1, P. 199)

British bankers have stated “Those that create and issue money and credit direct the policies of government and hold in their hands the destiny of the people”. (Reference 1, P. 200-214)

Adams, Jefferson, and Lincoln believed that banker capitalism was more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. In a republic, banks would lend money but could not create or manufacture it. (Reference 1, P. 215)

Later, Jefferson used stronger language and denounced the institution as “one of the most deadly hostilities against the principles and form of our Constitution.” Some have said that Jefferson did not favor a strong central bank. What he did not favor was the delivery of our monetary system into private hands to be run for private profit. (Reference 1, P. 230)

President James A. Garfield said: “Whoever controls the money in any country is absolute master of industry [legislation] and commerce”. (Reference 1, P. 247, Reference 4)

Without the Federal Reserve System, there can be no continuing march towards socialism, and with it there can be no free economy. (Reference 1, P. 251)

By controlling our own money, Thomas Jefferson expected that the government would incur no debt, as had occurred in the European system. (Reference 1, P. 243) European banks are like the FED.

The FED system is the death of our Constitution. (Reference 1, P. 250)

THE PLAN TO REDUCE PERSONAL INCOME TAX BY 75% AND BALANCE THE BUDGET BY ABOLISHING THE FED CAN BE PROVEN BY AMERICAN HISTORY.

THE FACTS

* England lost the Revolutionary War.

* England nearly destroyed the Colonies by creating fake Colonial money and hyper-inflation.

* Rothschilds who control the Bank of England (Like our FED) said that by controlling the issue of money (printing it) you can control the government.

* The authors of the Constitution understood private banks” control over governments. The Constitution gives only Congress the right to print money.

* From the beginning of the United States to present there have been two ways to issue new currency:

The first way is to have the government print the money, debt and interest- free, and circulate it through the economy for use as a medium of exchange. There is no tax levied to pay interest on the currency in circulation because it is debt and interest-free. This is the system Lincoln used with his “greenbacks”, a system Kennedy desired, and Jefferson demanded.

The second method is: The Citizens allow the bank to print $500 billion in currency (cash). The bank pays for printing costs, ink, and paper. The Citizens do not charge the bank any interest for use of the $500 billion in printed currency. The bank uses the $500 billion cash to buy a $500 billion government bond which pays the bankers interest. The bank keeps some of the bonds and sells, for a fee (10%), some of the bonds to the public. The bank can buy back the bonds from the public simply by printing more money. The bankers can create inflation and depressions by manipulating the amount of currency in circulation. The FED operates exactly like this today. It also prints money (through the U.S. Treasury) and uses this printed money to buy loans from other banks. This money has created our inflation. We give the bank cash interest-free, then they charge us interest on our own currency.

Take a look at our history in view of the two banking systems:

BEN FRANKLIN – THE TWO BANKING SYSTEMS

From the autobiography of Ben Franklin as reported by Gertrude Coogan in Money Creators:

…the inability of the colonists to get the power to issue their own money permanently out of the hands of George III and the international bankers was the PRIME reason for the Revolutionary War. (Reference 4).

Ben Franklin answering a question about the booming economy of the young colonies: “That is simple. In the colonies we issue our own money. It is called Colonial Scrip. We issue it in proper proportions to the demands of trade and industry.” (Colonial Scrip had no debt or interest attached.) (Reference 4)

BANK OF AMERICA

International bankers saw that interest-free scrip would keep America free of their influence, so by 1781 banker-backed Alexander Hamilton succeeded in starting the Bank of America. After a few years of “bank money”, the prosperity of “Colonial Scrip” was gone. Benjamin Franklin said, “Conditions were so reversed that the era of prosperity had ended and a depression set in to such an extent that the streets of the Colonies were filled with the unemployed!” Bank money was like our FED money. It had debt and interest attached. By 1790 Hamilton and his bankers had created a privately owned central bank and converted the public debt (interest-free) into interest bearing bonds, payable to the bankers. When Hamilton’s bank charter expired in 1811, the international bankers started the war of 1812. By 1816, another privately-owned U.S. bank was started with $35 million in assets – only $7 million of that was owned by the government. This bank lasted for 20 years. U.S. history shows that currency with debt and interest attached created a depression. (Reference 4)

ANDREW JACKSON – A GREAT PRESIDENT!

When the 1816 charter expired in 1836, Andrew Jackson vetoed its renewal. It was then that he made two famous statements: “The Bank is trying to kill me – but I will kill it!” Later he said “If the American people only understood the rank injustice of our money and banking system – there would be a revolution before morning…” (Reference 4)

ABRAHAM LINCOLN – ANOTHER GREAT PRESIDENT!

President Lincoln needed money to finance the Civil War, and the international bankers offered him loans at 24-36% interest. Lincoln balked at their demands because he didn’t want to plunge the nation into such a huge debt. Lincoln approached Congress about passing a law to authorize the printing of U.S. Treasury Notes. Lincoln said “We gave the people of this Republic the greatest blessing they ever had – their own paper money to pay their debts…” Lincoln printed over 400 million “Greenbacks” (debt and interest-free) and paid the soldiers, U.S. government employees, and bought war supplies. The international bankers didn’t like it and wanted Lincoln to borrow the money from them so that the American people would owe tremendous interest on the loan. Lincoln’s solution made this seem ridiculous. (Reference 1, P. 46, 47; Reference 4)

Shortly after Lincoln’s death, the government revoked the Greenback law which ended Lincoln’s debt-free, interest-free money. A new national banking act was enacted and all money became interest bearing again. (Reference 4)

The late Thomas A Edison explained the matter of issuing currency this way: “If our nation can issue a dollar bond (interest bearing) it can issue a dollar bill (interest-free). The element that makes the bond good makes a bill good also. The difference between the bond and the bill is that the bond lets money brokers collect twice the amount of the bond and an additional 20 percent, whereas the currency pays nobody but those who contribute directly in some useful way. It is absurd to say that our country can issue $30 million in bonds and not $30 million in currency. Both are promises to pay: But one promise fattens the usurers (interest collectors) and the other helps the people.” (Reference 1, P. 46)

The FED is owned largely by foreign banks that control our economy and Congress through the power of money and the media which they bought with profits generated with profits generated by artificial debt.

If we can convert U.S. dollars that are debt and interest-free to interest bearing currency, we can change it back just as easily. Both the media and the banking system will probably claim that such a change will cause hyper- inflation. The answer however, can be found in history. Lincoln printed debt and interest-free Greenbacks (cash) to finance an entire war. With added production you can add currency without having hyper-inflation. Lincoln proved it. John F. Kennedy – a President with vision! On June 4, 1964, President Kennedy issued Executive Order 11110. This Executive Order called for the issuance of new currency – the United States Note. At the time, $4,292,893 of this currency was put into circulation. This new currency was to be distributed through the U.S. Treasury and not the Federal Reserve System. Furthermore, it was to be issued debt and interest-free. Upon Kennedy’s assassination, this currency was withdrawn from circulation, never to be issued again. The media remained silent on how Kennedy would have eliminated the debt and interest payments, and therefore eliminated the FED. Interest-free United States Notes do not result in hyper-inflation. By issuing United States Notes, interest-free, we have less interest expense, and less taxes. With less taxes people spend more and buy more. This result is added production, and therefore, you can add dollars without inflation. Either Rockefeller and his people will spend your tax money into the economy or you get to spend your own money by paying less taxes. The bankers want you to think you’ll have mass inflation by changing the system. This is only true if you add dollars to the economy without added production. For example, look what happened in post World War I Germany. They merely printed money without increasing production. The result was hyper-inflation. Another example: In the entire economy, if you have only 10 loaves of bread and only $10, each loaf would sell for $1. If you print an extra $10, now you have $20 and the 10 loaves which would sell for $2 each. This is only true if we don’t have added production. By cutting taxes, people will spend more and buy more bread. If we print more money and bake more bread, we have $50 and 50 loaves, so each loaf still sells for $1. As long as you monitor production with increased cash, inflation will not occur. Under the FED system, the price of bread has dramatically increased since 1913. If we cut taxes and YOU spend your money instead of the BANKERS spending it, you will have more bread, cars, and wealth than the bankers. SOMEONE will spend your money – it might as well be YOU!

A FED-like banking system has destroyed other governments. In five years the only thing taxes will pay is the interest on the debt. Clearly, the FED must be abolished before we’re demolished! Already laws are set up to have a dictatorship when we have the economic crisis (Federal Emergency Management Act, or FEMA).

Under the FED system, when a new dollar is issued, we pay taxes to pay for the dollar as the principal (debt) plus interest on the dollar. We pay for each new dollar twice, and who gets most of the money? The bankers, who control this money. Taxpayers should only pay taxes for the paper, ink, and printing costs of new money. Why should we give bankers the right to print money on a printing press, charge them no interest on this money, and then let them exchange their “free” money for a government bond that pays them interest??

England never gave up on owning the United States. They are still silently fighting the same Revolutionary War. The Bank of England, through the Rothschilds, owns and controls the FED (Reference 22). We have been robbed of our wealth, and in five years we will be bankrupt if there is no change. The FED bankers will LEGALLY OWN OUR NATION; OUR HOUSES, OUR CARS, OUR BUSINESSES, just as Thomas Jefferson predicted.

SPECIFIC PLAN: HOW TO GET OUT OF DEBT

U.S. history proves that issuing debt and interest-free currency allows our economy to prosper, as long as Congress controls the amount of money created. You can add printed dollars into the economy as you add production, and there will be no inflation. With today’s sophisticated computers, we can easily monitor the printing of money and inflation.

Congress needs to buy back the FED and/or abolish it. Any government debt they own would be automatically eliminated. All remaining debt could be paid as needed with the same type of currency Kennedy issued (debt and interest-free United States Notes). United States Notes are backed by the full faith of the best government in the world – The United States of America. This is no different than the backing of today’s Federal Reserve Notes. U.S. citizens collect only a small fraction of the interest income on Federal Bonds and Bills. Foreigners benefit from this interest, but we pay the tax so that they collect interest on our currency. This makes sense to bankers and Congresspeople who receive money from bankers and foreign lobbyists.

As we pay less interest, government spending will decrease and so will taxes. Less taxes mean that people buy more goods and services and our economy expands. An expanded economy means more jobs and higher profits for businesses. More profit means increased state/federal business taxes. Businesses continue to pay taxes while personal taxes decrease. People will have more money to spend, will buy more, and therefore pay increased state sales tax. This allows the states to balance their budgets without raising real estate taxes. As history proves, we will prosper.

For 80 years the FED has destroyed our economy. It will take years to undo this damage. Just as Congress appoints a Postal Service, we will have Congress appoint an agency to monitor inflation as we exchange our retiring government debt for debt and interest-free United States Notes (cash). We need to break up all Central Banks created by the FED and return to the Constitution of the United States. We have to return the power of the citizens’ money back to the people.

THERE ARE SEVERAL SIMPLE WAYS TO ABOLISH THE FED

* Inform all Americans of this report and collect signatures on the petition.

* Demand that Congress and the media support “We the People’s” rights to uphold the Constitution and abolish the illegal FED.

* Write to your local newspaper, show them this report and ask them to keep freedom of the press alive, support the Constitution and abolish the FED. Freedom of the press should not be limited to those who own it.

* Write to CNN and other media. Tell them you want to see FED-UP(tm) on their programs.

* Ask your State/County Representatives to use their Constitutional powers to enforce your rights under the Constitution to have the FED abolished. Write to Reference 5 for detailed paperwork to be given to your local government.

* Call in on TV and radio talk shows and discuss why the FED should be abolished.

* Support businesses who distribute the petition and display the sign “FED-UP”. If they don’t, please ask them to.

* Ask candidates if they plan to introduce legislation to abolish the FED and uphold the Constitution which they are obligated to defend. Make candidates take a stand! Have the politician sign a contract with “We the People” enacting legislation to abolish the FED by a certain date or the politician must resign from office. The Democratic Congress and President promised the people “no FED” before the election. Thirteen months later, they passed the FED.

* Display your bumper sticker to show support and inform people.

* If 5,000 people distribute 2-3 brochures daily, we can inform half a million Americans monthly. Roughly 10% of these half a million people will make copies and inform others. Our goal is to inform 70 million adult Americans. Public opinion will soon be on our side. Once 10% of the population know, the other 90% will follow.

* Pray and ask God to return us to “One nation under God.”

It is our recommendation that you research the references listed, support all organizations that re trying to stop this fraud, and help us in our goal to get every American to sign this petition.

REFERENCES

(1) “The Federal Reserve Bank”, by H.S. Kenan, published by The Noontide Press

(2) National Committee to Repeal the Federal Reserve Act, P.O. Box 156, Westmont, IL 60559

(3) “The New World Order, Saving America”, P.O. Box 1205, Middleburg, FL 32050-1205

(4) “Bulletin”, February 1989 & November 1991 issues, P.O. Box 986, Ft. Collins, CO 80522 (Newsletter; $3 each)

(5) “The Most Secret Science”, Betsy Ross Press, P.O. Box 986, Ft. Collins, CO 80522 (Book) States attempt to abolish the FED. $12.00

(6) “Insider Report”, P.O. Box 84903, Phoenix, AZ 85071

(7) “Phoenix Journal Express”, P.O. Box 986, Tehachap, CA 93581

(8) $16 trillion in government and private debt, much of which the FED printed and collected interest on (Reference 3)

(9) Northpoint Tactical Team, P.O. Box 129, Topton, NC 28781

(10) Christian Defense League, Box 449, Arabi, LA 70023

(11) “Bulletin”, June 1992 issue, P.O. Box 986, Ft. Collins, CO 80522 (Newsletter; $3 each)

(12) “Savings and Loan Unethical Bailout” by Rev. Casimir F. Gierut

(13) “Dark Secrets of the New Age” by Texe Marrs

(14) “En Route to Global Occupation” by Gary H. Kah

(15) “One World” by John Amkerberg & John Weldon

(16) “The Spotlight”, Liberty Lobby, 300 Independence Ave. S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003 (Newspaper)

(17) “Repeal the Federal Reserve Banks” by Rev. Casimir Frank Gierut

(18) The Constitution of the United States

(19) “Walls in Our Minds” by M.J. Red Beckman, Common Sense Press, P.O. Box 1544, Billings, MT 59103. A must read book – $2.50

(20) “The Law That Never Was” Volume I, Bill Benson & M.J. Red Beckman, P.O. Box 1544, Billings, MT 59103 or write to Bill Benson, P.O. Box 550, South Holland, IL 60473. Proof that the 16th Amendment (income tax) was never properly ratified.

(21) “New World Order: The Ancient Plan of Secret Societies” by William T. Still

(22) “The Secrets of the Federal Reserve” by Mullins

(23) “The Social Security & Pension Conspiracy” by Metz

(24) “The History of the Federal Reserve. How to Replace It or How to Reform It” by Metz – for references 23 & 24 write to Howard Metz, P.O. Box 341, Malverne, LI 11565

(25) “The New World Order” by Pat Robertson. On page 131 he states that we must abolish the FED.

(26) “Operation Vampire Killer 2000”, highly recommended book. $6.00 ($8.00 for 2) from ACLA, P.O. Box 8712, Phoenix, AZ 85066 This is a must read book with quotes from well known people. This book proves conspiracy. Your local police needs to read this book so they will protect you – not become United Nations Agents against you. This book will stop the New World Order plan to take over the U.S.A.

“America Betrayed”, Center For Action, 652 N. Glenview, Nesa, AZ 85213

For references 1, 12, and 17, contact The National Committee to Repeal the Federal Reserve Act (Reference 2)

MEDIA BLACKS OUT THE FACTS

Here’s one terrific example. John Swinton, the former Chief of Staff for the New York Times, was one of New York’s best loved newspapermen. Called by his peers “The Dean of his Profession”, John was asked in 1953 to give a toast before the New York Press Club, and in so doing, made a monumentally important and revealing statement. He is quoted as follows:

“There is no such thing, at this date of the world’s history, in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar weekly salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone. The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth; to lie outright; to pervert; to vilify; to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press? We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities, and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes.”

RICHARD M. COHAN, Senior Producer of CBS political news said: “We are going to impose OUR AGENDA on the coverage by dealing with issues and subjects that WE choose to deal with.”

RICHARD SALANT, former President of CBS News stated: “Our job is to give people not what they want, but what WE decide they ought to have.”

And what is “their” agenda? What do they believe we, the American people, – THE COMMON HERD, “…ought to have?” Here is the answer:

NORMAN THOMAS – For many years the U.S. Socialist Presidential candidate proclaimed: “The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of “liberalism” they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing what happened.”

HERMAN DISMORE, foreign editor of the New York Times from 1950 to 1960: “The New York Times is deliberately pitched to the liberal (socialist) point of view.”

WALTER CRONKITE: “News reporters are certainly liberal (socialists) and left of center.”

BARBARA WALTERS: “The news media in general are liberals (socialists).”

Reference for everything above – Operation Vampire Killer, P.O. Box 8712, Phoenix, AZ 85066

The world, finally including even the balky American public, is “being rapidly educated into overcoming limited patriotism” and accepting “United Nations solutions to common global problems,” said Henry Kissinger.

Bilderberg participants expressed satisfaction with progress toward world government on two fronts:

* Establishing a UN tax to not only finance new global programs, but to condition “citizens of the world” to paying tribute.

* Conditioning the public — again, especially “those stubborn Americans” — to accept the idea of a UN army that could, by force, impose its will on the internal affairs of any nation.

“Today, Americans would be outraged if UN forces entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow, they will be grateful,” Kissinger said (of the 1992 Los Angeles riot).

Kissinger reported on a shocking speech made by UN Secretary General Butrous Ghali to the American Association of Newspaper Publishers at UN headquarters in New York in early May. The publishers’ newspapers covered up the story.

The UN Security Council must have a permanent force that can be deployed anywhere in the world, instantly, to “protect the peace” and “ensure human rights” the secretary-general told the newspaper publishers.

UN TO INVADE U.S.

This force must be allowed to intervene “at the local and community levels,” the UN leader told the American publishers.

What is “especially gratifying,” Kissinger said, “is that the publishers showed no reservations about the prospects of UN forces landing in the United States and imposing the UN’s will.”

Reference – The Spotlight, June 8, 1992, page 10. Liberty Lobby, 300 Independence Ave. S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003 (Newspaper)

SUMMARY OF QUICK FACTS

* Various dates and proofs that the Bankers created panic to push Congress to pass laws favoring bankers… Reference 22

* President Wilson received $85,000 bribe from bankers… Reference 22, pages 25-26

* How England, through the Bankers, controls our Congress… Reference 22, pages 47-48

* Rockefeller is connected to President Carter… Reference 22, page 171; Reference 25, page 103

* How George Bush is directly connected to the FED bank… Reference 22, page 49

* President Hoover and President Roosevelt were international Bankers… Reference 22, pages 69-71 and pages 157-159

* President Nixon was hired by Rockefeller’s law firm to become President… Reference 25, pages 100-101

* FED owner’s manual to destroy and control U.S. citizens… Reference 22, pages 55-56

* Proof Bankers claim they control the government… Reference 22, page 59

* Proof the FED knowingly created the Great Depression for their gain… Reference 22, pages 137-170

* FED bankers are directly linked to the New World Order and the United Nations. New World Order was discussed by George Bush, Rockefeller, Adolph Hitler, and Jimmy Carter… Reference 25, pages 5-7

* The Great Seal on back of the FED $1 bill, below pyramid, the NOVUS ORDO SECLORUM means “New World of the Ages” or — New World Order… Reference 25, page 35

* How the Banker’s tax-exempt organizations fund activities to destroy America’s freedom by attacking our Constitution and way of life… Reference 25, pages 138-159; Reference 14 (throughout whole book)

* Senator Barry Goldwater warned of economic powers capable of bypassing or controlling the political powers. Bank induced depression is possible in the future to force political change… Reference 25, 131

* Rockefeller’s money was used to seize control of America’s teaching and training of students by rewriting history and textbooks. Rockefeller has also funded the National Education Association (NEA)… Reference 14, page 61

* Gary Kah, high-ranking government liaison having first-hand knowledge of the New World Order exposes the truth. Read his book and En Route To Global Occupation… Reference 14

QUICK FACTS FROM TOM SCHAUF

First, we must uphold the Constitution. Please call the Hotline (217-854-7504) weekly for new information. When a state considers a Constitutional Convention, concerned Americans call the Hotline and it gives us the names and telephone numbers of the legislators involved. It tells us exactly what to say, and to whom. The Hotline helps us to fight and win!

Secondly, we must change the opinions of the masses with information. The brochure has been a big help, and once 10% of the population agrees to abolish the FED, the rest will follow.

It is obvious the media (radio and newspapers) have lied about the FED and the efforts of FED-UP(tm) to educate people with the truth. This will not stop us – we will persist! Decide for yourself if you want to win America back. If 10,000 patriotic Americans each distribute 1,000 brochures, 10 million Americans will become informed. It would be almost impossible to stop people from talking about abolishing the FED if that many Americans were informed. Another way you can participate is to put a bumper sticker on your car. Over 1,000 people every month will see that bumper sticker about abolishing the FED.

If you think our goal is impossible, remember this; only 3% of Americans supported the Revolutionary War, and we won that war. We can win this war too, but only with your help.

IN CLOSING

For the secret owners of the FED to control the volume of money and become our absolute masters, they had to get the Gold away from our grandparents. This was accomplished in 1933 with the threats of fines and imprisonments by their President Franklin D. Roosevelt with aide Harry Hopkins, who said… “Elect, elect, elect, tax, tax, tax, spend, spend, spend, for the people are too damned stupid to understand”. By the way, Roosevelt was an international Banker. See Fool’s Gold is Green by Winston Smith.

THE FED IS SLOWLY DESTROYING AMERICA

Our government never had a chance…with political corruption ravaging its Constitution. The *real facts* don’t lie…and neither do government documents…Congressional Record, Congressman Wright Patman, A Primer On Money prepared by the Sub-committee on Domestic Finance, House of Representatives, Committee on Banking and Currency – 88th Congress, 2nd session, August 4th, 1964 and December 23, 1913, page 1464 & 1478.

Congressional Record, Congressman Louis McFadden, June 10, 1932, House of Representatives, pages 12604-12605

Congressional Record, 98th Congress, 1st session, February 3, 1983, Congressman Ron Paul

Congressional Record, Committee on Banking and Currency, House of Representatives, 77th Congress, 1st session, Tuesday, September 30, 1941, pages 1342-1345

THERE ARE MANY MORE CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONIALS

IS THERE BIAS IN THE MEDIA REGARDING THE FED?

DURING THE TV PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES, CLINTON WAS ASKED SHOULD THERE BE RESTRICTIONS ON THE FED? THE NEXT DAY, MAJOR NEWSPAPERS SAID THEY COVERED THE WHOLE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE TEXT, BUT MANY NEWSPAPERS ELIMINATED THIS ONE QUESTION. CHECK YOUR LIBRARY!

The Revolutionary War was fought and the Constitution was written to prevent other nations and private banks from issuing (printing) money and controlling our currency.

In 1913, members of Congress committed treason and violated their oath of office to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic by voting in the Federal Reserve Bank.

For the New World Order to create a one world government, they must control a central bank, eliminate the Constitution, end Christian values, disarm America, and control the media. The Council on Foreign Relations has openly said they will take us over in favor of a one world government. The American people must be warned or we may lose our freedom forever. If we do not demand our rights and uphold the Constitution, the CFR and bankers will continue their march toward socialism. If we allow them to continue, they will abolish our rights and put an end to our present government. I urge all Americans to distribute the “main” FED-UP brochure (“saving $6000 in taxes per year, per person & balancing the budget) and collect signatures on the petition (see order form in the main brochure). Then all informed Americans can take action and hold their politicians accountable. The bankers control the media, but can not stop patriotic Americans from using copy machines to distribute information and inform America. Once informed, people will demand an explanation why Congress allowed this fraud as the media appeared to be independent and investigative, but remained silent on this important issue.

The ones who scream the loudest to keep the Federal Reserve Bank probably profit the most.

About the Author

Thomas D. Schauf, CPA, is a national speaker to Certified Public Accountants and business leaders. Mr. Schauf’s expertise includes banking, the economy, business appraisals, mergers, and acquisitions.

We are looking for leaders in all states to help us abolish the FED. Please write and let us know you’re willing to help. The future of America depends on you.

CONTRIBUTIONS TO CONTINUE THE CAUSE ARE APPRECIATED

PLEASE HELP DISTRIBUTE INFORMATION AND COLLECT SIGNATURES ON PETITIONS

Mr. Schauf and other speakers are available to speak at seminars, group meetings, on radio, and on television. FED-UP(tm) * P.O. Box 834 * Streamwood, IL 60103-0834

(C) 1992 Thomas D. Schauf

PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE WIDELY WITH NO CHANGES

UK babies given toxic vaccines, admits Glaxo

Some experts believe that these Trivax vaccines – which had not passed critical company safety tests – may have caused permanent brain damage and even fatalities in young children.

In 1992, the family of an Irish boy, Kenneth Best, who suffered brain damage from one of these toxic vaccines, was awarded £2.7 million in compensation by the Irish Supreme Court.

She discovered that the Trivax vaccine used on her son, from a batch numbered 3,741, had been released by the company despite it having failed to pass a critical safety test. Documents revealed that the 60,000 individual doses within this batch were known to be 14 times more potent than normal.

At the time the Irish judge accused GlaxoSmithKline – then known as Glaxo Wellcome – of negligence and attacked the company’s poor quality control at its Kent laboratory. Immunology experts condemned Glaxo in court for what one US scientist described as an ‘extraordinary event’.

Last year an investigation by The Observer found evidence to suggest that vaccines from this faulty batch, which may have wrecked Kenneth Best’s life, had also been used in Britain.

Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker raised questions in the House of Commons, asking whether vaccines from this batch had been given to British babies. Then Health Minister Yvette Cooper wrote to the company asking for information.

Now, almost a year later, GlaxoSmithKline has replied that it is ‘highly probable’ the toxic batches had been used in Britain.

The Department of Health is under pressure to make efforts to trace the children who received the suspect vaccines.

Last week in the House of Commons, Health Minister Hazel Blears said: ‘Unfortunately they no longer have details of the quantitites of vaccine or the places where the vaccine was supplied.

‘Since vaccines were not centrally purchased and distributed at that time there are no central records either. Information on individuals who received these vaccines will only exist if the general practioner at the time of the immunisation recorded the batch number and the patient’s notes are still available.’

Baker will now write to the Minister to demand that she asks health authorities to check the records to find out who received the vaccine. It is believed that at least one boy from Wales died after receiving a jab from toxic batch 3,741, although the parents have never been informed.

A spokesman for GlaxoSmithKline told The Observer : ‘We do not accept that these batches were harmful.’

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/jun/30/tracymcveigh.antonybarnett

German Official leaks report denouncing Corona as ‘A Global False Alarm’

Germany’s federal government and mainstream media are engaged in damage control after a report that challenges the established Corona narrative leaked from the interior ministry.

Some of the report key passages are:

  • The dangerousness of Covid-19 was overestimated: probably at no point did the danger posed by the new virus go beyond the normal level.
  • The people who die from Corona are essentially those who would statistically die this year, because they have reached the end of their lives and their weakened bodies can no longer cope with any random everyday stress (including the approximately 150 viruses currently in circulation).
  • Worldwide, within a quarter of a year, there has been no more than 250,000 deaths from Covid-19, compared to 1.5 million deaths [25,100 in Germany] during the influenza wave 2017/18.
  • The danger is obviously no greater than that of many other viruses. There is no evidence that this was more than a false alarm.
  • A reproach could go along these lines: During the Corona crisis the State has proved itself as one of the biggest producers of Fake News.

So far, so bad. But it gets worse.

The report focuses on the “manifold and heavy consequences of the Corona measures” and warns that these are “grave”.

More people are dying because of state-imposed Corona-measures than they are being killed by the virus.

The reason is a scandal in the making:

A Corona-focused German healthcare system is postponing life-saving surgery and delaying or reducing treatment for non-Corona patients.

Berlin in Denial Mode. The scientists fight back.

Initially, the government tried to dismiss the report as “the work of one employee”, and its contents as “his own opinion” – while the journalists closed ranks, no questions asked, with the politicians.

But the 93-pages report titled “Analysis of the Crisis Management” has been drafted by a scientific panel appointed by the interior ministry and composed by external medical experts from several German universities.

The report was the initiative of a department of the interior ministry called Unit KM4 and in charge with the “Protection of critical infrastructures”.

This is also where the German official turned whistleblower, Stephen Kohn, work(ed), and from where he leaked it to the media.

The authors of the report issued a joint press release already on Mai 11th, berating the government for ignoring expert advise, and asking for the interior minister to officially comment upon the experts joint statement:

“Therapeutic and preventive measures should never bring more harm than the illness itself. Their aim should be to protect the risk groups, without endegearing the availibilty of medical care and the health of the whole population, as it is unfortunately occurring”

“We in the scientific and medical praxis are experiencing the secondary damages of the Corona-measures on our patients on a dialy basis.”

“We therefore ask the Federal Ministry of the Interior, to comment upon our press release, and we hope for a pertinent discussion regarding the [Corona] measures, one that leads to the best possible solution for the whole population”

At the time of writing, the German government had yet to react.

But the facts are – sadly – vindicating the medical experts’ worries.

On Mai 23 the German newspaper Das Bild titled: “Dramatic consequences of the Corona-Measures: 52,000 Cancer Ops delayed.”

Inside, a aeading medical doctor warns that “we will feel the side-effects of the Corona crisis for years”.

Shooting the Whistleblower. Ignoring the Message.

As Der Spiegel reported on Mai 15th: “Stephen Kohn [the whistleblower] has since been suspended from duty. He was advised to obtain a lawyer and his work laptop was confiscated.”

Kohn had originally leaked the report on May 9th to the liberal-conservative magazine Tichys Einblick one of Germany’s most popular alternative media outlets.

News of the report went mainstream in Germany during the second week of Mai – but already in the third week media and politicians alike stopped discussing the issue by refusing to comment upon it.

Emblematic was the approach taken by Günter Krings, the representative for Interior Minister Horst Seehofer – the whistleblower’s boss:

Asked it he would treat the document seriously, Krings replied:

“If you start analyzing papers like that, then pretty soon you’ll be inviting the guys with the tin foil hats to parliamentary hearings.”

Men in tin foil hats – Aluhut in German – is a term used to describe people who believe in conspiracy theories.

Indeed one article by Der Spiegel adressing the Corona protest movement and the consequences of the leaked report contained the word “conspiracy” no fewer than 17 times!

And no discussions of the issues raised by the report itself.

Outside Germany the news has virtually gone unreported.

The Protest Movement – or “Corona-Rebellen”.

Germans begun demonstrating against Lockdowns as early as April.

And thousands of citizens keep showing up at demos every week-end, even as the government is easing the restrictions.

The demos are not merely against restrictions, which have actually been comparatively mild compared to many other Western countries.

The demos question the entire Corona Narrative, and even more its principals, especially the role Bill Gates is playing, as the WHO second biggest donor (the first one since Trump suspended U.S. contribution).

Indeed the biggest such demos took place in Stuttgart on May 9th, where tens of thousands people assempled to say no – to the NWO.

Germans are saying no to any orwellian solution the government might one day impose out of a questionable “emergency status”, from mass surveillance Apps to mandatory vaccinations.

The leaked report has proved their fears to be well founded.

At least as far as the fake nature of the “Corona pandemic” is concerned.

The rest might soon follow.

Source: https://www.nexusnewsfeed.com/article/geopolitics/german-official-leaks-report-denouncing-corona-as-a-global-false-alarm

The Manufactured Crisis of Police Racism

This article is an expanded version of the script for this video.

The United States is in an uproar over the death of George Floyd at the hands of the Minneapolis police. There have been demonstrations in over 400 US cities, and looting and arson in every major city. Why are so many people in the streets? Because they believe that American society is systematically racist and that the police brutalize and even casually murder black men.

The media constantly tell people the police are racist, and many people think the gruesome video of the death of George Floyd bears this out. But let’s look at the facts.

Every year, American police officers have about 370 million contacts with civilians. Most of the time nothing happens, but 12 to 13 million times a year, the police make an arrest. How often does this lead to the death of an unarmed black person? We know the number thanks to a detailed Washington Post database of every killing by the police. What is your guess as to the number of unarmed blacks killed by the police every year? One hundred? Three hundred? Last year, the figure was nine.

That number is going down, not up. In 2015, police killed 38 unarmed blacks. In 2017, 21. What about white people? Last year, police killed 19 unarmed whites, in addition to the 9 unarmed blacks. We know the number of black and white people arrested every year, so it is possible to make an interesting calculation. The chances of being unarmed, arrested, and then killed by the police are higher for whites than for blacks. For both races, it’s very rare: One out of 292,000 arrests for blacks, and out of 283,000 arrests for whites. This is hardly what we would expect from the way the media report these deaths.

What about the people the police kill who are armed?

Since 2015, when the Post began tracking these numbers, the police have killed about 1,000 people a year. Every year, about one quarter of them are black. This is about twice their share of the population, which is 13 percent. Is this proof of police racism? No. The more likely explanation is that blacks are more likely than whites to act in violent, aggressive ways that give the police no choice but to shoot them. In 2018, the most recent year for which we have statistics, blacks accounted for 37 percent of all arrests for violent crimes, 54 percent of all arrests for robbery, and 53 percent of arrests for murder. With so many blacks involved in this kind of violent crime, that blacks should account for 25 percent of the people killed by the police seem like a surprisingly low figure.

There is another perspective on police killings of civilians. Every year, criminals killabout 120 to 150 police officers. And we know from this FBI table that every year, on average, about 35 percent of officers are killed by blacks. So, to repeat, blacks are 13 percent of the population and account for 25 percent of the people killed by police. But if police were killing them in proportion to their threatening, violent, criminal behavior, they would be a greater percentage of the people killed by the police.

Some people believe that high arrest rates for blacks for violent crime reflect police racism. They believe that biased police arrest innocent blacks and let guilty whites go, and that is why the black arrest percentages are so high. That’s not plausible. Are we supposed to believe that when police get a report of a white robber or assailant, they don’t bother to try to catch him? Or that when they get a report of a black robber, they go out and arrest an innocent young black? Police are rewarded for making arrests that end in convictions, not for indulging in prejudice.

And there is very strong evidence that refutes the idea of “racist” arrest rates. Every year, the US Bureau of Justice Statistics conducts what is called the National Crime Victimization Survey. This is a survey of a nationally representative sample of no fewer than 160,000 people. They are asked about their experiences as victims of violent crime, and are always asked the race of the attacker. Many of these crimes are not reported to the police, so the numbers in this survey are always greater than the numbers of arrests for the same violent crimes. However — and this is a crucial point — the racial proportions of arrests track the racial proportions of the national survey very closely. For example, every year, the American public says that about half the muggers were black. Therefore, when half the muggers the police arrest are black, police are doing what they are supposed to do: arrest criminals without regard to race.

There have been careful scientific studies of possible police bias against blacks — and Hispanics. Last year, this paper and, later, this correction were published in the highly prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. The researchers built a sophisticated database for all the fatal police shootings in 2015, and looked at them from every possible racial angle. They found that the race of people shot had no bearing on their likelihood of being shot, and that non-white officers behaved no differently from white officers. They therefore concluded that “increasing diversity among officers by itself is unlikely to reduce racial disparity in police shootings.”

Roland Fryer is a black economist, and the youngest person ever to get tenure at Harvard. He was angry after the deaths of Michael Brown and Freddie Gray, so he did his own research on the use of deadly force by police in 10 big-city police departments police killing. His detailed study of 1,332 police shootings — in which he carefully compared the circumstances of each killing — found no evidence of police bias. If anything, police were more likely to shoot at non-threatening whites than at non-threatening blacks. He said, this was “the most surprising research result of my career.”

Why was Professor Fryer surprised? Because he believed what the media say about race and crime, and the media are often biased. Here is a particularly relevant example. On June 3, in the midst of the rioting over the death of George Floyd, the New York Times published a long, detailed article with this headline: “Minneapolis Police Use Force Against Black People at 7 Times the Rate of Whites.” This sounds like a clear case of horrific police bias, and this is the impression the Times clearly wanted to convey. However, the article included nothing about race differences in crime rates or arrest rates. This is like reporting that the police were seven times more likely to use force against men living in Minneapolis than against women, and getting outraged over ani-male bias. Needless to say, men in Minneapolis are much more likely to be subjected to police use of force because they commit far more crime and are arrested far more frequently. No one would conclude that disproportionate use of force against men was a result of anti-male bias.

The only way to determine whether the Minneapolis police were biased would be to do the kind of research Roland Fryer did for police killings: make side-by-side comparisons of arrests of blacks and whites and see if police used force more often when they arrested whites. We don’t have those data, but we do have graphs from a Minneapolis police department report on crime between 2009 and 2014.

This one shows the racial percentages of victims, suspects, and arrests for an aggregate of violent crimes: murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.

Since we know the percentage of each race in the population Minneapolis, it is easy to determine that compared to all other races combined, blacks were 12 times more to be suspects in these crimes and 9.5 times more likely to be arrested. Given this high rate of contact with the police, can it be surprising that a black person is seven times more likely than a white person to be treated forcefully by an officer? If anything, the multiple of seven seems low. Once again, the only reasonable conclusion is that police are reacting to behavior, not race. For the Times not to have included this kind of information is either grossly negligent or just plain dishonest. Reckless reporting gives people a completely false impression of the police.

An SFGate article about policing in San Francisco publicized a similar finding that seems to prove police racism: that over a five year period, blacks were eight times more likely than whites to be charged with resisting arrest. But again, there were no data on racial differences in arrests. Like the article in the Times, this creates a dangerously false impression of how the police do their jobs.

In America’s big cities, racial differences in crime rates can be staggering. Any report on crime that ignores these differences is likely to be misleading. This dull looking New York City report for 2019 contains some remarkable graphs. Take this one for murder.

The bars show the percentages of people of different races who are victims of murder, murder suspects, and eventually arrested for murder. As you can see, Asians and whites don’t figure very high in any category, but blacks were 57 percent of victims, 62 percent of suspects, and 58 percent of arrests for murder. The numbers for Hispanics are high, too.

Since we know the racial composition of the city, a simple calculation shows us that blacks are 17 times more likely than whites to be victims, 31 times more likely than whites to suspects, and 26 times more likely to be arrested. The Hispanic multiples are high, too, seven times more likely than whites to be victims, 11 times more likely to be suspects, and 12 times more likely to be arrested.

Here are the figures for robbery.

Blacks are 22 times more likely than whites to be suspects and 17 times more likely to be arrested.

A shooting is when someone fires a gun and a bullet strikes someone, whether it kills him or not.

Blacks are hugely overrepresented: 42 times more likely than whites to be victims, 46 times more likely to be suspects, and 39 times more likely to be arrested. These crimes are almost exclusively the work of blacks and Hispanics. Similarly eye-opening data are available for other big cities. These data are as easily available to the press as they are to us. Have you ever seen them in the papers or on television?

What about bias in the justice system after criminals are arrested? It’s hard to find nation-wide or comprehensive studies on this subject, but in 2017, the city of San Francisco hired independent researchers to look into what happens after an arrest. It’s true that when they are arrested for the same crimes, whites are more likely to have charges dropped, and if convicted, more likely to get lesser sentences. Is this proof of systemic bias? No. It’s because blacks are more likely to have prior convictions, to have an open case against them, to have been out on parole when arrested, etc.

What matter are the characteristics of each case. The report concluded: “For nearly all of the outcomes we study, simple statistical controls for predetermined case characteristics can fully or mostly account for observed disparities, and in some instances they over-explain disparities.” In other words, if you compare identical cases, there is essentially no bias against blacks. The phrase “over-explain disparities” means that in some cases, blacks received more lenient treatment than whites in similar circumstances.

It is important to recall that in not one of these celebrated “black lives matter” cases — Trayvon MartinMichael BrownFreddie GrayPhilando Castile, and Eric Garner — was there any proof that racist intent of any kind led to their deaths. Furthermore, in all but one, a criminal trial or Justice Department investigation found that the killing was justified. In the Garner case, Officer Daniel Pantaleo, who brought the 400-pound Garner to the ground in a neck hold, was fired from the New York City Police Department, but maintained he had done nothing wrong and planned to sue the department for reinstatement. It is reasonable to conclude that, once again, what led to an unfortunate death was behavior, not race.

Something else that has an important bearing on cases like this is resisting arrest. One of the best ways to turn an arrest for a minor crime into a felony case and — if things go wrong, into front-page news — is to fight the police. Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Philando Castile, and now, George Floyd were all resisting arrest when they died. It is safe to say that if they had followed officer commands, they would not have died.

Are there racial differences in the rates at which suspects resist arrest? Again, comprehensive data are not available, but a study in New York City found that in misdemeanor drug-possession cases, blacks were nearly twice as likely to face an additional charge of resisting arrest. If this is representative of the country as whole, it is yet more evidence that black criminal behavior differs from that of whites not only in frequency of contact with the police, but in the crucially important area of whether they are likely to become violent when arrested for a minor crime.

In conclusion, let me be clear about one thing: I am not trying to justify what happened to George Floyd in Minneapolis. He was a big guy, and he was resisting arrest to the point that even with cuffs on, a team of three officers couldn’t get him into a squad car. Police had a problem to deal with, but keeping a knee on Floyd’s neck for nearly 9 minutes may have been homicide.

But the solution is to investigate the officer, charge him if there are grounds to do so, and punish him if he is guilty. The solution is not to demonstrate and riot against police racism, when there is hardly any evidence of any kind of system-wide bias. There may be some bad apples, but the system is working as it should: In the overwhelming majority of cases, police deal with criminals properly, without regard to race.

There is a tremendous head of steam built up behind the idea of police bias. But it’s not the police who need reform. It’s the media. This crisis will not end until the press stops presenting a false and dangerously inflamed picture of the American justice system. Rioting and looting are wrong no matter what the reason. Rioting and looting over an illusion — because of something that isn’t even true — is an American tragedy.

How the BBC Manufactured ‘Hate’ An insider’s story

Editor’s Introduction: This article is about events that took place in 2012, but anyone who follows the news closely knows that nothing has changed. This is a remarkable account by someone who had an inside look at deliberate falsifications by what was once one of the most respected names in journalism.

In May of 2012, the BBC Panorama program broadcast a documentary about “racism” in the host countries of the 2012 European soccer championship: Poland and Ukraine. Those two countries were about to stage the second biggest event in the sport after the World Cup, and legions of journalists had arrived to cover it. The purpose of the BBC program—aired strategically one week before the opening match—was to argue that neither country was qualified to host the tournament because of their “hateful” soccer cultures. The message: All-white countries are hotbeds of violent racism, and non-white fans and players would be in danger.

I know a lot about the Panorama program because I helped produce it. I saw what is arguably the world’s most famous and trusted media organization fabricate a false, sensationalist story. Through outright distortion—and by using only those pieces that fit its predetermined views—the BBC “documented” the vicious attitudes of people who live in countries that are not sufficiently “diverse.” The program had a scripted conclusion before a single camera was turned on.

Panorama is the BBC’s flagship investigative program. It is the longest-running such production in the world, having been on the air since 1953. The closest thing to it on American television is probably 60 MinutesPanorama enjoys a reputation for hard-hitting and serious investigative journalism.

About three months before the tournament began, a BBC journalist got in touch with me through mutual media contacts and asked me to help with the part to be filmed in Poland. He said the program would be about aspects of the football culture—hooliganism, trouble at stadiums, etc.—that could cause problems for players and fans alike. This topic is something of a hobby of mine, and I have followed it carefully during my time in Poland. The BBC wanted me to be a “fixer”—the person on the ground who arranges things in advance for the production team. That meant setting up interviews, scouting filming locations, getting press passes and access to events, arranging transport, and a hundred other odds and ends. I was also expected to contribute ideas based on my knowledge.

I suspected right from the start that they wanted things that make for good television rather than a true investigation—conflict, tension, etc.—but I was somewhat reassured because this was the BBC. Despite my reservations, I never thought they would make the television equivalent of sensationalist trashy tabloid headlines.

The producer and a cameraman made their first trip to Poland in March 2012. They had asked me to arrange an interview with Aviram Baruchian, an Israeli who played with Polonia Warsaw. They said the interview was supposed to be about “his experience as a football player in Poland,” but the fact that they asked for him by name suggested they assumed he would have horror stories about being mistreated by fans because he is Jewish.

The press officer for Polonia was very accommodating, something I found again and again when dealing with officials from football clubs. People automatically trusted the BBC and went to extraordinary lengths to give them what they wanted.

I met the production crew for the first time the day after the interview. When I asked how it went, they joked about how useless it was. I was confused by their dismissive attitude and felt a bit responsible, but they told me not to worry. I learned later from the Polonia media spokesman that Mr. Baruchian had nothing but appreciative things to say about the fans and his experience in Warsaw—which is exactly why he isn’t in the final program.

There is a curious “Jewish” angle to Polish football that is easily misunderstood. Fans chant nasty things about Jews, but, strange as it may seem, it’s not accurate to call it serious anti-Semitism.

Many of the older clubs originally had or are thought to have had Jewish financial backing. This is almost certainly true of the team in Lodz—called Widzew Łódź—since that city had a large Jewish population before the Second World War. These origins have become a source of cheap name calling for people who seize on any excuse to trade insults. When fans chant “death to the Jews,” it sounds shocking—and it certainly is brutish—but this is mainly a way of attacking the other team rather than Jews.

There has been a similar situation with the London football club Tottenham Hotspur, which has had Jewish owners. Fans of rival clubs started chanting about the “Jewish” team. Tottenham supporters eventually embraced this and some even call themselves the “Yid Army.” The fans of one Polish club, Cracovia, were in the same position and did the same thing, now proudly calling themselves the “Jewish Sons of Bitches.” When I told the BBC about that, they weren’t interested.

Needless to say, there is a lot of anti-Jewish chanting in the final Panorama program, but it is presented without explanation. It falsely makes the fans look as though they want to send Jews to the ovens.

The Star of David is now used so much in soccer graffiti that a Polish teacher I met told me that the children in his class associate it with the sport. He also had a friend from Israel, so this seemed like gold for the BBC: a poignant combination of children, the star of David, racism, and a chance to talk to another Israeli and get what they missed from Aviram Baruchian.

I set up the interview, but it was another disaster. Both the teacher and his Israeli friend said that, yes, while there certainly are boorish people, just as there are in every country, most Poles are very nice etc. Again and again, the Israeli put a positive spin on things, even when asked melodramatic questions about the Second World War. It was another “useless” interview that didn’t make the final cut. I remember that when we got back to the van everyone burst out laughing about what a complete waste of time it had been.

The first actual match we went to film was Legia Warsaw vs. Polonia Warsaw. This contest had an excellent chance of including all the things that make for great television, and it was before I understood what the real focus of the program was, so I was sure the BBC crew would not be disappointed. For about five hours, they filmed an army of police in full riot gear, flares and firecrackers being thrown around the stands and onto the field, an enormous banner unfurled by the home Legia fans declaring that Warsaw belonged to them, and a reply spelled out by the small but brave contingent of visiting Polonia supporters, who held up cards to form one big reply: “FUCK LEGIA.” There was a hooligan with a bullhorn on an elevated platform and countless examples of a well-known hand gesture delivered straight into the camera. A section of the stadium was burned black by a flare that set fire to a banner.

The entire contingent of Polonia fans was still in that blackened section after the match, surrounded by hundreds of security guards who would escort them out of the stadium perhaps an hour or two later. This was to minimize the chance of contact with Legia hooligans who might be waiting for them. It was easy to capture the violent atmosphere of the game, and I was confident the production team was happy. As we made our way back to the van, I asked the assistant producer if he was pleased. He made a face that said “not really,” and then out of nowhere asked, “Did you hear any racist or anti-Semitic chants?” He was visibly disappointed when I said I hadn’t.

Boring
Boring

The lead producer said he was more or less satisfied with the “visuals” but was disappointed with the “substance.” He asked again about something I had been unable to do: get one of the more committed hooligan types to go on camera. This time he explicitly said he wanted someone involved in “right-wing politics” as well as hooliganism.

I said it wasn’t easy to get inside a violent crime syndicate. The higher-ups in any hooligan organization are wanted by the police, and anyone further down is too scared to speak to the media for fear of the “leaders.” Believe me, anyone who goes on camera and says he’s a hooligan is either a wannabe or gets a very personal lesson in media relations from his former friends. I did the best I could, striking up awkward and even dangerous conversations on dark streets, and I visited dodgy clubs in four different cities, but I never delivered. The closest I got was a conversation with the head of one club’s “supporters organization,” who demanded a “fee” for “security.” To its credit, the BBC refused to pay.

Time to get serious

The team went back to London, and I continued to look into leads. I began to realize that what they wanted was bananas thrown at black players, Nazi salutes from the stands, and maybe some brutal beatings to add color.

In a phone conversation with the assistant producer at the end of March, I detected a note of urgency and in April, I got an e-mail message from him that said, “Our Executive Producer, Karen Wightman [who was in charge of the entire Panoramaseries], wants us to film black players and their experience of racism in Poland as a priority.”

The BBC had dropped all pretense about what they were after—at least with me—though they kept up the charade of a neutral investigation with others.

The crew decided to come see a match in the city of Łódź between ŁKS Łódź and Widzew Łódź. Like the previous game in Warsaw, this was a derby, that is to say, a contest between two clubs in the same city. Derbies typically have the most intense atmosphere, and thus an elevated chance of the kind of incident the BBC was looking for.

Widzew had two Nigerian players, Princewill Okachi and Ugo Ukah, and the BBC wanted first-hand accounts of mistreatment. Mr. Ukah was of particular interest because he had played for Queens Park Rangers in London and could compare his treatment in diverse, tolerant, multicultural England with that of all-white, wicked Poland. Also, there would be two black men on the visiting team in a contest famous for its wild fans. Everything was lined up perfectly to provide the missing “substance.”

I asked the BBC specifically what they wanted me to tell the press officer of Widzew and they told me to say we were interested in Poland’s preparation for the Euro 2012 tournament. Someone else on the production team, who had also been in contact with Widzew by e-mail, sent me this note:

They don’t know at this stage we want to specifically talk about racism in Polish football and their [the black players’] own personal experiences of abuse, so be prepared to schmuz [sic] and impress.

“At this stage” was after the club had agreed to make the players available—on Easter Sunday, no less, to fit our tight schedule. We were supposed to “schmuz and impress” rather than be forthright about the reason for the interview. I remember wondering how often the BBC gets access and interviews under false pretenses. To my shame, I was helping set the trap.

Łódź was the BBC’s last chance to find anti-black “racism.” The broadcast date for the final program was already booked and Panorama was fully committed to a headline-grabbing account of the dark, racist side of what was soon to be Europe’s biggest sporting stage. But they had no racism.

It was in Łódź that the host, Chris Rogers, finally parachuted into his own program. He was the one who had sold the BBC on the idea months earlier, and the entire Panorama episode is presented as “his” investigation. Mr. Rogers made something of a name for himself in 2007 with an undercover investigation of Romania’s orphanages, and he has been dining out on it ever since.

He flew in to interview the two Nigerian players and to do PTC’s (pieces to camera) the following day at the match to add to footage shot in Warsaw without him. He came across as a typical media type who was good at fake sincerity and spent a little too much time on his hair.

We went to the Widzew Łódź office to interview Mr. Okachi and Mr. Ukah. Mr. Rogers started with softball questions, such as how long the players had been in Poland, where else they had played professionally, etc. He turned things up a notch by asking about the reception they had received in Poland. Both players gave positive answers. Time and again Rogers dangled the carrot and time and again no one reached for it. Suddenly Rogers put on his best journalist Serious Face, turned to Mr. Ukah, and said “Why has Polish football been hijacked by racism?”

There was nothing in the interview up to that point to justify that question. It was so unexpected that Mr. Ukah was taken aback for a moment before he was finally able to give a suitably noncommittal answer. The next few minutes consisted of both Mr. Ukah and Mr. Okachi repeatedly stating that though they had heard of things happening to other people, they had never heard or seen anything that could be interpreted as racist abuse in Poland.

This went on for a few more minutes until both players had run out of nice ways to say “no” to the same question. Mr. Rogers had no choice but to wrap it up.

“For the hundredth time: No.”
“For the hundredth time: No.”

The players left quickly to enjoy what was left of Easter. I distinctly remember Mr. Rogers and the producer agreeing that they had “material to work with.”

If you watch the final version of the program, you will see how they “worked” with it. They made it sound as though the players were talking about horrible things that happened to them. I was in the room the whole time, paying careful attention, and those bits were taken from rambling answers they gave about things they had heard happened to others. I was amazed at how editing and voice-overs transformed the interview into something I couldn’t recognize. Needless to say, those were the only parts of the interview that were used.

I heard it. Trust me. Let’s go.

The next day was the match. After filming the police using water cannons on fans, we went inside the stadium. We set up a camera behind one of the goals and a microphone at midfield in front the home fans. Mr. Rogers instructed me to be on the lookout for “anything good,” and by then I knew what he meant. He also told me to keep an eye on the Nigerian players and look for any nastiness from the crowd. He constantly disappeared to sneak cigarettes and text his friends in England. He wasn’t even there for the kickoff. When he finally reappeared he asked if I had seen or heard anything useful. When I said I hadn’t, he disappeared again.

About 30 minutes in to the first half, we were still waiting for “something good,” and Mr. Rogers was visibly anxious. He paced back and forth, checking his phone more than he watched the crowd or the match. Once, just to break the silence between us as we stood on the sidelines or maybe to vent his frustration, he actually said out loud “Come on! Sing some Jewish songs!”

At halftime, the five of us who were there got together to trade notes and suggestions, and we decided to switch places to maybe improve our “luck.” I was with the producer and one cameraman; the other cameraman was high above the crowd on the opposite stand. Chris Rogers was . . . somewhere.

The second half kicked off and we went back to work. There was plenty of thuggishness in the stands—you see a lot of it in the final version—but still not what they wanted. There was a palpable feeling of frustration and hopelessness as another 30 or so minutes passed.

That’s when Chris Rogers walked up and said he had heard monkey sounds coming from the crowd. No one knew quite what to say, but this certainly wasn’t greeted with the kind of relief and interest you would have expected. For a moment it seemed as though we were just waiting for someone to say “Um . . . really?” but we just waited for Mr. Rogers to tell us exactly what happened. All he said was that the microphone at midfield had probably picked it up, and he told the producer to get ready to do a PTC about it. Thirty second later he was in Serious Face mode, intoning that he had just heard monkey sounds directed at a black player. I kept waiting for him to tell our cameramen what part of the stands the sounds came from so they could zoom in on it. Surely he wanted to watch those fans in the hopes that they would do it again, this time on camera?

No. Chris Rogers made no effort to get visual material for what was to be a key moment in a television program. And it wasn’t as if we were in a massive stadium with 60,000 people, where it would be hard to pinpoint where sounds came from. The photo below is of the stadium, and the picture captures about 80 percent of the length of the stand from which the monkey sounds allegedly came. The banner says “This is how we have fun in Łódź.” Not one of the BBC crew said, “OK, Chris, where should we look?”

The recording from the microphone is in the final version of the program, and I challenge anyone to detect what Chris Rogers claims to have heard. You might be at a loss to describe exactly what the noise is, but “monkey sounds” is way, way down on the list of possibilities.

In the broadcast version, this part of the recording is played over a shot they had taken earlier in the match of Ugo Ukah attacking the ball. However, the audio is from a microphone planted at the edge of the field. When they went back and “found” those sounds, they had no idea what was going on in the match at that moment. But in the program, the sounds start the moment Mr. Ukah is on the ball. The BBC took the audio from one moment and played it over a video from another moment. I would expect that from the North Korean press, not the BBC.

When we packed up to leave, we had to walk through the part of the stadium where the post-match press conference was to be held. It hadn’t started, but print and video journalists were waiting. The BBC producer saw this, and asked Mr. Rogers if we should stop and ask about what he had heard at the match. What more perfect, made-for-television scene could there be? He could have walked into the after-match press conference and announced dramatically, “I’m Chris Rogers from the BBC and I want to know how it’s possible that a black player was racially abused in a country that will be hosting the European Championships.” That would be the dramatic moment they were looking for. But no, Mr. Rogers said we needn’t waste the time. He wanted to go back to the hotel for dinner. He did not speak with Ugo Ukah after the match or the following day while we were still in Lodz.

Mr. Ukah never said anything about hearing monkey noises. No player from either team ever did. Nor did any of the many journalists from the Polish media, nor did a German television crew that was there.

I cannot say what Chris Rogers did or did not hear. However, I do know that in a stadium of around 5,000 people the only person who claims to have heard monkey sounds was the one person who flew to Poland for three days with the sole purpose of finding “racism.”

The final version of the program stretches the truth in other ways. For example, Mr. Rogers says he has spent months on location studying local football culture, whereas he spent just a few days in the country. There is also a scene in which a British “anti-racist” named Nick Lowles is shown scanning the crowd with binoculars, looking for “hate.” The voiceover says that “he has flown out to see what British fans can expect in Poland,” and he obligingly gives an interview. The program makes it look as though the camera crew just stumbled onto him in the stands. In fact, the BBC flew him in just for that scene.

The team certainly didn’t mind spending money. I was with the producer when he got a message from London telling him that they were well over budget. He said they had spent around £150,000 pounds (about $230,000). They stayed in expensive hotels and never thought about costs. I was amazed by how much they spent in restaurants and hotel bars. Remember: This is the BBC, to which mandatory payments of £150 pounds a year must be made if you own a television set in Britain. It is a criminal offense not to pay.

The results

Just days before the broadcast, the BBC showed some of the footage to Sol Campbell, son of Jamaican immigrants and former captain of the English national football team. They happily filmed him claiming—predictably—to be shocked. He said it was enough to convince him not to go to the tournament and to warn other non-whites not to go.

This was brilliant publicity for Panorama. Polish and Ukrainian media picked up Mr. Campbell’s comments, which pushed “racism” to the forefront of any British discussion of the tournament. The program cast a pall over the tournament before the first match was even played, and put a small army of journalists on alert, scanning the stands for “hate.”

I watched the show when it first aired at the end of May. I had been dreading it, but my dread turned to shock when I heard what the episode was called: “Stadiums of Hate .” They had come up with a suitably provocative title for their contrived, deliberately misleading fairy tale about a football culture permeated with vile racism.

The program has disappeared from YouTube; it appears to be available only this much less trafficked site. But when it was broadcast, it made national headlines in Poland. The country’s biggest television channel took the extraordinary step of broadcasting it just days later, dubbed in Polish.

Many Poles were outraged at what they recognized as a vicious smear. It is worth noting that within a week or so, every single person who appeared on camera in the Polish part of the program claimed publicly to have been misrepresented. This includes Jonathan Ornstein, the director of the Jewish Community Center of Krakow. I was present for the interview with him, and he gave thoughtful answers to all of Chris Rogers’ questions, always emphasizing that ugly graffiti and idiots making trouble at stadiums do not represent larger Polish attitudes. In the program, however, he seems to be leading the charge against horrible, hateful, anti-Semitic Poland. Mr. Ornstein told me personally how disgusted he was by how his interview was cut apart and stitched back together.

Even Jacek Purski, director of Never Again, an organization dedicated to monitoring racism in Poland, says the program was one-sided. When a “watchdog” group calls a television program “one-sided,” you can be sure it was outrageous.

The Polish government demanded a clarification from the BBC, and even the foreign minister complained. Newspapers throughout Europe expressed skepticism, and reader comments left online were overwhelmingly outraged. The BBC took the very unusual step of publicly responding to criticism.

Then the BBC got a huge break from Barack Obama, of all people. During a ceremony at the White House honoring someone who had survived Auschwitz, Mr. Obama referred to it as a “Polish death camp” rather than a Nazi death camp in occupied Poland. Angry demands for an apology from the US government pushed “Stadiums of Hate” off the front page. After that, the relentless media cycle quickly relegated the whole affair to yesterday’s news.

Today, criticism of the “Stadiums of Hate” episode takes up more space on the Wikipedia page for Panorama than any other episode in its history. As the doubts and questions mounted, the BBC seems to have taken pains to get copies off the internet. There are any number of other full episodes of Panorama on YouTube, but not this one.

I was the least important man on the production crew and had no editorial influence, but I still felt responsible the episode that millions of people ultimately watched. At the height of the furor I got in touch with the Polish and foreign press. Their reaction was always the same: intense initial interest that quickly faded after a better understanding of what was involved. The explanation I heard over and over was that attacking a program that attacked racism looks like you’re defending racism.

One editor of a major UK newspaper told me it was hard to attack Panorama without a smoking gun. When I asked for an example, he said one would be someone who admitted he was paid by the BBC to pretend to be a “racist” hooligan. The man seemed jaded and not at all surprised by what I told him; he also said he simply could not risk coming across as defending “racism.”

As time goes by, doubts about the program’s credibility fade. All anyone will remember is that the great Chris Rogers exposed horrible racists in Poland and Ukraine. You will have to dig pretty deep to get the real story. That is the power of the biggest name in news.

Mr. Krak does not expect to get any more work from the BBC.

Vernon Coleman (1946 – ) doctor, columnist, self publisher.

Dr Vernon Coleman MB ChB DSc FRSA was born and grew up in Walsall, West Midlands, the son of an electrical engineer. He qualified as a doctor and was a general practitioner in Leamington Spa for a decade, but rebelled against the form-filling. He resigned as a GP after refusing to put diagnoses on sick notes. He resigned as columnist on The Sunday People after the editor refused to print a column criticising the Iraq war. He is the author of over 100 books.

His first book, The Medicine Men, 1975, accused the National Health Service of being controlled by the drug companies. It was serialized in The Guardian. He has written for The Daily Star and The Sun, and had a regular column in The People. He met his second wife when she wrote to his column in The People.

He took up self-publishing when no-one would publish his novel written from the viewpoint of his cat – he has now sold over 50,000 copies of it. One of his best-sellers is How to Stop Your Doctor from Killing You. He has sold over two million copies of his 90 books.

He gave up his People column in 2003 when the editor would not publish his comments on the war in Iraq. He now lives in Devon, still using WordPerfect 5.1. He writes against medical malpractice, animal testing, the drug companies and vaccination. He is a vegan.


He came out as a transvestite in 1995. He is a member of The Beaumont Society, but is critical of it for having transsexuals as members. He surveyed 1,016 male transvestites and published the results as Men in Dresses. He does not identify with gays, transsexuals or drag queens. He argues that transvestites are not homosexual, that they do not do it for sexual thrills, and that they do not develop into transsexuals. He estimates transvestites as around 10% of the male population – which is very similar to the positions of The Beaumont Society.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

As this site is inclusive, we really do not relate to Coleman’s separatism.

One is instantly suspicious of anyone who has published 90 books. How could he have found the time to do the relevant research for each one? This suspicion seems quite germain in his writings on crossdressing. He does not cite any other writers. One would expect him to at least mention Virginia Prince who was saying almost the same things over 40 years ago – but he does not.

He seems quite unaware of the biases that are introduced by the methods of selecting a sample.

His survey included the following question with the indicated percentage response:

Question asked: Why do you do it?

Note: Respondents were invited to tick as many options as they liked.
a) Because I like the feeling of women’s clothes: 321 (77%)
b) Because it gives me a sexual kick: 244 (59%)
c) Because it helps me relax and deal with stress: 202 (48%)
d) Because I want to be like a woman: 262 (63%) .

The issue of sexual arousal in crossdressing is contentious. It was certainly exaggerated by psychoanalysts who tried to define the sexual arousal as a a central trait. Many of us have rejected this on the simple grounds that one cannot pass if one is aroused. However how can Coleman report that 59% of his respondents say that they crossdress “Because it gives me a sexual kick”, and then conclude

“The second well-established myth about transvestites is that men who wear the sort of clothes normally worn by women do so because they get a sexual thrill out of it. This absurd piece of nonsense was created by doctors who couldn’t understand why else men would want to put on dresses. Despite the fact that there is not and never has been any evidence to support this theory many psychiatrists, doctors, psychologists and social workers still believe it.”

His own survey is one of the strongest pieces of evidence for what he calls a myth.

There is a transsexual site by Leyla that reproduces two of Coleman’s pages, but does not explain why she thinks that he is the person to best explain transsexuality.

Source: Vernon Coleman (1946 – ) doctor, columnist, self publisher.

%d bloggers like this: