Archive for October, 2012



Published on Oct 30, 2012 by vonveezil2

13 yr old Jennie lays it out plain and simple why to vote for Romney November 6th.

 I found this in another of their links about Al Sharpton. (I can barely stomach to name him, let alone do a blog on this tare)

Apparently this bill was stillborn.  How many times have I blogged about enough evidence to have “O” brought up on TREASON charges?  The bunch of steers in Congress, (2010 freshmen excluded from the analogy) may need to be recycled next election.   Plus the nerve of seeking U.N. “approval” when Congress is to be consulted… TO H with the U.N.

 Declares president’s use of military without approval ‘high crime, misdemeanor’

 
author-imagebyDrew Zahn

Drew Zahn is a former pastor who cut his editing teeth as a member of the award-winning staff of Leadership, Christianity Today’s professional journal for church leaders.
 
 
120213obama2

Let the president be duly warned.

Rep. Walter B. Jones Jr., R-N.C., has introduced a resolution declaring that should the president use offensive military force without authorization of an act of Congress, “it is the sense of Congress” that such an act would be “an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor.”

Specifically, Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution reserves for Congress alone the power to declare war, a restriction that has been sorely tested in recent years, including Obama’s authorization of military force in Libya.

In an exclusive WND column, former U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo claims that Jones introduced his House Concurrent Resolution 107 in response to startling recent comments from Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta.

“This week it was Secretary of Defense Panetta’s declaration before the Senate Armed Services Committee that he and President Obama look not to the Congress for authorization to bomb Syria but to NATO and the United Nations,” Tancredo writes. “This led to Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., introducing an official resolution calling for impeachment should Obama take offensive action based on Panetta’s policy statement, because it would violate the Constitution.”

Read “The Case for Impeachment” and know why Obama has got to go before America is done for …

Get the bumper sticker that tells everyone to Impeach Obama!

In response to questions from Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., over who determines the proper and legal use of the U.S. military, Panetta said, “Our goal would be to seek international permission and we would … come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this, whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress – I think those are issues we would have to discuss as we decide what to do here.”

“Well, I’m almost breathless about that,” Sessions responded, “because what I heard you say is, ‘We’re going to seek international approval, and then we’ll come and tell the Congress what we might do, and we might seek congressional approval.’ And I just want to say to you that’s a big [deal].”

Asked again what was the legal basis for U.S. military force, Panetta suggested a NATO coalition or U.N. resolution.

Sessions was dumbfounded by the answer.

“Well, I’m all for having international support, but I’m really baffled by the idea that somehow an international assembly provides a legal basis for the United States military to be deployed in combat,” Sessions said. “They can provide no legal authority. The only legal authority that’s required to deploy the United States military is of the Congress and the president and the law and the Constitution.”

The exchange itself can be seen below:

The full wording of H. Con. Res. 107, which is currently referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary, is as follows:

Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a president without prior and clear authorization of an act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution.

Whereas the cornerstone of the Republic is honoring Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that, except in response to an actual or imminent attack against the territory of the United States, the use of offensive military force by a president without prior and clear authorization of an act of Congress violates Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under Article I, Section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution and therefore constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution.

If you’d like to sound off on this issue, please take part in the WND Daily Poll.

http://swissdefenceleague.wordpress.com/  Follow that site to keep informed about radical Islam.  – provided in response to reposting of  “NEW FILM EXPOSES RADICAL MUSLIM “DECEPTION”

 
30-Minute Version of the New Documentary Film. The Third Jihad movie exposes the war the media is not telling you about. It reveals the enemy our U.S. government is too afraid to name. One person who is not afraid to tell you the truth is Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, a Muslim American and former physician to the U.S. Congress. After the FBI releases a radical Islamist manifesto describing how to destroy America from within, Dr. Jasser decides to investigate. http://thethirdjihad.com/

 A fellow blogger, upaces88, recently posed the question “Why is he (Obama) still sitting there in OUR OVAL OFFICE? Has the entire civilized world gone insane?”  Well, to satirize Toy Story’s character Buzz Lightyear’s statement, “To insanity, and beyond!”

 

ACT! for America

OCTOBER 29, 2012                                                                    

CIA training includes Muslim Brotherhood leader

Our friend and colleague John Guandolo recently posted a column (see below, highlights added) on the Breitbart Big Peace website. Mr. Guandolo is a former FBI agent whose understanding and analysis of the Muslim Brotherhood in America is second to none.

When you read his column, ask yourself why the CIA is utilizing the president of ISNA, which was found to be a funding source for the terrorist organization Hamas, as one of its presenters at a “Countering Violent Extremism Workshop?”

As Guandolo notes, John Brennan, President Obama’s top counter-terrorism advisor, has “scoffed at the idea the Muslim Brotherhood has penetrated the U.S. government.”

  If you want to know the truth, visit our website, select the Contributing Member option, and then select the $35 donation level.

We will mail you a DVD called “Unmasking the Muslim Brotherhood.” This DVD contains two presentations, one conducted by Mr. Guandolo, that document just how wrong John Brennan is. You will be shocked.

With Muslim Brotherhood entities and individuals burrowed deep into our government, is it any wonder we’re seeing a purge of any references to radical Islam in our counter-terrorism training materials and lexicon?


CIA HOSTS TRAINING BY MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD LEADER AND HAMAS SUPPORTER

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/10/23/CIA-Hosts-Training-By-Muslim-Brotherhood-Leader-and-Hamas-Supporter

by John Guandolo

Over the last several years, the presence of Muslim Brotherhood (MB) operatives working inside the federal government advising our senior leaders has been definitively documented (see articles here, here and here). This penetration of our system is shocking and constitutes an immediate danger for American citizens. The success of the MB’s influence operation from within our government is now manifesting itself with national and global implications for the security of America and its citizens.

In July of this year, the CIA hosted a 2-day training program at its headquarters in Langley, Virginia entitled “Countering Violent Extremism Workshop for the National Capitol Region.”

Present at this conference were local, state, and federal officials from nearly every law enforcement, military, and intelligence organization around the Washington Metropolitan area. In addition to the senior CIA, FBI, and DHS officials conducting the training, members of the Muslim community moderated and led the training throughout the 2-day program. Notable among these was Imam Mohammed Magid who participated in speaking about “Building Communities of Trust: A Local Example of a Partnership between the All Dulles Area Muslim Society (ADAMS) and Law Enforcement.”

How was Imam Magid vetted to speak at CIA Headquarters? And who vetted him?

The ADAMS Center is a Muslim Brotherhood front organization. It was founded by some of the most senior Muslim Brothers in the United States, to include Ahmed Totanji, who still resides in Herndon, Virginia. Its website proclaims “[ADAMS] is a membership organization registered in the State of Virginia as a non-profit, tax exempt corporation and is affiliated with the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA).”

Imam Magid is the Executive Director of the ADAMS Center. He is also the President of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the largest Muslim Brotherhood organization in the U.S. which was found to be a financial support entity for Hamas in the largest terrorism financing and Hamas trial in U.S. history (US v Holy Land Foundation, Dallas, 2008). Having Magid advise and teach U.S. intelligence and law enforcement officials can only be aptly described as insane. According to officials at Langley who were willing to speak on the condition of anonymity, this is an outrage – but none of the leaders on the inside seem to understand the gravity of this threat. To say the fox is in the hen house would be an understatement.

But the insanity does not end there. Imam Mohammed Magid continues to be a guest in the White House, works with the National Security Council, advises the Secretary of State, is on the DHS Homeland Security Advisory Working Group, and has received an award from the FBI. Magid continues to be treated by American leaders as if he is a friend, yet he is the leader of the largest MB front in the U.S. which financially supports the terrorist organization Hamas.

The question must also be asked – who vetted the other “leaders” from the Muslim community who moderated panels and led the training at CIA Headquarters? Are any of them Muslim Brothers or sympathetic to the MB cause?

When, over a long period of time, American leadership works side by side with and are advised by individuals and organizations who are proven to be hostile to the United States, it is no wonder the shooting at Ft Hood was called a “crime” by the FBI not an “act of terrorism” and why it was called “workplace violence” by Pentagon officials writing the after action reports. It is no wonder DHS and others in our government define the threat as “violent extremism” (which is actually a meaningless term) instead of calling it what it actually is – the Muslim Brotherhood’s jihadi movement in the United States which is a support network for terrorists. And, it is no wonder that a military attack by Al Qaeda on an American consulate in Libya would be identified by the Obama Administration as the result of a YouTube video which was “offensive to Muslims” instead of what it truly was. Sadly, the amazing heroism of the men who battled over 200 Al Qaeda fighters for 6 hours is getting lost in the shuffle.

Recently, Counter Terrorism Czar John Brennan scoffed at the idea the Muslim Brotherhood has penetrated the U.S. government. At what point will Mr. Brennan be held accountable for willfully failing to perform his duty and uphold his Oath to the Constitution. When will the other leaders such as the Secretary of State, the Director of Central Intelligence, the FBI Director, and the President be held to account for this egregious and treasonous behavior?

The National Security apparatus of the United States is deeply penetrated and is being dangerously manipulated by a hostile foreign threat. This necessarily means that significant foreign policy decisions involving the Islamic world will not only fail to achieve their intended outcome, but they will serve to advance the cause of our enemies.

One can only hope that a Romney Administration will take bold and decisive actions to purge the government of our enemies and those who willfully and unwittingly support them.

 

As I Age –

As I approach my twilight years, I am struck by the inevitability that the party must end. And one clear, cold morning after I’m gone, my spouse will awaken in the warmth of our bedroom and be struck with the pain of learning that sometimes there isn’t “anymore.”

No more hugs, no more special moments to celebrate together, no more phone calls just to chat, no more “just one minute.”

Sometimes, what we care about the most gets all used up and goes away, never to return before we can say good-bye, say “I love you.”

So while we have it, it’s best we love it, care for it, fix it when it’s broken and heal it when it’s sick.

This is true for marriage….and old cars. And children with bad report cards, and dogs with bad hips and aging parents and grandparents. We keep them because they are worth it, because we are worth it.

Some things we keep — like a best friend who moved away or a sister-in-law after divorce. There are just some things that make us happy, no matter what.

Life is important, like people we know who are special. And so, we keep them close!

Suppose one morning you never wake up, do all your friends know how you really feel? The important thing is to let every one of your friends know your true feelings, even if you think they don’t love you back.

So, just in case I’m gone tomorrow, please vote against that jackass, Obama.

UN Declares Boycott on American Companies…    Friday, Oct 26 2012

…that do business with Israel. This is just another point of stupidity that is foisted on the world by an organization that is more corrupt than any other on the planet.

It is high time that the US stop all funding for the UN and to kick them the hell out of America. It is a failure on a grand scale similar to its predecessor the League of Nations.

Unbelievable.

U.N. Human Rights Council Calls for Boycott of U.S. Companies

U.N.’s war on Israel puts American economy in crosshairs

The Washington Free Beacon has obtained a report soon to be released by the United Nations that calls for an international campaign of legal attacks and economic warfare on a group of American companies that do business in Israel, including Hewlett-Packard, Caterpillar Inc., and Motorola Solutions Inc.

The Human Rights Council (HRC), a body dominated by Islamic countries and known for its hostility to, and heavy focus on, the Jewish State, issued the report. The George W. Bush administration refused to participate in the HRC, but President Barack Obama joined it soon after taking office. Members of the HRC include infamous human rights abusers such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, Libya, China, and Cuba.

The Obama-approved body maintains a “Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories [sic].” The current rapporteur is American college professor Richard Falk, a 9/11 “truther” who once posted an anti-Semitic cartoon on his personal blog.

In a letter to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon, the Anti-Defamation League’s Abraham Foxman blasted the report and the HRC’s special rapporteur: “We believe you should have prevented the Secretariat from being a party to Mr. Falk’s anti-Israel agenda. Mr. Falk’s entire tenure as Special Rapporteur has served to undermine the credibility of the institution of the United Nations.”

The report attempts to instigate a campaign of boycott, divestment, sanctions, and legal action against a litany of international companies doing business in Israel. In addition to American companies, the U.N. targets include major European firms such as Veolia Environnement, Group 4 Security, the Dexia Group, the Volvo Group.

via U.N.’s war on Israel puts American economy in crosshairs | Washington Free Beacon.

          

  swissdefenceleague

Jihad in America: The Grand Deception

By Cliff Kincaid October 27, 2012 NewsWithViews.com

The Investigative Project on Terrorism has released a new film exposing the activities of the Muslim Brotherhood inside the United States and how its front groups and sympathizers intimidate the major media and Hollywood.

The Muslim Brotherhood, now in charge of the Egyptian government and making major advances throughout the Middle East, was established in 1928 and is considered by experts to be the parent organization of terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda and Hamas.

Coming just days before the November 6 presidential election, the film, titled “Jihad in America: The Grand Deception,” highlights a problem of subversion in the U.S. that both major political party candidates, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, have not been asked by the media to address.

Investigative Project on Terrorism executive director Steven Emerson, himself the target of death threats because of his work over the course of decades exposing Islamic extremist networks, spoke at a panel discussion in Washington, D.C. on Thursday, October 25th, that was attended by Accuracy in Media. We also reviewed an advance copy of the film.

Several years in the making, the film describes how Muslim Brotherhood fronts, such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), have pursued a strategy described in secret documents as the “Civilization-Jihadist Process” of destroying Western civilization from within and making America into an Islamic state.

The film includes FBI wiretaps of Islamists in the U.S. disguising their support of terrorist groups like Hamas and declaring, “Politics, like war, is deception.”

In addition to secret wiretaps and videos of Muslim Brotherhood activities, the film includes newly declassified documents and interviews with law enforcement officials, prosecutors, and journalists.

Although the film suggests the Muslim Brotherhood front groups are operating as illegal agents of a foreign power, there is more at stake than just subversion. The film contends that the Muslim Brotherhood is directly involved in radicalizing American Muslims who then carry out terrorist missions.

The film examines the case of Army Officer Nidal Malik Hasan, a self-described “solider of Allah” with links to al-Qaeda who is accused of killing 13 people in the 2009 Fort Hood shooting. The Obama Administration has described this mass murder as “workplace violence” and not “terrorism.”

MUCH MORE, CONTINUE READING   AT:  http://swissdefenceleague.wordpress.com/2012/10/27/new-film-exposes-radical-muslim-deception/

This is a larger photo than I’d used in
“Critical Mass 2012”  This will explain its part in the video.

The name of the book Obama is holding is called:

The Post-American World, and it was written by a fellow Muslim.(Fareed Zakaria)

“Post” America means: The World “After” America !”

If each person sends this to a minimum of twenty people on their address list,

in three days, all people in The United States of America would have the message.

https://partneringwitheagles.wordpress.com/2012/04/05/critical-mass-2012/

Mark 8:36
For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?
Mark 8:35-37 (in Context)

One fine post. Apart from ending the FED, this is a primary objective we need to implement without delay:

Political Vel Craft

 
Glass-Steagall Act

 

RALLY H.R. 1489 THE NEW GLASS STEAGALL ACT

 

Introduction to the Glass-Steagall Act

The Glass-Steagall Act has remained one of the pillars of banking law since its passage in 1933 by erecting a wall between commercial banking and investment banking. In effect, the law keeps banks from doing business on Wall Street, and vice versa. In actuality, there are two Glass Steagall measures. The first was the Glass-Steagall Act of 1932, a bookkeeping provision that allowed the Treasury to balance its account. And what is commonly known today as the Glass-Steagall law is actually the Bank Act of 1933, containing the provision erecting a wall between the banking and securities businesses. It also laid the groundwork for legislation that would allow the Federal Reserve to let banks into the securities business in a limited way.

Causes For and Brief History of Glass-Steagall Act

Fundamental to an understanding of the passage of the Glass-Steagall Act is the fact that by 1933 the U.S. was in one of the worst depressions of its history. A quarter of the formerly working population was unemployed. The nation’s banking system was chaotic. Over 11,000 banks had failed or had to merge, reducing the number by 40 per cent, from 25,000 to 14,000. The governors of several states had closed their states’ banks and in March President Roosevelt closed all the banks in the country.

Congressional hearings conducted in early 1933 seemed to show that the presumed leaders of American enterprise — the bankers and brokers — were guilty of disreputable and seemingly dishonest dealings and gross misuses of the public’s trust. Looking back, some historians have come to a different conclusion about the role such abuses played in bringing down banks. Some historians now say the chief culprit of bank failures was the Depression itself, which caused real estate and other values to fall, undermining bank loans.

Securities abuses played a minimal role in the collapse of banks, these historians say, and caused few failures among the New York banks with the largest Wall Street operations.Causes For and Brief History of Glass-Steagall Act

Congress in 1933 prohibits commercial banks from engaging in the investment business.

Read more: Glass-Steagall Act – Further Readings

The Banking Act of 1933 was probably the newly-elected Roosevelt administration’s most important response to the perceived shambles of the nation’s financial and economic system. But the Act did not change the most important weakness of the American banking system — unit banking within states and the prohibition of nationwide banking.

This structure is considered the principal reason for the failure of so many U.S. Banks, some 90 percent of which were unit banks with under $2 million in assets. (In contrast, Canada, which had nationwide banking, suffered no bank failures and only a few of the over 11,000 U.S. Banks that failed or merged were branch banks.)

Instead, the Act established new approaches to financial regulation — particularly the institution of deposit insurance and the legal separation of most aspects of commercial and investment banking (the principal exception being allowing commercial banks to underwrite most government-issued bonds).

Carter Glass and Henry Steagall

The primary force behind the law was Mr. Glass, a 75-year-old senator who stood 5 feet 4 inches. A former Treasury secretary, he was a father of the Federal Reserve System and a critic of banks that engaged in what he considered the risky business of investing in stocks. He wanted banks to stick to conservative commercial lending, and he exploited the antibank sentiment to push through the changes he wanted. But just two years after Glass-Steagall was enacted, Mr. Glass helped lead an effort to have it repealed, as “he thought it was a mistake and an overreaction.” Mr. Glass passed on in 1946 at the age of 88. Mr. Steagall (pronounced stee-GAHL), a Democratic who was chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee, developed a passion for helping farmers and rural banks from growing up in Ozark, Alabama. He had little interest in separating banking from Wall Street, but signed on to the bill after Mr. Glass agreed to attach Mr. Steagall’s amendment, which authorized bank deposit insurance for the first time.

For several years before 1933 Senator Glass had wanted to restrict or forbid commercial banks from dealing in and holding corporate securities. He strongly believed that bank involvement with securities was detrimental to the Federal Reserve system, contrary to the rules of good banking, and responsible for stock market speculation, the Crash of 1929, bank failures, and the Great Depression. It is generally accepted that he was unable to achieve the goal of separating commercial and investment banking until revelations concerning National City Bank were brought forth in the Senate Committee on Banking and Currency’s Stock Exchange Practices Hearings. Disillusionment with speculators and securities merchants carried over from investment bankers to commercial bankers; the two were often the same, and an embittered public did not care to make fine distinctions. The Banking Act of 1933 was passed and quickly signed into law.

Restrictions and Repeals in the Bank Holding Company Act

Curbing banks’ ability to grow too large has been a common theme in legislation through the years. During the 1930s and 1940s, banks stuck to the basics of taking deposits and making loans. Congress didn’t intervene again until 1956, when it enacted the Bank Holding Company Act to keep financial-services conglomerates from amassing too much power. That law created a barrier between banking and insurance in response to aggressive acquisitions and expansion by TransAmerica Corp., an insurance company that owned Bank of America and an array of other businesses. Congress thought it improper for banks to risk possible losses from underwriting insurance. While many banks today (1990s) sell insurance products provided by insurers, banks can’t take on the risk of underwriting.

Several attempts since 1933 by commercial bankers, and at times regulators, to repeal or draft exceptions to those sections of the law that mandate separation of commercial and investment banking — usually referred to alone as ‘Glass-Steagall Act’ — generally have not been successful. As a result, the United States and Japan (which was forced to adopt laws similar to the U.S. Banking statues after the Second World War), alone among the world’s important financial nations, legally require this separation. (Japanese banks can engage in many securities activities, however, including underwriting and dealing in commercial paper and ownership of up to 5 percent of non-bank enterprises.).

The Provisions Within the Sections of the Glass-Steagall Act

The Glass-Steagall Act has come to mean only those sections of the Banking Act of 1933 that refer to banks’ securities operations — sections 16, 20, 21, and 32. These four sections of the Act, as amended and interpreted by the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Reserve Board and the courts, govern commercial banks’ domestic securities operations in various ways.

Sections 16 and 21 refer to the direct operations of commercial banks. Section 16 and 21 refer to the direct operations of commercial banks. Section 16, as amended by the Banking Act of 1935, generally prohibits Federal Reserve member banks from purchasing securities for their own account. But a national bank (chartered by the Comptroller of the Currency) may purchase and hold investment securities (defined as bonds, notes, or debentures regarded by the Comptroller as investment securities) up to 10 per cent of its capital and surplus. Sections 16 and 21 also forbid deposit-taking institutions from both accepting deposits and engaging in the business of ‘issuing, underwriting, selling, or distributing, at wholesale or retail, or through syndicate participation, stock, bonds, debentures, notes or other securities’, with some important exceptions. These exceptions include U.S. Government obligations, obligations issued by government agencies, college and university dormitory bonds, and the general obligations of states and political subdivisions. Municipal revenue bonds (other than those used to finance higher education and teaching hospitals), which are now of greater importance than general obligations, are not included in the exceptions, in spite of the attempts of commercial banks to have Congress amend the Act. In 1985, however, the Federal Reserve Board decided that commercial banks could act as advisers and agents in the private placement of commercial paper.

Section 16 permits commercial banks to purchase and sell securities directly, without recourse, solely on the order of and for the account of customers. In the early 1970, the Comptroller of the Currency approved Citibank’s plan to offer the public units in collective investment trusts that the bank organized. But in 1971 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that sections 16 and 21 prohibit banks from offering a product that is similar to mutual funds. In an often quoted decision discussed at length in section IV of this chapter and in Chapters 2,3,4 and 5, the Court found that the Act was intended to prevent banks from endangering themselves, the banking system, and the public from unsafe and unsound practices and conflicts of interest.

Nevertheless in 1985 and 1986 the Comptroller of the Currency decided that the Act allowed national banks to purchase and sell mutual shares for its customers as their agent and sell units in unit investment trusts. In 1987, the Comptroller also concluded that a national bank may offer to the public, through a subsidiary, brokerage services and investment advice, while acting as an adviser to a mutual fund or unit investment trust. Since 1985 the regulators have allowed banks to offer discount brokerage services through subsidiaries, and these more permissive rules have been upheld by the courts. Thus, more recent court decisions and regulatory agency rulings have tended to soften the 1971 Supreme Court’s apparently strict interpretation of the Act’s prohibitions.

Sections 20 and 32 refer to commercial bank affiliations. Section 20 forbids member banks from affiliating with a company ‘engaged principally’ in the ‘issue, flotation, underwriting, public sale, or distribution at wholesale or retail or through syndicate participation of stocks, bonds, debentures, notes, or other securities’. In June 1988 the U.S. Supreme Court (by denying certiorari) upheld a lower court’s ruling accepting the Federal Reserve Board’s April 1987 approval for member banks to affiliate with companies underwriting commercial paper, municipal revenue bonds, and securities backed by mortgages and consumer debts, as long as the affiliate does not principally engage in those activities.

‘Principally engaged’ was defined by the Federal Reserve as activities contributing more than from 5 to 10 per cent of the affiliate’s total revenue. In 1987, the DC Court of Appeals affirmed the Federal Reserve Board’s 1985 ruling allowing a bank holding company to acquire a subsidiary that provided both brokerage services and investment advice to institutional customers. In 1984 and 1986 the Court held that affiliates of member banks can offer retail discount brokerage service (which excludes investment advice), on the grounds that these activities do not involve an underwriting of securities, and that ‘public sale’ refers to an underwriting.

Section 32 prohibits a member bank from having interlocking directorships or close officer or employee relationships with a firm ‘principally engaged’ in securities underwriting and distribution. Section 32 applies even if there is no common ownership or corporate affiliation between the commercial bank and the investment company.

Sections 20 and 32 do not apply to non-member banks and savings and loan associations. They are legally free to affiliate with securities firms. Thus the law applies unevenly to essential similar institutions. Furthermore, securities brokers’ cash management accounts, which are functionally identical to cheque accounts, have been judged not to be deposits as specified in the Act.

Commercial banks are not forbidden from underwriting and dealing in securities outside of the United States. The larger money center banks, against whom the prohibitions of the Glass-Steagall Act were directed, are particularly active in these markets. Five of the top 30 leading underwriters in the Eurobond market in 1985 were affiliates of U.S. Banks, with 11 per cent of the total market. These affiliates include 11 of the top 50 underwriters of Euronotes. Citicorp, for example, has membership in some 17 major foreign stock exchanges, and it offers investment banking services in over 35 countries. In 1988, it arranged for its London securities subsidiary to cooperate with a U.S. Securities firm to make markets in securities in the United States. The Chase Manhattan Bank advertises that it ‘has offices in almost twice as many countries as ten [major listed] investment banks combined. Furthermore, commercial banks’ trust departments can trade securities through their securities subsidiaries or affiliates for pension plans and other trust accounts.

In summary, commercial banks can offer some aspects of investment advisory services, brokerage activities, securities underwriting, mutual fund activities, investment and trading activities, asset securitization, joint ventures, and commodities dealing, and they can offer deposit instruments that are similar to securities.

The Generally Accepted Rationale for the Separation of Commercial and Investment Banking

The generally accepted rationale for the Glass-Steagall Act is well expressed in the brief filed by the First National City Bank (1970) in support of the Comptroller of the Currency (William Camp), who had given the bank permission to offer commingled investment accounts. For this case (Investment Company Institute v. Camp, 401 US 617, 1971), which the Supreme Court decided in favor of the Investment Company Institute, FNCB’s attorneys described the rationale for the Act thus: (First National City Bank, 1970, pp. 40-2):

The Glass-Steagall Act was enacted to remedy the speculative abuses that infected commercial banking prior to the collapse of the stock market and the financial panic of 1929-1933. Many banks, especially national banks, not only invested heavily in speculative securities but entered the business of investment banking in the traditional sense of the term by buying original issues for public resale. Apart from the special problems confined to affiliation three well-defined evils were found to flow from the combination of investment and commercial banking.

Provisions of the Glass-Steagall Act were directed at these abuses:

(1) Banks were investing their own assets in securities with consequent risk to commercial and savings deposits. The concern of Congress to block this evil is clearly stated in the report of the Senate Banking and Currency Committee on an immediate forerunner of the Glass-Steagall Act.

(2) Unsound loans were made in order to shore up the price of securities or the financial position of companies in which a bank had invested its own assets.

(3) A commercial bank’s financial interest in the ownership, price, or distribution of securities inevitably tempted bank officials to press their banking customers into investing in securities which the bank itself was under pressure to sell because of its own pecuniary stake in the transaction.

A Summary of the Rationale Leading up to the Enactment of the Glass Steagall Act

The original (and in some measure, continuing) reasons and arguments for legally separating commercial and investment banking include:

  • · Risk of loses (safety and soundness). Banks that engaged in underwriting and holding corporate securities and municipal revenue bonds presented significant risk of loss to depositors and the federal government that had to come to their rescue; they also were more subject to failure with a resulting loss of public confidence in the banking system and greater risk of financial system collapse.
  • · Conflicts of interest and other abuses. Banks that offer investment banking services and mutual funds were subject to conflicts of interest and other abuses, thereby resulting in harm to their customers, including borrowers, depositors, and correspondent banks.
  • · Improper banking activity. Even if there were no actual abuses, securities-related activities are contrary to the way banking ought to be conducted.
  • · Producer desired constraints on competition. Some securities brokers and underwriters and some bankers want to bar those banks that would offer securities and underwriting services from entering their markets.
  • · The Federal ‘safety net’ should not be extended more than necessary. Federally provided deposit insurance and access to discount window borrowings at the Federal Reserve permit and even encourage banks to take greater risks than are socially optimal. Securities activities are risky and should not be permitted to banks that are protected with the federal ‘safety net’.
  • · Unfair competition. In any event, banks get subsidized federal deposit insurance which gives them access to ‘cheap’ deposit funds. Thus they have market power and can engage in cross-subsidization that gives them an unfair competitive advantage over non-bank competitors (e.g. Securities brokers and underwriters) were they permitted to offer investment banking services.
  • · Concentration of power and less-than-competitive performance. Commercial banks’ competitive advantages would result in their domination or takeover of securities brokerage and underwriting firms if they were permitted to offer investment banking services or hold corporate equities. The result would be an unacceptable concentration of power and less-than-competitive performance.
  • · Universal v. Specialized Banking. If the Glass-Steagall Act were repealed, the U.S. Banking system would come to resemble the German universal system, which would be detrimental to bank clients and the economy.

BILL CLINTON REPEALED THE GLASS STEAGALL ACT IN 1999 ALLOWING ROTHSCHILD BANKING LEAGUE TO USURP AMERICA’S WEALTH BY FRAUDULENT DERIVATIVES.

Related articles

http://politicalvelcraft.org/glass-steagall-act/?like=1&_wpnonce=6a48b92710

 

-General Carter Ham at a Pentagon Briefing.

 

 


Just When You Thought Obama, Panetta and Hillary could not possibly get any worse…they DO…

 

October 18th, 2012 Sec. of Defense, Leon Panetta said-

Mr. Panetta said, “Today I am very pleased to announce that President Obama will nominate General David Rodriguez to succeed General Carter Ham as commander of U.S. Africa Command.” This came as a surprise to many, since General Ham had only been in the position for a year and a half. The General is a very well regarded officer who made AFRICOM into a true Combatant Command after the ineffective leadership of his predecessor, General William E. “Kip” Ward. Later, word circulated informally that General Ham was scheduled to rotate out in March 2013 anyway, but according to Joint doctrine, “the tour length for combatant commanders and Defense agency directors is three years.” Some assumed that he was leaving for unspecified personal reasons.

Source-

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/robbins-report/2012/oct/28/gene…

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now THAT is the Obama Official on-the-record stated view.

 

But as we all have come to KNOW, Obama’s “Official Stated View” is what honest folk call a LIE.

 

So what is the straight-skinny on this?

What REALLY happened?

 

This-

 

The information I heard today was that General Ham as head of Africom received the same e-mails the White House received requesting help/support as the attack was taking place. General Ham immediately had a rapid response unit ready and communicated to the Pentagon that he had a unit ready.

General Ham then received the order to stand down. His response was to screw it, he was going to help anyhow. Within 30 seconds to a minute after making the move to respond, his second in command apprehended General Ham and told him that he was now relieved of his command.

The story continues that now General Rodiguez would take General Ham’s place as the head of Africom.

Source-

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/robbins-report/2012/oct/28/gene…

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

IF you’ve been following this sorry saga of Islamic Jihad against America then you already KNOW that our Commander-In-Chief is on the side of America’s ENEMIES…

 

What you may not know is “For HOW long had Obama side with our Muslim and Marxist Enemies?”

 

THIS long-

FROM WND’S JERUSALEM BUREAUWorldNetDaily Exclusive

Hamas ‘happy’ with Obama’s $900 million pledge

Funds earmarked for U.N. agency that openly employs terrorists

Published: 02/24/2009

 

TEL AVIV, Israel – Hamas is “very happy” with a pledge this week from the Obama administration to provide $900 million in aid for rebuilding the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip, a spokesman from the Islamist organization told WND.

“We are very happy with this decision,” said Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum, speaking by cell phone from Gaza. “In the first place, this money will go toward reconstructing efforts.”

Fawzi Barhoum

 

Source-

http://www.wnd.com/2009/02/89949/

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

Did you catch the date of that article?

This was done within 3-4 weeks of Obama’s Inauguration!

Meaning Obama, Panetta and Hillary had planned this for a while!

 

Since at least February 24th, 2009 Obama has openly sided with America’s ENEMIES!

 

$900,000,000 TO HAMAS/The Palestinian Authority!!!

A Terrorist Group!!

 

 

Come November 6th…

 

NObama in NOvember!

 

BE CONSERVATIVE.

WIN!

 

 

 

-Rev. Larry Wallenmeyer- P.A.N. Admin II.

“Disobedience to tyrants is Obedience to God.” -Benjamin Franklin.

 

The Ripening Wanderer

https://theripeningwanderer.com/

The Clockwork Conservative

All wound up about politics, history, culture... lots of stuff.

blogsense-by-barb

at the Re-Birth of America!

ON MY WATCH - the writings of SamHenry

A Writer's Take on Global and National Issues with Background Information and Humor As Needed

Once Written

A Political Blog

Welcome to the Right Central

Under Construction.

markokloos.com

purveyor of space kablooie stories.

Truth in Palmyra

By Wally Fry

Truth and Shadows

Following the white rabbit

Pacific Paratrooper

This WordPress.com site is Pacific War era information

IHRA

The best in WWII aviation history

BUNKERVILLE | God, Guns and Guts Comrades!

God, Guns and Guts Comrades!

Aces Flying High

An Aussie's travels to air shows, aviation museums and related events around the world, with a bit of aerospace history along the way!

Eyes on Europe & Middle East

Des regards croisés sur l'Europe et le Moyen Orient

Doc Baize

Give me liberty or give me death!

partneringwitheagles

WHENEVER ANY FORM OF GOVERNMENT BECOMES DESTRUCTIVE OF THESE ENDS (LIFE,LIBERTY,AND THE PERSUIT OF HAPPINESS) IT IS THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO ALTER OR ABOLISH IT, AND TO INSTITUTE A NEW GOVERNMENT...

Chastisement 2014

He is ready to separate the chaff from the wheat with his winnowing fork

Decoded-Information

The Take Down Of America

The Dangers of Allah

Confused about Islam, Muslims, Taqiyya, Kitman, The Islamic State, and Sharia? I've spent 14 years studying these confused beings.  They are not at all what they want us to believe, especially those who are ruled by al Qaeda , ISIS and the Muslim Brotherhood as well as those who commit overt and covert Jihad while practicing Sharia tortures upon women

Treason Among Us

A blog by Guido Volante Author of "Treason Among Us; Secrets of the S.E.C."

The Counter Jihad Report

News ~ Resources ~ Activism

creepingsharia.wordpress.com/

Documenting the Islamization of America

Digestible Politics

Politics Made Easy!

A Conservative Christian Man

Stand for Your Belief or it is Not a Belief but an Excuse

sharia unveiled

illuminating minds

We Moved > Go To:

WWW.THEMADJEWESS.NET

%d bloggers like this: