THE CLIMATE CATASTROPHE
ALL A CONSPIRACY BY THE FINANCIAL ELITES
so-called "climate debate" reminds me of the sham "immigration
debates" which the elites used to have to amuse themselves with in the 1980s
and 1990s. There the foundational premise was that mass Asian immigration was
a given. Australia would change its ethnic nature and in the long term Europeans
would be ethnically diluted and ultimately eliminated. The only question was :
With climate change, the question
of faith is that global warming is occurring. It is occurring because4 a set of
elite scientists say that it is. But not all scientists. For example, Dr. David
Evans, a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005, once
believed in the global warming Faith. But now (The Australian 18/7/08 p.14)
he says that scientific evidence shows that there is no "greenhouse signature."
Apparently there needs to be a "hot spot" about 10 km up in the
atmosphere over the tropics. No "hot spot" then the greenhouse effect
is not the cause of global warming. And, according to Evans, it is missing. There
is no proof, he claims, that carbon emissions cause global warming.
'07' came to office on a promise to limit rises to the cost of living to Australian
families. Yet it is clear to even the media commentators, that now all the emotional
clap trap about saving the planet has died down, that after the dream comes the
nightmare. To cut carbon pollution must, I repeat must involve unprecedented costs
to consumers and businesses. China and India openly reject emissions targets.
Even if climate catastrophe did lay in wait, the Chinese and Indian attitude would
be: what are a few million dead? Chairman Mao said as much. Australia will then
commit itself to economic ruin on the basis of speculation and ultimately hot
Climate scientist Dr. Ray Spencer has written an excellent book on
these issues : "Climate Confusion," (Encounter Books, 2008). The sub-title
of the book says it all : How Global Warning Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering
Politicians, and Misguided Policies that Hurt the Poor. Spencer shows that the
Earth's climate system is one of the most complex that we know of and making predictions
is a highly uncertain business.
Yet, we are
gambling everything, as Kevin 07 dances on the international stage, in the attempt
to be an Australian Al Gore. Of course, the surrender of Australia's standard
of living serves only the interests of the global financial elites who are quite
happy to see Australia sink into the quick-sands of economic bankruptcy. Our ruin
is their gain.
Mortgage Crisis: Fannie and Freddie - Give Away the Farm
Dr. Ellen Hodgson Brown Global Research, 7th August, 2008
week, Congress passed a housing bill that gave the Treasury Department a blank
cheque to inject billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars into mortgage giants Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac, snatching them from insolvency. To accommodate this blank
cheque, Congress obligingly raised its debt ceiling by $800 billion. Ouch! That's
nearly a trillion dollars.
Why was it necessary
to incur this potentially crippling public debt to bail out two completely private,
for-profit behemoths, which have run themselves into bankruptcy with their own
risky investment schemes? Policymakers said it was essential to maintain the country's
creditworthiness with foreign lenders, which today hold about one-fifth of Fannie
and Freddie securities.
According to a July 21
report by Heather Timmons in The New York Times: One out of 10 American
mortgages is, in effect, in the hands of institutions and governments outside
the United States. 1
percent of American mortgages are now owned by foreigners? Doesn't that defeat
the whole purpose of Fannie Mae (the Federal National Mortgage Association) and
Freddie Mac (the Federal Home Mortgage Corporation)? They were supposedly set
up to fund "the American dream" - home ownership by Americans. Today, American
homes are owned by anonymous pools of private investors, many of whom are foreign
governments and foreign central banks.
we manage to give away the farm? And why are we bowing to the interests of foreign
investors to the point of driving our own government into bankruptcy? The federal
debt is already nearly ten trillion dollars, more than the government can ever
possibly repay with taxes.
According to analysts,
the bailout of the two mortgage giants is necessary "because America's relations
with a host of countries are intricately tied to Fannie and Freddie," and because
we need to assure "Americans' future ability to gain access to credit. If foreign
companies and governments abandon United States investments, home, auto and credit
card loans will be much more difficult to come by."2
same sort of argument was once made by U.S. banks to get Third World countries
to pay up on their foreign loans. The U.S., it seems, has finally achieved Third
World debtor-nation status. For the last half century, the push for "free trade"
has been all about preserving profitable opportunities for investment, finding
ways to "make money" without actually making anything, exploiting the work of
others by buying up corporations around the world and drawing profits off the
top. But now the tables have turned. We have gone from being the world's largest
creditor to the world's largest debtor. We spent our dollars abroad and now they
are coming back to shop for our own real estate and corporate assets. Timmons
Asian institutions and investors
hold some $800 billion in securities issued by Fannie and Freddie, the bulk of
that in China and Japan. China held $376 billion and Japan $228 billion as of
June 2007 . . . . Russian buyers hold $75 billion. Sovereign wealth funds in the
Middle East are also believed to be big investors in Fannie and Freddie debt.
Sovereign wealth funds (investment funds of sovereign nations and their central
banks) are now busily buying up U.S. assets, in what Bill Bonner has called "the
biggest transfer of wealth in history." Writing in The Daily Reckoning
on July 11, he observed:
[T]he balance sheet of the U.S. Fed shows $2.3 trillion
of US treasury debt held in custody for foreign central banks. The harder the
Fed fights the [economic] correction . . . the more money and credit it puts out.
This monetary inflation causes prices for oil and imports to rise . . . and more
money goes into foreign reserves and Sovereign Wealth Funds in the East, to be
used to buy more assets in the West. Thanks to America's mad monetary policy,
these private assets are being taken into public ownership. Some of America's
most important properties are being nationalized . . . but by other nations.3
The ultimate irony is that these other
nations may be buying our federal bonds and mortgage-backed securities with money
they simply created on a printing press. John Succo is a hedge fund manager who
writes on the Internet as "Mr. Practical." He estimates that as much as 90 percent
of foreign money used to buy U.S. securities comes from foreign central banks,
which print their own local currencies, buy U.S. dollars with them, and then use
the dollars to buy U.S. securities.4
nations are doing what Congress itself has declined to do: exercising the sovereign
right of governments to print their own money. Unlike the U.S. Federal Reserve,
which is wholly owned by a consortium of private banks, the People's Bank of China
(PBoC) is actually owned by the Chinese government. When Chinese merchants, awash
with U.S. dollars, cash them in for local currency to pay their workers, the PBoC
obliges by swapping dollars for government-issued renminbi. The workers get paid
in local currency, and the PBoC gets the dollars for the cost of printing the
renminbi. The PBoC then uses the dollars to buy either U.S. interest-bearing bonds
or Fannie and Freddie securities, which have conveniently opened up U.S. real
estate to foreign investment.
In effect, American
citizens are paying a foreign government to turn U.S. debt into money, using currency
the foreign government issued by fiat (Latin for "let it be" or "so be it" - money
simply ordered into existence by the sovereign).
doesn't the U.S. government just issue its own fiat money?
may seem radical now, but it could start to look better if Congress has to do
what President Roosevelt did in 1933 - declare national bankruptcy and call for
a plan of reorganization. There is simply not enough money in the public till
to bail out Bear Stearns, IndyMac, and now the private mortgage giants Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac, as well as pay $500 billion annually to service a gargantuan
federal debt, and still have enough money left over to repair our failing infrastructure,
develop sustainable energy systems, and generally provide for the Common Wealth.
The cookie jar is empty, and it is empty because private profiteers have been
helping themselves to the cookies.
Federal Reserve were made a truly "federal" agency, Federal Reserve Notes (dollar
bills) could simply be issued by the U.S. government, instead of being borrowed
from a private banking system that creates them with accounting entries and charges
interest for the privilege. (See E. Brown, "Putting the 'Federal' Back in the
Federal Reserve," www.webofdebt.com/articles, July 26, 2008.) Rather than scrambling
to find foreign investors to roll over a $10 trillion debt, Congress could just
pay off the debt as the bonds came due, using the same sort of money that foreign
central banks used to purchase the bonds in the first place - government-issued
national currency. Congress would just be giving them their fiat money back.
for Fannie and Freddie, they are too big to fail; but they aren't too big to be
If we the people are paying the bills, we should get the
stock. Fannie Mae began in the 1930s as a truly federal agency, funded by a
wholly government-owned bank. The Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC)
advanced its own federal credit, which was used to fund not only the New Deal
but the rapid industrialization that led to victory in World War II.5
The result was to make America the world leader in industry and
productivity for most of the rest of the century. It may be time to try that experiment
again. The RFC had some flaws, but they could be worked out. That is another subject,
to be covered in another article.
The bottom line here is that the deed to
the farm needs to remain on these shores, and so does the sovereign power to issue
money and credit. The existing system of banking and credit creation is teetering
on the brink of a collapse brought about by its own internal contradictions and
The system has long since failed in its primary mission of
channelling this country's resources towards investment in a sustainable future.
As it stumbles from crisis to crisis, we have neither the time nor the resources
to give it yet another chance to do the job. The time has come to clear the boards
and begin a new game with new rules.
1. Heather Timmons, "Trouble at Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac Stirs Concern Abroad," The New York Times (July 21,
2008) (emphasis added).
3. Bill Bonner, "The Biggest Transfer
of Wealth in History," The Daily Reckoning (July 11, 2008) (emphasis added).
4. Mike Shedlock, "Global Savings Glut Revisited," Mish's Global Economic
Trend Analysis (December 26, 2006).
5. Richard Freeman, "How Roosevelt's
RFC Revived Economic Growth, 1933-45," Economic Intelligence Review (March
Ellen Brown, J.D., developed her
research skills as an attorney practicing civil litigation in Los Angeles. In
Web of Debt, the latest of eleven books, she turns those skills to an analysis
of the Federal Reserve and "the money trust." She shows how this private cartel
has usurped the power to create money from the people themselves and how we the
people can get it back.
Her websites are www.webofdebt.com and www.ellenbrown.com.
"Major Douglas: The Policy
of a Philosophy" by John W. Hughes: Just imagine, the year is 1934, Montagu Norman
is governor of the Bank of England, Sir Otto Niemeyer is at the Treasury.
Great Depression is on the wane but the industrialised world is still reeling
from its effects. An obscure engineer, Major C.H. Douglas and his wife Edith have
embarked on the RMS Maloja. They are bound for New Zealand via Australia and then
plan to move on to America.
Their mission is to persuade those countries
to renounce the money market and finance prosperity using their own (social) credit.
What was this phenomenon called Social Credit and why did it cause no small alarm
to both bankers and businessmen? Read about it for yourself.
from all Heritage Book Services.