Friday, 8 July 2011

US government openly admits arming Mexican drug gangs with 30,000 firearms

It is now a widely-reported fact that under the Obama administration, U.S. federal agents actively placed over 30,000 fully-functional weapons into the hands of Mexican drug gangs, then halted all surveillance and tracking activities of where those weapons were going.

This is not a conspiracy theory, nor a piece of fiction. It is now an openly-admitted fact that this was pulled off by the BATFE (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, more commonly called "ATF") under orders from Washington. The program was called "Fast and Furious."

Even Reuters is now covering the news and reporting how members of Congress are outraged to learn that this happened (

Details are also starting to leak about the cover-up inside ATF, which was led by the U.S. Attorney in Arizona, Dennis Burke, an Obama appointee ( The engineering of the illegal gun running went right up the chain of command to the director of the ATF, Kenneth Melson, who is now expected to resign. The real planning of this event went even higher up the chain of command in Washington, possibly all the way to Attorney General Eric Holder (

Among the firearms sold to the Mexican drug gangs were AK-47s, thousands of pistols and, remarkably, .50-caliber rifles which are typically used to disable vehicles or carry out sniper-based assassinations at extremely long ranges (up to two miles). The mainstream media is now reporting that these weapons are turning up in violent crimes being committed in Phoenix, Arizona. As an ABC news affiliate reports:

"According to the testimony of three Phoenix ATF agents, including Dodson, hundreds of weapons are now on the streets in the United States and Mexico, possibly in the hands of criminals. Dodson estimated the number could be as many as 1,800 weapons. He estimated agents in the Phoenix field division facilitated the sale of approximately 2,500 weapons to straw purchasers. A few hundred have been recovered." (

How the "Fast and Furious" program put thousands of weapons directly into the hands of Mexican drug gangs

Here's how "Fast and Furious" worked: Under orders from Washington, ATF agents were specifically told to acquire these weapons using "straw" buyers in the USA, find new buyers in Mexican drug gangs, then sell the weapons and "lose track" of them. Although some agents raised concerns about the insanity, they were overruled by the higher-ups in Washington who wanted to pursue this policy for their own reasons. "It made no sense to us either, it was just what we were ordered to do, and every time we questioned that order there was punitive action," said Phoenix Special Agent John Dodson.

But what could be the reasons for Washington initiating such a program in the first place? Why would the Obama administration actively send 30,000 sniper rifles, assault weapons and firearms into Mexico even while claiming to follow an anti-gun stance back in the USA?

To answer that question, you need to understand P.R.S -- Problem, Reaction, Solution. It is the "playbook" that governments use to get what they want, which usually involves: 1) Disarming their populations, 2) Taking away all their rights and freedoms, and then 3) Ruling over their people as tyrants with complete power.

Precisely such an effort is now underway in the United States, led by the Obama administration which has repeatedly demonstrated itself to be an enemy of the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights.

How Problem, Reaction, Solution really works

If you're the U.S. government, you can't just announce a new program to disarm the country, end the Bill of Rights and install yourself as the King. People won't go for it if you try to sell it that way. Instead, you need to find a way to get people to BEG you to do all that.

So you need a way to put people in a state of mind where they are terrified of drugs, terrified of guns and terrified of the border violence -- to the point where they insist that somebody in Washington do something about it.

Therefore, you first need a way to cause the problem that results in all the violence that people react to. You effectively need to create violence and then wait for people to beg you to stop it.

This is where the Obama administration's program to send 30,000 firearms into Mexico comes into play. If you want to cause gun violence and drug war violence, what better way to accomplish it than to just arm all the bad guys?

Think about it: 30,000 weapons in the hands of drug criminals! Then all you have to do is sit back and wait for all the violence to kick in. And it has kicked in -- in huge numbers. Shootings on the border, kidnappings, armed conflict across the border with U.S. border agents, and so on. Violent crimes in Arizona are now being committed with these very same weapons the ATF trafficked into the hands of Mexican drug gangs.

As Judicial Watch president Tim Fitton explains, his belief is that Operation Fast and Furious was purely an anti-gun political ploy from the Obama administration, designed to put more guns into the hands of criminals as a justification for confiscating guns from all citizens. He adds, "I think another major part of this story is that the narrative of the Obama administration and the ATF is that, 'wouldn't it be great if we could tie guns, as part of our anti-gun agenda, to the Mexican civil war, as opposed to, you know, our lack of enforcement of the drug laws or failure to protect the borders.'" (

And here's the real kicker: Of all the weapons now being confiscated by police in Mexico, an astonishing 70 percent came from the United States. So now you have a situation where the USA is actually arming the criminals in Mexico and destabilizing that country's entire system of law and order. The drug gangs are at war with the police there, and thanks to thinks like U.S.-supplies AK-47s and .50-caliber sniper rifles, the drug gangs are winning!

ATF can now demand more power and bigger budgets

Getting back to the U.S. issue, if you're the DEA or the ATF, you now have 30,000 more reasons to have your own budgets increased. There's a wave of violence coming across the border! The drug gangs are out of control! They're shooting back!

Well gee, I wonder why? It's because the ATF actually sold them these 30,000 rifles under orders from Washington.

And now the Obama administration is, predictably, saying there's so much "gun violence" in the Southern USA that new laws are needed to curb gun sales there.

Seriously? New laws? What about the 30,000 guns the ATF openly and admittedly sold to the Mexican drug gangs? Wasn't that already a violation of law?

It all comes back to Problem, Reaction, Solution, you see. Want to keep the useless War on Drugs going a little longer? Just dump a few thousand pounds of cocaine into the hands of criminals and let 'em run loose with it. Want to beef up the budgets of the ATF? Just distribute 30,000 illegal weapons into the hands of drug gangs and then sit back and wait for people to beg for your help. Want to justify a war on "terror" in the Middle East? Dream up some stupid story about Weapons of Mass Destruction and then launch a war.

For every power-hungry tyrannical agenda in Washington, there's a false flag operation that will make it come true.

If the U.S. government would actively arm drug gangs, in what other ways might it betray the American people?

Now that you know the truth about how Washington put 30,000 guns into the hands of Mexican drug gangs, it naturally makes you start to wonder about the government's involvement with things like vaccines.

Want to make people so afraid of infectious disease that they beg for vaccines? Just release an infectious disease into the population yourself! It's a simple matter, really.

Want to get the public to beg for new food safety regulations? Just release e.coli into the food supply and then wait for the deaths to be reported in the news. All of a sudden people are demanding more food safety regulations.

Want to justify military imperialism and expansion? Just stage your own terrorist attack against your own country! Then magically find the passports of some terrorists at the scene of the crime and blame the whole thing on them.

When theory becomes fact

You see, all this used to exist solely in the realm of conspiracy theory. A few years ago, if you even suggested this kind of thing was going on, you were called a kook. But now it's an established fact being reported by Reuters, Washington Post and other major news outlets. Now the U.S. government has been forced to admit that yes, it actively delivered 30,000 firearms into the hands of Mexican drug gangs and then intentionally stopped tracking where they went.

This is no longer conspiracy theory. It's conspiracy FACT. And similar types of operations are being planned right now for other agendas the government has in mind: Taking away your Fourth Amendment rights, for example. How do you accomplish that? Just stage an airport terrorism attack, just like the one the TSA was caught rehearsing in Minnesota (

Want to take away peoples' Second Amendment rights? Just brainwash some low-IQ psychopath to walk into a shopping mall and start blazing away with fully automatic weapons that were provided to him by the ATF!

It's simple, you see. Pick a topic, choose an agenda, then cause the problem yourself. Then sit back and wait for the reaction. Works every time.

The CDC pulled the same stunt back in the 1980's with AIDS. At a time when the CDC was facing severe budget cuts, it actually hyped up the whole AIDS epidemic and started releasing complete scientific fictions as if they were fact. The disease mongering by the CDC caused widespread fear and panic across the country, earning it huge budget increases from the U.S. government.

This is all fully documented in the movie House of Numbers, by the way, using recorded video interviews from many of the key scientists involved in the whole fiasco who finally went on record to tell the truth. Almost everything you've been fed about AIDS is a fabrication or a distortion of the scientific truth. Watch these astonishing videos to see for yourself:

The American government is working AGAINST you, not for you

The point in all this is that much of what you see happening in the world today in terms of terrorism, the drug war, infectious disease and health care are just fabricated, staged events actually pulled off by the very people who stand to benefit from the reaction!

Suckers and sheeple always believe the mainstream news at face value. They believe we're under attack from terrorists who bring down tall buildings, or we're being assaulted by Mexican drug gangs on the border, or we're threatened by the Swine Flu. That's what suckers are supposed to believe, you see: That your government is never working against you... it's always working FOR you, right?

But intelligent people know the opposite is true: Your government is usually plotting against you and trying to figure out how to expand its power, expand its reach, reduce your freedoms and control your life. This is accomplished by unleashing the very problems that the government claims to be fighting to prevent.

The government, for example, says it's trying to solve our nation's economic problems. And how does it accomplish that? By generating trillions of dollars in new fiat currency and handing it over to the criminals running Wall Street. This has the net effect of stealing money from everybody else through dollar devaluation.

How does the government solve our national health care crisis? By enacting Obamacare, which mandates that more people buy into a system that has utterly failed to serve the health interests of the American people in the first place!

So at the very same time the government says it's working to improve the economy, it's actually stealing from you behind your back. At the very same time the government says it's trying to stop cancer, its own health-related agencies (National Cancer Institute, for example) are openly engaged in massive disinformation campaigns that spread false information about sunlight being "dangerous" to your health (while conveniently ignoring the truth about vitamin D and its cancer preventive properties).

The government says it wants to make your food safer, and yet the USDA keeps approving genetically modified foods that are essentially massive biological experiments that cause widespread infertility and disease.

The same story goes on and on... with fluoride in the water, mercury in dental fillings, aspartame in diet sodas, pesticide use in agriculture and so on. At nearly every turn, the government itself is actively plotting against the People to keep them financially enslaved, biologically diseased and mentally ignorant.

Shipping guns into Mexico, you see, is just a tiny part of the big picture that's going on today in the USA. The same process -- Problem, Reaction, Solution -- is in use almost everywhere in government at both the state and federal level.

Big Government is the enemy of peace and freedom

Bureaucrats hate to lose their jobs, and if there's a way to stage something that makes them suddenly look more important, they won't hesitate to roll it out. The U.S. government, just so you know, has been actively engaged in weapons trafficking, drug running and counterfeiting for decades. If you or I did what our own government does every single day, we'd be arrested as felony criminals. But when the government runs guns into Mexico, or traffics in cocaine, or prints counterfeit dollar bills that have no backing with real value, somehow it's all okay.

Amazing how our own government has now turned into the very criminals that it claims to be protecting us against, isn't it? Who are the real terrorists in America? The ATF agents running guns into the hands of Mexican drug gangs, of course. And the FBI agents who set up Arab-looking patsies to try to set off fake bombs that the FBI actually assembled for them!

Article published by

Thursday, 7 July 2011

Ban Ki-Moon 'URGES' Israel not to kill unarmed civillians. 7 dead - 111 injured

A UN report into the bloodshed along the Israeli-Lebanon border on Nakba Day, has slammed the Israeli army for using unnecessary force, a newspaper said yesterday.
The report was released by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon earlier this week and passed on to the 15 members of the Security Council, with a copy also passed on to Israel's Haaretz newspaper.
The study focuses on the events of May 15 when thousands of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon marched on the Israeli border. As the protesters tried to scale the fence, Israeli troops opened fire, killing seven and injuring 111, the report said.
The report found Israeli troops "used direct live fire against unarmed demonstrators" and urged the army to avoid doing so in situations where there was no immediate threat to life.
In his concluding remarks, Mr Ban urges the Israeli military to act only with the level of force appropriate to the threat facing its troops.

Israel eyeing reoccupation of Sinai

Regional analysts say Israeli officials are thinking about reoccupying the Sinai Peninsula because of the growing prospect of infiltration by al-Qaida and other militants such as Hamas, the inability of the Egyptian military to guarantee security and the prospect of a cut-off of vital natural gas supplies flowing through a repeatedly sabotaged pipeline, according to a report in Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin.
Israeli officials already have warned of a heightened terrorist threat from the Sinai. In April, Israeli aircraft attacked a car said to be carrying three Hamas operatives allegedly planning to abduct Israelis there.
In response, Israel's counter-terrorism bureau issued an instruction that told of "updated information that terrorist organizations are continuing their efforts to abduct Israeli tourists in Egypt's Sinai Peninsula for bargaining purposes" and that "terror agents that are residing in Sinai are coordinating plans for such attacks with local Bedouin collaborators."
Since the fall of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in January, Israel has become increasingly concerned with the security of the Sinai, a stretch of land that is three times the size of Israel's pre-1967 border area, or some 23,000 square miles.
As G2Bulletin recently reported, some 400 al-Qaida militants are known to have infiltrated into the Sinai with the help of Hamas Palestinians from bordering Gaza. There also is Israeli concern that Hamas could bring in rockets from the Gaza Strip and shoot them into Israel along the 140-mile border between Israel and the Sinai.
Egyptian authorities also claim they no longer can maintain security in the region.
Egyptian police are abandoning their remote stations and checkpoints, which are coming under increased attacks from Bedouin tribesmen in the region. Bedouin tribesmen ransacked numerous abandoned government facilities and have threatened to attack South Sinai oil installations and tourist resorts.
"The Sinai is already known as a lawless land," according to a senior Israeli official. "There is real concern that if the Egyptians don't get the Sinai back under their control, it could develop into a major threat to Israel."

$100 million U.S. funding Sudan Terrorist Activities

JUBA, Sudan — The Sudan People's Liberation Army was a ragtag guerrilla group six years ago, battling a bloody civil war with Sudan's north. The SPLA becomes a national army Saturday, when the south breaks away and becomes the world's newest country.
The United States is investing tens of millions of dollars into this fledgling military, one that is massing troops on the north-south border as tensions — and violence — with the north rise. SPLA troops are battling rebel militias in hot spots across the south, and fears of renewed war with the north are high.
But international rights groups say those soldiers have been responsible for human-rights abuses, including killings.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who sponsored a law that prohibits U.S. aid to foreign military units that violate human rights, says he is concerned about those reports.
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell and Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, will head a U.S. delegation that will attend ceremonies marking the nation's independence. Powell was instrumental in brokering the 2005 peace accord between the north and south.
The United States backed the south's push for independence, and the Obama administration long had said it would formally recognize Southern Sudan.
The State Department is giving nearly $100 million in yearly assistance to train and support the SPLA and says the behavior of the former guerrilla fighters is being monitored. Yet, watching the 140,000-plus-member army of a developing nation the size of Texas is a nearly impossible task.
In April, a 700-member battalion of SPLA commandos — the most highly trained of the army's fighters — fired indiscriminately on unarmed men, women and children of a rival ethnic group at a remote Nile River village in Jonglei state, killing or wounding hundreds, according to witness accounts in a confidential U.N. report.
The State Department, after a congressional inquiry, investigated and found no U.S. aid was being given to the two commanders named in the report or to the unit as a whole.
Since Sudan's decades-long civil war ended — some 2 million people were killed — the U.S. government has given more money than any other to programs aimed at professionalizing the SPLA. According to the Open Society Foundations, the Obama administration is requesting nearly $160 million in aid to the armed forces in Southern Sudan for fiscal year 2012.
The aid is to help the SPLA develop logistics, engineering abilities, medical, and command-and-control abilities.
Sudan experts say a responsible, professional army will be essential to improving security in a region where basic principles of rule of law and justice have yet to be upheld and enforced.
According to U.N. statistics, conflicts such as cattle-raiding and battles between rebel militias and the SPLA have claimed at least 1,800 lives this year.
The SPLA has a lot of growing up to do as the world's youngest national military. In a November report by the Small Arms Survey, author Richard Rands concluded an "overarching strategy" for the long-term transformation of the SPLA from a guerrilla movement to a conventional army "has not yet emerged."

Monday, 4 July 2011

FBI Declares Lack of Evidence to Connect Bin Laden to 9/11

TEHRAN (Fars News Agency)- Despite all hues and cries by the US officials and media as well as those of the west that the Al-Qaeda and its leader Osama Bin Laden are the most wanted people for their direct role in September 11th terrorist attacks, the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) says that it has no evidence in this regard, raising more suspicion over all the speculations the US tried to forge in the world public opinion.
What follows is an article by American researcher and citizen Ed Haas, proving that the US has sought to misuse the occasion for indicting the world of Islam for belligerency and hostile attitudes based on no substantiating evidence.
This past weekend, a thought provoking e-mail circulated through Internet news groups, and was sent to the Muckraker Report by Mr. Paul V. Sheridan (Winner of the 2005 Civil Justice Foundation Award), bringing attention to the FBI's Most Wanted Terrorist web page for Osama Bin Laden. In the e-mail, the question is asked, "Why doesn't Osama Bin Laden's Most Wanted poster make any direct connection with the events of September 11, 2001?" The FBI says on its Bin Laden web page that Osama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998 bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. According to the FBI, these attacks killed over 200 people. The FBI concludes its reason for "wanting" Bin Laden by saying, "In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorists attacks throughout the world."
On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, (202) 324-3000, to learn why Bin Laden's Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Osama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden's Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, "The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Osama Bin Laden's Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11."
Surprised by the ease in which this FBI spokesman made such an astonishing statement, I asked, "How this was possible?" Tomb continued, "Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11." I asked, "How does that work?" Tomb continued, "The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice then decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, Bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connected Bin Laden to 9/11."
It shouldn't take long before the full meaning of these FBI statements start to prick your brain and raise your blood pressure. If you think the way I think, in quick order you will be wrestling with a barrage of very powerful questions that must be answered. First and foremost, if the U.S. government does not have enough hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11, how is it possible that it had enough evidence to invade Afghanistan to "smoke him out of his cave?" The federal government claims to have invaded Afghanistan to "root out" Bin Laden and the Taliban. Through the talking heads in the mainstream media, the Bush Administration told the American people that Osama Bin Laden was Public Enemy Number One and responsible for the deaths of nearly 3000 people on September 11, 2001. Yet nearly five years later, the FBI says that it has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.
Next is the Bin Laden "confession" video that was released by the U.S. government on December 13, 2001. Most Americans remember this video. It was the video showing Bin Laden with a few of his comrades recounting with delight the September 11 terrorist attacks against the United States. The Department of Defense issued a press release to accompany this video in which Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld said, "There was no doubt of bin Laden's responsibility for the September 11 attacks before the tape was discovered." What Rumsfeld implied by his statement was that Bin Laden was the known mastermind behind 9/11 even before the "confession video" and that the video simply served to confirm what the U.S. government already knew; that Bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
In a BBC News article reporting on the "9/11 confession video" release, President Bush is said to have been hesitant to release the tape because he knew it would be a vivid reminder to many people of their loss. But, he also knew it would be "a devastating declaration" of Bin Laden's guilt. "We're going to get him," said President Bush. "Dead or alive, it doesn't matter to me."
 In a CNN article regarding the Bin Laden tape, then New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani said that "the tape removes any doubt that the U.S. military campaign targeting bin Laden and his associates is more than justified." Senator Richard Shelby, R-Alabama, the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee said, "The tape's release is central to informing people in the outside world who don't believe bin Laden was involved in the September 11 attacks." Shelby went on to say "I don't know how they can be in denial after they see this tape." Well Senator Shelby, apparently the Federal Bureau of Investigation isn't convinced by the taped confession, so why are you?
The Muckraker Report attempted to secure a reference to the U.S. government authenticating the Bin Laden "confession video", to no avail. However, it is conclusive that the Bush Administration and U.S. Congress, along with the dead stream media, played the video as if it was authentic. So why doesn't the FBI view the "confession video" as hard evidence? After all, if the FBI is investigating a crime such as drug trafficking, and it discovers a video of members of a drug cartel opening talking about a successful distribution operation in the United States, that video would be presented to a federal grand jury. The identified participants of the video would be indicted, and if captured, the video alone would serve as sufficient evidence to net a conviction in a federal court. So why is the Bin Laden "confession video" not carrying the same weight with the FBI?
Remember, on June 5, 2006, FBI spokesman, Chief of Investigative Publicity Rex Tomb said, "The FBI has no hard evidence connecting Osama Bin Laden to 9/11." This should be headline news worldwide. The challenge to the reader is to find out why it is not. Why has the U.S. media blindly read the government-provided 9/11 scripts, rather than investigate without passion, prejudice, or bias, the events of September 11, 2001? Why has the U.S. media blacklisted any guest that might speak of a government sponsored 9/11 cover-up, rather than seeking out those people who have something to say about 9/11 that is contrary to the government's account? And on those few rare occasions when a 9/11 dissenter has made it upon the airways, why has the mainstream media ridiculed the guest as a conspiracy nut, rather than listen to the evidence that clearly raises valid questions about the government's 9/11 account? Why is the Big Media Conglomeration blindly content with the government's 9/11 story when so much verifiable information to the contrary is available with a few clicks of a computer mouse?
Who is it that is controlling the media message, and how is it that the U.S. media has indicted Osama Bin Laden for the events of September 11, 2001, but the U.S. government has not? How is it that the FBI has no "hard evidence" connecting Osama Bin Laden to the events of September 11, 2001, while the U.S. media has played the Bin Laden - 9/11 connection story for five years now as if it had conclusive evidence that Bin Laden was responsible for the collapse of the twin towers, the Pentagon attack, and the demise of United Flight 93?

Obama Administration Lists Israel as a Terror Sponsor!

The Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE) maintains a list of “specially designated countries” (SDCs) that “have shown a tendency to promote, produce or protect terrorist organizations or their members.” The folks from these nations get special scrutiny when they enter the U.S.
Here’s the short list:
West Bank
Saudi Arabia
And so forth....
Israel? Yes Israel is one of the thirty-six SDCs that “promote, produce, or protect” terrorists, according to the Obama Administration. With splendid equality, they manage to list the world’s biggest victim alongside the globe’s leading perpetrators of terrorism. Israelis coming into America get the same high level of scrutiny that Iranians do!
This information, which comes to us courtesy of the wonderful website, is as shocking as it is credible.
That Obama has tried to maintain that there is a moral equilibrium between Israel and the aggressive Arabs that surround it is well known. But to list Israel as a promoter, protector, or producer of terrorism is quite extraordinary.
Doubtless some politically correct soul at ICE or in the State Department felt that the U.S. needed to show impartiality in making up its list and include non-Muslim countries. What better rebuttal to those who would claim that the ICE is profiling Muslims than to say that Israel is also on the list?
Small justice for some!

British Military ‘Lost’ Billions in Weapons, Equipment

The National Audit Office warned that the losses have “security as well as financial implications,” particularly for the weapons and hundreds of millions of dollars in radio equipment which have vanished.
The report is particularly damning in the face of British military griping that their budgets have been cut to the quick. Prime Minister David Cameron had argued for the cuts based on overruns in equipment costs, but it is likely he wasn’t aware how much of that spending was on equipment which simply vanished.
The report urged the Defense Ministry to move forward with a stock-control system that would keep track of where its equipment ends up. Perhaps the real story is that no such system was in place in the first place, leaving the location of equipment up to little more than pure luck.

Friday, 1 July 2011

The Truth about Australian and New Zealand Reserve Banking Structure

The Australian Reserve Bank is 100% owned by the Australian Government.

The New Zealand Reserve Bank is 100% owned by the New Zealand Government.

But they are both 100% controlled by their Boards of Directors.
The Reserve Bank is only required to inform the Government of its policies.
The Reserve Bank is Not a Government Department.
The Reserve Bank Governor is answerable only to the Board of Directors.

The Board of Directors is answerable only to ‘The Crown’.
The Crown is 100% controlled by ‘City of London Corporation’.
The ‘City of London Corporation’ is answerable only to its 12 Council Members.
The 12 Council Members with their ‘Lord Mayor” serve as representatives/proxies for the 13 most powerful banking families on the planet which include;
  • Rothschilds (Supranational Banking Dynasty)
  • Warburgs
  • Oppenheimers
  • Schiffs
  • Rockefellers
The profits of our Reserve Banks are divided into 3 categories;
  • Bank Reserves (Fractional reserve Banking requirements)
  • Bank Contingencies (Bonuses, Expansion or Upgrades and Capital)
  • The balance goes to ‘The Crown’
Lets have a look at who some of our 2011 Board of Directors represent and serve!
John Akehurst Director CSL Ltd Pharmaceuticals Vaccine Production
John Akehurst Director Origin Energy Ltd. Energy Global pricing manipulation & oligopoly
John Akehurst Director Securency International Pty Ltd. Banknote Security Manufacturer Sex, Bribes and banknote deals
Jillian Broadbent Director Special Broadcasting Service Media Media manipulation & blackouts
Jillian Broadbent Director Woolworths Ltd. Retail – Food, Consumer goods, Liquor, Fuel Monopolistic anti- competitive policies
Jillian Broadbent Director Australian Securities Exchange Share Market Insider Trading
Roger Corbett Director Wal-Mart Stores Ltd. Retail – Consumer goods Monopolistic anti- competitive policies
Roger Corbett Chairman ALH Group Ltd. Retail – Liquor Monopolistic anti- competitive policies
Roger Corbett Chairman Fairfax Media Ltd. Media Media manipulation & blackouts
Roger Corbett Deputy Chairman PrimeAg Australia Limited Agriculture Monopolistic anti- competitive policies
Graham Kraehe Director Djerriwarrh Investments Ltd. Oil, Banking, Energy, Retail, Media etc Global pricing manipulation & oligopoly
Graham Kraehe Chairman Bluescope Steel Ltd Steel Corporate interests
Graham Kraehe Chairman Brambles Ltd. Management Solutions Management Strategies & Policies
Warwick McKibbin Director McKibbin Software Group Pty. Ltd. Global Economic Analysis Tools on Climate, food, Financial etc. Management Strategies & Policies
Catherine Tanna Executive Vice-President British Gas Group Energy Global pricing manipulation & oligopoly
Catherine Tanna Regional Managing Director British Gas Australia Energy Global pricing manipulation & oligopoly
Hugh Fletcher
IAG New Zealand Limited Insurance Global pricing manipulation & oligopoly
Hugh Fletcher
IAG New Zealand Holdings Limited Insurance Global pricing manipulation & oligopoly
Hugh Fletcher
Fletcher Building Ltd. Construction Monopolistic anti- competitive policies
Hugh Fletcher
Rubicon Ltd. Energy & Forestry Monopolistic anti- competitive policies
Hugh Fletcher
Vector Ltd. Energy & Technology Global pricing manipulation & oligopoly
Hugh Fletcher
Insurance Australia Group Ltd. Insurance Global pricing manipulation & oligopoly
Hugh Fletcher
IAG Finance ( New Zealand) Limited Insurance Global pricing manipulation & oligopoly
Sue Sheldon
Contact Energy Ltd. Energy Global pricing manipulation & oligopoly
Sue Sheldon
Freightways Document Transportation & Information management Corporate interests
Sue Sheldon
Smiths City Group Retail, Finance & Property Corporate interests
Sue Sheldon
Electronic Transaction Services Ltd. EFTPOS Monopolistic anti- competitive policies
Sue Sheldon
Wool Grower Holdings Ltd. Textiles, Apparel and Luxury Goods Corporate interests
Sue Sheldon
Telecom Corporation of NZ Telecommunications Monopolistic anti- competitive policies
Keith Taylor
Gough, Gough and Hamer Investments Ltd. Infrastructure, Mining, Forestry, Transport and Power Monopolistic anti- competitive policies
Keith Taylor
Port Marlborough Ltd Port and Marina Facilities Corporate interests
Kerrin Vautier
Fletcher Building Ltd. Construction Monopolistic anti- competitive policies
Takeover by Stealth
Our Governing System has outgrown its ‘citizen given parameters’ and it no longer serves the Public good. Corporate Interest has influenced by stealth, the very life-blood of our countries.
Let us not forget that is us, the citizenry, who are supposed to set the tasks for Government, understanding that the core principle is for the benefit of the nation’s population.
This fundamental principle has been manipulated to the point where now our ‘Rights’ are given to us by the state enabling it to grow outside our sphere to influence, ultimately being controlled by an elite gang of criminally influenced, global institutions.
Fascism is the merger of Corporate and State power.

The above table clearly illustrates this amalgamation.We can plainly see by the representatives of our Reserve Banking systems, that their interests are not in favour of the working class. Monetary policy should be designed to work for the public good, therefore requiring analysts from the public sector not the private Corporate Industry sector.
If we as a people do not Grow Up and take responsibility for the predicament we are now faced with, our future, which is currently in dire threat of being held hostage to a bunch of Global power-crazed inbreeds, lusting after the dwindling finite resources that remain, we will certainly “…find ourselves homeless, on the continent that our forefathers once conquered.” Thomas Jefferson

Corrupt Australian Central Banking Practices Exposed!

Australia Central Bank’s Note-Printing Unit Charged With Bribing Officials

The Australian central bank’s note-printing units and six people including former managers have been charged with bribing officials in Malaysia, Indonesia andVietnam to win currency contracts.
Securency International Pty and Note Printing Australia Ltd. were charged over alleged payments to foreign public officials between 1999 and 2005, the Australian Federal Police said in a statement on its website. The Reserve Bank of Australia, which owns NPA and 50 percent of Securency, said in a statement it condemns corrupt behavior of any kind and no one at the bank has been accused of wrongdoing.
Today’s arrests are the first under Australia’s decade-old foreign bribery laws and coincided with related bribery charges against two individuals in Malaysia by that nation’s Attorney-General’s Chambers following an investigation by the country’s anti-corruption commission, the AFP said. The RBA said in November last year that it will sell its stake in Securency.
“It’s clearly embarrassing for the Reserve Bank, but I think the market would make a clear distinction” between their monetary policy and note printing functions, said Nigel Stapledon, a former Treasury and Westpac Banking Corp. economist who lectures at the University of New South Wales’ school of business in Sydney. “I don’t think that it’s going to have any material effect on people’s judgment of their performance on monetary policy, which is more critical.”

‘Full Confidence’

Australian Assistant Treasurer Bill Shorten, speaking after the announcement, told reporters in Melbourne that he has “full confidence in the Reserve Bank of Australia.”
Governor Glenn Stevens said after the announcement that“the Reserve Bank condemns in the strongest terms corrupt or questionable behavior of any kind.”
“Companies associated with the Reserve Bank and their staff must, like the bank itself, meet the highest standards of integrity and fully comply with the law,” Stevens said in an e-mailed statement.
Police said today a team of up to 20 officers had worked on the investigation, resulting in charges against six men from the state of Victoria aged between 50 and 66. The six men appeared in a Melbourne magistrate’s court today.
The charges carry a maximum penalty of 10 years in jail and/or a fine of A$1.1 million ($1.2 million), AFP’s statement said.

‘Clear Message’

“This sends a very clear message to corporate Australia that the AFP will diligently chase and enforce the laws on foreign bribery,” said Chris McDevitt, AFP manager special references commander, in a press conference today in Melbourne.
The AFP will allege that during the period 1999-2005, senior managers from Securency and NPA utilized international sales agents to bribe foreign public officials in order to secure banknote contracts, according to today’s statement.
Malaysia’s Attorney-General Gani Patail said his department is cooperating with colleagues in Australia and Bank Negara Malaysia, the nation’s central bank.
The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission has charged Mohamad Daud Dol Moin, a former assistant central bank governor, for allegedly accepting a 100,000 ringgit ($33,000) bribe related to a contract to print polymer bank notes, the commission said in an e-mailed statement today from Kuala Lumpur. Collin Goonting, a lawyer for Mohamad Daud, said in a telephone interview his client pleaded not guilty.

University Scholarship

The AFP said it will allege that in Vietnam a foreign official received a bribe paid in the form of a university scholarship to secure a banknote contract on behalf of Securency, the statement said.
Vietnam will consider the case “seriously and objectively,” Pham Anh Tuan, deputy chief of the secretariat of the Office of the Anti-Corruption Steering Committee said by phone from Hanoi today.
The AFP statement said the charges brought against the companies are “not a reflection that individual board members were complicit or had knowledge of any illegal activity.”
Australian central bank Governor Stevens said the RBA“deeply regrets that the governance arrangements and processes in the companies at that time were not able to prevent or detect the alleged behavior that has led to today’s charges.”

Sale Talks

Securency Chairman Bob Rankin said in an e-mailed statement that the company is “considering its legal position.” Since it became aware of the allegations in May 2009, Securency’s board has taken steps to ensure compliance with ethical business practices, the statement said.
Securency is in talks with potential buyers, Managing Director Philippe Etienne said in a phone interview today.
“The business is currently in a divestment process,” he said. “I don’t expect the RBA to be shareholder in the medium term.”
Formed in 1996, Securency is a joint venture between the RBA and Innovia Films, and supplies materials used in the printing of banknotes and security documents, according to Securency’s website. NPA, fully owned by the RBA, printed Australia’s first polymer banknote in 1988, while Innovia Films produces the base material that’s been used in bank notes issued in 31 nations, including Malaysia, Vietnam and Indonesia, the website says.

Test Case

The RBA’s share of Securency’s profit before income tax in 2009-10 was A$9.5 million, according to the central bank’s 2010 annual report. NPA earned a profit after tax of A$4.3 million in 2009-10.
Michael Ahrens, spokesman at Transparency International Australia, a group that has lobbied governments for tougher anti-corruption laws, said today’s charges are “a test case.”
The Australian foreign bribery law isn’t as good as legislation in the U.S. or the U.K., where a new law comes into effect today, because it sets the bar too high to win convictions, Ahrens said. Civil prosecutions, such as those available in the U.S. and U.K., require only that the weight of the evidence tip in favor of the prosecutors to win a conviction.
In Australia, prosecutors must prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, Ahrens said. “We need to adopt a more modern piece of legislation,” he said. “There are too many hurdles, it’s too technical.” He said he was surprised police laid charges, even after a two-year probe.
“I was doubtful they would be willing to take the plunge,” he said.