April 13, 2009
By Joan Veon
Believe as you will about the 2008 Credit Crisis but if you fail to recognize that the final pieces of America’s financial and economic sovereignty are being transferred in the name of finding a global solution to the crisis, then you will have believed those who intend to steal your assets next, as well as your freedom.
How could America’s financial sovereignty be plucked from her both at the domestic and international levels? It is not because of a five or even twenty-five year plan but one that may be hundreds of years old. This plan, I’m sure, did not happen all at once but took time to evolve. It is a diabolically brilliant strategy in its scheming. In order to understand, we need to review how the credit crisis will lead to the total transfer of America’s sovereignty.
[Read "The Coming Battle" published in 1899, written by a man born before the civil war, predicting a battle between the people and the moneypower for freedom]
First came the rise of a novel idea whereby the government would borrow from a private corporation, and pay a perpetual interest. The private corporation, known as a central bank, got its roots in 1688 from the Swedish, and then went to the Dutch and then the British. The core of the idea was for governments to borrow indefinitely without having to pay down the principal. When the newly founded colonies broke from the British, it was Alexander Hamilton who convinced George Washington that a central bank would be good for America, also. Years later, in 1833, President Andrew Jackson closed the Second National Bank (America’s central bank) routing out the power of its foreign investors and returning our government to sound money. It was not until 1913 that a central bank would be reestablished in America transferring the power to coin money from Congress to the Federal Reserve.
Not without its own amount of chicanery and deceit did the Federal Reserve Bank come to pass. Other central banks were created as well. No one really knows who owns the Federal Reserve or the other central banks of the world. However, thanks to Prince Andrew’s series of documentaries about his forefathers, we now have proof that King William was the largest investor, £10,000, in the Bank of England in 1694. Might it be presumptuous to consider that if the British royal family invested in the Bank of England, they have probably invested in many other central banks since then to increase their wealth?