-
The Inoperative Jay Carney
May 23, 2013 | 135 comments
-
IRS Union Chief Stonewalls
May 21, 2013 | 57 comments
-
Obama and the IRS: The Smoking Gun?
May 20, 2013 | 70 comments
-
The Liberal Union Behind the IRS
May 16, 2013 | 146 comments
-
Cumulus Media: Suicide of a Company?
May 14, 2013 | 64 comments
Another Perspective
The Taxing of the Screw
Reid Nevada ally proposes sex tax: taxes for AIDS and abortion next?
(Page 3 of 3)
Every time a newly infected person is diagnosed by a doctor or hospital or clinic, their information is immediately reported to the IRS. If we’re all socialists now and Obamacare is going to keep a gimlet eye on our death spirals then, as State Senator Coffin has correctly deduced out there in Nevada, what you do with your sex life can’t be allowed to escape the tax man either. Just as hospitals and doctors who treat gun shot wounds are required to report the fact to police, and car accidents are filed with the appropriate insurance company, we just require all new HIV/AIDS patients and those with STD’s to be turned in to the IRS.
Interestingly, the scent of erotic taxation has titillated Indiana Republican Congressman Steve Buyer, who has fantasized aloud about taxing unprotected sex.
As reported here, Buyer streaked this thought through a health care hearing of the Energy and Commerce Committee: “Someone who smokes, drinks, participates in bad conduct and behavior, unprotected sex, maybe bad things happen to them, maybe they should pay higher premiums,” Buyer said. “That is a radical thought, isn’t it?”
Well, its radical only if HIV/AIDS whether incurred by unprotected sex or drug use is suddenly not thought of as behavior, be it good, bad, indifferent or simply mind blowing. Taking a page from the liberal playbook, just think of gay sex as a revenue raiser, in the end, funded by a head tax
Once we begin collecting revenues from MSM’s that the CDC reports are “more than two thirds (68%) of all men living with HIV in 2005” we can’t turn from that other problem resulting from unprotected sex: abortion. What’s fair is fair. You don’t want to screw around with sexual equality.
The CDC reports that there were over 820,000 abortions in the U.S. in 2005, the last year for which it lists complete statistics. Other sources put the figure at over a million. Obviously, the need for an abortion results from unprotected heterosexual sex, whether deliberate or accidental. Why it happened is as irrelevant in the world of Obamacare as why you felt the need for a cold Coke on a hot day. You drank the soda, you had the sex. You risked getting fat and adding to America’s health care costs, you risked getting pregnant, and in both cases health care resources that could have gone elsewhere were used to deal with your mistake.
Sorry. But in the world of Obamacare you have to pay the piper — or the state of New York or the state of Nevada or the IRS or some government official somewhere.
According to the pro-choice Guttmacher Institute the average cost of a surgical abortion in 2001 at ten weeks was $468, with women on average paying $372. A medical abortion, again using 2001 statistics, cost on average $487. A 10% surcharge would be just the incentive to, as former President Clinton urged, keep abortion “safe, legal and rare” — not to mention reduce health care costs for the rest of us by bringing in needed revenue.
When someone shows up to be appropriately attended to at an abortion clinic, a tax filing based on the cost of the abortion is signed by the patient and the attending physician, then goes straight to the IRS. As the President himself says, the substance of this is above our pay grade. But money is money, and actions have health care consequences, as we are reminded repeatedly. So baby out, dollar in.
Think of it: Roe v. Wade, the backbone of America’s economic recovery.
Just imagine all the possibilities here. IRS Form SCRU-U2 would become must-reading, based as it would be on the old best seller The Joy of Sex. Page 53 of the book is a 5% tax, while page 116 of the book is a 10% surcharge. Barney Frank will stand up for an entire series of tax credits based on another book altogether.
But the bottom line (sorry) is that your freedom and personal privacy as we once knew it are slip-sliding away.
Soda today, sex tomorrow. With apologies to Shakespeare, after the taming of the shrew comes the taxing of the screw.
Here’s hoping you understand the need for protection.
About the Author
Jeffrey Lord is a former Reagan White House political director and author. He writes from Pennsylvania at jlpa1@aol.com.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (72) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Jeffrey Lord
More Articles From Another Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/08/04/the-taxing-of-the-screw
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
The Spectacle Blog
The #FreeKate Narrative Melts Down: Lies Exposed in Florida Teen Sex Case
Robert Stacy McCain | 5.25.13
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Aaron| 8.4.09 @ 6:49AM
Well if this doesn't rub you the wrong way...
Brilliant piece Mr. Lord! "baby out, dollar in" thats pulitzer if I ever read it right there.
Galen| 8.4.09 @ 7:50AM
I've long been in favor of syntax
Louis Jenkins| 8.4.09 @ 8:22AM
Soon enough the government will be taxing sex at home between two conscenting adults? How about if they are married? How will the IRS keep an account of the number of sex acts and tax accordingly? If they are homosexual or hetero which will get the tax break or a loop hole? Bet they come up with a masturbation permit for singles! Big GovCo is supposed to be kept out of the bedroom and now they're in it for the money! Why not? They've been screwing the taxpayers for years.
Robert Rosencrans| 8.4.09 @ 8:33AM
This is not all that surprising when you consider that cap and trade is basically a breath tax, simply taxing you because you breath.
No tax is an island and I'm surprised that anyone is dumb enough not to realize that a tax on one is a tax on all.
Tim| 8.4.09 @ 8:33AM
Under your plan would pity sex be tax deductible?
Pat Spooner| 8.4.09 @ 8:45AM
The good news in all this discussion of additional taxes, which are not taxes so they tell us but rather fees paid by users, is that they will soon run out of new items to tax because everything will be taxed already. The bad news is that they will begin to tax your accumulated wealth so that hard working Americans will see 5% or 10% or more of their hard earned savings taken each year by the federal government!
The time has come for term limits for every representative and every senator. These limits must be enacted at the state level as it is obvious that the Congress has no inclination to limit their time in office as was the practice and concept when the Constitution was written and enacted.
Jen from Ohio | 8.4.09 @ 8:46AM
This is a brilliantly written article, and I very much enjoyed reading it. I loved the play on words such as 'The Taxing of the Screw' and '...will not be erected anytime soon.' This article is well-written, amusing, and straight to the point in terms of just how much government is encroaching into our personal and private lives. The Liberals in Washington and around the country better be careful about building gallows because they are the ones who just may end up being hung!
ds80| 8.4.09 @ 8:57AM
A pre-summary of Liberal Reader's erudite response:
"... I love conservatives (I do, I really, really do!), but ..."
"... if you ignorant weasels were actually schooled in history (as I greatly and most humbly am), ..."
"... clearly, GW Bush planted the seeds ... (oh and you can stop reading further posts; I have said all that needs to be said."
"Did I say I love conservatives?"
Big J| 8.4.09 @ 9:33AM
ds80:
You forgot Bob:
"There is no economic data to support that tax cuts stimulate the economy."
"The only way to achieve massive 'stimulation' (sorry for the extra play on words) is for the government to confiscate and redistribute any and all wealth created by the private sector."
Bob has spoken. So let it be written, so let it be done.
Truth is, liberals never met a tax they didn't love. Not surprising at all, not one bit.
Steve| 8.4.09 @ 10:01AM
You have been a tear lately, Mr. Lord. Please don't stop! You have uncovered the basic liberal conundrum: liberals tax what they hate (honest labor) and do not tax what they adore (sex, in any form or place). So how to build a society based on exalting free sex and punishing honest labor? They're doing their best, but how to pay for it? You nailed them on that point. Thanks.
Bud| 8.4.09 @ 10:43AM
Our Statist friends missed an opportunity some years ago. Once upon a time there was a Committee on the Standardization of the Screw, which long outlived its original purpose ..
Gill O’Teen ✝✡| 8.4.09 @ 11:14AM
Top notch commentary to a stimulating article! Silly me! I thought ‘MSM’ stood for main street media. I sit corrected. I wonder where john-boy edwards, elliot spitter, and ‘I did not have sex with that woman’/ korean ambassador clinkton stand on the idea of taxing risque behavior. Of course! Con-gress will simply exempt itself and its friends. What is blarney fwank’s opinion about taxing those at high risk of catching HIV? As a taxocrat, he has to be in favor of it, but as the poster boy for MSM Americans, he has to be against it. If you thought he was confused before, just wait until he learns about these new ‘fees’. Of course, those who don’t want to pay Nevada’s sex tax, can simply stay away. It’s not like there’s a shortage of folks elsewhere willing to provide an evening’s adult entertainment for a financial consideration, and these dastardly capitalists accept cash (so I’ve read). I am of course curious about the transmission of HIV. Supposedly the virus can only hop from one host to another via intimate contact. But the virus possibly originated in chimpanzees. Hmmm. Now there’s a new strain that is alleged to have originated in gorillas. Hmmm. Sounds like a script idea for a porn flick. Maybe we should tax all members of the primate family.
Bud| 8.4.09 @ 11:14AM
I wonder if they'll hit on the idea of taxing people for lying about having sex. Perhaps they can also ensnare married folk, who could have had sex but didn't get around to it - the imputed screw.
ccc| 8.4.09 @ 11:17AM
It seems odd to hear conservatives in favor of making prostitutes more available.
Robert Pinkerton| 8.4.09 @ 11:22AM
And I still say: Make cannabis flat lawful under concurrent Federal and State tax control, like alcoholic beverages.
Pete| 8.4.09 @ 11:26AM
No wonder the libs are in favor of gay marriage...just another way to register new taxpayers. Sad and funny all at the same time. Oddly...you probably wouldn't have to pay if you could demonstrate that you didn't have "hardship." Get it? Couldn't resist.
Michael L. Hauschild| 8.4.09 @ 11:57AM
Who'd a thunk it, celibacy as a tax shelter.
blunted| 8.4.09 @ 2:34PM
Sex is taxed already in Nevada ie sales tax. An additional tax doesn't sound that crazy considering cigarette tax and other so called sin taxes. Where's the story at?
Credit Crunch before Christ| 8.4.09 @ 3:06PM
Jesus injustice violated the sanctity of God’s house.
(↑) 3. The Money Changers in the Roman Empire
But the money changing scam did not originate in Jesus’ day. Two hundred years before Christ, Rome was having trouble with Money Changers.
Two early Roman emperors had tried to diminish the power of the Money Changers by reforming usury laws and limiting land ownership to 500 acres. They both were assassinated. In 48 B.C., Julius Caesar took back the power to coin money from the Money Changers and minted coins for the benefit of all.
With this new, plentiful supply of money, he built great public works projects. By making money plentiful, Caesar won the love common man. But the Money Changers hated him. Some believe this was an important factor in Caesar’s assassination.
One thing is for sure, with the death of Caesar came the demise of plentiful money in Rome. Taxes increased, as did corruption. Eventually, the Roman money supply was reduced by 90%. As a result, the common people lost their lands and homes – just as has happened and will happen again in America to the few who still own their own land or homes. With the demise of plentiful money and the loss of their property, the masses lost confidence in Roman government and refused to support it. Rome plunged into the gloom of the Dark Ages
ben| 8.4.09 @ 3:16PM
We could also subsidize Viagra and alchohol to keep more people having sex so we can generate more revenue. And how 'bout subsidizing and mandating gym membership and usage to make more people better looking, encouraging even more sex, and yes more revenue. and Plastic surgery too. Under this system we could justify a tax rebate for implants - Bucks for Boobs.
Aaron| 8.4.09 @ 3:23PM
Credit Crunch before Christ -
From Jesus to the fall of the Roman Empire in four paragraphs... thats a tad bit of a stretch. I had great hopes this morning when I read this article that today would be a fun filled day of sex analogies on the AmSpec comment board. How are we supposed to do that when you invoke the name of Jesus and all the Catholics start feeling guilty? No offense to Jesus or Catholics intended or Romans for that matter... Bob, no one wants to hear about tax brackets in the Roman Empire or how you fought with Spartacus.
Curtis Rasmussen| 8.4.09 @ 3:25PM
Everyone gets a WiFi brain implant that sends a signal for every erotic thought. The number and frequency will be taxed. Heck, John Holdren can add stimulants to the sterilization drugs that he wants to dump in the water supply. Maximum revenue and extinction at the same time! Just what Obama wants.
Aaron| 8.4.09 @ 3:25PM
Yes Ben! Thats what I'm talking about, Bucks for Boobs... Ha!
The American FED Ponzi scam| 8.4.09 @ 3:25PM
People losing their Land and Homes is not a new thing. Nor the reduction of money supply by Banks so people, lose Business Homes, Factories, Farms.
These things are by design, which is one the oldest scam in the world.
Most people do not read books, or study history and take these events as some sort of accident, far from it it is timed to make money for a cirtain group of crooked people, called Bankers, there is another group called the Assassins, they kill anyone who stands in their way many politicans have been killed by these people who think their Ponzi scam in under threat.
Chemman| 8.4.09 @ 4:06PM
I repent. I suggested sin taxes on sex a few weeks ago on another site. Now I come here and see that some Libs actually think it is a good idea. While I was being sarcastic about sin taxes it appears the Libs haven't seen a sin tax they don't agree with.
To the government stay out of our bedrooms and wallets. Why is that so difficult to understand.
None Issue| 8.4.09 @ 4:25PM
mentioned in newspapers or history books. Why?
(↑) Media Control and the International Bankers
By World War I, the Money Changers, with their dominant wealth, had seized control of most of the nation’s press.
In a 1912 Senate Privileges and Elections Committee hearing, a letter was introduced to the Committee written by Representative Joseph Sibley (PA), a Rockefeller agent in Congress, to John D. Archibald, a Standard Oil employee of Rockefeller’s, which read in part:
“An efficient literary bureau is needed, not for a day or a crisis but a permanent healthy control of the Associated Press and kindred avenues. It will cost money but will be cheapest in the end.”
John Swinton, the former Chief of Staff of the New York Times, called by his peers “the Dean of his profession”, was asked in 1953 to give a toast before the New York Press Club. He responded with the following statement:
“There is no such thing as an independent press in America, if we except that of little country towns. You know this and I know it. Not a man among you dares to utter his honest opinion. Were you to utter it, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print.
I am paid one hundred and fifty dollars a week so that I may keep my honest opinion out of the newspaper for which I write. You too are paid similar salaries for similar services. Were I to permit that a single edition of my newspaper contained an honest opinion, my occupation – like Othello’s – would be gone in less than twenty–four hours.
The man who would be so foolish as to write his honest opinion would soon be on the streets in search of another job. It is the duty of a New York journalist to lie, to distort, to revile, to toady at the feet of Mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread, or what amounts to the same thing, his salary.
We are the tools and the vassals of the rich behind the scenes. We are marionettes. These men pull the strings and we dance. Our time, our talents, our lives, our capacities are all the property of these men – we are intellectual prostitutes.” (As quoted by T. St. John Gaffney in Breaking The Silence, page 4.)
Money changer & Tax| 8.4.09 @ 4:54PM
The first paper money in Western Europe was merely receipts for gold left at the goldsmiths, made from rag paper as the ditty goes:
“Rags make paper; paper makes money; money makes banks; banks make loans; loans make beggars; beggars make rags.”
Stephanie| 8.4.09 @ 5:03PM
How are they going to keep track of this? Should people send them video tapes? So now what....the government will be in the porn industry now?
Tax & the money changers| 8.4.09 @ 5:31PM
If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and the corporations which grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”
Tax & the Bankersters| 8.4.09 @ 5:37PM
“Never was a great historic event followed by a more feeble sequel. A nation arises to claim for itself liberty and sovereignty. It gains both of these by immense sacrifice of blood and treasure. Then, when victory is gained and secure, it hands the nation ‘s credit – that is to say a national treasure – over to private individuals, to do as they please with.” – Alexander Del Mar, historian
Gill O’Teen ✝✡| 8.4.09 @ 5:40PM
Credit Crunch before Christ, for your information, Julius Caesar was never Emperor of Rome. Only persons with minuscule knowledge of Western Civilization would even think so. The first Roman Emperor was Augustus (aka Octavian or Octavius) who seized control of the Empire after defeating Marc Antony at the Battle of Actium in 31 BC. Julius was his great-uncle and adopted him in 44 BC. Interestingly, for conspiracy buffs, Julius was assassinated that same year. By crossing the Rubicon, Julius began a civil war in 49 BC from which he emerged as the unrivaled leader of the Roman world. Eventually he was declared dictator in perpetuity, the title he held when he died. But he was never emperor. If you have any knowledge of Bill Shakespeare’s little stage show about one of the most influential persons ever, you should know that Julius refused the title of king offered him by the throng. If your knowledge of history is so easily refuted by just a few visits to Wikipedia, kindly take your garbage elsewhere. I understand obumassiah is looking for a History Czar to rewrite the tale of his chicago adventures. Probably pays at least $100,000 per annum, plus you’ll be exempt from sex taxes and have the same health plan congress has reserved for itself and fine upstanding sycophants of the golden calf. By the way, the Latin pronunciation of Caesar is ‘Kaiser’. The pronunciation Seizer is from the French.
Money changers| 8.4.09 @ 5:40PM
The hand that gives is above the hand that takes. Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency: their sole object is gain.”
The Great American Swindle| 8.4.09 @ 5:45PM
the United States)/The War of 1812
In 1811, a bill was put before Congress to renew the charter of the Bank of the United States. The debate grew very heated and the legislature of both Pennsylvania and Virginia passed resolutions asking Congress to kill the Bank.
The press corps of the day attacked the Bank openly, calling it “a great swindle”, a “vulture”, a “viper”, and a “cobra”. Oh, to have an independent press once again in America.
A Congressman named P.B. Porter attacked the bank from the floor of Congress, prophetically warned that if the bank’s charter were renewed, Congress,
“will have planted in the bosom of this Constitution a viper, which one day or another will sting the liberties of this country to the heart.”
Prospects didn’t look good for the Bank. Some writers have claimed that Nathan Rothschild warned that the United States would find itself involved in a most disastrous war if the Bank’s charter were not renewed
Pingback| 8.4.09 @ 5:49PM
Taxing “bad-for-you behaviors” doesn’t JUST mean your Pepsi « Clinging to G & G links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Money spinner/swindlers| 8.4.09 @ 5:54PM
BUS; 20 years duration]
(↑) 15. Second Bank of the United States
Meanwhile, back in Washington, in 1816, just one year after Waterloo and Rothschilds’ alleged takeover of the Bank of England, the American Congress passed a bill permitting yet another privately–owned central bank – the fourth American Bank War had begun.
This bank was called the Second Bank of the United States. The new Bank’s charter was a copy of the previous Bank’s. The U.S. government would own 20% of the shares. Of course, the Federal share was paid by the Treasury up front, into the Bank’s coffers. Then, through the magic of fractional reserve lending, it was transformed into loans to private investors who then bought the remaining 80% of the shares. Sound familiar by now?
Just as before, the primary stockholders remained secret. But it is known that, at a n~ir~ the largest single block of shares– about one–third of the total– was held by foreigners. As one observer put it:
“It is certainly no exaggeration to say that the Second Bank of the United States was rooted as deeply in Britain as it was in America.”
So by 1816, some authors claim the Rothschilds and their allies, some by now related by marriage, had taken control over the Bank of England and backed the new privately–owned central bank in America (the 2nd BUS) as well. With Napoleon’s defeat about the same time, they began to dominate the Bank of France as well
Tax to death| 8.4.09 @ 6:00PM
This worthy President thinks that because he has scalped Indians and imprisoned Judges, he is to have his way with the Bank. He is mistaken.”
Next, in an unbelievable fit of honesty for a central banker, Biddle admitted that the bank was going to make money scarce in order to force Congress to restore the Bank:
“Nothing but widespread suffering will produce any effect on Congress... Our only safety is in pursuing a steady course of firm [monetary] restriction –and I have no doubt that such a course will ultimately lead to restoration of the currency and the re–charter of the Bank.”
What a stunning revelation! Here was the pure truth, revealed with shocking clarity. Biddle intended to use the money contraction power given to the Bank to cause a massive depression until America gave in. Unfortunately, this has happened time and time again throughout U.S. history, though without the blunder of Biddle’s arrogant admission, and may be about to happen again in our time.
So much for the importance to the common good of central bank independence (or so called “autonomy”) from political accountability and control.
Nicholas Biddle made good on his threat. The Bank sharply contracted the money supply by calling in old loans and refusing to extend new ones. A financial panic ensued, followed by a deep economic depression. Predictably, Biddle blamed Jackson for the crash, saying that it was caused by the withdrawal of federal funds from the Bank. Unfortunately, his plan worked well. Wages and prices sagged. Unemployment soared along with business bankruptcies. The nation quickly went into an uproar.
Newspaper editors blasted Jackson in editorials. After
Taxes| 8.4.09 @ 6:10PM
The Government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency and credit needed to satisfy the spending power of the Government and the buying power of consumers... The privilege of creating and issuing money is not only the supreme prerogative of Government, but it is the Government’s greatest creative opportunity... By the adoption of these principles, the long–felt want for a uniform medium will be satisfied. The taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest. The financing of all public enterprises and the conduct of the Treasury will become matters of practical administration. Money will cease to be master and become the servant of humanity.”
Who killed Lincoln| 8.4.09 @ 6:17PM
“Abraham Lincoln was assassinated through the machinations of a group representative of the international bankers, who feared the United States President’s national credit ambitions... There was only one group in the world at that time who had any reason to desire the death of Lincoln... They were the men opposed to his national currency program and who had fought him throughout the whole Civil War on his policy of Greenback currency.”
Who Killed the President| 8.4.09 @ 6:20PM
“They were the men interested in the establishment of the gold standard and the right of the bankers to manage the currency and credit of every nation in the world. With Lincoln out of the way they were able to proceed with the plan and did proceed with it in the United States. Within eight years after Lincoln’s assassination, silver was demonetized and the gold standard money system set up in the United States.”
The Money changers/Banksters| 8.4.09 @ 6:24PM
“The hard times which occurred after the Civil War could have been avoided if the Greenback legislation had continued as President Lincoln had intended. Instead, there were a series of ‘money panics’ – what we call ‘recessions’ – which put pressure on Congress to enact legislation to place the banking system under centralized control. Eventually the Federal Reserve Act was passed on December 23, 1913.”
Banksters & the Assassins| 8.4.09 @ 6:31PM
Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce... and when you realize that the entire system is very easily controlled, one way or another, by a few powerful men at the top, you will not have to be told how periods of inflation and depression originate.”
Garfield understood. Within a few weeks of making this statement, on July 2 of 1881, President Garfield was assassinated.
Home & Farm re-possession| 8.4.09 @ 6:38PM
On Sept, 1, 1894, we will not renew our loans under any consideration. On Sept. 1st we will demand our money. We will foreclose and become mortgagees in possession. We can take two–thirds of the farms west of the Mississippi, and thousands of them east of the Mississippi as well, at our own price... We may as well own three–fourths of the farms of the West and the money of the country. Then the farmers will become tenants as in England ...” – 1891, American Bankers Association, as printed in the Congressional Record of April 29, 1913
These depressions could be controlled if the National Banks coordinated their contraction, and more easily because America was on the gold standard. Since gold is scarce, it’s one of the easiest commodities to manipulate. People wanted silver money legalized again so they could escape the stranglehold the Money Changers had on gold–backed money. People wanted silver money reinstated, reversing Mr. Seyd’d Act of 1873, by then called the “Crime of ‘73.”
By 1896, the issue of more silver money had become
Roy| 8.4.09 @ 6:40PM
Re:ben:
People who got more attractive would be having sex with their spouses, or at least their "partners", so that wouldn't help. In fact we need to subsidize twinkies and cheeseburgers so that more people will need to patronize prostitutes.
Banksters & the money changers| 8.4.09 @ 6:48PM
20. J. P. Morgan & the Crash of 1907/Rockefeller
Now it was time for the Money Changers to get back a new, private central bank for America, the fifth private central bank to control and manipulate America’s money supply.
A major final panic would be necessary to focus the nation’s attention on the supposed need for a central bank. The thin rationale offered was that only a central bank can prevent widespread bank failures and stabilize the currency. The critically important feature of who would own and control it was an issue carefully avoided.
Before the Civil War, the Rothschilds had previously used, as principal agents in the U.S., J.L and S.I Joseph & Company. Later, George Peabody, an American bond salesman, traveled to London before the Civil War and developed a relationship with Nathan Rothschild, which became a highly profitable one for Peabody. His business expanding, he took on an American partner, Junius Morgan, father of J.P.
In 1857 Junius was the recipient of a £800,000 loan from the Bank of England at a time of financial crisis when many other firms were denied such loans. Junius Morgan became the Union’s financial agent in Britain, often closely associated with the Rothschilds.
In the post–Civil War period the connection between Morgan and the Rothschilds was certainly well known in financial circles. As one writer noted:
“Morgan’s activities in 1895–1896 in selling U.S. gold bonds in Europe were based on his alliance with the House of Rothschild.”
After his father’s death, J.P. Morgan took on a British partner, Edward Grenfell, a long–time director of the Bank of England. There is speculation the Morgans became the Rothschilds’ principal agents in the U.S., eventually to be eclipsed by the Rockefellers.
Early in this century, in U.S. finance, the press and in politics, all lines of power converged on the financial houses of J.P. Morgan (J.P. Morgan Company; Bankers Trust Company; First National Bank of New York, Guaranty Trust), the Rockefellers (National City Bank of New York; Chase National Bank; Chemical Bank); Kuhn, Loeb & Company (a representative of the Rothschild banks; National City Bank of New York) and the Warburg’s (Manhattan Corp. bank).
Morgan was clearly the most powerful banker in America, and like his father, worked as an agent for the Rothschild family, but also for his own interests. He helped finance the monopolization of various industries, consolidated big steel holdings into a monopoly by buying Andrew Carnegie’s steel companies, and owned numerous industrial companies and banks.
Interestingly, though reputedly America’s richest banker, upon J.P.’s death, his estate contained $68 million dollars, only 19% of J.P. Morgan company. The bulk of the securities most people thought he owned, were in fact owned by others. When J.P. Morgan, Jr. (Jack) died in 1943 his estate was valued at only $16 million. By contrast, when Alphonse Rothschild died in 1905 his estate contained $60 million in U.S. securities alone.
John D. Rockefeller and his brother William used their enormous profits from the Standard Oil monopoly to dominate the National City Bank, merged in 1955 with Morgan’s and Kuhn, Loeb & Company’s First National Bank of New York, which resulted in Citibank (Citicorp).
Similarly, John D. bought control of Chase National Bank, and merged it with Warburg’s Manhattan bank, resulting in the Rockefeller–dominated Chase Manhattan bank, recently merged with the Rockefeller–controlled Chemical Bank.
The combination of the Rockefeller–controlled Chase–Manhattan/Citicorp banks gives them majority control over the New York Fed (52%), which completely dominates the Federal Reserve System. But the New York Fed was controlled by Rockefeller long before any majority ownership was reached.
By these mergers, the Rockefellers gradually replaced the Morgans, Schiffs and Warburgs as the principal Rothschild allies in the U.S.
Recent 1998 mega–bank mergers have further consolidated this monolithic control.
David Rockefeller, retired Chairman, was the point man for the Rockefellers in recent decades. One wag described the Rockefellers’ seventy–five palatial Pocantico Hills residences (on over 4,000 acres) in New York as “the kind of place God would have built if he had had the money.”
In Europe a similar consolidation resulted in two main banking dynasties – the Warburgs and the Rothschilds. But whereas the Morgans and the Rockefellers were relatively fierce competitors until the famous Northern Securities battle resulted in a sort of truce, the Warburgs have always been subordinate to the Rothschilds and have not seriously challenged them.
The relationship between the Rothschilds and Rockefellers was initially one of debtor/creditor, as the Rothschilds provided the seed money for J.D. Rockefeller to monopolize the U.S. oil refinery business and most oil rduron.
The Joker| 8.4.09 @ 7:03PM
Other Rothschild allies in the United States made out as well from the war. President Wilson appointed Bernard Baruch to head the War Industries Board. According to historian James Perloff, both Baruch and the Rockefellers profited by some $200 million during the war.
But profits were not the only motive. There was also revenge and power. The Money Changers never forgave the Czars for their opposition nor for supporting Lincoln during the Civil War. Also, Russia was the last major European nation to refuse to give in to the privately–owned central bank scheme.
Three years after World War I broke out, the Russian Revolution toppled the Czar. Jacob Schiff of Kuhn, Loeb & Company bragged on his deathbed that he had spent $20 million towards the defeat of the Czar. But the truth was that much of that money funded the communist coup d’état replacing the democratically elected Kerensky regime, which had replaced the Czar months earlier.
The bankers were not so much enemies of the Czar, as they were intent on seizing power in Russia, through the Bolsheviks. Three gold shipments in 1920 alone, from Lenin to Kuhn, Loeb & Company and Morgan Guaranty Trust repaid the $20 million to the bankers, and this was just a small down payment.
But would some of the richest men in the world financially back communism, the system that was openly vowing to destroy the so–called capitalism that made them wealthy? Communism, like plutocracy, is a product of capitalism. Researcher Gary Allen explained it was this way:
“If one understands that socialism is not a share–the–wealth program, but is in reality a method to consolidate and control the wealth, then the seeming paradox of super–rich men promoting socialism becomes no paradox at all. Instead, it becomes logical, even the perfect tool for power–seeking megalomaniacs. Communism or more accurately, socialism, is not a movement of the downtrodden masses, but of the economic elite.”
As W. Cleon Skousen put it in his 1970 book The
The great Bailout swindle| 8.4.09 @ 7:59PM
In another example, in mid-March, 2009, Jewish congressmen Charles Schumer and Barney Frank led others in expressing outrage over the $165 million in bonuses AIG executives gave themselves using the bailout money. Schumer and Frank were the leading shills for the bailout in the first place. So what happened? The whole incident, with the Jewish media directing public anger against AIG executives, was orchestrated by Jews to deflect attention from the $185 billion bailout of AIG, which didn’t stay with AIG. What happened to this money? Congressmen were looking for an answer for at least six months and then the government finally revealed what happened on March 15, 2009. AIG paid it dues to Jewish entities such as Goldman Sachs, which got the largest chunk of AIG’s money. The very first $700 billion bailout proposal in September, 2008, was by Jew Henry Paulson, head of Goldman Sachs, and it included the stipulations that the bailout couldn’t be challenged legally, undone or its architects and recipients prosecuted. The Jews were attempting to swindle more money from the public and eventually got away with it. So attention had to be deflected from the true outrage. The Jews Schumer and Frank used their phony outrage to portray themselves as tough overseers of the banking and finance sector instead of its lobbyists, which will come in handy when its time to swindle more money for fellow Jews.
Crypto-Jews and Crypto Zionists
Around the beginning of the twentieth century, the Young Turks massacred a million or more Armenians. They were Jews pretending to be Muslims (#).
Discredit someone by making an assumption and then critique
mike in tn| 8.4.09 @ 8:30PM
What about presidential lung cancer related to smoking in the White House?
How should this be taxed/covered?
davod| 8.5.09 @ 12:17AM
Has there been an independent review of the Obesity stats.
Jeffrey Lord| 8.5.09 @ 8:51AM
supra shoes...
Please do! Thanks!
jim kilpatrick| 8.5.09 @ 9:27AM
The climax of this whole Obama craziness is simply that the kind folk inside the beltway will tax and control everything that you say, think and do.
LTerrell| 8.6.09 @ 11:06AM
Accordingly, why stop with taxing abortions of babies conceived from unprotected sex? Why not tax all the people on welfare who have children that, until now, the rest of us have been taxed to pay for? Seems to me, fair-is-fair. Obamacare seems to neglect the ill behavior of its voting public. I believe we should take care of the already extremely high medical costs thrust upon us by people who do not pay taxes, because they are too poor, but are not too poor to have children! Go figure. I remember after Katrina, one fine, upstanding (infrequently, I'm sure) mother complaining that the federal government wasn't there to rescue her 8 children. As a SINGLE MOTHER she couldn't do it herself! The reporter never asked about the (up to) 8 men who helped her get pregnant and their whereabouts! We could make a fortune off that woman alone! I say TAX HER!!!! and the other's like her.
دليل مواقع | 12.17.09 @ 11:54PM
Good
qwer| 4.23.10 @ 8:55PM
Poptropica
ArenaBetting.com dukung fair play FIFA world cup AFSEL 2010