No? He’s not? Well why forever not?
Listen people of the world, if you cannot grasp sheer hypocrisy on the part of those who like to think they run this goddamned excuse for a planet of sentient beings, then you’re really not worth saving.
Here we have the President of the United States (because no-one has called him out on it yet) Barack Obama, BANNING a kid for having the audacity of sending an email to the Whitehouse calling him a “Prick” because “such language cannot disrespect the office of President of the United States (and we have to assume any other office of President or Leader mustn’t we?):
And we would be (and are) conditioned to respond to such language by a mere “peasant” as that expected of a mere “peasant” and, therefore, “they should be treated as such”.
But wait a minute. Donald Duck (sorry…Trump) has just referred to the entire chinese nation and its leadership as “MOTHERFUCKERS”
The man is obviously some form of insane Extra-Terrestrial. Then perhaps his surname is shortened from the original “TRUMPET” for he also certainly enjoys blowing his horn!
Donald Trump is a mentally challenged, warmongering, ZIONIST influenced (yes he is listen to his speech in full) version of George Bush on steroids.
So what exactly is Barack Obama going to do about this outburst toward the Chinese nation? Is he going to invoke “freedom of speech”? If so, then what happened to his principles when it came to the freedom of speech of a young 17 year old by the name of Luke Angel?
Wake up people. This may have its humorous overtones but there are deeply serious issues at play in all of this.
But our CORRUPT British government (ALL PARTIES) DO NOT WANT THIS and will NOT tell the British people the big con whereby your wealth – and the country’s as a whole – is being stolen from underneath our noses while these parasites, which includes our monarchy, feed from you by filling you up with debt then allowing the Banks to burst the bubble and call in the loans/debt.
Britain, just as the Federal Reserve is fleecing the American public so too is the Bank of England fleecing you. And our governments play along because, as you may have noticed, those who are in government are very well taken care of financially.
PLEASE, for your own sakes and for the sake of us all: WAKE THE HELL UP!
I have since personally received a copy of Henry Kerby’s transcript of this EDM from the PARLIAMENTARY ARCHIVIST.
THIS is why our country (and I may add ALL other countries’ sovereignty is going down the plughole and our debt is ever increasing and shall never end. THIS is why we have an UNNECESSARY AUSTERITY: Because the POLITICIANS will NOT issue our own currency debt free. I hate to add this but it is just fact: Adolf Hitler was NOT the instigator of WW2. He worked out the problem and the problem was Private controlled Bankers (the MAJORITY of them jewish because ONLY the jewish religion from centuries past allowed USURY and the British Christians in the 1600s then adopted it when the christian religion had always denounced it) who created the money out of thin air and loaned at interest. They are PARASITES and very few people understand this.
Who REALLY instigated WW2 and why? (and WHY are they doing such again today?): jews-declare-war.htm
Many people will NOT like this idea but it is NOT an idea. It is FACT!
Notice it was all well before 1939 and why? Because Hitler was not playing ball and was issuing his OWN currency! WHO writes History? The victors do! THAT’S why you don’t get the truth in your history books at schools people!
The entire nations of the world are in debt. Every single one of them (you can find the figures through googling easily enough). Now just stop and think in very simple terms (BECAUSE THIS IS VERY VERY SIMPLE): If YOUR family was the only family on earth but was still in debt, WHO would your family be in debt to? Who COULD it be? The answer: No-one!
Now apply that to the fact that EVERY nation on earth is in debt. For EVERY debtor there is a CREDITOR. Who has sovereignty? WHO is in control? The CREDITOR is.
So if EVERY nation is in debt (which they are) then WHO, ultimately, is the creditor? The ENTIRE HUMAN FAMILY is in debt! To who?
To the Private Central Bankers. THAT is why we all have austerity and why countries like Greece and Portugal and Ireland and even us, the UK, are selling off assets. Because our politicians are in bed getting their kickbacks from the legislation they adopt in favour of the banks! It’s not your local high street bank we’re talking about here. It is the entire banking system controlled by the IMF and Central Banks. The WHO is who is behind them? Well we KNOW who!
Captain Henry Kerby MP: UK Parliament Hansards 1965:
1. The UK government DO NOT WISH TO eliminate the National Debt. It has NEVER been their intention!
2. “No”. Could this be ANY clearer for you?
3. Captain Henry Kerby’s Early Day Motion dated 22nd December 1964.
Ask yourself a VERY simple question: Why would the British Government NOT wish to pay off the National Debt?
By Captain Henry Kerby MP
On the 22nd December, 1964, Captain Henry Kerby, MP, placed the following Motion before the House of Commons.
It was an “Early Day Motion” and so it was never debated and, consequently, does not appear in Hansard. It is, however, published in the Early Day Motion records and we have a copy of it here at Prosperity.
The House of Commons Public Information Office Factsheet on Early Day Motions states that an “Early Day Motion” is the “colloquial term for a notice of motion given by a Member for which no date has been fixed for debate” and where “in the vast majority of cases, there is absolutely no prospect of these motions ever being debated. Their modern existence is due to Members wishing to put on record their opinion on a subject and canvass support for it from fellow Members. They do this by inviting, actively or passively, other members to endorse the proposed motion.” However, even if 250-300 Members might endorse it, “the lack of prospect of the motion being debated remains much the same.”
Below we reprint the full text of Captain Kerby’s Early Day Motion, titled as below, and his comments — unpublished in the official record — follow.
THE EMISSION OF ALL THE MEANS OF EXCHANGE
That this House considers that the continued issue of all the means of exchange – be they coin, bank-notes or credit, largely passed on by cheques – by private firms as an interest-bearing debt against the public should cease forthwith; that the Sovereign power and duty of issuing money in all forms should be returned to the Crown, then to be put into circulation free of all debt and interest obligations, as a public service, not a private opportunity of profit and control for no tangible returns to the British people; and that the volume of money be controlled so as to maintain stable prices:
That the nationalization of the Bank of England did nothing to solve this problem as the bank only serves a subsidiary purpose and almost all money is still created out of nothing by mere book entry by private banks:
That the aims of those who want to assure private property and free enterprise, as well as those who want to protect the British people from unfair exploitation, would both be best served by restoring the power of issuing money to Her Majesty The Queen, in accordance with ancient tradition and law, as is also demanded by the American Constitution, which gives the right of issue solely to Congress, so as to assure the State and Nation the benefits of that emission and relieve them of the immense and growing burdens of a parasitical National and private debt; and to make certain that control passes to the taxed and is taken out of the hands of the present hidden and unlawful beneficiaries of taxation, much of the proceeds of which they collect as interest on all money and immense debts:
And therefore this House calls upon Her Majesty’s Government to introduce the required legislation, to assert the proper sovereignty of The Queen in Council in this most important of all sovereign functions, to assure unprecedented prosperity with true sovereignty and liberty.
Captain Kerby’s comments:
It is not generally understood that for many centuries, in Britain and in almost all other civilized countries, the power and duty of coinage, i.e. of the issue of money in all forms – coin, notes and book-entry credit passed on by cheque, etc. – was vested solely in the Crown or State. For this reason the tradition still persists of putting the Sovereign’s portrait on the coinage, though in fact since the end of the 17th century, the reign of William and Mary, by far the greatest part of all the effective means of exchange are issued by private bankers out of nothing by mere book entry, to be lent at interest to the State and to private borrowers. Thus real power passed from the State to the private bankers.
There is ample evidence from many independent sources to prove that most of the means of exchange in modern conditions originate with bankers. In America it is aptly called “fractional reserve banking,” meaning that if you have a pound in cash in the till you can issue ten or twenty times more in the form of “credit” on the books, which is mostly circulated by cheques.
Not a few Heads of Central Banks of Issue have stated the facts at public enquiries or in the press, including the chief of the Canadian Bank of Issue, also Mr. Marriner Eccles — at one time in parallel position in the U.S. Federal Reserve — and the late Mr. Reginald McKenna, former Chancellor of the Exchequer and Chairman of the Midland Bank. They and many others confirmed that it is the function of banks to create money out of nothing and lend it out.
The “Report of the (New Zealand) Royal Commission on Monetary, Banking and Credit Systems,” 1956, states in part; Para. 164: Creation of Money by the Trading Banks: “The fact that a large proportion of our money supply comes into existence as a result of the operations of the trading banks obviously disturbed many witnesses …”
This evidence is paralleled by that given in 1960 to the Radcliffe Committee in London. We quote from the evidence given by the Bank of England, Vol. 1, Memoranda of Evidence; p.9. 4. The Control of Bank Credit in the United Kingdom:
2. “Because an entry in the books of a bank has come to be generally acceptable in the place of cash it is possible for the banks to create the equivalent of cash (i.e. credit). Thus a bank may pay for a security purchased from a customer merely by making an entry in its books to the credit of that customer’s account: or it may make an advance by means of a similar entry. In either case, an increase in its deposits will occur.”
In the United States of America, the Constitution clearly provides in Art. I, Sec. 8, Clause 5, that only Congress shall have the power to coin (issue) money, regulate the value thereof and of foreign coin (rate of exchange). Yet obviously this constitutional provision has been completely ignored in practice almost since American independence. In the United Kingdom, too, the spirit of the old laws and traditions has been circumvented.
Yet this is no mere academic matter, but a question of supreme importance, affecting the Sovereignty and very existence of the State and country. It has been said that there should be no taxation without representation, yet private financiers can issue “imaginary” money out of nothing by mere book entry and lend it at interest, they acquire the profit of issue and of interest gratis, at the cost of the whole community. This is taxation in the fullest sense, accompanied not by the representation of the taxed, but by the complete power of the true tax collector, who is the ruler. The basic truth of no taxation without representation is turned upside down and inside out.
It follows that the power of Parliament in general, and especially with regard to Money is non-existent, and all true sovereignty is in the hands of those private individuals who issue all money and determine its value and distribution. If even the State borrows from them, having abandoned its own powers of coinage (emission) to private financiers, how can that State claim to be truly sovereign? The real basis of the power of the money-creators and money-lenders lies in the fact that few know the truth about this financial “hidden hand.”
Conservatives with knowledge and long historical memories will recall that the original Tories were Jacobites. Today this question does not apply to the Crown as Her Majesty enjoys the loyalty of all Her subjects. But the spirit of the old Jacobites expressed a sounder understanding of the functions of the Crown as fount of Sovereignty, to be exercised with Counsellors. In the context of that conception it was natural that the power of monetary emission should belong to the Sovereign, and long experience has shewn that that proposition was sound.
On the other hand the old Whigs were the proponents of “Dutch Finance,” of the issue of the means of exchange as an interest-bearing debt by private bankers, and of the domination of the State by High Finance, not the Sovereign in Council, the King and people. With the decline of Liberalism in Great Britain it might be thought that Socialist Labour is the heir of that tradition.
It is the claim of Socialist leaders that theirs is not the Party of the Big Money Men. The test is this: will Labour understand that the “nationalization” of the power of coinage (emission) is the supreme necessity? And not the confiscation of the fruits of many peoples’ labour and invention.
If the Socialist Party does not pass this test and continues to protect parasitical finance, if only by its silence, then it will lay itself open to an attack which it could never repulse, however long it may postpone the show-down.
Here, then, are some basic propositions which should be known to all, and which are behind the intentions of the Motion:
1. All the means of exchange, with the exception of a very small fraction (coin) are created in the books of private banks when they lend to the State and private borrowers. Conversely, when a loan or overdraft is repaid there is less money in circulation.
2. Even notes and coin come into circulation only in exchange for book entry purchases of Treasury Bills by banks, and thus are virtually issued by the bankers.[For a fuller description on how notes and coins come into circulation, see April 2000 Prosperity]
3. It follows that those who have the power to “create” out of nothing all the money in each country and the whole world and lend it as stated, have total power over all States, parties, firms, radio, press, individuals and so on. Therefore the powers of Parliament are largely ephemeral.
4. It is essential that the issue of money be as needed by the whole nation and hence free from private or political influence. Consequently it is essential that the Queen in Council should resume the power and duty of monetary emission. If new money is spent (not lent) into circulation, taxes could be reduced to a small fraction of their present and growing burden and the National Debt will gradually disappear.
5. Banks should only be able to lend moneys they have earned or borrowed. Their other functions would remain.
6. With the release from the debt and tax burden and with the issue of money in accordance with the needs of exchange, the country would experience unexampled and lasting prosperity, with no slumps and unemployment. Financial principles and policies would be open and broadly understood: instead of being Master, Money would become a public servant.
I have just found the following minutes of evidence wherein Horta- Osorio of Santander (now Lloyds) is questioned on the Bernie Madoff ponzi scheme. I think the reader will recognise the questioning is certainly that of a Treasury who smell one big rat – a Spanish Jesuit one!
I think, then, for anyone to consider the following previous blogposts a “stretch” in any way, would be closing one’s eyes to what is now set out before you.
Santander’s role in the Bernie Madoff ponzi scheme was immense and yet it is being suppressed.
Santander is a criminal enterprise!
Please cross reference with the following two blogposts:
Spanish Jesuit Criminal 2: Ana Patricia Botin
Spanish Jesuit Criminal 3: Horta-Osario
Q2053 Mr Breed: António, could we talk about what may be referred to as “the Madoff affair” and Santander’s investments? I think some of us are quite surprised, bearing in mind the history of your bank and the good acquisitions you have made and perhaps good investment decisions. What did you do in terms of due diligence on Madoff before you put quite substantial amounts of customers’ funds into it?
Mr Horta-Osório: We are as you know a bank which is very prudent in terms of risk management and controls. In order for you to be aggressive commercially, you should have certain areas such as risk management, auditing, control and compliance as very strong areas.
Q2054 Mr Breed: What happened with Madoff?
Mr Horta-Osório: It is in our opinion absolutely impossible to stop all frauds. This, as you know, is a fraud that was very wide, of very high dimensions, supervised by the SEC and the company and the person involved previously had a very high reputation.
Q2055 Mr Breed: As a very minimum, most people would have looked at the auditing arrangements. The auditing arrangements in terms of Madoff consisted of a 78 year old man living in Florida, one qualified accountant and a secretary. What sort of due diligence did you do on that?
Mr Horta-Osório: It is easier to say that with hindsight.
Q2056 Mr Breed: Absolutely, but why did you not do it?
Mr Horta-Osório: We have strong due diligence processes. We are absolutely convinced we followed them as we normally do and, as you know, we decided to compensate all of our private clients as a commercial decision.
Q2057 Chairman: I do not think we are going to get a sorry out of you today, are we? I looked at the congressional hearings and there was a man called Harry Marcopolis who reported this from 2000 to 2008 to the Securities Exchange Commission in the United States. If you look on YouTube, you will see his evidence. I looked at it. He said, “The Key Tip-Off. It took me five minutes to figure out he was a fraud. I basically read his strategy description and knew that that was not the source of his returns. Then I knew right away by looking at his performance chart.” He made an illustration to the Committee and he said, “His performance chart was a 45 degree angle without any variation. It only went in one direction: up. It never had any variation like the market does.” That was a key tip-off. If it took Harry Marcopolis five minutes, why did a credible bank like Banco Santander get duffed up on it? Why did you lose 2 billion euros on it? I put it to you that your due diligence was absolutely and utterly duff.
Mr Horta-Osório: Banco Santander did not lose two billion euros. Santander had a small amount invested in those funds.
Q2058 Chairman: How much did you lose?
Mr Horta-Osório: We lost 20 million euros.
Q2059 Chairman: That is still quite considerable for people.
Mr Horta-Osório: According to the total size of the bank and the total fraud which was $50 billion, that is a very small amount. Within our total asset management we had a significant amount of money and a small percentage of our customers who invested in these funds. We are absolutely convinced, as we have already said publicly, that we followed the due diligence procedure, as did many other banks around the world but despite that we have decided to compensate our private customers. On top of this, because we are in the UK, I would like to add that we have no UK clients at Abbey who invested in those funds.
Q2060 Chairman: It is not that I want to fall out with you but I do not believe you in terms of how the bank went about its structure because, again, Harry Marcopolis says, “What I saw and when I saw it. I was repeatedly ignored after an eight and a half year period between May 2000 and December 2008. Detailed, repeated warnings to the SEC.” That was when it could only have been a $3 billion fraud which ended up with a $50 billion fraud. When you get a one man accounting team who was a college friend of Madoff and he has two of his family in auditing, surely to goodness, with a big company, you should have exercised sufficient due diligence?
Mr Horta-Osório: I sympathise with your comments, but if it had taken five minutes for anyone probably it would have taken five minutes for the SEC as well, which supervised those funds.
Q2061 Chairman: The SEC did not take him on, because your man was the chief executive of NASDAQ and it was the old boys’ club. When you are investing other people’s money, you should have adequate due diligence. That is the point I am trying to make to you.
Mr Horta-Osório: Yes, and I agree with you. On top of that, we have offered to reimburse those customers.
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to read the speeches given by the American members of the Pilgrims, for they, like all converts, and more un-American and pro-English than the British themselves. The address of Joseph H. Choate is an example of Anglo-phile, pertinent at this time in view of the conditions that exist today. I shall now requote some of these statements in order to show how deceptive they can be. Mr. Choate states: We have no difficulty and never have had that I know of with the people of England. A statement that is perfectly true, because the people of England have little or nothing to say in the British Government. Our trouble has been with the British Government, which has never at any time been friendly toward the United States—but the gentleman did not make such statement. Furthermore, it is well to note the servile attitude of the speaker to the Crown of England, and his praise of the rulers, which again is perfectly all right, yet he has failed in his speech as others have in theirs, to say one good word for the Government of the United States. He then goes on to say: The people of England and the people of the United States are always friendly to each other; another statement which no one can criticize, but to which I want to add that the people of all countries—the common people—have always been and are now friendly to each other. If war depended upon them there would be no war. The trouble lies with the rulers of the different governments. It is they who advocate war; war of destruction, not only of property and human life but of Christian civilization itself. So in view of this, let us remember that no country has been at war so much as England and no country has brought about more misfortune and suffering than the British Government. This should be clear as we review the early history of our own colonies, of India, Ireland, and the 400,000,000 opium addicts in China, all of which may be charged to the greed of the British Government. Mr. Choate, in making his statements, spoke for the people of the United States, when in reality he should have hesitated even to speak for himself. His sole concern appeared to have been our friendliness toward Great Britain, but not their friendliness toward us; and again he placed the United States in the position of a suppliant to the British throne. Mr. Choate then referred to a dispute which arose in regard to the passage of ships through the Panama Canal, and intimated that it was the understanding of Hon. John Hay and Lord Landsdowne that the British should have equal rights with us in the use of this Canal; a right which the British have never conceded to the United States in the Suez Canal. We have even been driven out of foreign markets by England for many, many years, and in her wars she has brazenly furnished us with a blacklist of firms with which we are not supposed to trade; and we, like fools, comply with her demands. Continuing his discussion on this topic, Mr. Choate expressed himself as being quite willing to leave the decision of the Panama Canal in the hands of the British and American pilgrims, which anyone can readily understand would be a one-sided decision; i. e., all for England and nothing for the United States. Mr. Choate then makes his most extraordinary statement, upon which every Member of Congress and the people of this Nation should ponder—particularly in view of the happenings since 1912: Now the people of this country are not going to allow anybody— any Congress, any government, any President—to break the good faith which they have pledged to the mother country. In making this statement, Mr. Choate takes the position that Great Britain or England is our mother country; the same position that was taken by Cecil Rhodes over 50 years ago and by Andrew Carnegie in 1893, when he wrote a book entitled, “Triumphant Democracy.” I want you to note particularly that this was in 1913, and that 1913 was the very year we changed our Government from a republic to a semidemocracy; the year in which we destroyed constitutional government, international security, and paved the road for us to become a colony of the British Empire. It was also the same year in which we, by adopting the Federal Reserve Act, placed our Treasury under the control and domination of the Bank of England and the international banking groups that are now financing the British-Israel movement in the United States. It was also the year preceding the World War; a war in which we became involved, as everyone knows, in 1917, but what everyone does not know is that we were committed to this war in 1910, and were to all intents and purposes in the war in 1914, when J. P. Morgan & Co. began to finance the Triple Entente. This statement is borne out by Mr. J. P. Morgan’s own testimony before the Senate committee investigating the munitions industry. Mr. Choate was, therefore, right, because nothing has stopped, not even Congress, the destruction of this Republic and its gradual incorporation into the British Empire through the efforts of the many subversive and pro-English groups, led and directed, as I have said, by the British- Israel movement. Now remember, this was not Congressional record of the 17th, 18th or 19th century, this was 1940! The commonality in all of this? British – Israel Movement = Rothschild Zionism Suez Canal = Rothschild purchase Cecil Rhodes = Rothschild Agent J.P.Morgan = Rothschild Agent
What’s higher in the corrupt religiously-controlled banking
establishment than a Jew/Zionist?
The JESUIT Club!
Who was REALLY behind the Bernie Madoff Ponzi scheme?
Please read: santander-a-banking-giant-out-of-the-blue
Who’s this guy António Horta-Osório?
AND, ANOTHER Jesuit! AND ex Goldman Sachs: It’s a very small and tightly knit community we have here as you can see.
Horta-Osório started his career at CitiBank Portugal where he was head of Capital Markets, while simultaneously working as an assistant professor at Universidade Católica Portuguesa. He then worked for Goldman Sachs in New York and London, focusing on corporate finance in Portugal. In 1993, he joined Santander as chief executive of Banco Santander de Negocios Portugal.
He graduated in Management and Business Administration from the Universidade Católica Portuguesa, and has an MBA from French business school INSEAD – where he was awarded the Henry Ford II prize – and an AMP (Advanced Management Programme) from Harvard Business School. He is married with two daughters and one son.
The connections between INSEAD and the Jesuit Order (or “Society of Jesus”) are many. I’ll leave you to do your own research there however because to put every item of research onto these blogs would be immensely time consuming. Think of them as “pointers” from which you can choose whether to follow the path or not.
Further, the UCP was established by Jesuits:
The Catholic University of Portugal (better known in Portugal as UCP- Universidade Católica Portuguesa or just “a Católica”) was established in 1967 by decree of the Holy See (Lusitanorum Nobilissima Gens), at the request of the Portuguese Bishops’ conference and under Concordat Law.
Its first constituent Faculty was the Jesuit-owned and run Faculty of Philosophy of Braga (Northern Portugal). However, the University was soon extended to Lisbon where it opened, in 1968, the Faculty of Theology and, in 1971, the Faculty of Human Sciences.
Now, there’s an interesting little nugget of info about these Jesuit Private Universities which I found and it is this:
The oldest non-state-run university, the Universidade Católica Portuguesa – UCP (Catholic University of Portugal), a catholic private university (concordatory status) with branches in the cities of Lisbon, Porto, Braga, Viseu, and Caldas da Rainha, was founded before the others, in 1967, and officially recognized in 1971. UCP offers some well-recognized degrees and is reputed for economics, law and business management degrees it awards at its Lisbon branch. Other degrees awarded by UCP, like biotechnology and dental medicine, amassed increasing success and popularity since the 2000s. After the Carnation Revolution of 1974, in the 1980s and 1990s, a boom of educational private institutions was experienced in Portugal and many private universities started to open. Most private universities had a poor reputation and were known for making it easy for students to enter and also to get high grades. In 2007, several of those private universities or their heirs, were investigated and faced compulsory closing (for example, the infamous Independente University and Internacional University closings, and the Moderna University scandal) or official criticism with recommendations that the state-managed investigation proposed for improving their quality and avoid termination.
You see, it’s like the Etons and the Oxfords and Cambridge and London School of Economics, Yale, Harvard etc. Think about it: Do you believe George W Bush was an intellectual giant? Or even Bill Clinton the RHODES SCHOLAR? Or Tony Blair or Brown? Do you see high intelligence in David Cameron for goodness sakes?
No. They just so happen to have come from the right fallopian tubes in terms of lineage. Such people are put in the right schools. They leave and their lineage, family connections and the fact they even ATTENDED these schools is all they need.
Similarly Horto here. While, like Saif Ghaddafi at the LSE practically has his PhD written for him, these Universities make it easy for the right students. They have no greater gift or talent they simply have the connections. As the old adage goes: “It’s not what you know…”.
“I spent four years at CitiBank but I always wanted to deepen my academic background and learn more about business so I applied to INSEAD to do an MBA. For me, INSEAD was the only place to do an MBA for two reasons – its reputation and the quality of the students it attracts.”
Ain’t that the truth Antonio! All about “reputation” and “quality” of students NAMES!
Meanwhile, for the guy who’s getting paid over £13M a year to make Lloyds a “real winner” WHILE IT IS STATE BACKED BY THE WAY, here we have him selling off his shares he has just literally been given by the bank! So you tell me? Where’s his faith in himself?
António Horta-Osório, who took over as Lloyds chief executive at the start of March, on Thursday sold 175,166 shares in the bank, raising £102,910.
The shares represented just under half of those recently granted to him on joining the bank from Spanish bank Santander (Madrid:SAN.MC – news) , where he had run its UK operations until late last year.
Mr Horta-Osório’s share sale came a day after details of his £13.3m pay package were revealed in the latest Lloyds annual report.
So let’s get this right:
“Hey Antonio! You da man! You’re going to take this firm to its height and so we’re going to compensate you with a nice stockholding in the company! By the time you’ve finished, that stock is going to be worth a fortune! We have entire faith in you that you’re going to triple the sharevalue – after all, that’s what we’re paying you £4k an hour for!”
And Antonio trots down to his broker and sells the shares within moments of receiving them! You couldn’t make this shit up!
Taking the Santander gang along with him:
Antonio Horta-Osorio raids Santander again
Horta-Osorio joins a bank that’s been shrinking following a taxpayer-funded rescue. Lloyds has sold assets, among them its Bank of Scotland Integrated Finance investment unit and cut more than 22,000 jobs since its rescue. The bank still has to sell 600 branches by 2013 to comply with European Union state aid rules. In all, Lloyds plans to shrink its balance sheet by 200 billion pounds by 2014.
At Lloyds, Horta-Osorio will also face a government inquiry into competition among British lenders. The panel, led by John Vickers, may decide to recommend breaking up some of Britain’s banks. Lloyds has a 28 percent share of the mortgage lending market following its takeover of HBOS.
He will also have to cut the lender’s dependence on about 120 billion pounds of central bank funding and oversee the reduction of the government’s 41 percent stake in the lender, analysts said.
“We have appointed a very well-qualified person to this job,” Prime Minister David Cameron’s spokesman Steve Field told reporters in London. “It is in the taxpayer’s interest that the bank is run well,” he said.
“We will be able to turn around this bank into the next phase of its development and this will be good news for the taxpayers, the employees and ultimately the U.K. economy,” Horta-Osorio told reporters today.
Sudeley was an active member of the House of Lords for thirty nine years (since he was 21, the minimum age one can take one’s seat), introducing several measures, most notably the Bill to prevent the unlicensed export of historical manuscripts. He was one of the hereditary peers expelled from the Upper House by the House of Lords Act 1999. He spoke out against the reform of the Lords, saying: “If it isn’t broken why mend it?”, and also that since he believed inherited titles were “inextricably” tied to the monarchy that it was “odd that they just want to touch one institution and not the other”. He also cited the wealth of experience that the Lords had built up.
Dear Lord Sudeley, you may now recognise that it was your speeches below which ensured your expulsion from the Lords.
You peers were getting in the way of “business”. The usury of the jewish/zionist/Rothschild cabal was and is something you dare not attack – whether or not you saw it as such and simply, in ignorance (which I doubt) thought was simply a banking institution “anomaly”. You had stumbled across the criminality inherent within the system.
By the way, I like your 100% valid point about it being “odd that they just want to touch one institution and not the other”. Has it still not clicked that your beloved monarchy are simply the sitting “CEO” of the Office of monarchy and are entirely corrupt? It doesn’t yet resonate with you that it is the monarchy and the City of London (the “Crown”) who call the shots and they were fired at you?
To those who THINK all this talk of the fraud of FRACTIONAL RESERVE BANKING is just some form of “Conspiracy theory” due to your own ignorance in the study of it…..
This is not 50 or 100 years ago. This is now (well 1998/99 big deal). And it is STILL being ignored!
The House of Lords:
2nd November 1998 –
Lord SudeleyMy Lords, to what extent does the Minister recognise the problem of fractional reserve banking in this situation whereby banks lend out more than they have in the proportion of 10:1 of the reality? That situation would not exist if, as happened under the old thinking, banks were forbidden to lend money without taking a share of the risk.
§Lord McIntosh of HaringeyMy Lords, the noble Lord is surprisingly modest. Many hedge funds, such as long-term capital management, lend out far more than a multiple of 10 of their reserves. It is a very real problem, which is referred to in detail in the Statement. We have to balance the risks, as do the investors concerned, of lending, investing or gambling, if you like, beyond the available reserves, against the undoubted benefits to the global economy of wider credit which have arisen over recent decades. It is a difficult balance to sustain.
§Lord GrenfellMy Lords, first, does my noble friend agree that although one welcomes the idea of precautionary credit lines, that idea is still far from being properly thought through? What happens if a country is accorded a credit line on the strength of good policy and those policies deteriorate after the credit line has been started? That would put the IMF in an extraordinarily difficult situation. I would not like to be in its place and to have to decide whether or not to withdraw the line of credit.
Secondly, I am not sure whether I heard an answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, about the role of the World Bank and the new facility. I thought that we were trying to get away from the idea of having the World Bank issue liquidity and were trying to get it to maintain its position as a development financing agency. There seems to have been a change of heart.
§Lord McIntosh of HaringeyMy Lords, perhaps I may answer my noble friend’s second question first. If I gave any suggestion in an answer that we were proposing a change in the role of the World Bank, I did so mistakenly. I do not think that I did so. There have been questions on that point, but I was not conscious of indicating that we expected the World Bank to develop its role in that direction. I think that I gave the same answer when we debated the European Central Bank.
With regard to lines of credit, I do not underestimate the difficulty of dealing with a country which changes its policies once a line of credit is available. The very fact that lines of credit will be followed up by further financing and that that further financing is contingent on continuing with policies which will have to be satisfactory to the IMF is some satisfaction against the kind of dangers that my noble friend fears.
26th January 1999 –
My Lords, the proper way to tackle the question of this debate would be the eradication of usury in its old sense of lending money without taking a share of the risk. However, instead of that, we really need to go back to the Moslem system of banks entering into business partnerships. The case against usury has been well represented by the Christian Council of Monetary Justice, meetings of which in the other place are chaired by the honourable Member for Great Grimsby and also by the Federation of Small Businesses. I am very conscious about how many parliamentarians shy away from opposition to usury because it is so embedded in our system. So this evening I shall ask for less.
The parties which are exceptionally informative on the subject of this debate would, I believe, be the Independent Banking Advisory Service, the Bankruptcy Association, the Federation of Small Businesses and two academics, Prem Sikka and Professor Christer of the University of Salford. In considering the problem posed by the debate we need to be mindful of the view of the Independent Banking Advisory Service that 30 per cent. of business failures would not have occurred during the last recession if banks had not been in a hurry to get their money back. The Bank of England’s quarterly report on small business statistics dated December 1998 reflects the fact that business failures rose by more than 6.2 per cent. last year. We also need to have regard to the lack of sufficient bank regulation. The ombudsman is concerned only with small cases and the Financial Services Authority will not comment on individual cases.
The report in the Daily Mail on 20th January headed, “Beware On Demand Bank Loans” was largely concerned with the case of Lloyd’s Bank versus Heritage Plc—distributing household wares to major superstores—in which the courts upheld that “on demand” means immediate repayment. Here lies the problem. The British Bankers Association is not collecting information about on demand loans in the belief that they are rare. On the contrary, the Independent Banking Advisory Service finds that the number of such loans is growing.
942In repaying a loan it is crucial that a debtor should have sufficient time so that his assets can be sold at a comfortable pace to fetch their proper value. Otherwise, the assets go for a decimated value. The proper role of the investigatory accountant, therefore, is to ensure that that should not happen. He should be acting as a debtor’s physician and not as his mortician.
Why is that not happening? It is because of the conflict of interest with which this debate is concerned where the investigatory accountant is appointed a receiver and so has a vested interest from the initial investigation, thereby knowing the lucrative fee income available. There is also the problem and foul practice of collusion with outside parties waiting in the wings to acquire the debtor’s assets at under-value. Hard though it may be to prove collusion, the opportunity is there. I hope, therefore, that Parliament will be sufficiently sagacious to judge that it is.
In conclusion, this debate is concerned with the questionable methods by which banks pursue many small debtors who would otherwise survive. But which party is chiefly in debt? Obviously the banks themselves, with a fraction in reserve, lending fraudulently way beyond their resources. I thought that the proportion was 10:1 but, when repeating the Statement on international finance on 2nd November, I was delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, inform the House that, with hedge funding, that proportion is much higher.
4th November 1999 –
Lord SudeleyMy Lords, there are three submissions in this report opposed to usury in its old sense of “lending money at no risk”. Drawing on those submissions and on other sources—there is a large literature on the subject—perhaps I may paint with a broad brush what is wrong with usury and the banks creating money out of nothing, and what we should do about it.
There is no doubt that banks should not finance business enterprises with loans where they charge interest. Instead, they should enter into partnership agreements, where, as in Islamic banking, the business risk is shared equally between entrepreneurs and financiers.
The use of bank credit consists—as I shall explain in a moment—not only of loans but of the creation of additional money. Money is cut loose from the real economy where goods and services are exchanged. Treated in that way as a commodity, money loses its value and stability as a medium of exchange. Money should therefore be a record of transactions for real goods and services. The fact that the medium-of exchange function of money is not adequately met is indicated by the growing emergence of local, LETS, private, Air Miles, and barter trade credit currencies.
How has money been cut loose from the real economy where goods and services are exchanged? The ancestors of the present banking industry in Tudor times were the goldsmiths, who realised that not all the gold plate and bullion deposited with them would be withdrawn at the same time. They therefore invented the audacious and fraudulent trick of issuing promissory notes, which are the origin of our present bank notes, to represent an excess of what they really had.
That policy of lending out more than one has was continued by the banks with their system of fractional reserve, sometimes given as a proportion of 10 to one, but hedge funding is really far higher. We see that at two levels: national and private debt. The mechanism of national debt is quite simple. It involved the assumption of debt by the Government to obtain additional revenue to cover annual shortfall in taxation. Therefore, to pay for the war against Louis XIV, the Bank of England was chartered in 1694 and started out in the business of lending out several times over the money that it held in reserves, all at interest.
Such lending at a prudent rate took a quantum leap with World War I. It was extended further to pay for World War II, and in the United States of America it took an even greater quantum leap to pay for the Vietnam War. Therefore, by 1971, it became unbridgeable, and at a rate of growth beyond control. President Nixon had no choice but to cancel the right of the Government to exchange dollars for gold, which removed the gap altogether.
The level of private debt escalated in a similar fashion. During the 10 years from 1980, consumer debt rose from £11 billion to £43 billion, while mortgage borrowing increased more than five-fold.
1069What are the bad effects of all this? There is no doubt that usury intensifies business cycles. Bank lending enabled share prices to rise to unsustainable levels in 1929; the Depression followed. Over-availability of credit caused a massive increase in house prices, followed by a dramatic fall in the late 1980s and early 1990s. In recession, interest acts as a fixed cost outside the company’s control, unlike share dividends. The higher its debt-equity ratio, the worse are the implications.
The basic cause of inflation, then, must be the banks’ use of fractional reserve in lending out more than they have. To reduce inflation, governments put up interest rates, which increases the profits made by the banks and encourages them to lend out more. Meanwhile, the high interest rates lead to a decline of economic activity because they increase production costs.
What is the way to curb the evils of usury which I have just described? The only way in particular to stop inflation is to stop banks from creating credit. The supply of money should be removed from banks and should be assumed by governments, who should issue it on a debt-free basis. Such a view is supported by five disparate quarters: the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, in the debate which he introduced to this House in 1985, Disraeli, the Vatican under Pope Pius XI in his Encyclical Quadragesimo Anno in 1931, the Tsars of Russia in the last century, who prevented the setting up of a privately owned central bank, and, above all, Abraham Lincoln, who said that governments should create, issue, and circulate all currency and credits needed to satisfy the spending power of governments and the buying power of consumers.
By adopting those principles, the taxpayer would be saved immense sums of interest. Lincoln’s greenbacks were generally popular, and their existence let the genie out of the bottle with the public becoming accustomed to government-issued, debt-free money. The year after Lincoln’s assassination, Congress set to work at the bidding of the European central banking interests to retire the greenbacks from circulation and to ensure the reinstitution of a privately owned central bank under the usurers’ control.
During the history of the United States, the money power has gone back and forth between Congress and some privately owned central bank. The American people fought off four privately owned central banks before succumbing to a fifth privately owned central bank, at that time essential, owing to the period of weakness during the Civil War.
The founding fathers of the United States knew the evils of a privately owned central bank. They had seen how the Bank of England ran up the British national debt to such an extent that Parliament was forced to place unfair taxes on the American colonies, leading to their loss following, the American Revolution.
I now conclude. Once the fundamental decision is taken to prevent sterling from being debt-based, the Commonwealth could act as the right monetary union to use sterling debt-free as a genuine alternative to the dollar and the euro.
However, Sudeley did not have it 100% correct. The issuance of money should not be in the hands of either baks OR the government. It should (and can) be in YOUR hands – the people. It is, after all, ALL of our promissory obligations which create the money for banks in the first place. This is more fully explained elsewhere in my blogs.
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 19:17:17 +0000
Subject: Michael Meacher is the latest MP to support our proposals
Haha, Ben, have you ever tried to communicate with either of my MPs mate?
It’s like presenting Einstein’s theory of relativity to two snails.
There’s one thing, however, that neither you nor Michael Meacher nor anyone else seem to have the balls to say outright and that is that, since its inception, the Fractional Reserve Banking system has been a criminal enterprise and con on every single person on earth. You know it because you, as well as Mervyn King and many others, are calling for its demise admitting it is what it is BUT you don’t call for the trials of those who have promulgated it all these decades and centuries. Why is that? Appreciate what you’re doing BUT you just don’t go far enough. They have already made their “killing” and have got away scot free. It’s like saying “Well, the Great train robbers managed to pull it off without getting caught so let’s just leave them be”. Did they do that? NO! Because the Great Train Robbers stole from THEM!
Or like Bernie Madoff (although it was really Santander the Jesuit mob) fleecing people for $billions. Just so happened it was a jew who fleeced other jews and you KNOW you’re not allowed to do that! But he took the hit and Santander, the Jesuits, got off scot free.
You’re locking the barn door once the horse has bolted and just like the Iraq inquiry, “no-one is to be blamed”. You don’t wish to take them on do you?
They should be incarcerated for the rest of their natural lives.
No balls Ben.