Total Financial Armageddon In 24-48 Hours!

[Thetruthguy Profile]

BARF,BARF,BARF,BARF,BARF,BARF,BARF,

[Truthseeker Profile]

not made in CHINA ANYMORE .
THEY OWN AMERICA ,AMERICANS WILL BE WORKIN FOR CHINA VERRY SOON
THE REASON AMERICA WANTED IT TO HAPPEN ,WHEN I SAY AMERICA THE CORPORATION WANTED IT TO HAPPEN .MR rothschilds that is
Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime
How the Bush Administration Stopped the States From Stepping In to Help Consumers

TOOLBOX
Resize Text
Save/Share + DiggNewsvinedel.icio.usStumble It!RedditFacebookPrint This E-mail This
COMMENT

Discussion PolicyYour browser's settings may be preventing you from commenting on and viewing comments about this item. See instructions for fixing the problem.
Discussion Policy CLOSEComments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.

Who's Blogging» Links to this article
By Eliot Spitzer
Thursday, February 14, 2008; Page A25

Several years ago, state attorneys general and others involved in consumer protection began to notice a marked increase in a range of predatory lending practices by mortgage lenders. Some were misrepresenting the terms of loans, making loans without regard to consumers' ability to repay, making loans with deceptive "teaser" rates that later ballooned astronomically, packing loans with undisclosed charges and fees, or even paying illegal kickbacks. These and other practices, we noticed, were having a devastating effect on home buyers. In addition, the widespread nature of these practices, if left unchecked, threatened our financial markets.

Even though predatory lending was becoming a national problem, the Bush administration looked the other way and did nothing to protect American homeowners. In fact, the government chose instead to align itself with the banks that were victimizing consumers.

Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis. This threat was so clear that as New York attorney general, I joined with colleagues in the other 49 states in attempting to fill the void left by the federal government. Individually, and together, state attorneys general of both parties brought litigation or entered into settlements with many subprime lenders that were engaged in predatory lending practices. Several state legislatures, including New York's, enacted laws aimed at curbing such practices.

What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge? As Americans are now painfully aware, with hundreds of thousands of homeowners facing foreclosure and our markets reeling, the answer is a resounding no.

Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye.

Let me explain: The administration accomplished this feat through an obscure federal agency called the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). The OCC has been in existence since the Civil War. Its mission is to ensure the fiscal soundness of national banks. For 140 years, the OCC examined the books of national banks to make sure they were balanced, an important but uncontroversial function. But a few years ago, for the first time in its history, the OCC was used as a tool against consumers.

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative. The OCC also promulgated new rules that prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection laws against national banks. The federal government's actions were so egregious and so unprecedented that all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules.

But the unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter, or even slow, the Bush administration in its goal of protecting the banks. In fact, when my office opened an investigation of possible discrimination in mortgage lending by a number of banks, the OCC filed a federal lawsuit to stop the investigation.

Throughout our battles with the OCC and the banks, the mantra of the banks and their defenders was that efforts to curb predatory lending would deny access to credit to the very consumers the states were trying to protect. But the curbs we sought on predatory and unfair lending would have in no way jeopardized access to the legitimate credit market for appropriately priced loans. Instead, they would have stopped the scourge of predatory lending practices that have resulted in countless thousands of consumers losing their homes and put our economy in a precarious position.

When history tells the story of the subprime lending crisis and recounts its devastating effects on the lives of so many innocent homeowners, the Bush administration will not be judged favorably. The tale is still unfolding, but when the dust settles, it will be judged as a willing accomplice to the lenders who went to any lengths in their quest for profits. So willing, in fact, that it used the power of the federal government in an unprecedented assault on state legislatures, as well as on state attorneys general and anyone else on the side of consumers.

The writer is governor of New York.

[Truthseeker Profile]

why would CHINA DO THIS IT OWNS america IT DOES NOT NEED TO NUKE IT ,
MEDIA TALKING SHIT AGAIN
The US must increase its nuclear arsenal in response to China's growing military might, according to a State Department report.

By Malcolm Moore in Shanghai
Last Updated: 7:47PM BST 09 Oct 2008

The report said the US had allowed its nuclear stockpile to 'deteriorate' Photo: AP The International Security and Advisory Board (Isab), which reports to Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, warned that "holding the US homeland hostage to missile attack is important to Chinese military goals".

It claimed that China will have "in excess of 100 nuclear-armed missiles that could strike the United States" by 2015.

By contrast, it said the US had allowed its nuclear stockpile and expertise to "deteriorate and atrophy across the board" for the last two decades.

The ISAB is chaired by Paul Wolfowitz, the former World Bank president who was often referred to as the "major architect" of the war in Iraq while he was deputy defence secretary.

Mr Wolfowitz was appointed by Miss Rice last year. Other hawkish members of the Isab are Robert Joseph, the former undersecretary for arms control and international security affairs, and James Schlesinger, the former defence secretary. Executives from arms companies such as Lockheed Martin and Boeing also sit on the board.

The ISAB was asked to draft a report on how the US could bring its relationship with China "towards greater transparency and mutual confidence".

Hans M Kristensen, a director at the Federation of American Scientists, an anti-nuclear think tank in Washington, said that instead the report "appears to have drawn up a very effective plan for a Cold War with China".

He added: "The authors land on a set of recommendations and observations that strongly resemble a China-version of the Reagan administration's aggressive military posture against the Soviet Union." Mr Kristensen also called on Miss Rice to disown the Isab's conclusions.

The ten-page report, which was leaked onto the internet, seems to justify a decision by the US to sell $6.5 billion (£3.6 billion) of arms to Taiwan, a move that has infuriated China and led it to cut several high-level military ties with the US. Mr Wolfowitz is also chairman of the US-Taiwan Business Council.

The report suggests that a conflict between the US and China could be triggered by the issue of Taiwan's sovereignty and claims China will invade the island in the near future. "If China is to become a global power, the first step must include control [of Taiwan]," it states.

It adds that there has been a "substantial expansion" of China's nuclear arsenal in order to force America to "back away rather than fight". The report claims China has "new thermonuclear warheads as well as tactical arms, encompassing enhanced radiation weapons, nuclear artillery, and anti-ship weapons". Current US intelligence reports paint a less dramatic picture and there is no evidence of a tactical nuclear arsenal.

It also claims that "Chinese espionage in the United States is comprehensive and pervasive" and that there is no point in trying to shape Chinese policy by "educating" the Chinese. Instead, the US must build a new missile shield and "undertake the development of new weapons [...] to convince China that it will not be able to overcome the US militarily."

China's military build-up has also unsettled Japan, after a series of large-scale spending increases. The defence budget rose by 17.8 per cent in 2007 and then by 27 per cent in 2008 to £35.4 billion.

The Chinese ambassador to the US, Zhou Wenzhong, has urged America to stop selling weapons to Taiwan and to recognise China's authority over the island.

"The US has made a very serious commitment to China as far as the question of Taiwan is concerned," he said, referring to a joint communique inked in August that states the US will reduce its arms sales to the island.

"Obviously that is not happening. We hope the US will honour its commitment by not just words but action".

[Truthseeker Profile]

THE FED NOW OWNS THE WORLD’S
LARGEST INSURANCE COMPANY --
BUT WHO OWNS THE FED?
Ellen Brown, October 7th, 2008
www.webofdebt.com/articles/time_to_buy_the_fed.php

“Some people think that the Federal Reserve Banks are United States Government institutions. They are private monopolies which prey upon the people of these United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; and rich and predatory money lenders.”
– The Honorable Louis McFadden, Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee in the 1930s

The Federal Reserve (or Fed) has assumed sweeping new powers in the last year. In an unprecedented move in March 2008, the New York Fed advanced the funds for JPMorgan Chase Bank to buy investment bank Bear Stearns for pennies on the dollar. The deal was particularly controversial because Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan, sits on the board of the New York Fed and participated in the secret weekend negotiations.1 In September 2008, the Federal Reserve did something even more unprecedented, when it bought the world’s largest insurance company. The Fed announced on September 16 that it was giving an $85 billion loan to American International Group (AIG) for a nearly 80% stake in the mega-insurer. The Associated Press called it a “government takeover,” but this was no ordinary nationalization. Unlike the U.S. Treasury, which took over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac the week before, the Fed is not a government-owned agency. Also unprecedented was the way the deal was funded. The Associated Press reported:

“The Treasury Department, for the first time in its history, said it would begin selling bonds for the Federal Reserve in an effort to help the central bank deal with its unprecedented borrowing needs.”2

This is extraordinary. Why is the Treasury issuing U.S. government bonds (or debt) to fund the Fed, which is itself supposedly “the lender of last resort” created to fund the banks and the federal government? Yahoo Finance reported on September 17:

“The Treasury is setting up a temporary financing program at the Fed’s request. The program will auction Treasury bills to raise cash for the Fed’s use. The initiative aims to help the Fed manage its balance sheet following its efforts to enhance its liquidity facilities over the previous few quarters.”

Normally, the Fed swaps green pieces of paper called Federal Reserve Notes for pink pieces of paper called U.S. bonds (the federal government’s I.O.U.s), in order to provide Congress with the dollars it cannot raise through taxes. Now, it seems, the government is issuing bonds, not for its own use, but for the use of the Fed! Perhaps the plan is to swap them with the banks’ dodgy derivatives collateral directly, without actually putting them up for sale to outside buyers. According to Wikipedia (which translates Fedspeak into somewhat clearer terms than the Fed’s own website):

“The Term Securities Lending Facility is a 28-day facility that will offer Treasury general collateral to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s primary dealers in exchange for other program-eligible collateral. It is intended to promote liquidity in the financing markets for Treasury and other collateral and thus to foster the functioning of financial markets more generally. . . . The resource allows dealers to switch debt that is less liquid for U.S. government securities that are easily tradable.”

“To switch debt that is less liquid for U.S. government securities that are easily tradable” means that the government gets the banks’ toxic derivative debt, and the banks get the government’s triple-A securities. Unlike the risky derivative debt, federal securities are considered “risk-free” for purposes of determining capital requirements, allowing the banks to improve their capital position so they can make new loans. (See E. Brown, “Bailout Bedlam,” webofdebt.com/articles, October 2, 2008.)

In its latest power play, on October 3, 2008, the Fed acquired the ability to pay interest to its member banks on the reserves the banks maintain at the Fed. Reuters reported on October 3:

“The U.S. Federal Reserve gained a key tactical tool from the $700 billion financial rescue package signed into law on Friday that will help it channel funds into parched credit markets. Tucked into the 451-page bill is a provision that lets the Fed pay interest on the reserves banks are required to hold at the central bank.”3

If the Fed’s money comes ultimately from the taxpayers, that means we the taxpayers are paying interest to the banks on the banks’ own reserves – reserves maintained for their own private profit. These increasingly controversial encroachments on the public purse warrant a closer look at the central banking scheme itself. Who owns the Federal Reserve, who actually controls it, where does it get its money, and whose interests is it serving?

Not Private and Not for Profit?
The Fed’s website insists that it is not a private corporation, is not operated for profit, and is not funded by Congress. But is that true? The Federal Reserve was set up in 1913 as a “lender of last resort” to backstop bank runs, following a particularly bad bank panic in 1907. The Fed’s mandate was then and continues to be to keep the private banking system intact; and that means keeping intact the system’s most valuable asset, a monopoly on creating the national money supply. Except for coins, every dollar in circulation is now created privately as a debt to the Federal Reserve or the banking system it heads.4 The Fed’s website attempts to gloss over its role as chief defender and protector of this private banking club, but let’s take a closer look. The website states:

“The twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks, which were established by Congress as the operating arms of the nation’s central banking system, are organized much like private corporations – possibly leading to some confusion about “ownership.” For example, the Reserve Banks issue shares of stock to member banks. However, owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company. The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. The stock may not be sold, traded, or pledged as security for a loan; dividends are, by law, 6 percent per year.”

“[The Federal Reserve] is considered an independent central bank because its decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branch of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms.”

“The Federal Reserve’s income is derived primarily from the interest on U.S. government securities that it has acquired through open market operations. . . . After paying its expenses, the Federal Reserve turns the rest of its earnings over to the U.S. Treasury.”5

So let’s review:

1. The Fed is privately owned.

Its shareholders are private banks. In fact, 100% of its shareholders are private banks. None of its stock is owned by the government.

2. The fact that the Fed does not get “appropriations” from Congress basically means that it gets its money from Congress without congressional approval, by engaging in “open market operations.”

Here is how it works: When the government is short of funds, the Treasury issues bonds and delivers them to bond dealers, which auction them off. When the Fed wants to “expand the money supply” (create money), it steps in and buys bonds from these dealers with newly-issued dollars acquired by the Fed for the cost of writing them into an account on a computer screen. These maneuvers are called “open market operations” because the Fed buys the bonds on the “open market” from the bond dealers. The bonds then become the “reserves” that the banking establishment uses to back its loans. In another bit of sleight of hand known as “fractional reserve” lending, the same reserves are lent many times over, further expanding the money supply, generating interest for the banks with each loan. It was this money-creating process that prompted Wright Patman, Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee in the 1960s, to call the Federal Reserve “a total money-making machine.” He wrote:

“When the Federal Reserve writes a check for a government bond it does exactly what any bank does, it creates money, it created money purely and simply by writing a check.”

3. The Fed generates profits for its shareholders.

The interest on bonds acquired with its newly-issued Federal Reserve Notes pays the Fed’s operating expenses plus a guaranteed 6% return to its banker shareholders. A mere 6% a year may not be considered a profit in the world of Wall Street high finance, but most businesses that manage to cover all their expenses and give their shareholders a guaranteed 6% return are considered “for profit” corporations.

In addition to this guaranteed 6%, the banks will now be getting interest from the taxpayers on their “reserves.” The basic reserve requirement set by the Federal Reserve is 10%. The website of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York explains that as money is redeposited and relent throughout the banking system, this 10% held in “reserve” can be fanned into ten times that sum in loans; that is, $10,000 in reserves becomes $100,000 in loans. Federal Reserve Statistical Release H.8 puts the total “loans and leases in bank credit” as of September 24, 2008 at $7,049 billion. Ten percent of that is $700 billion. That means we the taxpayers will be paying interest to the banks on at least $700 billion annually – this so that the banks can retain the reserves to accumulate interest on ten times that sum in loans.

The banks earn these returns from the taxpayers for the privilege of having the banks’ interests protected by an all-powerful independent private central bank, even when those interests may be opposed to the taxpayers’ -- for example, when the banks use their special status as private money creators to fund speculative derivative schemes that threaten to collapse the U.S. economy. Among other special benefits, banks and other financial institutions (but not other corporations) can borrow at the low Fed funds rate of about 2%. They can then turn around and put this money into 30-year Treasury bonds at 4.5%, earning an immediate 2.5% from the taxpayers, just by virtue of their position as favored banks. A long list of banks (but not other corporations) is also now protected from the short selling that can crash the price of other stocks.

Time to Change the Statute?
According to the Fed’s website, the control Congress has over the Federal Reserve is limited to this:

“[T]he Federal Reserve is subject to oversight by Congress, which periodically reviews its activities and can alter its responsibilities by statute.”

As we know from watching the business news, “oversight” basically means that Congress gets to see the results when it’s over. The Fed periodically reports to Congress, but the Fed doesn’t ask; it tells. The only real leverage Congress has over the Fed is that it “can alter its responsibilities by statute.” It is time for Congress to exercise that leverage and make the Federal Reserve a truly federal agency, acting by and for the people through their elected representatives. If the Fed can demand AIG’s stock in return for an $85 billion loan to the mega-insurer, we can demand the Fed’s stock in return for the trillion-or-so dollars we’ll be advancing to bail out the private banking system from its follies.

If the Fed were actually a federal agency, the government could issue U.S. legal tender directly, avoiding an unnecessary interest-bearing debt to private middlemen who create the money out of thin air themselves. Among other benefits to the taxpayers. a truly “federal” Federal Reserve could lend the full faith and credit of the United States to state and local governments interest-free, cutting the cost of infrastructure in half, restoring the thriving local economies of earlier decades.

Addendum: Who Owns the Banks That Own the Fed?
Beyond merely stating that all the shareholders of the Fed are its member banks, I’ve been asked to elaborate on who actually owns those banks. Are they owned by powerful foreign banking families as has been alleged? According to a discursive article by Dr. Edward Flaherty, condensed below, the answer is no – not to any provable extent. But that does not mean that the Fed and the U.S. banking system are not controlled from abroad. The central banking system has its own “banker’s bank,” the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) in Basel, Switzerland. The BIS does control the international banking system, in part by setting capital requirements -- the requirements that have now caused the entire U.S. credit market to freeze up. But that is a subject for a later article. Dr. Flaherty wrote:

“. . . Each of the twelve Federal Reserve Banks is organized into a corporation whose shares are sold to the commercial banks and thrifts operating within the Bank’s district. Shareholders elect six of the nine the board of directors for their regional Federal Reserve Bank as well as its president. . . .

“The SEC requires the name of any individual or organization that owns more than 5 percent of the outstanding shares of a publicly traded firm be made public. If foreigners own any shares of [eight banks claimed by Eustace Mullins to control the New York Federal Reserve], then their portions are not greater than 5 percent at this time. With no significant holdings of the major New York area banks, it does not seem likely that foreign conspirators could direct their actions.

“. . . The law stipulates a small portion of Federal Reserve stock may be available for sale to the public. . . . However, under the terms of the Federal Reserve Act, public stock was only to be sold in the event the sale of stock to member banks did not raise the minimum of $4 million of initial capital for each Federal Reserve Bank when they were organized in 1913 (12 USCA Sec. 281). Each Bank was able to raise the necessary amount through member stock sales, and no public stock was ever sold to the non-bank public. In other words, no Federal Reserve stock has ever been sold to foreigners; it has only been sold to banks which are members of the Federal Reserve System.

“. . . [E]ach commercial bank receives one vote regardless of its size, unlike most corporate voting structures in which the number of votes is tied to the number of shares a person holds. The New York Federal Reserve district contains over 1,000 member banks, so it is highly unlikely that even the largest and most powerful banks would be able to coerce so many smaller ones to vote in a particular manner. To control the vote of a majority of member banks would mean acquiring a controlling interest in about 500 member banks of the New York district.” [Prof. Edward Flaherty, University of Charleston, “Who Owns and Controls the Federal Reserve?” (July 18, 1997); citations omitted.]

Ellen Brown, J.D., developed her research skills as an attorney practicing civil litigation in Los Angeles. In Web of Debt, her latest book, she turns those skills to an analysis of the Federal Reserve and “the money trust.” She shows how this private cartel has usurped the power to create money from the people themselves, and how we the people can get it back. Her eleven books include the bestselling Nature’s Pharmacy, co-authored with Dr. Lynne Walker, and Forbidden Medicine. Her websites are www.webofdebt.com and www.ellenbrown.com.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 See Ellen Brown, “The Secret Bailout of JPMorgan,” webofdebt.com/articles (May 13, 2008).
2 Ellen Simon, “Fed, Central Banks Move to Boost Global Confidence,” Associated Press (September 18, 2008).
3 Mark Felsenthal, “Bailout Bill Gives Fed New Tool to Boost Liquidity,” Reuters (October 2008).
4 See Ellen Brown, “Dollar Deception: How Banks Secretly Create Money,” webofdebt.com/articles (July 3, 2008).
5 FAQs: Federal Reserve System,” federalreserve.gov.

[Bpeirce2 Profile]

Ponzy schemes can't last forever!

[Tuor10 Profile]

why would CHINA DO THIS IT OWNS america IT DOES NOT NEED TO NUKE IT ,
MEDIA TALKING SHIT AGAIN
The US must increase its nuclear arsenal in response to China's growing military might, according to a State Department report.

By Malcolm Moore in Shanghai
Last Updated: 7:47PM BST 09 Oct 2008

The report said the US had allowed its nuclear stockpile to 'deteriorate' Photo: AP The International Security and Advisory Board (Isab), which reports to Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, warned that "holding the US homeland hostage to missile attack is important to Chinese military goals".

It claimed that China will have "in excess of 100 nuclear-armed missiles that could strike the United States" by 2015.

By contrast, it said the US had allowed its nuclear stockpile and expertise to "deteriorate and atrophy across the board" for the last two decades.

The ISAB is chaired by Paul Wolfowitz, the former World Bank president who was often referred to as the "major architect" of the war in Iraq while he was deputy defence secretary.

Mr Wolfowitz was appointed by Miss Rice last year. Other hawkish members of the Isab are Robert Joseph, the former undersecretary for arms control and international security affairs, and James Schlesinger, the former defence secretary. Executives from arms companies such as Lockheed Martin and Boeing also sit on the board.

The ISAB was asked to draft a report on how the US could bring its relationship with China "towards greater transparency and mutual confidence".

Hans M Kristensen, a director at the Federation of American Scientists, an anti-nuclear think tank in Washington, said that instead the report "appears to have drawn up a very effective plan for a Cold War with China".

He added: "The authors land on a set of recommendations and observations that strongly resemble a China-version of the Reagan administration's aggressive military posture against the Soviet Union." Mr Kristensen also called on Miss Rice to disown the Isab's conclusions.

The ten-page report, which was leaked onto the internet, seems to justify a decision by the US to sell $6.5 billion (£3.6 billion) of arms to Taiwan, a move that has infuriated China and led it to cut several high-level military ties with the US. Mr Wolfowitz is also chairman of the US-Taiwan Business Council.

The report suggests that a conflict between the US and China could be triggered by the issue of Taiwan's sovereignty and claims China will invade the island in the near future. "If China is to become a global power, the first step must include control [of Taiwan]," it states.

It adds that there has been a "substantial expansion" of China's nuclear arsenal in order to force America to "back away rather than fight". The report claims China has "new thermonuclear warheads as well as tactical arms, encompassing enhanced radiation weapons, nuclear artillery, and anti-ship weapons". Current US intelligence reports paint a less dramatic picture and there is no evidence of a tactical nuclear arsenal.

It also claims that "Chinese espionage in the United States is comprehensive and pervasive" and that there is no point in trying to shape Chinese policy by "educating" the Chinese. Instead, the US must build a new missile shield and "undertake the development of new weapons [...] to convince China that it will not be able to overcome the US militarily."

China's military build-up has also unsettled Japan, after a series of large-scale spending increases. The defence budget rose by 17.8 per cent in 2007 and then by 27 per cent in 2008 to £35.4 billion.

The Chinese ambassador to the US, Zhou Wenzhong, has urged America to stop selling weapons to Taiwan and to recognise China's authority over the island.

"The US has made a very serious commitment to China as far as the question of Taiwan is concerned," he said, referring to a joint communique inked in August that states the US will reduce its arms sales to the island.

"Obviously that is not happening. We hope the US will honour its commitment by not just words but action".

The U.S. is still years ahead of China militarily.

The U.S. in all probability could take out China's nuclear arsenal without incurring a retaliatory strike such is their technological superiority.

What do you think all those trillions of black budget dollars are used for?

[The57ironman Profile]

ryderhubcaps post was great...

[Stratafire Profile]

This is a "pretty old" post.. We are already in financial ruins, just takes longer for the center of "Hollywood" (America) to be exposed for others of the world to recognize the financial ruins we are in...

[Bpeirce2 Profile]

Well? still waiting!

[Otomon Profile]

Do not worry little children of God.....

The market will be shifty restored once the "old system" is replaced by the "new one"

Change is upon us.

Furthermore the article could be a hoax... as they usually turn out to be.