Obama-Geithner "Dipsy-do" Warrants Big Jail Time
75How Does Obama Stack Up To These Great Americans
How Much Different Is Obama's Ponzi Scheme From Bernie Madoff's?
Obama And Geithner Should Spend The Rest ofTheir Lives In A Cell Next to The Rip-Off Artist
By Don White
Florida
Democrat Representative Alan Grayson a few weeks ago was questioning
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke on television in a House hearing.
Grayson asked specific questions about where certain money had gone and
the secretary acted dumbfounded. I guess, despite this accountability
hearing, no one had ever asked Bernanke a tough question before.
But
we still don’t know where the money went. Apparently, it was funneled
off to a foreign country. The fact is, the law doesn't require much
oversight for our Federal Reserve. Congress can ask, but so far they don't dare issue subpoenas.
The Fed chairman is appointed by the
president and has carte blanch authority, suggesting to taxpayers that
maybe it’s not too late to repeal the Federal Reserve laws.
Ben
Bernanke is the current Fed chairman. His handling of money is shrouded
from the public, Congress, and the press. He doesn’t want anyone
knowing about his “shady” dealings because that’s just what they are,
unethical, shady, and secretive. On August 6, 2009 the Fed bought $7
billion in Treasuries.
Here’s an example presented on the Glenn
Beck Program last evening: Glenn had Columbia University economist
David Buckner on and he asked him what the Fed was doing about China
who owns half of America. What he described resembled the Bernie Madoff
ponzi scheme that landed this shyster in jail for the rest of his life.
In my opinion, Treasury Secretary Tim Gaithner and President Obama
should be arrested, tried, and given 200-year sentences for the sham
game they are playing on taxpaying Americans with our money.
I
suggest the warden put them in cells next to the biggest Wall Street
shyster in history because they will take their place above Madoff in
terms of the amounts they have screwed the American people out of, our
life savings, our health care (rationed), and our ability to sustain
ourselves. It's all because of the hyperinflation that is coming due to
Obama’s and Gaithner’s illegal manipulation of the dollar which will be
worth pennies when this is all over.
What Professor Buckner
described last night on Beck was nothing less than criminal behavior.
Under pressure from China, the Fed is buying up Treasury Department
debt with newly printed dollars, thus adding to the numbers of quickly
expanded dollars chasing scarce resources.
Why would Obama want
to have the Fed buy them, and not the Treasury? Because they are a top
secret organization and Obama doesn’t want all these spending
shenanigans getting out to the public. Some angry conservatives might
stage a protest at Fed headquarters, or worse, on the steps to the
Congressional building.
And do you know what adding more money to
the market does to our economy? It tanks the economy. It makes a dollar
worth ten cents. This means massive inflation is coming, but don’t
worry because Obama knows this and he will pay back China not only with
tax increases on us Americans, rich and poor alike (so much for
campaign promises to the contrary), plus with inflated dollars.
Buckner explained:
When Obama, Treasury, and the IRS get ten percent of
a hundred dollars, that’s a lot. But let’s say Obama gets the Fed to
put us into super inflation and the item being taxed now is worth one
thousand dollars. That nets ten times more into Obama’s tax coffers, so
whoopee! We can all be glad. Or can we?
There are two ways you can put someone in jail.
One
way is for violating a law. The second is for covering it up. Bernanke
and Obama are guilty of both. A good case in point: Watergate. Nixon
may have not had to leave Washington over Watergate, but then there
were those darned tapes. They showed he covered it up and lied to the
American public. That was the damning part of what Nixon did to cover
up his crimes.
The current cover-up looks like this:
Bernanke’s
and Obama’s “damning part” is how they are paying back the Chinese.
First, they secretly print up massive amounts of dollars and give them
to the Chinese. Then B and O secretly create a seven-year treasury note
and in a little side deal with the Chinese, highly secretive (and we
don’t know what the heck the Chinese got for going along with this
subterfuge). The side deal is that Obama sells these treasuries on the
open market (apparently with a deal that we will quickly buy them back
from the Chinese with newly minted U.S. dollars).
The dipsy-do trick from the double-tongued magician is here:
The
Chinese buy the notes. Ten days later, when no one’s looking, the U.S.
Treasury buys back these notes with real American cash, plus interest.
These notes just sit on the open market, reducing values on all other
notes, until some sucker picks them up. Maybe if the yield is
attractive someone will buy them.
I ran an insurance company
for eight years and we bought and sold treasuries. The yield on a bond
is decided during the auction and auctions are held periodically
throughout the year and you can find a calendar of offering dates on a website. But speaking in practical terms, you would contact an
investment agent and let them help you. Big insurers have their own
investment departments. Bonds are sold in increments of one thousand
dollars. The way to be somewhat successful is to ladder your
investments. That is build a ladder of bonds maturing at different
times. One method is to buy a thousand-dollar bond (for example) every
May 15th for ten years. Eventually you will have ten thousand dollars
invested, comprising some bonds at lower rates and some at higher
rates, giving you some diversity and smoothing out your returns.
Above,
I have described what a wise and prudent investor would do. But our
government is neither wise nor prudent. Why do they have to be? They’re
handling someone else’s money and outrageous waste and losses are
inevitable to these scoundrels.
But governments, including the U.S., should be prudent.
For
the biggest government in the world to buy and sell billions of dollars
in treasuries at one time puts a strain on small governments. Not only
that, because we are constantly printing new money to meet spiraling
obligations under the Obama administration, we are throwing new money
into an already crowded world market and national monetary system,
cheapening the value of what each additional dollar printed today can
buy.
Obama has his own ponzi scheme going.
It doesn’t
take an expert to say that we are headed for deep trouble here in
America, but Obama doesn’t seem to care. He’s got his own ponzi scheme
going and no one to question him because he owns Attorney General Eric
Holder and the Democratic Congress. Life couldn’t be sweeter.
But
what we as private citizens and taxpayers have going for us is that in a year we will have a chance to throw all of the 435 members
of Congress out of office and replace them with conservatives who care
about our nation’s money, our senior citizens, and everyone Obama is
damaging. That includes all taxpayers. Then two years later, we can
send Obama back to Chicago until a subsequent president decides to
prosecute and send him to jail.
What will our country look like
in 2012? I hate to speculate. But if the conservatives and Republicans
take back the House next year they can severely tie Obama’s hands,
investigate his illegal tactics, and perhaps call for his impeachment.
Typically, the lower house of the legislature will impeach the official
and the upper house will conduct the trial. In Washington, it’s the
House of Representatives that impeaches the president, and the Senate
conducts the trial.
Remember Bill Clinton?
He was
impeached over the Monica Lowinski sex scandal, but the Senate refused
to throw him out of office. In Nixon’s case, the House hadn’t gotten to
the business of impeaching him before he quit under pressure and flew
to California to end his presidency, naming Vice President Gerald Ford
president. Ford pardoned Nixon. The same could happen to Obama and we
could end up with Vice President Joe Biden as president.
Stay tuned and become politically active. The speed of Obama’s shell game is accelerating.
PrintShare it! — Rate it: up down flag this hub
Comments
Ralph, thanks for reading. Not all people see it as I do, but I appreciate, at least, that you took the time. Thanks, Don
dusanotes, you're more diplomatic than some others! I'll try to remember to respond in a more temperate manner to your hubs in the future. We can discuss and disagree civilly. A couple of other Hubbers' rants have riled me up a bit in the last couple of days. I actually agree with several of your comments. However, your lead-in comparing Obama to Madoff struck me as a bit over the top. As did another Hub comparing Obama to Jack Kevorkian.
I watch Glenn regularly, have read his book 'Common Sense' and I have to agree that we are currently in a mess. I speak first hand about my fears the direction this country is headed, I came from a communist country and recognize the the undertones. Nice Hub.
Hi Don
First, the Republicans have to get their act together. The situation they are in are forcing them to unite, put they still are not coming around to conservatism enough. A majority of Americans are conservative, and believe in conservatives, except the big union guys and the sort like them that are paying off Obama.
Most legislature are quasi ponsi schemes. There has not been good legislation in this country since the 80's. Every bill written cost taxpayers money. Send the congress home where they can do any harm.
Keep of Hubbing
Thanks Eovery, Jiberish, and Deeds for your comments. All of them have merit. I agree with Overy when he says most legislatures are quasi ponsi schemes.
Say, has anyone of you been to your townhall meetings? I asked by email our representative of district 8 here in Florida when he was going to hold his and he was silent.Now further emails come back to me like their system failed. I called two numbers, local and D.C., and they don't return the calls. I thought these guys were our "public servants," not our masters. Grayson's a Democrat, and he's got some good things about him, especially how he interviewed Bernanke of the Fed. I wanted to congratulate him for that and followup to see where the "money" he was talking about went. The problem with the Fed is that everything is secret. Why else would Obama use them to create new money to pay off the Chinese instead of just having the Treasury print up some new bills? Whether Alan Grason is a Democrat or Republican shouldn't matter. I'm an educated person and wouldn't shout in his face, but would like some answers about how he will vote on health and cap and tax. A lot of people would. If they stack up the taxes against us, especially those of us on fixed income, the seniors, I'm afraid they've lost us. Some of us may have to sell our houses and move into tents. Progress Energy here in Florida just hit us with a ten percent tax, that's really going to add up to 20 percent. Then we've got the Obama taxes coming if his bills pass. I need to go out and get another job, and I'm really too old to do that.
Thanks again for your great comments. Don
This is a sad commentary on the present regime. We need to take control in 2010 if we have a country left. If they allow elections, that is. Thanks for a fine essay. I enjoyed it.
I certainly hope you are kidding here! I think you might want to remember that the money was already long gone before Obama had any access to it! Remember the surplus?? I will say this...with people who think like this, it is no wonder that the world is in the mess it is in! I have no hope for the future.
Very true, Connie.
James, Connie, and Deeds. Thanks for your comments. Say, Connie, I agree with you that George Bush did some dumb things. But he didn't spend much of the money -- probably would have if his term was longer -- and I think he and Paulson just handed most of the -- what $780 billion -- over to Gaithner and Obama. That was a dumb thing to do, knowing how high and loose Obama has been in his spending. I'm particularly critical of Obama's bailout of the GM which is really just a union bailout. With This young 32-year-old Obama president-appointment to run GM, what's his name, Witcomb? He's a guy who has never run an auto company or very much else, I don't plan on buying another GM car. The company will continue to fail and it will just be so much money thrown down a dark hole. We had no business trying to prop up the auto industry. But it's all political for Obama, he wants the Auto Workers Union to help get him re-elected. He's not fooling anyone. Talk about fraud. Whitcomb was chairman of Fanny May's board and Witcomb named Rahm Emanuel to that board, a neat trick that netted Rahm, who before this had been nothing but a ballet dancer, about $16 million in bonuses. Then Rahm whispers something in Barak's ear and gets Witcomb, who ran Fannie into the ground, to name him president of GM. Is it any wonder I have no confidence in the future of General Motors and less than that in Barak Obama, himself? Don
There was no surplus money left when Bush left office! He spent all 5.6 trillion of it and left an addition 1.6 trillion in deficit. The reason GM was propped up was due to the MILLIONS of Americans who count on pensions, health insurance, and jobs so that they do not go on the welfare rolls. AIG got too big to fail, sorry regulation on the part of the government. Every decent small corporation gets eaten up into a bigger one and a bigger one until they are so big that we cannot afford the losses. Bush started the bailouts, anyway. As Americans, we need to say no to pork, to lobbyists and make government officials responsible for their actions. Can we say no pension for you, Mr. Congressman. You spent yours on pork!
If you're going to express opinions about the bailout of GM you would do well to get your facts straight. The new Chairman of GM is Edward Whitacre who was born in 1940 and previously chairman of AT & T. Here's a wikibio entry on him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Whitacre,_Jr.
The new President of GM is Fritz Henderson who has had a variety of positions in his 30 year career with the company, and he is well qualified for his position of CEO.
Thirdly, the bailout was not "just a bailout of the union."
The UAW agreed to many painful cuts in their wages and benefits. The bailout was a bailout of all GM employees and retirees, GM suppliers and dealers and communities where GM plants are located and which are dependent on GM for their survival.
You are entitled to your opinion about Obama's bailout of GM and Chrysler, but you ought to read up a bit about it before exposing your ignorance on HubPages.
Deeds, you are correct. I don't know where I got that name Whitcomb, but Whiteacre, a smart guy, as you said, was born 68 years ago and is GM’s non-executive chairman of the board.
He has plenty of experience in telecom services and Mergers and Acquisitions. Not much -- if any -- in manufacturing, restructuring or marketing consumer durables. Known for assertiveness and huge paychecks. To both of you, I agree. We need to say no to pork and any further misuse of America's taxpayer money. It's actually obscene.
GM is shaking up top management and has named seven new board members in total since emerging from bankruptcy. The newest members -- Akerson, Bonderman,Krebs, Russo,Stephenson, and Stephen Girsky. Rahm Emanuel got one of them on that board. If anyone knows which one, let me know. Most of them are Wall Street types experienced in M&A. Not much going on these days in M&A on Wall Street, so they got good paying jobs as board members. How long they will last is problematical. I frankly think GM is in for some real tough times ahead. So far, Whitacre has not revealed what he pays them...but judging by his history they pay them plenty. Why don't you put in your resume, Deeds, you'd be as qualified or even more so because of your experience. They bring backgrounds in private equity, corporate leadership and academia. So what?
Akerson, 60, is managing director of the private equity fund The Carlyle Group. Bonderman, 66, is co-founding partner of the investment firm TPG.
Krebs, 67, is the former chairman and CEO of Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp. — the railroad operator on whose board Whitacre continues to sit.
Russo, 57, is the former CEO of network technology provider Alcatel-Lucent. (He's the only one I really think could be valuable for GM, if they listen to him); Stephenson, 58, is the dean of the Richard Ivey School of Business at the University of Western Ontario in London, Ontario.
The new board members join the six old members of GM’s board: Errol Davis Jr., Neville Isdell, Kent Kresa, Philip Laskawy, Kathryn Marinello and GM CEO Fritz Henderson.
“The collective expertise of the new (board of directors) is vital at this time as GM seeks to redefine itself,” Whitacre said in a statement.
Last month, the group of trustees overseeing retiree health benefits named former GM adviser Stephen Girsky to the board.
I'll go through my notes on this and see what I can dig up. It is my belief, though, that one favor begets another and in this case Rahm Emanuel had a lot to do with one of the board members landing a lucrative job because they helped him in the past. Nothing to remarkable about that in business these days, but the remuneration for these board members has got to be in the millions per year. Thanks for the correction for you and Connie Smith. But in Bush's case, he decided to bailout GM to the tune of less than $20 billion and now it's about $60 billion. I don't say Bush didn't do dumb things. You don't consider bailing out union pension funds dumb, but I wonder what rationale you use to make it necessary for money coming out of my pocket, a private person, to pay for union bennies on a defunct company. I only worked for small or medium companies, with one or two exceptions, during my insurance career. None of them have been bailed out, or were even considered.
I still maintain that Bush spent a very small proportion of the first $787 billion and handed what he didn't spend to Obama. Denise, if you can get me a source for your information, I'll be happy to change my opinion on that.
The ironic and sad thing is, like many Americans, none of these board members even own GM cars or trucks. In fact, to "make them experts" they took a half-day of their board meeting to go out to the GM test facility and drive several of these cars. It ought to be a requirement for a board member to own a GM car, but I'll bet none do. All Japanese or German. But we never hear anything from the press on things like these. It might be embarrassing to the board members if people understood that Union members were probably better candidates for board seats than they were. Don
I worked for GM in the corporate central office in Detroit for 34 years. You can imagine how unhappy I am about what has happened to this once great company. A GM compatriot and I have talked about writing a book or article expressing our views of what went wrong (many things). I'm not planning to buy any GM stock on the IPO when it comes out next year or whenever it comes out. Excuse me for being so snarky. HubPages success depends, in part, on congenial discussions.
Connie: You say the Bush stimulus money is all spent, it isn't. Check with your congressman. I've seen some numbers and tonight on the Sean Hanity Program on Fox guest Ralph Reid, a Republican, said 89% of this money is not yet spent. He said it in front of guest Bob Beckel, a longtime Democrat activist, member of the Clinton Administration, etc. Bob did not try to refute this statement because it is true. Bush gave over to Obama all but about $17.5 million that was to go to GM and maybe the $8 million that Chrysler got. I disagree with Bush giving a car company money when we all know GM probably won't survive. In some ways like this Bush was a spendthrift and a dummy. You say it is for the Union pension fund. Since when does government guarantee my pension plan or anyone else's. If it benefits Obama, he will walk to Japan and back -- and the benefit here is to make sure he has all Union members in his back pocket in 2012.
In this article, I ask how much different is the Obama et al ponzi scheme where he moves the money around so fast, no one knows where it's at, especially Ben Bernanke of the Fed. But the biggest ponzi scheme of Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and all the rest of the presidents is what they did to our Social Security fund. They moved it in and out of the general fund so often, that now there isn't a social security fund to fund old timer's retirement -- people like Deeds, overy, and I. I think that is criminal and all of the above were complicit, together with Congress. Let's round up all of them and put them all in cells next door to Bernie Madoff. Our Federal government's ponzi scheme with our money pales in comparison with all other ponzi schemes combined. It makes Madoff's look like he was playing with monopoly money. Don
I apologize Dusanotes, we are talking at cross purposes. I was talking about the trillions of dollars Bush spent while in office, not the, what is trifling in comparision, bail out money. Like you do not want to fund GM, I have a problem funding Haliburton and also Blackwater in Iraq and New Orleans. In fact, I had a problem funding one dime of the $800 billion that useless war in Iraq that has cost us, according to the Brookings Institution's Iraq Index. Unfortunately, we do not get a say.
However, though we disagree, it is refreshing to be able to do so civilly. That is what is missing from today's politics and until we can get it back, I'm afraid we are all going to lose.
Thanks, Connie. You are a very good person. I enjoy your comments because you always make a lot of sense. Don
Thanks, Don. I appreciate the compliment. :)
Thanks, Connie.
Hey, Deeds, Why don't you write that book about GM's fall. You have an inside post or some information no one else may have and you could tell a fine story here. I strongly encourage you to write more about GM, not just some articles, but do the book because I haven't really seen too much impartial reporting about GM. Oh, you get the union view, the president's point of view, and the New York Times. But, really, with an insider like you, you and your friend should make it an expose or something very revealing. You probably saw some problems early on, things they could have done differently to compete with the Japanese, and maybe even saw this coming. Heck, a lot of Americans saw it coming. It was a tragedy in the making for the past ten years as we saw GM lose market share.
There are publishers out there who would pay good money to get their hands on something like this that maybe even blows the lid off what really, in my mind, is an American scandal or tragedy -- especially when it involves the lives and families of so many Americans, and so it should sell. I'll bet all of the GM employees would buy it and that numbers into the thousands. Confidentiality shouldn't be a problem for you now. You're gone from there.
They (GM) owes you far more than you owe them at this point in time.
Best of luck to you in this endeavor. Don
dusannotes, Several books and many articles have documented the reasons for GM's and the other U.S. auto companies' downfall. There is truth to most of them--massive loss of market share due to excessively costly wage and benefit agreements with the UAW; failure to pay enough attention to quality and durability issues, failure to adopt "lean" manufacturing techniques pioneered by Toyota and J.Edwards Deming, and in recent years "betting the farm" on big, heavy fuel guzzeling vehicles, focusing too much on short term profits instead ot long range strategy and so forth. There is truth to all of these factors. However, without disagreeing with any of the above, there is another factor that has not received much attention which I call the "Kraft Cheese or Gallo Wine factor."
Imagine what would have happened to Kraft Cheese or Gallo Wine if they had had 55% of their respective markets in 1970 as did GM and suddenly the market was opened to wines and cheeses from all over the world. How long would Kraft or Gallo been able to retain their dominant market shares? Not long I suspect because wine and cheese (and car) buyers like variety. They like to brag about serving cheese or wine from France, Chile, Italy, The Netherlands, Australia, and so forth. The same goes for cars. If you look at the European car market post-EC you will see that no single company has more than around 15% of the market which has been shared more or less equally by VW, Ford, GM, Mercedes, Fiat and a couple of other niche companies. In a free and open market like the one in the United States the fact of life is that it is unlikely that one company will be able to retain more than a 15 or 20 percent market share.
GM erred by not recognizing planning and taking steps for an orderly loss of market share to the increasing number of imported vehicles and those assembled by "transplants" in the U.S. Even the crappy little Yugo for a couple of years took a small share of the U.S. market.
Instead GM leveraged its balance sheet and invested heavily in new plants and new products (mostly large, heavy SUVs thanks to the truck hole in CAFE standards which the U.S. companies lobbied for)and in buying EDS, Hughes Aircraft, SAAB and Hummer and investing heavily in real estate in New York and Detroit. And GM in 1982? in response to a UAW campaign for "guaranteed lifetime income" agreed to the infamous Jobs Bank agreement which increased the cost of downsizing at a time when GM was bleeding market share to imports and transplants.
Against that backdrop it's hard to imagine a dumber agreement (negotiated 1n 1982? by Alfred S. Warren GM VP who was the dumbest VP in the history of the company, and approved by Roger B. Smith, GM's chairman.) Instead ot telling the UAW that guaranteeing lifetime security in a collective bargaining agreement was impossible and that the only road to job security was producing attractive, high quality products at a competitive cost and price, especially at a time GM, Ford and Chrysler were facing unprecedented competition from imports and transplants. Instead GM and Ford and Chrysler agreed to an unfunded commitment to pay laid off workers at 90 percent of their wages for life as they sat in "jobs banks" watching television and reading the morning newspaper. This crazy agreement did not even permit the company to require employees to accept a transfer to another plant located beyond 50 miles. Many declined such offers, saying "I think I'll just stay here in the Jobs Bank. My mother-in-law is in a nursing home or my kids don't want to transfer to another school.
That's a short version of my Kraft-Gallo factor in GM's demise.
5
Thanks, Ralph. You really do understand GM's plight. That narrative above was fantastic. You're a good writer, too. Tell me, what are the odds that GM can pull itself back together again following the Obama bailouts and change of management and board? Don
Hard to say. GM has some quite successful overseas operations--China, Brazil, Mexico, and perhaps others. And they have been relieved of many or most of their cost disadvantages in their U.S. plants. Your guess is as good as mine whether Cadillac, Chevrolet, Buick and GMC will sell enough cars for GM to recover and operate profitably with a more realistic 15-20% market share. I guess I think the odds are better than 50-50 that the company will get back on its feet and not go out of business. But I don't plan to buy the stock when the IPO comes out next year or the year after.
One issue that I have some doubts about is how many Chevy Volts they will be able to sell. Nobody knows for sure what the price of gasoline will be in a couple of years after the Volt is launched. GM has a lot riding on that car. If the price of gasoline doesn't stay up I doubt that they will be able to sell enough cars to make money on it. Also, my impression is that there are still problems to be solved with the battery and recharging stations or facilities. [I don't have any accurate information on either of these issues.]
WHY BLAME OBAMA BLAME THE FED RESERVE ACT WHICH CREATED THIS WHEN KENNEDY SIGNED EXECUTIVE ORDER 11110 HE WAS KILL MONTHS LATER!! I WONDER WHY??? IT'S NOT A DEMS OR REPS ISSUE IT IS THE BANKSTER THAT OWN AMERICA
AND OWN THE FED, AND ALL THE INVESTMENT BANKS..UNTIL THE FED DOESNT EXSIT WE WILL ALWAYS HAVE A BOOM AND BUST ECONOMY
Thanks, Ralph. You're a great resource. If I ever want to know something about cars, I'll look to you. By the way, I do run a couple of car blogs.
One of the is called
http://oldandnewauto.blogspot.com
Don White
I ran an article that panned the recent GM split up. http://oldandnewauto.blogspot.com/2009/07/gm-chapt
I feel it was unfair because it seems to have left some of the injured people out in the cold, with no defendant to go after following the "sale" of the company and the setting up of a new company. Take a look and let me know if I'm right? Thanks, Don
Chris, I agree with you - it's not a Democrat versus GOP issue. Both parties are rife with dishonesty. My belief is that the American people should throw all of them out at the next elections in 2010 and 2012. Obama is not all he's made out to be. He has consistently lied to the American people. Previous Republican presidents did likewise. For example:
George W.H. Bush, the father, ran on a platform of "No new taxes, read my lips." Then what did he do when he felt the corrupting feelings of being the commander in chief, he signed a bill to raise taxes which was sent to him by the Democratic Congress. I think both parties are corrupt.
It appears to millions of Americans that this country is not being ruled by honest and good people who love America.
There is good reason to believe that Obama is not fully in charge. I sincerely believe that there are forces bigger than him who are directing his activities. He may someone's "promised one," but he's not the one calling the shots. I wrote an entire article on Hub Pages about the Bilderberg Group. Take a look at it. Actually, I think I wrote two articles on it.
Meanwhile, I really do appreciate your comments and point of view. You may not know this, but I once was a Democrat, then became a Republican. Now I'm a conservative. Keep the comments coming. Though I may or may not agree with all of them, I respect your point of view because I know you put a lot of thought into your ideas.
Kindest regards,
Don White
Ralph Deeds says:
4 months ago
This hub is just the kind of crapola one expects from a former Associated Press "journalist" and insurance salesman.