May, 1907 investment banker John Pierpont Morgan deliberately leaked inaccurate information to the New York Times that the Knickerbocker Bank in New York was insolvent. Although Morgan\'s name was not linked to the New York Times story, even before the paper hit the street, the source of the rumors was on everyone\'s lips. The bank\'s depositors became frightened because they believed Morgan, the best known banker of the day, was probably right. This triggered a run on the Knickerbocker Bank that ultimately proved the rumor was right—Knickerbockers Bank ran out of money and had to shut their doors. The bank panic spilled over to other banks, first in New York, then all over the country.

The media sleuths of the early 20th century were quick to identify the culprit who started the rumor but it would be six years before they understood the reason. The Bank Panic of 1907 was deliberate. The purpose was to manufacture a crisis that would allow the bankers to create a permanent central bank in the United States to solve the "problem" of unstable banks. The bank panic, the passage of the 16th Amendment and the legislation known as the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 (signed into law by Thomas Woodrow Wilson on Dec. 23, 1913), were all triggered by the actions of one man: J.P. Morgan.

Today, the world\'s bankers face a new problem: how do you merge 182 currencies into four or five, and then, how do you collapse them into one—when none of the citizens of any of the 182 nations want their currencies merged into one? You do what they did in 1907. You create a panic, or a series of panics over three or four years that suggest the banking system is irreparably broken. Each panic will cost thousands of US citizens millions of dollars, or over three or four years, it will cost millions of US citizens billions of dollars.

Remember the Crash of 1929? (Few of us actually remember it first hand, since that would make us 80 to 90 years of age.) The Crash of 1929, like the Bank Panic of 1907, was a carefully staged dichotomy orchestrated by the nation\'s most power investment bankers, led—once again—by JP Morgan & Company. This time what was at stake was removing the United States from the gold standard and creating an elastic dollar that would give the Fed complete control over the fate of the economy of the United States—for the enrichment of the bankers. The bankers did not get the constitutional amendment they sought to remove the United States from the gold standard (and have not to this date). But the Congressional Gold Repeal Joint Resolution of June 5, 1933 did the same thing: it detached gold from the valuation of money. On Feb. 18, 1935, in a 5-to-4 decision, the US Supreme Court ruled in favor of the New Dealers. (Revisionist historians have argued that the widespread adoption of !

 the bimetallic monetary system is a recent event dating back only to the mid-19th century, brought about by the industrial revolution. Apparently none of those \"historians\" have ever read the Constitution.)

The motive for Sen. Chuck Schumer [D-NY] to trigger what he had to know would start a run on IndyMac Bank is unclear. Schumer-watchers, who refer to the Senator as \"Crazy Chucky,\" said Schumer\'s motive was to create headlines where he played a dominant role in warning the American people of the pitfalls of the free enterprise system. Schumer is not a stupid man even though his actions on June 26 (which led to the run on IndyMac and the seizure of the bank\'s assets on July 12) nevertheless suggests he\'s not the brightest bulb in New York.

Schumer, a member of the Senate Banking Committee, chairman of the House & Senate Joint Economic Conference and the third-ranking Democrat in the Senate, sent letters to the Office of Thrift Supervision, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco saying he was \"...concerned that IndyMac\'s financial deterioration posed significant risks to both taxpayers and borrowers...[and that, IndyMac, which had suffered massive losses on defaulted subprime mortgage loans]...could face a failure if prescriptive measures [were] not taken quickly.\" Since the Senate Banking Committee provides oversight to the Office of Thrift Supervision, the FDIC and the Home Loan Board, pointing fingers is a congressional prerogative. However, screaming \"fire!\" in a movie theater is not. And that is precisely what Schumer did.

When Schumer\'s remarks appeared in several newspapers it triggered a run on IndyMac Bank that resulted in depositors siphoning off $1.3 billion in personal deposits from the bank. IndyMac Bank of Pasadena, California is the 5th FDIC-insured bank failure this year and the second largest bank failure in US history. Citing a massive run on deposits as the reason for the takeover by banking regulators, the OTS stepped in and shutdown the main IndyMac branch 3-hours early on July 12. IndyMac Bank has 33 branches which closed over the weekend and reopened on July 14.

Bank regulators noted that the takeover of IndyMac, which has assets of $32.01 billion and deposits totaling $19.06 billion at the end of its first quarter this year, will cost taxpayers between $4 billion to $8 billion. In a statement to the media on July 12, OTS Director John Reich said: \"This institution failed today due to a liquidity crisis. Although this institution was already in distress, I am troubled by any interference in the regulatory process.\" Reich continued by saying: \"The immediate cause of the closing was a deposit run that began and continued after the public release of a June 26 letter to the OTS and the FDIC from Sen. Charles Schumer of New York.\"

Irritated that Reich had the audacity to blame him for the run—which he actually did cause—Schumer used the Sunday talk shows to blame the Bush Administration for \"...blaming the fire on the person who calls 911.\" Schumer denied that his June 26 letter caused one of the costliest bank failures in US history. Defending himself, Schumer said: \"IndyMac was one of the most poorly run and reckless of all the banks...\" adding that \"...the breadth and depth of the problems at IndyMac were apparent for years, and they accelerated in the last six months...If OTS had done its job as regulator and not let IndyMac\'s poor and loose lending practices continue, we wouldn\'t be where we are today...instead of pointing false fingers of blame, OTS should start doing its job to prevent future IndyMacs.\"

Several commercial banks—including the nation\'s largest banks—as well as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have taken a major hit on foreclosed subprime mortgages. Was it, or is it yet, Schumer\'s intent to single out every bank with major subprime write-offs as banks \"...which suffered massive losses on defaulted subprime mortgage loans, which could face a failure if prescriptive measures are not taken quickly?\" Doing so will trigger a 1907 bank panic at a time when fiscal sanity is needed. If that is Schumer\'s intent, the American people need to know why.

The United States is in a financial meltdown. We are experiencing a real financial crisis created by bankers, economists, industrialists and merchant princes who, to promulgate the myth that regionalizing wealth hemispherically by transferring US jobs to the third world was not having a negative impact on the US economy when, in fact, it is having a devastating affect. Our economy is as fragile as eggshells, and any negative economic news threatens to crack that shell. Blue chip stocks have declined in value by 21.2% over the over past year. The US dollar is down 13.2% against the Euro over the past year. Mortgage foreclosures are up 53% over the past year, and wholesale prices are also up, 9.2% since June of last year.

Looking for a scapegoat to prove that the failure of IndyMac Bank was not the fault of politicians and the globalist-driven media that helped perpetuate the myth that the US economy was healthy as industrialists continue to ship 15,000 jobs a month to the third world, the FBI was sent to IndyMac to determine if the bank had engaged in fraud when it made home loans to high risk (subprime) borrowers. The FBI is currently investigating 21 companies in the subprime lending industry for possible fraud in using false information to secure mortgages for subprime borrowers.

The frantic search for a scapegoat, however, is going to have a negative impact on the economy in general and the mortgage banking industry in particular. Somber statements and predictions are coming from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue because both the legislative and executive minds clearly understand this isn\'t an ordinary, run-of-the-mill economic crisis we are facing. The politicians and bankers are discovering, as this crisis unfolds, that there is a price to be paid for creating artificial, debt-fueled economic growth when the nation lacks a sufficient number of consumer-taxpayers to support the expansion of debt, and to repay the loans that were used to fabricate a concrete foundation under what can only be described as a house-of-cards.

Because the banking industry is rickety and gas prices have drained the pockets of America as commodity prices continue to soar, the US economy has slowed to a virtual crawl. Kenneth Rogoff, the former chief economist for the International Monetary Fund, notes the banking crisis is going to trigger a recession. Several economists have noted that during the fabricated housing boom banking regulators stood, blindly, off on the sidelines, convinced the job growth and flow of discretionary money would stimulate the economy and cure the negative impact of the two decades-long jobs drain. \"It seemed too good to be true,\" Rogoff observed. \"And, it was...Today is payback....There \'s no hope of an early recovery at this point. The best case scenario we have is we a long, but mild, recession—and that\'s a best case scenario.\"

Schumer is now attempting to deflect the blame for government\'s seizure of IndyMac Bank. His aide, Brian Fallon, offered an explanation after OTS Director Reich chastised Schumer by saying: \"As a regulator of insured depository institutions, we do not publicly comment on the financial conditions or supervisory activities related to open and operating institutions. We believe it is critically important to maintain the confidentiality of examination and supervision information. Dissemination of incomplete or erroneous information can erode public confidence, mislead depositors and investigators, and cause unintended consequences, including depositor runs and panic stock trades. Rumors and innuendo cause damage to financial institutions that might not occur otherwise and those concerns drive our strict policy of privacy.\"

Following the Reich statement, former US Comptroller of the Currency John D. Hawke added his own unofficial views. \"Leaking his IndyMac letter to the press was reckless and grossly irresponsible,\" he said. \"I don\'t see how he can be trusted with confidential information in the future.\" (In reality, Democrats have a sordid history of leaking confidential and sometimes highly classified information to the press solely for political gain.) \"What this incredibly stupid conduct does is put at risk the willingness of regulators to share any information with the oversight committees [in Congress]. After this, you\'d be crazy to share information with Schumer...If Schumer continues to go public with letters raising questions about the condition of individual institutions, he will cause havoc on the banking system.\" And, of course, in an election year with an unpopular member of the opposition in the White House, nothing generates votes for your party like a really good recess!

 ion.

Schumer\'s defense, reiterated by Fallon, was that \"...[t]he home loan bank system has an obligation to lend responsibly and police its members. But it has not been doing its job. We have found the only way to get the home loan bank system to act appropriately and positively is to make public the concerns we\'ve already expressed privately.\" Schumer also leveled his own accusations in the form of a weak explanation. \"Now they\'re doing what the Bush Administration always does—blame the fire on the person who calls 911.\" In reality, as previously noted, what Schumer did was yell \"fire\" in the movie theater.

Since Schumer does not come up for reelection until 2010 its hard to understand his motives for making unfounded allegations about IndyMac. Schumer suggested that the bank was unsound when, before the run specifically caused by Schumer, it was not. It had eaten some bad loans like every bank in the country that financed any subprime business.

Is Schumer playing the JP Morgan role in the Bank Panic of 1907? Is this the opening salvo fired by globalists who are trying to create a crisis big enough to collapse the currency of the United States? This would allow Canada and Mexico \"save\" the US economy by formally creating a merged monetary unit called the Amero. While there are many plausible explanations, that is one that certainly makes sense.

Baby Boomer Armageddon

Last October Earlesville, Maryland resident and former 7th grade teacher and nutrition consultant Kathleen Casey-Kirschling, touted for decades as \"Baby-Boomer Zero\" or \"First Boomer,\" filed for Social Security benefits. Sixty-one year old Casey-Kirschling was born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania at midnight, Jan. 1, 1946—the first official baby boomer. Her filing for benefits was a momentous occasion for her and a frighteningly symbolic event for the nation. Casey-Kirschling\'s filing is believed by many in government to be the financial straw that will ultimately break the camel\'s back. She represents the first of the World War II war babies to begin drawing from dollars that have not existed since Lyndon Johnson\'s Great Society. The Democratic leadership which controlled both Houses of Congress for 80 of the last 100 years spent the money that, by law, had to be invested in high yield securities since this money did not belong to the US government. The money belonge!

 d to the American people who, by law, were obligated to invest it for their old age.

After she filed for her Social Security benefits, Kathleen Casey-Kirschling completed the day at a special luncheon at the National Press Club in Washington, DC where she told reporters she was looking forward to collecting her benefits. \"I\'m thrilled,\" Casey-Kirschling said, \"to think that after all these years that I\'m getting paid back the money that I put in.\" Any senior level politicians in attendance were probably squirming in their seats as they smiled politely for the cameras, wondering deep in the dungeons of their minds where thoughts they don\'t ever want to voice are chained, most of them wondered just how many baby boomers it would take before Baby Boomer Armageddon occurred. Casey-Kirschling was the first of 3.2 million baby boomers who will reach 62 this year—which amounts to 365 an hour. Statistically, about 49% of men and 53% of women will take early retirement and reduced benefits.

The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1937. Funds collected through payroll deduction could not be placed in the general treasury as \"tax revenue.\" Social Security deposits are assigned to the US Treasury where, by law, they must be invested in marketable Treasury securities. In 2007, the US government received Social Security deposits to the Trust of $1,069 billion. During the year of 2007, the Social Security Administration paid out $879 billion, leaving a net surplus of $190 billion. There\'s only one problem with the government\'s rhetoric. Uncle Sam is paying current benefits from current revenue. That\'s a Ponzi scheme. And Uncle Sam knows that when the flood of baby boomers creates the human tsunami that President George W. Bush has been warning the American people about, the floodgates will open and what is left of the US economy will be swept out to sea.

Why is there no money? Not because too many people filed for earned benefits. It is because the money in the Social Security Trust Fund was used to finance handouts to the Welfare Generation from 1964 to 1994. In 30 years the Democrats, who used generational welfare to chain minorities to the feeding trough of the State and to the voting booth where they were forced to vote Democratic to keep their welfare checks coming, stole your retirement funds and replaced them with worthless IOUs.

The government, in turn, argues that far from issuing \"worthless IOUs,\" the \"investments\" held by the trust funds are backed by the \"full faith and credit\" of the US government. The bureaucrats insist the federal government has always repaid the Social Security Trust Fund—with interest. And, that\'s the problem. The Social Security Trust Fund became a \"passbook\" savings account for the government rather than an investment in which the \"people\" purchased high yeild securities. Instead of earning the types of returns you would expect from high yield securities, the government paid the American people 4.656% simple interest on their money.

Only, today, the Social Security Trust Fund reserve is almost virtually nonexistent. What should still be a cash reserve in the trillions of dollars is almost an empty vault filled with worthless IOUs that Uncle Sam can\'t repay. The trust fund is a virtual reality illusion. The government says it exists, so in the virtual reality world of politics, it exists. However, the virtual reality trust fund exists only in the virtual reality ledger sheets kept by the federal comptroller of pipe dreams and mirages.

Because of government smoke and mirrors, three out of five middle-class retirees will run completely out of money if they try to maintain their pre-retirement lifestyles when they accept their gold watch and collect their first Social Security check. A new study by the accounting firm of Ernst & Young, released on July 14 shows that Americans, who expect to live independent of their children when they retire, are going to be faced with some tough choices —ten or more years before they retire. Those tough choices will almost completely eliminate their discretionary income in order to have a post-retirement life that is not an economic nightmare. The choice they face is one that leaves them with a greatly reduced amount of discretionary income for the last decade before they retire, or destitute and dependent on their children after they retire.

The Ernst & Young study indicates that middle-income Americans must find some way to trim their standards-of-living by approximately 25% so they can put that money into 401Ks or some other form of high yield securities. In addition, retirees will have to cut their spending by at least 37% to make sure they don\'t outlive their money. About 77 million baby-boomers are expected to retire within the next five to seven years. What that means is not only will there be 77 million high-income middle class workers suddenly removed from the US tax roll, but there will be 77 million new retirees expecting monthly checks from Uncle Sam with 77 million fewer taxpayers paying the withholding taxes that currently \"cover\" the SSI and DI checks that go out every month to the current Social Security and disability insurance recipients.

Tom Neubig, national director for quantitative economics and statistics at Ernst & Young noted that most people believe they will be able to \"...maintain roughly the same standard of living after retirement. Our study suggests they are going to have to make some changes. People are going to have to adapt in a number of ways that they weren\'t anticipating or hoping for.\"

Married couples with joint household incomes of $75,000 per year, whose supplemental retirement incomes come only from passbook savings or CDs and not from 401K investments, have a 31% change of running out of money before they die if they try to maintain the same lifestyle they enjoyed before retirement. Those who are obligated to depend solely on Social Security have a 90% chance of becoming destitute in their old age. Sadly, many Americans who worked for some of the nation\'s premiere corporations that moved their operations to the human capital-rich third world, were forced to cash in their retirement plans to keep them afloat financially as they sought new employment, or used their retirement nest eggs to finance startup ventures because new jobs were not to be found without relocating somewhere else.

Government statisticians have calculated that by 2030 the cost of the federal government\'s Ponzi scheme—Social Security—will outpace the contributions from its unwilling participants and, from that point, the shortfall will have to be drawn from what is left of the Social Security Trust Fund—which will be completely bankrupt in 2041. This will happen largely because of the legalization of abortion in 1973 and the removal of over 65 million consumer taxpayers through the saline baths and scalpels of the abortionists. Abortion was also the culprit that made the exodus of the factories of Corporate America to the third world inevitable since the United States and the industrial nations of Europe, with 0.5 to 0.7 population replenishment rates, were no longer producing enough \"homegrown\" consumers to support the consumer industry.

Medicare is in the same boat as Social Security. Only, Medicare is already paying out more than it takes in. Advocates of reducing Social Security benefits or, once again, raising the \"premium,\" or advancing the age when recipients will be eligible to receive benefits, with partial benefits available at age 67 and full benefits at either 70 or 72 years of age insist that Social Security will begin negative payments in 2017 not 2030. To keep Social Security solvent until 2041 requires a 16% increase in payroll taxes and a parallel 13% cut in benefits. To keep Medicare solvent past 2017 requires a 122% increase in premiums and/or a 51% decrease in hospital stays.

Every year that nothing is done makes the problem worse. In 2005 President George W. Bush tried to bully the Republican-controlled Congress into beginning to fix Social Security by creating private investment accounts and removing a portion of their Social Security \"contributions\" from the greedy hands of politicians in order to protect their benefits. Bush and the GOP was blocked from carrying out the plan by House and Senate Democrats who said privatizing any part of Social Security would drain needed money from the Trust Fund. Clearly the liberals know just how fragile the program is, and what happens to the US economy when the house of cards falls.

Today, more and more congressmen and Senators on both sides of the aisle realize the prognosis is so bad that its just a matter of time before this nation will not be able to afford the cure because the problems in the Social Security system, Medicare and Medicare\'s prescription drug coverage plan are compounding themselves. Congressmen Jim Cooper [D-TN] and Frank Wolf [R-VA] argue in unison that its no longer a partisan issue. It\'s not red or blue. \"It\'s as foolish as a food fight on the Titanic.\"

While the Democrats still believe that Social Security, Medicare and Prescription Medicare can be patched with rate hikes, anyone who has examined the problem with both eyes open knows that\'s no longer possible. The only thing that\'s going to solve this problem is replacing the taxpayers going on Social Security with new taxpayers entering the taxable work force. Which is precisely what Bush-43 tried to do in 2005-06 by offering amnesty to illegal aliens. (Conservative alarmists flooded cyberspace with emails suggesting Bush-43 was going to provide illegals with amnesty, grant them citizenship and then provide them with an immediate windfall—Social Security benefits. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The SSI benefits for the \"new citizens,\" like the rest of us, comes at the end of our life\'s travels, after we have paid into the system for at least 40 quarters (10 years).

When Bush-43 advocated amnesty to draw the illegal aliens who are working in the shadows of the underground economy into the light of day, he drew fire not only from his political adversaries but from many of the transnational corporations which not only supported both of his runs for the White House, but other Republican candidates as well, since legalizing illegal aliens and getting them into the Social Security system puts them under the protection of federal employment laws. That means employers must pay these new citizens incomes that more closely approximate what US citizens earn in that job environment. (However, having two or three people bidding for the same job will lower the wage structure, but not as much as when the employer was able to hire the illegal under-the-table for a fraction of the wage paid to US workers.)

Working under the table, illegals earn enough money to feed and house themselves while those dollars which should have gone to Washington, DC (and that State\'s capital) in the form of taxes, were wire transferred back to Mexico, or some other Central American country, to provide for the sustenance of the illegal\'s family back home. In 2007, trackable \"remittances\" from illegals to their families in Central America totaled approximately $66.5 billion. Since Ronald Reagan\'s first amnesty bill passed in 1986, illegals have remitted $1,965.6 billion to family members in Mexico. Keep in mind, that wasn\'t their total earnings since 1986. It was that portion of their illegal incomes sent back to Mexico. Assuming each of the illegals sends 20% of their income home, we can assume since 1986, the illegals who are taking US jobs under the table earned some $147.4 trillion dollars at the expense of the US worker.

Are you beginning to see the big picture? Or rather, the real picture. It\'s ugly. We are faced with what can only be called \"Baby Boomer Armageddon\" because if the problem isn\'t fixed quickly, the United States is facing an economic Armageddon from which it will not survive. The solution—the only solution other than letting the liberals tax us into oblivion—is so repugnant to most of us that we are almost prepared to become destitute oversleves to keep it from happening.

No national politician in the United States other than President George W. Bush has had the guts to tell the American people that the Social Security system is broken beyond repair. Bush\'s problem is that he presented the problem and the solution in a split screen narrative. But the American people weren\'t watching correctly. They saw the problem followed by a viable solution as two problems. The problem: (Social Security is bankrupt). The solution: (adding from 20 to 25 million new taxpayers to the tax rolls immediately will buoy the economy and give us time to find a permanent solution,)

The problem is, the politicians we continue to elect have a real problem with the truth. They just flat out won\'t utter it. And, more than anything else, partisanship aside, it\'s time for the truth. Congress screwed up. They spent most of the Social Security Trust Fund to finance the Welfare Society. The high-interest securities that were supposed to dramatically increase the yield of the dollars invested didn\'t happen. What funds still existed in the Treasury brought in a feeble return of 4.656% interest. Subtract from the roster of taxpayers 77 million baby boomers who are now beginning to retire, and who will begin to withdraw money from the US Treasury at an alarming rate rather than depositing it in the form of payroll taxes. Also subtract 65-plus million humans from our society whom the environmentalists decided were a detriment to nature. We legalized abortion in 1973 and killed the future taxpayers whose contributions today would have kept the system solvent as th!

 e baby boomers hung up their work spurs.

Had Bush told the truth—the whole truth—about what happens to the economy when the incomes of 77 million baby boomers becomes 77 million new monthly Social Security recipients (with no new workers to replace them), and then make it clear that every American still in the work force can expect to see their taxload tripled because there will be a lot less of you supporting those baby boomers as they prepare to enjoy their golden years on your dime because Congress spent all the dollars.

 From:  youbehealthy.@msn.com