“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…”

by Dr. Ellen Brown

Global Research, July 25, 2008 webofdebt.com (Part 1 of a two-parts article).

The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was a major coup for the international bankers. They had battled for more than a century to establish a private central bank in the United States with the exclusive right to “monetize” the government’s debt; that is, to print their own money and exchange it for government securities or I.O.U.s. The Federal Reserve Act authorized a private central bank to create money out of nothing, lend it to the government at interest, and control the national money supply, expanding or contracting it at will. Representative Charles Lindbergh Sr. called the Act “the worst legislative crime of the ages.” He warned prophetically:

“[The Federal Reserve Board] can cause the pendulum of a rising and falling market to swing gently back and forth by slight changes in the discount rate, or cause violent fluctuations by greater rate variation, and in either case it will possess inside information as to financial conditions and advance knowledge of the coming change, either up or down.

“This is the strangest, most dangerous advantage ever placed in the hands of a special privilege class by any Government that ever existed. The financial system has been turned over to a purely profiteering group. The system is private, conducted for the sole purpose of obtaining the greatest possible profi ts from the use of other people’s money.

In 1934, in the throes of the Great Depression, Representative Louis McFadden would go further, stating on the Congressional record:

“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. In that dark crew of fi nancial pirates there are those who would cut a man’s throat to get a dollar out of his pocket; there are those who send money into states to buy votes to control our legislatures; there are those who maintain International propaganda for the purpose of deceiving us into granting of new concessions which will permit them to cover up their past misdeeds and set again in motion their gigantic train of crime.

“These 12 private credit monopolies were deceitfully and disloyally foisted upon this Country by the bankers who came here from Europe and repaid us our hospitality by undermining our American institutions.”

As for Fannie Mae – the Federal National Mortgage Association – it actually began under Roosevelt’s New Deal as a government agency. But like the Federal Reserve, Fannie Mae is now “federal” only in name. In 1968, it was re-chartered by Congress as a shareholderowned company, funded solely with private capital. If it were a bank, today it would be the third largest bank in the world; and it makes enormous amounts of money in the real estate market for its private owners.

In 1970, Freddie Mac (the Federal Home Mortgage Corporation) was created to provide competition and end Fannie Mae’s monopoly in the secondary mortgage market. But Freddie Mac too is a wholly shareholder owned, publicly-traded corporation.

Under a 1992 law, if either of these two mortgage giants is seen to be severely undercapitalized, it may be placed into government conservatorship. But the plan now being pursued is to bail out these private corporations by increasing their capital base with taxpayer money and their profi t margins with greater access to Federal Reserve loans. The result will be to privatize profi ts to their management and shareholders while socializing risk to the taxpayers. We the people will foot the bill. If the people are going to bear the risk, we should reap the benefits. Either these two mega-corporations should take their licks in the market like any other private corporation, or they should be nationalized, delivering not just their debts but their assets to the taxpayers. Not just Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac but the Federal Reserve itself should be made truly federal entities, as the voters have been led to believe and their names imply. Remove the myth that these Wall Street-controlled entities act by and for the people rather than being run for private gain, and we will soon see the outrage Mr. Grant says is curiously missing.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this article.

To become a Member of Global Research:

The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author’s copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor@yahoo.com, www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner.

We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

(For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com  © Copyright Ellen Brown, webofdebt.com, 2008. The url address of this article is:www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=9673  © Copyright 2005-2007 ­GlobalResearch.ca).

by Jorge Mariscal

Strolling across the convention center with her granddaughter, Dolores Huerta, who made history with César Chávez over 40 years ago, received an occasional greeting from those who recognized her. But most of the Latino and Latina 20- and 30-somethings hurried past her on their way to salsa lessons sponsored by Ford or free beer provided by Miller Lite.

Like the dozens of recently arrived immigrants and long-time permanent residents on their way to the free workshops on citizenship, they had no idea that they had just rubbed elbows with one of the major figures of U.S. labor and civil rights history.

If Barack Obama symbolizes “post-civil rights” politics, the Latino Expo at the National Council of La Raza (NCLR) conference held in San Diego this month was the embodiment of a post-Chicano Movement universe in which unions, mass mobilizations, and radical critique are relics of a long-gone era.

The NCLR Expo was a corporate-funded orgy of mainstream Hispanic identity and culture. Outside the convention center, misguided Minutemen and others angry about the immigration mess clung to the deluded belief that NCLR is a “leftist” or “separatist” organization. Inside the building, representatives of every branch of the military, the CIA, and the Department of Homeland Security belied the right-wing paranoia.

With virtually no remaining links to the Chicano and Puerto Rican militancy of the Vietnam War era that typified its founding fathers Hermán Gallegos, Ernesto Galarza, and Julián Samora, the NCLR today is the brainchild of former director Raúl Yzaguirre and the top-down corporate vision he imposed on the organization in the late 1970s. Part of that vision was for NCLR to work closely with the Pentagon in order to tailor its recruiting sales pitch to Latino youth.

On the floor of the convention center, those with the flashiest displays received the greatest attention. Dozens of Latino and Latina youth crowded around the U.S. Army pavilion where soldiers clad in fatigues printed out personalized dog tags in exchange for the young person’s personal contact information. Army personnel roamed the aisles of the Expo engaging young people in conversation.

Across from the Army display, Latino Marines in dress blues invited children from 8 to 18 to do pull-ups on two improvised bars. An attractive Latina Marine barked “Aguanta, aguanta” as she encouraged a young girl to do one more pull-up. A tall NCO handed out tiny Marine backpacks to eager middle-school children.

At the far end of the hall were the booths for those minimally funded volunteer organizations that quietly do their work day after day in real communities. Noticeably absent were displays devoted to education. Book vendors were nowhere to be found and only one or two colleges were represented.

An enterprising group of college students with a sense that the military was preying on its sisters and brothers gathered handfuls of brochures from a health organization dedicated to issues of spinal trauma. Positioning themselves near the Army and Marine displays, they distributed the brochure “Paralysis and Brain Injury in Active Duty Military” to each young person with a dog tag or a backpack. The students were quickly dispersed by convention center security.

Two young couples in formal wear danced stylized waltzes near the Wal-Mart display as the PA system announced more free beer at the Heineken booth. Recent arrivals mingled with careerist Hispanics three or four generations removed from the immigrant experience. Somewhere in the bowels of the convention center, actual community workshops were taking place. But the public face of the conference was all pan y circos (bread and circuses).

Not far from this carnival of 21st-century Hispanic consumer capitalism, presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain made their fi nal stop in the month-long tour of mainstream Hispanic advocacy organizations. By the time they arrived in San Diego, both had already visited the annual meetings of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Offi cials (NALEO) and the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC).

The notion that any of these groups represent the hopes and aspirations of the majority of working class Latinos is laughable although the lobbying clout of all three within the Washington, D.C. beltway is undeniable.

The Obama campaign’s outreach to the Latino grassroots has been sporadic at best.

Anxious appeals for Spanish-speaking volunteers from non-Latino field directors working in swing states like New Mexico and Nevada suggest that the campaign is still far from establishing an effective infrastructure.

Apparently, California is considered a sure win. The latest national polls show Obama capturing the Latino vote over McCain by almost 40 percentage points.

Many disappointed conferencegoers complained that whereas McCain spent several minutes after his speech responding to questions from the public (even handing his microphone over to local immigrant rights activist Enrique Morones), Obama left immediately and refused to dialogue with the audience. Instead, staffers in his campaign held a three-hour information session for selected NCLR members.

Many Latinos in California are beginning to feel frustrated and somewhat taken for granted. In San Diego, Latinos hoping to volunteer for Obama are hard-pressed to find an office or even a contact person.

Cuauhtémoc Figueroa, Obama’s national director for Latino outreach, promises to ramp up efforts very soon. But the danger for the Obama camp is that because of its lingering neglect of key regions Latino support could soften and turnout in November might decline.

Although the mainstream media has yet to grasp the fact, the so-called Hispanic vote is as fractured a conglomeration of interests and values as the nation itself.

The NCLR convention reflected the most powerful segment of the Latino community, one that is at home in a world controlled by the corporations and their handmaiden the co-opted two-party system. But unless that system is challenged from below nothing will change for the majority of Latinos no matter who the system’s latest charismatic front man might be.

Obama’s vote for the border wall, his recent lurch to the right on several issues, and the fact that in his NCLR speech he neglected to mention the occupation of Iraq, the targeting of Latino youth by military and Border Patrol recruiters, or the prison system that is devouring black and brown children probably will not affect his huge lead with the Latino electorate.

The question for progressive Latinos (some of whom still call themselves Chicana, Chicano or Boricua) continues to be how best to pressure Obama and the Democrats from outside the seductive corporate vision promoted at the NCLR’s annual conference. Hispanic Link.

(Jorge Mariscal is a professor of history and literature at the University of California, San Diego. Contact him at gmariscal@ucsd.edu). ©2008­