TRAITOR ALERT! Barney Frank Trying to EXPAND FEDERAL RESERVE POWERS

[Revolt426]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/25/AR2009012501686.html

Federal Reserve May Take On Greater Oversight Role
House Proposal Would Put Agency in Charge of Protecting Stability of System

By Neil Irwin and Binyamin Appelbaum
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, January 25, 2009; 6:47 PM

Congress is moving to create strong new oversight of the financial sector that would likely give the Federal Reserve authority to examine the workings of a wide range of companies in an attempt to address one of the key failures that led to the financial crisis.

But the initiative, which could be finalized in the House by spring, is raising concerns about whether it would muddy the Fed's traditional mission and concentrate too much power in a single federal body.

The legislation envisioned by House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) would put the Fed, or less likely another government agency, in charge of protecting the stability of the entire system, Frank and other congressional sources said.

An abundance of federal agencies regulate the financial industry. But no agency is responsible for understanding or containing risks affecting the financial system as a whole. In fact, none even has a complete picture of the financial markets.

The danger was highlighted by the meltdown last year of insurance giant American International Group. In the days before the government was forced to bail out the firm, no federal official comprehended the magnitude of the threat the company's troubles posed to the economy.

Under Frank's legislation, the new regulator would likely be given the power to gather information about the inner workings of banks, investment firms, insurance companies, hedge funds and any other entity big enough or so intertwined with other companies that it creates the risk of a systemic collapse. These companies would have to provide detailed information about how they manage risk, their derivative contracts and the extent to which they use borrowed money.
"We need to give some regulator the power to restrain risk-taking that is excessive," Frank said. He said he intends to move quickly, explaining that the Obama administration is eager to be able to show the Group of 20 finance ministers progress on financial regulation at a meeting in early April.

President Obama, during his campaign, spoke approvingly of overhauling financial oversight. Though he has not specifically endorsed the idea of making the Fed a financial system regulator, his administration has sent clear signals to Congress that they should proceed on that path. The idea was first widely discussed last spring as part of a blueprint for regulatory reform issued by then-Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr.

"Someone needs to have all of the information," said Scott Talbott of the Financial Services Roundtable, an industry group that represents 100 of the largest financial companies and that supports the plan.

Many elected officials, financial experts, industry groups and consumer advocates agree there is a need for a "systemic risk" regulator that would watch for threats to the health of the financial system and that there is no clear alternative to empowering the Fed. But there is also widespread concern that the new responsibility could stretch the agency too thin and conflict with the Fed's basic responsibility for managing the nation's money supply.

The Fed was created by Congress nearly a century ago as an independent entity, insulated from political pressure, so it could take the unpopular step of slowing the economy to combat inflation. But as a regulator, the Fed operates more like an ordinary government agency, with extensive review and oversight by congressional authorities.

Government and private-sector officials worry that by taking on more regulatory responsibilities, the Fed could expose itself to more second-guessing by political officials.

[Revolt426]

PAGE 2:

We don't want to wake up five to 10 years from now and find we have very much undermined the Fed's independence in setting monetary policy," said Ed Yingling, chief executive of the American Bankers Association.

At the same time, some financial experts warn that the expanded responsibilities could bias the Fed in favor of large financial companies, because these are the firms that could endanger the financial system by virtue of size and reach of their business activities. The Fed is charged with enforcing various consumer protection laws -- such as the Truth in Lending Act, which specifies the disclosures that lenders are required to make -- and critics say the agency is ignoring this job. In the past, Frank and Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, have threatened to remove the Fed's consumer protection powers.

Moreover, there is concern that too much regulatory power would be concentrated in the hands of a single agency. The Fed supervises bank holding companies, a category that in recent months has come to include not just every major bank, but also the likes of Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, American Express and auto finance company GMAC. The Fed is also lending hundreds of billions of dollars to entities of all types to try to combat the financial crisis.

To limit the Fed's power, some experts suggest that it should focus exclusively on safeguarding the overall financial system, ending its role as a regulator of individual firms. The Fed is responsible for overseeing the safety and soundness of about 860 banks.

Steven Davidoff, a law professor at the University of Connecticut, says banking regulation should be moved to an agency that "can be monitored by Congress and is more responsive to public requirements."

"The Fed collaborates more closely with the financial industry, and because of that it may be too close to the financial industry and so you may want some distance," Davidoff said. "Also, how powerful do you want the Fed to be? It shouldn't have complete power" over banks.

The basic idea is simple. The systemic risk regulator would be a "free safety" or a "super-cop" defending the financial system. The agency would have the power to demand information from any company -- banks, investment firms, insurance companies and hedge funds among them.

Less clear is how the new entity would interact with the existing regulators watching over particular companies. Frank acknowledged that he does not have answers for some of the most difficult concerns.

For instance, if the new regulator viewed a company as posing risks to the overall financial system, how much power would the agency have to order changes? Could it compel a hedge fund -- a lightly regulated pool of private capital invested for wealthy individuals and institutions -- to use a lower ratio of borrowed money?

Hedge funds have strongly resisted regulation, although the Managed Funds Association, which represents them, said last week that it is open to discussion of a new financial system having a role dealing with them, but not supporting or opposing the idea outright pending more details.

And could the new regulator usurp the decisions of other regulators, such as the primary regulator of banks and investment firms, or the state insurance regulators who oversee most divisions of large insurance companies, though generally not their parent companies?

By deeming firms vital to the health of the financial system, would the regulator actually embolden them to take greater risks? "The problem is that once you brand somebody systemically important, you're telling the world that you have to rescue them if they fail," said Hal S. Scott, a Harvard Law professor and director of the Committee on Capital Markets Regulation, a group of academics and finance industry leaders. "It puts a 'too big to fail' stamp on their forehead."

John Dearie, executive vice president at the Financial Services Forum and a former Fed employee, said there is a "compelling logic" to empowering the Fed. "It has unique powers and tools that enable it to reach into the financials market and actually affect circumstances within the financial markets," he said. "It is the only institution that can really manage a systemic crisis."

Others remain unconvinced.

"There is agreement that we need a systemic regulator," said Rep. Spencer Bachus (Ala.), the ranking Republican on the Financial Services Committee. "Whether the Fed, which has committed trillions of taxpayer dollars in loans and guarantees, is the best choice for that role remains to be seen."

[Dig]

"Federal Reserve May Take On Greater Oversight Role
House Proposal Would Put Agency in Charge of Protecting Stability of System"

WTF?

In related news, Barney Frank is putting Foley in charge of Protecting Kids from Child Molestors.  No wait, he already did years ago.

Why is Barney Frank not in jail?

[Revolt426]

He is doing what he is told,  hence he is not in jail for pedophilia and treason

[EchelonMonitor]

"When the Central Bank are satisfied there are enough people with debt out there, the bank will tighten the supply of money by not offering loans.

Stage three is waiting for the people in debt to them to go bankrupt, allowing the bank to then seize from them real wealth, businesses and property etc, for pennies on the pound. Inflation never affects a central bank, in fact they are the only group who can benefit from it, as if they are ever short of money they can simply print more."

[chris jones]

The FED. is illegal as far as I'm concerned. JFK knew it along with the fact the Nam war was turing into a cashcow for the MIC and their playmates.

Yes, he's dead, so are Oswald and Ruby.

Barney sold out, the power have him within their grasp, thats it, be certain they have taped his episodes of sexual encounters and have let him go forward, their display of a brotherhood of perverts.
To say they have given him a green light, "Hey Barney your one of the crew now, do what you like, your on our side, don't worry, you above the law of the peons, we protect our own". same O same O, -FTG......

[Revolt426]

The FED. is illegal as far as I'm concerned. JFK knew it along with the fact the Nam war was turing into a cashcow for the MIC and their playmates.

Yes, he's dead, so are Oswald and Ruby.

Barney sold out, the power have him within their grasp, thats it, be certain they have taped his episodes of sexual encounters and have let him go forward, their display of a brotherhood of perverts.
To say they have given him a green light, "Hey Barney your one of the crew now, do what you like, your on our side, don't worry, you above the law of the peons, we protect our own". same O same O, -FTG......

Of course! they are hanging an elephant over his head and he is committing treason for them.

[pipeliner]

does any one else find him hard to take seriously. I just want him to look into the camera and say "wascally wabbit" once. Just once. Elmer Fudd has the keys to our safe. Scary.

[TahoeBlue]

How does Frank get re-elected???  Oh that's right, the elections are rigged...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/tours/scandal/gobie2.htm

TV Movie Led to Prostitute's Disclosures
'Mayflower Madam' Gave Gobie Idea
By Bill Dedman
Washington Post Staff Writer
August 27, 1989
Prostitute and pimp Stephen L. Gobie settled in with his "girls" in his Georgetown town house one evening in late 1987 to watch "The Mayflower Madam" on television. As Candice Bergen portrayed upscale madam Sydney Biddle Barrows, Gobie's companions had an idea.

"The girls turned to me and said, 'You're just like her,' " Gobie recalled in an interview yesterday. "That's when I realized that I was in the middle of a developing story that could be worth something someday. I told them, 'One day, don't be surprised if you see me on TV.' "

Gobie's dream has come true. His accusation that Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) knew that Gobie had operated a prostitution service out of Frank's Capitol Hill apartment became national news after it was first reported Friday by the Washington Times.

Frank, one of two openly gay members of Congress, confirmed Friday that he paid Gobie for sex, hired him with personal funds as an aide and wrote letters on congressional stationery on his behalf to Virginia probation officials, but Frank said he fired Gobie when he learned that clients were visiting the apartment. ...

Although Frank and Gobie differ in some details of their relationship, they agree on the story line. They met on April Fool's Day 1985. The representative answered a classified ad in the Washington Blade, the local gay weekly. "Exceptionally good-looking, personable, muscular athlete is available. Hot bottom plus large endowment equals a good time."

Then in his third term, the 45-year-old representative had not yet stated his homosexuality publicly. He paid Gobie $80 in cash for sex.

Gobie, then 28, was one of many young men "freelancing" in male prostitution. Gobie said he was born in Boston and grew up in a military family. He has felony convictions for possession of cocaine, oral sodomy and production of obscene items involving a juvenile.

Gobie and Frank say they became more friends than sexual partners. Gobie says he attended a bill-signing at the White House, and helped coach and played left field for Frank's team in the Congressional Softball League. "I was the star player," Gobie said.
Frank began to help Gobie financially, paying his attorney and court-ordered psychiatrist. The House member also said he hired Gobie as a personal aide, housekeeper and driver, but Gobie said that was a "cover story" concocted for probation officers.

In late 1985, Gobie says, he began to use Frank's apartment and two other locations for prostitution. Frank knew about the prostitution all along, but it was never explicitly discussed, Gobie says.

"He knew exactly what I was doing," Gobie said. "It was pretty obvious. If he had to come home early {from work}, he would call home to be sure the coast was clear . . . . He was living vicariously through me. He said it was kind of a thrill, and if he had been 20 years younger he might be doing the same thing."

Frank denies that he knew, saying he learned from his landlord and kicked Gobie out in August 1987. Gobie supports this part of Frank's story.

Gobie said his disclosures are only beginning. "I think I'll just slap a book together. Sydney Biddle Barrows made in excess of a million. I thought 'Capitol Offenses' would be a nice title."

[TahoeBlue]

Nothing to do with the Fed but an example of Franks bad judgement...

Also more importantly, who is Barnie working for ?? He's just doing what he's been told.

Who votes for this turd? Why isn't he in jail or deported or...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1648459/posts

Barney Frank has Blame in 9/11

A recent “Freedom of Information” request has revealed that nearly 10,000 documents still exist that the 9/11 Commission were told were destroyed, and this may not fare very well for Barney Frank. According to Scott Malone of NavySeals.com and Christopher Law from the Public Education Center, these documents show that the CIA knew that several of the hijackers on 9/11 who were in the country were associated with Al-Qaeda. But authorities were powerless to deport them because of an amendment to an immigration law that Frank had authored.
....
To: francke
The Frank amendment, ---, put the burden of proof on the government to show that the individuals in question had previously engaged in terrorist activity.

After 9/11, when the problem of his amendment became obvious, Barney Frank still opposed denying visas to individuals even though they had been associated with terrorist organizations.

The Patriot Act restored the Federal government’s ability to bar or deport those who were affiliated with known terror groups. Frank however opposed the change that kept those sympathetic to terrorists out of the U.S. Regarding this, he wrote: "the mere espousal or endorsement, of terrorist activity casts far too wide a net of exclusion.”

What kind of net of INCLUSION do we need to cast Barney? Do we need more and more people in this country? Do we need more people who are known to be hostile to this country in this country?

Why do you want them here Barney?

Another ignorant, dangerous fool.

http://www.newswithviews.com/Blumenfeld/Samuel23.htm
HOW BARNEY FRANK HELPED THE 9/11 HIJACKERS
By Samuel Blumenfeld
September 22, 2004
NewsWithViews.com


I have just finished reading the 500-page 9/11 Commission Report, and what becomes quite apparent is that the weakest link in our antiterrorism defense system prior to 9/11 was the Immigration and Naturalization Service. It was so weak that it became a revolving door for al Qaeda sleeper terrorists who were issued visas that permitted them to come and go as they pleased. And the one man responsible for creating this revolving door was Congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts, whose 1989 Frank Amendment to INS procedures paved the way for the 19 hijackers to freely enter this country, take flying lessons, and quietly prepare for their deadly attack with no notice from our intelligence agencies.
...

Congressman Barney Frank, the Massachusetts Democrat who was a strong advocate of protecting civil liberties, led a successful effort to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act so that membership in a terrorist group was no longer sufficient to deny a visa. Under Frank's amendment, which seems unthinkable post-9/11, a visa could only be denied if the government could prove that the applicant had committed an act of terrorism. Rendered toothless by the Frank amendment, the Reagan administration had virtually no way to block entry visas even when there was information linking the individuals to terrorist groups.

...

Thanks to Barney Frank, there was no way that the U.S. government could keep these sleeper members of al Qaeda out. Nor could they be tracked after arrival. They came with a lot of money, rented cars and apartments, took flying lessons, worked out at gyms, and took transcontinental flights to familiarize themselves with the interiors of the planes they would be hijacking and the routines of the pilots and cabin attendants.

[Revolt426]

Well, they essentially go up to him and say "if you do not do what we ask, we put you in jail for pedophilia".. and they control the media and police so that is an easy thing for them to do...

Bush Sr. Setup Lyndon LaRouche and put him in jail on false "Tax Evasion" Charges to shut him up in the late 80's. This is what they do, and as i said, they have an ELEPHANT of a story to hang over Frank.. So he is now a traitor.. and actually now WORSE then Pelosi.. HARD to believe...

[TahoeBlue]

Needless to say my blood pressure goes up just typing the A-Holes name....

http://mpinkeyes.wordpress.com/2008/09/17/barney-frank-and-chuck-schumers-role-the-fannie-mae-failure/


Barney Frank and Chuck Schumer’s Role in the Fannie Mae Failure

Below is an editorial that appeared in the New Hampshire Union Leader that talks about Barney Frank and Chuck Schumer and their roles in the failure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

 Here is the editorial in it’s entirely:

One month from tomorrow, U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., will be the keynote speaker at the New Hampshire Democratic Party’s annual Jefferson-Jackson dinner. It is a coveted and high-profile role previously filled by such notables as Hillary Clinton and Al Gore. The Democrats’ choice of House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank is, therefore, very revealing.

The party announced Frank as the keynote speaker on Sept. 11 — three days after the U.S. government took control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, costing taxpayers untold billions. That takeover probably could have been prevented had Frank not worked to thwart every attempt to limit the risks taken on by the two government-sponsored mortgage giants.

For 16 years reformers in Congress have tried to improve oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and prevent the government-chartered companies from putting the housing market and the whole economy at risk. All that time, Frank was involved in efforts to block those attempts, and in the last eight years he was a leader of those efforts.

In 2002, shortly before accounting irregularities were exposed at both companies, Frank said, “I do not regard Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as problems,” The Wall Street Journal reported. After the Freddie Mac accounting scandal in 2003, Frank said, “I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis.”

But there was a crisis, thanks in large part to Frank, Sen. Charles Schumer and others on the leash of these companies. In Congress, they made sure there was no additional oversight, no additional limit on executive behavior and compensation, and no further restraint on the growth of the companies’ mortgage-backed-securities portfolios, among other changes.

(All of these needed reforms, by the way, have been championed for years by Sen. John Sununu.)

In fact, Frank & Co. made matters worse by pushing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to take on greater risk. They wanted more loans to people who might not qualify for traditional bank financing. And, as The Wall Street Journal has pointed out, Frank “pressured regulators to ease up on their capital requirements — which now means taxpayers will have to make up that capital shortfall.”

Even now, after the government took the companies over (which Frank repeatedly said over the years was not a possibility), Frank opposes limits on the amount of money they can risk on mortgage backed securities — the one reform that might have done the most to prevent the current meltdown and probably would do the most to keep it from happening again.

Barney Frank is the very symbol of Washington’s deliberate refusal to prevent the collapse — the predicted collapse — of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And this is the guy the New Hampshire Democratic Party showcases at its most prestigious annual event. That ought to tell you a lot right there.

 Besides their total ignorance about the troubles that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were headed towards is the fact that these two men, and other Democrats, helped to make the problem worse.

In fact, Frank & Co. made matters worse by pushing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to take on greater risk. They wanted more loans to people who might not qualify for traditional bank financing. And, as The Wall Street Journal has pointed out, Frank “pressured regulators to ease up on their capital requirements

These companies were forced to loan money to people who couldn’t afford it in the interest of “being fair.” Rules were relaxed and money was loaned and predictably low income families defaulted on loans that they never had any business getting in the first place and now you and I have to pay for it.

 Another liberal policy and another liberal failure. And now we must all pay for it. But hell, they meant well.

[TahoeBlue]

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/2171953/posts?page=5

Bank Bailout Boosts Barney's Boston Buddies

By Sammy Benoit

Barney Frank is the "Teflon Congressman. He was a leading OPPONENT of regulating of Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac (see video below) and was able to transfer the entire blame on President Bush. He never had to answer why he fought so hard to squash regulation, was it the tons of campaign cash Frank got from Freddie and Fannie OR the fact that Frank's former lover was the former director of housing initiatives for Fannie Mae.

The July 3, 1998, Reliable Source column in The Washington Post reported Frank, who is openly gay, had a relationship with Herb Moses, an executive for the now-government controlled Fannie Mae. The column revealed the two had split up at the time but also said Frank was referring to Moses as his “spouse.” Another Washington Post report said Frank called Moses his “lover” and that the two were “still friends” after the breakup.

Of course no one calls Barney on it even though, according to his words they should:

Frank has argued that family life “should be fair game for campaign discussion,” wrote the Associated Press on Sept. 2. The comment was in reference to GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin and her pregnant daughter. “They’re the ones that made an issue of her family,” the Massachusetts Democrat said to the AP.

Well Barney you made an Issue of it too, shouldn't we be finding out if you got your direction from Moses (and I am not talking about the Ten Commandments)

Frank aggressively fought reform efforts by the Bush administration. He told The New York Times on Sept. 11, 2003, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s problems were “exaggerated,” ok so maybe he was a bit off, since the twin headed Fannie/Freddie has sacked the American Public with costs estimated to be in the hundreds of billions


“These two entities – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” Frank Opined to the Times. “The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

The 10/8/03 Washington Post reported that Frank opposed giving the Bush administration the approval rights over banking business activities that “could pose risk to the taxpayers.” He worried the Treasury Department “would sacrifice activities that are good for consumers in the name of lowering the companies’ market risks.”

Frank Got away with ALL of that. No wonder why he acts as if nothing can touch him, or that anyone who disagrees with him is biased, stupid or just wrong.

Now the Powerful Chairman of the House Banking Committee is at it again. As part of the release of the Banking Bailout Dollars, he directed funds to a local Massachusetts bank CITED BY REGULATORS FOR THEIR EXCESSES (they bought the CEO a Porsche). Even worse the Bank has been cited for UNSOUND Business Practices:


Frank, head of the powerful House Financial Services Committee, acknowledged that last fall he inserted into the government’s $700 billion Troubled Assets Relief Program bill specific language to help OneUnited, New England’s only black-owned bank. He also said he contacted someone at the Treasury Department about OneUnited’s application for emergency TARP funds, though he insisted he never asked Treasury to bend any rules on behalf of OneUnited.

“I believe it would have been a very big mistake to put the only black bank out of business,” Frank said in an interview.

OneUnited was financially reeling from the federal government’s takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, both of which had their shares wiped out by the government action. OneUnited owned substantial shares in the two mortgage giants, Frank said....

..But OneUnited was also facing regulatory scrutiny last fall from other government agencies, which later slapped a cease-and-desist order on OneUnited due to “unsafe and unsound banking practices.”

Regulators also complained of “excessive” executive pay at OneUnited - including a Porsche for use by CEO Kevin Cohee....

Barney Keller, a spokesman for the Massachusetts Republican Party, said he wasn’t surprised by Frank’s action.

“Rep. Frank’s motives on the committee have always been politics first, people second, which is exactly how we got ourselves into this mess in the first place,” Keller said. “I hope he at least gets to test-drive the Porsche.” Source:Barney Frank helped controversial black-owned bank gain money

Barney, taking care of friends is a noble gesture, BUT DO IT WITH YOUR OWN MONEY!!

Being a leading player in the collapse of our banking system has not hurt Frank, neither has his apparent conflict of interests, I doubt very much whether this will hurt him either. And that is a shame, because the man is a menace to the US economy.

http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2009/01/barney-frank-flips-out-during-interview_8329.html


Sammy Benoit is editor of the Award Winning Blog, Yidiwthlid

[Revolt426]

It's not a liberal policy. That is the left right paradigm kicking you in the ass....

Its a Criminal Policy... If you want a Liberal Policy we would have A National Bank Monetizing Federal Credit and spending it into infrastructure...... A Federalist Policy.... Liberal policy has been skewed over the past 4 decades.

As has Conservative, the Republicans think that Tax cuts will fix the economy, the Democrats think Huge GOV Spending will - Both are trapped in the Federal Reserve system of Monetizing DEBT and loaning it to the GOV for investment.

A real Liberal or Federal Policy is: A Hamiltonian National Bank would monetize credit, As appropriated by Congress and Authorized by the Treasury ONLY, and spend it in to the economy via high tech infrastructure projects to benefit the country. This would not be a Private Central Bank in which the bank prints money and loans it to commercial super banks and hopes it hits the economy the correct way, it is a direct way of insuring good developement. The National Bank would be used as a Firewall between the Treasury Department and the Private Sector so no nefarious activities were conducted.

A real Conservative Policy: The Treasury will print money and loan it to banks, and allow the Banks to make these decisions (not always a good idea considering who RUNS these banks). And would allow the "Private Sector" to develope infrastructure ( I disagree with this)

Either way, the FED system does not fit in either. It is a banker written oddity that few have spoken out against since the days of Barry Goldwater. Liberalism and Conservatism have been minced to pieces over the last 40 years sadly

[TahoeBlue]

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/2171953/posts?page=5
Bank Bailout Boosts Barney's Boston Buddies

TheGuyFromBoston on US Congress

He knows what I'm talkin' about...

[Revolt426]

TheGuyFromBoston on US Congress

He knows what I'm talkin' about...

Boston buddies? lol.... Are they pedophiles as well? perhaps customers at his Ex- Brothel.

[chris jones]

Barney let in the patsys, the dupes. Part of the grand senario, the masters chess pieces, the pawns, the expendables, (along with about 4000 innocents).

There must be sacrifical lambs or blame can be placed. Look at Oswald, did he shoot JFK, OK, if you beleive it, then why did Ruby, a 2Bit hood wack him out.
Truth killed, ok, then Ruby died after a complete physical and certified health.

The controllers of this were were heavy duty.
I mention this as the blame for 911 was placed on BinLaden and his crew, why , they were allowed in country ,- went through the hoops they were told to, supported by the CIA,covered by the FBI.

This gave free reign and controll to our Mr. Bushburger to create monsters for us to attack, the fear was palable, they succedded in their goal, and they continue to.

Barney did his part, he is a traitor, (however not to the NWO his protector and benefactor), to the peons who no longer have a voice. We are shut out, thats it.

To imagine for one minute this is the America we learned of as chidren, is on equal with insisting the world is flat.

They , the conglomerate elites , are in control.

[Revolt426]

Frank is the second largest traitor in the US next to Nancy Pelosi (as far as representitives go). He has a pedophilia ring hung above his fat head and will do anything to avoid jail. Every single economic package or bill passed in 08 was orchestrated by Barney Frank.