Wednesday, September 10, 2008


(Week 7 - Wednesday, Sept. 10)

Barrack Obama and John McCain (as well as Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney, and others) have now gained the nomination of their respective parties as their candidate for the office of President of the United States, but, I would suggest, this is not an entirely accurate description of the office they are aspiring to.

Yesterday's column traced out the reasons why the U.S. has effectively ceased to be a sovereign economic nation, and has instead become a "business" in the portfolio of an extra-national financial order. It selected representatives (with the acquiescence of its people) have abdicated their power to create and issue the nation's own money to a private banking system, which then "loans" to the nation the money it needs to conduct its commerce, but on such terms that there is never enough in circulation to satisfy those "loans" without going further into "debt."

As an economic entity, the United States has allowed itself to become a "debtor" that can no longer pay its bills. Any economic enterprise that has no hope of financing its operations, except by borrowing ever greater amounts of money, is by definition in a state of bankruptcy. It can be truly stated, therefore, that whoever directs such an enterprise is not the chief executive officer of a viable organization, but rather the receiver in a bankruptcy re-organization.

It follows, then, that whoever gains the office of President of the United States will not be the executor of the democratic will of the nation, as outlined in the Constitution, but will serve instead as the elected receiver in the ongoing bankruptcy re-organization of "Enterprise U.S.A." (the American economy as a whole when seen as a "business," because it has given up its power to create its own money).

Admittedly, this is a startling assertion, but I think that it is justified. What is more, it has immense implications for all aspects of American life. If one starts with this observation as a point from which to reckon, one can begin to see why the problems of the nation are so intractable, and why money seems to control the government. A "debtor" is obliged to do what his "creditor" tells him to do, or he will not have the money he needs to survive. This applies to people, and nations.

This is a consideration that goes far deeper than who makes the campaign contributions, pays the lobbyists, or passes through the career revolving door between government and the corporate world. It is a foundational monetary problem built into the financial structure of the American nation itself.

I can imagine that the Presidential candidates have not thought of the position they are striving for in this way even for a moment, and yet given the economic realities of the situation, is it not an accurate description? One candidate will win the "Presidency," but it will be a hollow victory because the government he or she will head is without the essential prerogative of sovereignty; that is, the power to create and control the money of the nation. He or she will instead "win" the "office" of receiver for a national "business" that is in ongoing bankruptcy.

This is why, precisely, Nathan Mayer Rothschild, who gained control of the Bank of England, could boast, "I care not what puppet is placed upon the throne of England . . . The man that controls Britain's money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the British money supply." By the same principle, whoever controls America's money supply controls America.

Richard Kotlarz

The complete set of columns from this series is posted at the following websites: