Behind the Headlines
Two-Cents Worth
Video of the Week
News Blurbs

Short Takes

Plain Talk

The Ryter Report


Bible Questions

Internet Articles (2015)
Internet Articles (2014)
Internet Articles (2013)
Internet Articles (2012)

Internet Articles (2011)
Internet Articles (2010)
Internet Articles (2009)
Internet Articles (2008)
Internet Articles (2007)
Internet Articles (2006)
Internet Articles (2005)
Internet Articles (2004)

Internet Articles (2003)
Internet Articles (2002)
Internet Articles (2001)

From The Mailbag

Order Books





Openings at $75K to $500K+

Pinnaclemicro 3 Million Computer Products

Startlogic Windows Hosting

Adobe  Design Premium¨ CS5

Get Your FREE Coffeemaker Today!

Corel Store

Geithner tells media he favors the
creation of a global currency as a
means of protecting the United States
from financial collapse...then he says
he would renounce such a move.
On March 23, China and Russia urged the world community to create a new currency to replace the dollar as the world's standard. Chinese Central Bank Governor Zhou Xiaochuan floated the idea of an increased role of the International Monetary Fund creating a global monetary unit tied to all of the world's currencies in order to stabilize the exchange rates caused by the Fed flooding the world with dollars to stave off the collapse of the financial markets.

On Tuesday, the Wall Street Journal reported that US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said he was open to displacing the US dollar with an "international reserve currency." Within 10 minutes the dollar promptly fell 1.3% against the Euro. The WSJ and the Washington Times both reported that he later recanted his statement, saying that "...the dollar remains the world's dominant reserve currency. I think it's likely to continue for a long time." (Personal opinion: the fact that Geithner made the statement suggests that's what the money barons are talking it about very privately and weighing the options. Was Geithner used by the money barons to "feel out the sentiments of the nation," or was it an idiot gaffe? It's a sure bet that Geithner received a telephone call from either Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke or his boss, Resident Barack Obama, who perhaps reminded him that "global currency" is a "no-no phrase" to the American people who want to return to pre-1917 isolationism. The American people want to seal our borders, kill imports into the country and tell the barons of banking and industry and the merchant princes that "if you want to sell it here, you'd better make it here." And, if they aren't, all of us need to be.)

On Tuesday, when he and Bernanke were being grilled by Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann [R-MN], she asked both, specifically: "We've seen both China and Russia make calls for an international monetary conversion to an international monetary standard as soon as the G-20, and I'm wondering if you would categorically renounce the United States moving away from the dollar and going to a global currency as suggested this morning by China and also by Russia?" She directed the question first to Geithner, whom a day earlier said he would favor such a move. Geithner said he would categorically renounce such a move. What a difference a day makes. She then directed the same question at Bernanke, who looked like he was swallowing his shoe as he avoided looking directly at Bachmann when he said: "I would also." Isn't lying before Congress under oath a felony?

With the collapse of Bretton Woods during the Vietnam War, the global economy has resorted to floating exchange rates (which has been a boon to money hedge fund mogul George Soros who has earned over a billion dollars from America's weakened dollar.

The first calls for a unified currency came from Kazakhstan's President Nursultan Nazarbayev in February, blaming the dominance of the dollar for the global economic problems faced by all of the nations of the world. "The players," he said, "are forced to abide by rules imposed on them by others. They are set by a narrow circle and often violate the majority's interests. I believe a new global currency should serve as a foundation for a new harmonious system. The global currency market is not competitive. And, that means it's not civilized." (His words echoed a similar statement issued earlier that same day by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejah.)

And, while Russia agreed with Nazarbayev's sentiments in principle, Moscow did not appreciate the flea on the dog's tail wagging the dog. Moscow wants the rouble to become the world's national reserve currency. China, of course, wants it to be the renminbi, more commonly known as the yuan. And, of course, the Europeans want the world's currency to be the Euro.

As the European Union discovered during the last decade, no national currency can serve as a global currency because, first and foremost, a currency must satisfy its own nation's monetary policy goals. On top of that, it must also meets the demands of those countries using it as a reserve currency. That is virtually an impossible task since the monetary authority must address its own economic imbalances before being concerned about its neighbors. Generally speaking, what fixes my economy usually harms yours. And, since its become clear to the EU States that whomever controls your currency controls you, several EU States have announced they will pull out of the European Union and restore their own national currencies.

In a final note on the video (above). When Bachmann grilled Bernanke and Geithner about Geithner's control over money policy, she demanded to know by what Constitutional authority they were spending ten trillion dollars of the taxpayers' money to bolster the markets around the world. Bachmann said: "The American people are wondering if their government is making an historic shift, jettisoning the free market capitalism in favor of centralized government economic planning." Geithner opened the door by stating he was merely using authority Congress gave the Executive Branch to protect the American economy from these kind of things. Bachmann responded by asking Geithner "...what provisions in the Constitution could you point to that gives authority for the actions that have been taken by the Treasury since March of oh-eight?" Both Geithner and Bernanke insisted they received their expanded authority from the Economic Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 which, he said, gave the Treasury a whole new range of authority to act. Geithner, and then Bernanke continued to recite the mantra that Congress gave them the authority as though Bachmann didn't understand her own question. The problem is, neither Geithner nor Bernanke understood the reason the question was proffered.

Constitutionally, control over the money supply belongs to the people of the United States through the House of Representatives. (Which is why Congressmen serve for only two years.) When Congress sticks their hands in the pockets of the American people, the American people have the right—and an essential need—to fire them. Political affiliations notwithstanding. The people don't seem to get it, either. Political parties don't serve the people, they only serve the politicians and the bankers and industrialists who manipulate the strings of government.

Since the Emergency Baking Relief Act of 1933 was rammed through Congress in lightning speed on March 9, 1933 after four hours of debate—which were four hours of Republican screaming that they had never seen the legislation and knew absolutely nothing about it, as the Democratic majority (who did not need GOP votes to pass it) enacted a bill crafted by Franklin D. Roosevelt's brain trust that no one in either house had seen or read. By evening, a piece of legislation that reclassified the American people as enemies of its government was sent to the White House. Before Roosevelt went to bed that night, the Emergency Banking Relief Act became Public Law 1 of the Roosevelt Administration. The Roosevelt Express was determined to jettison the free enterprise system in favor of a fascist centralized government

The Obama Express, which knows the clock is ticking, recognizes it has until Jan. 7, 2011 to kill America's free enterprise democracy and convert into a socialist, centralized government with all power emanating from the Oval Office. That is what Roosevelt tried to do as well, but the American people caught on too quickly and even though the American people stupidly returned Roosevelt to power three times, they eliminated the Democratic super majority which prevented the socialist left from legislating the Constitution of the United States out of existence. A national leader without a "wrecking ball" House of Representatives and bulldozer Senate cannot destroy the nation in two yearseven though Adolph Hitler's Reichstag managed to destroy the Constitution of the Weimar Republic in Germany in 36 days. Well, once again, for whatever it's worth, you have my two cents on this matter.


Just Say No
Copyright 2009 Jon Christian Ryter. All rights reserved.