Warning Letter to Russia and Grozneft chairman Andrey Gusak 11/13/2016

Warning Letter to Russia and Grozneft (oil and gas) chairman Andrey Gusak  11/13/2016

ONE (1) ATTACHMENT as PDF file:  who_owns_the_federal_reserve_w_charts_lawfulpath-com

The article titled “Canadian oil company to invest $50bn in Russian projects” (on www.RT.com; Published time: 11 Nov, 2016 14:11; Source: https://www.rt.com/business/366512-genoil-billions-refinery-projects-russia/ ) is probably one of the most important articles ever published on RT.com. However, its importance was addressed only indirectly by Valery Nesterov, analyst to Sberbank CIB, “Genoil [of Canada] is an unknown company, while the sum is huge. Moreover, it may be equitable to the annual capital cost of the whole Russia’s fuel and energy sector,”.

Mr. Nesterov’s statement should be viewed as a overly subtle, but  severe warning: Do NOT allow any western companies or individuals, either directly or indirectly, to invest in ANY Russian companies! Once a U.S. company (or any company within a country allied with the U.S., Britain or any western nation) gains a foothold in Russia, the western bankers are certain to follow. And once the banks gain control, that nation will lose its sovereignty and its people will lose their wealth and freedom.

I am an American who left the U.S. permanently in 2010 and retired to Ukraine and Crimea. There is an ancient adage known to all Americans, in reference to the destruction of ancient Troy: “Beware of Greeks bearing gifts!” Of course, this saying applies to all agreements and contracts which appear overly-generous and/or seem “too good to be true”.

On October 19, 1781, British General Charles Lord Cornwallis formally surrendered to French and American forces at Yorktown, Virginia, bringing the American Revolution to a close. As the peace negotiations began in 1782, culminating in the Treaty of Paris September 3, 1783, Lord Cornwallis was asked by a friend in America how he felt about Britain losing the war. Cornwallis wrote a brief reply stating (I paraphrase), “Britain may have lost the war with the American colonies, but in 100 years or less Britain will conquer America through its monetary policy.”

General Lord Cornwallis was correct. The “First Bank of the United States” was a privately-owned central bank, chartered for a term of twenty years on February 25, 1791. Foreigners were explicitly allowed in its charter to become stockholders in this private bank – and the British banks took full advantage. Its charter was not renewed in 2011 – losing by only one vote in the U.S. Senate (by the Vice-President, who may vote only if a vote is tied). But the British were not deterred. In 1816 the Second Bank of the United States was chartered in 1816 again as a privately-owned central bank. By 1823 Nicholas Biddle, funded by British bankers, took control of the bank. – and apparently most members of Congress who passed a charter renewal bill. President Andrew Jackson vetoed the bill, so the Second Bank of the United States expired in 1836. Although several more attempts were made to create a privately-owned central U.S. bank during the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, the U.S. would be without an official central bank until 1913 when the Federal Reserve System was formed.

Despite it name, the Federal Reserve is a privately-owned central bank, (composed of 12 regional Federal Reserve banks) whose charter with no expiration date was secretly enacted into law on December 23, 1913 during the Christmas holiday recess by a few members of Congress who returned to Washington for this purpose. Most members of Congress were at home in their respective states and learned of the bills’ passage a few weeks later. The Federal Reserve Bank’s stockholders remain unknown (except for information leaks over the years in which some owners were revealed: primarily other banks, foreign and U.S.). It is NOT a part of the U.S. government and operates independently of government.

The effect of the money supply expansion by the Federal Reserve has been at least a 98 percent reduction of the “purchasing power” of the U.S. dollar from 1913 until 2016.


Source: http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation/Cumulative_Inflation_by_Decade.asp

The massive reduction of “purchasing power” of the U.S. dollar, in more concrete terms: something for which you paid $100 USD in 1913 would cost you $2,438.67 USD in 2016 – which amounts to a cumulative inflation rate of 2338.7%. You can do such calculations yourself for any range of years and amounts using the Source: http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/)   Note: the difference between USinflationCalculator.com cumulative inflation rate of 2338.7% and the graph’s cumulative rate of 2326.58% is that the graph stops at 2015.)

And where has the wealth created in America gone since the Federal Reserve was created in 1913. The graph below shows that from 1917 to 2012, the income growth of the top 1% of Earners (with reported incomes) has skyrocketed, while that of the bottom 90% of Earners has decreased. And the graph stops at 2012. And the disparities between 2012 and 2016 have increased greatly. Also, note the rate of income growth for each group BEFORE and AFTER President Nixon took the U.S. dollar off the gold standard in 1971. Before 1971 the growth rate of the bottom 90% of Earners’ income rose at rapid and steady rate, as opposed to the top 1%. Since 1971 and especially since the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act’s repeal in 1999 and later its replacement by the Dodd-Frank Act, the rate of earnings of the top 1% has skyrocketed – greatly resembling that of the bottom 90% BEFORE the gold standard was repealed in 1971.


One has only to study the history of the U.S., Britain, most European Union nations and the developing countries: where the wealth goes to the top 1% while the vast majority of the people become mere “serfs” in a feudal system.

The lesson here is a dire warning. Once any western company or individuals ( from the U.S., Britain or any western nation or ally), either directly or indirectly, invest in ANY Russian companies or are allowed to create a new company in Russia gains a foothold in Russia, the western bankers are will most certainly follow. And once the banks gain any degree of influence, Russia will lose its sovereignty and its people will lose their wealth and freedom.



%d bloggers like this: