One thing that the Rothschild dynasty has done quite well, is hide its control over and involvement in the United States. First came the nation's financial affairs:
"J.P. Morgan had been appointed head representative of the Rothschild interests in the United States. As the result of the London Conference, J.P. Morgan and Company of New York, Drexel and Company of Philadelphia, Grenfell and Company of London, and Morgan Harjes Cie of Paris, M.M. Warburg Company of Germany and America, and the House of Rothschild were all affiliated."
Apparently unaware of the Peabody connection with the Rothschilds and the fact that the Morgans had always been affiliated with the House of Rothschild, Carr supposed that he had uncovered this relationship as of 1899, when in fact it went back to 1835.*
Then its political affairs:
After World War I, the Round Table became known as the Council on Foreign Relations in the United States, and the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London. The leading government officials of both England and the United States were chosen from its members. In the 1960s, as growing attention centered on the surreptitious governmental activities of the Council on Foreign Relations, subsidiary groups, known as the Trilateral Commission and the Bilderbergers, representing the identical financial interests, began operations, with the more important officials, such as Robert Roosa, being members of all three groups." (Source)
While we have already established that the House of Rothschild was behind the establishment of the Federal Reserve Bank, it is also important to note that the Rothschilds/Bank Of England, have hidden this ownership through JP Morgan, Lehman Brothers, Kuhn-Loeb and other so-called American institutions that were funded and created by the House of Rothschild through the Bank of New York, which is owned by the Bank of England.(Source)
Interestingly enough, JP Morgan received 25 billion dollars in TARP funds during the taxpayer funded bailout. Claims of paying the money back may be obfuscated by the fact that the Federal Reserve, which is owned in part by JP Morgan, possibly lent them the money to pay back the government. It is further obfuscated by the fact that the SEC has now closed its books, and is unwilling to honor any Freedom of Information Act requests from myself or any other investigative journalists.
We will devote more time to these incestuous relationships in future articles. For now, we will focus on JP Morgan:
"JP Morgan Chase, in its current structure, is the result of the combination of several large U.S. banking companies over the last decade including Chase Manhattan Bank, J.P. Morgan & Co., Bank One, Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual. Going back further, its predecessors include major banking firms among which are Chemical Bank, Manufacturers Hanover, First Chicago Bank, National Bank of Detroit, Texas Commerce Bank, Providian Financial and Great Western Bank." (Source)
Even more interesting is JP Morgan-Chase activities in Investment Banking:
Enron: "Chase paid out over $2 billion in fines and legal settlements for their role in financing Enron Corporation, which collapsed amid a financial scandal in 2001. In 2003, Chase paid $160 million in fines and penalties to settle claims by the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Manhattan district attorney’s office. In 2005, Chase paid $2.2 billion to settle a lawsuit filed by investors in Enron." (Ibid)
WorldCom: "J.P. Morgan Chase, which helped underwrite $15.4 billion of WorldCom's bonds, agreed in March 2005 to pay $2 billion; that was 46 percent, or $630 million, more than it would have paid had it accepted an investor offer in May 2004 of $1.37 billion. J.P. Morgan was the last big lender to settle. Its payment is the second largest in the case, exceeded only by the $2.6 billion accord reached in 2004 by Citigroup. In March 2005, 16 of WorldCom's 17 former underwriters reached settlements with the investors." (ibid)
An Investment Bank is the "underwriter" or link between a company and the financial markets. Investment Banks help companies raise capital through stock and bond offerings. In theory they have a responsibility to investors to make sure that they are not buying worthless paper. The failure to do so can and does lead to fines, lawsuits, and charges of fraud.
Even more intriguing is JP Morgan Chase's role in the derivatives market and Hedge Funds.
Jefferson County, Alabama: In November 2009, J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. agreed to a $722 million settlement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to end a probe into sales of derivatives that helped push Alabama’s most populous county to the brink of bankruptcy. The settlement came a week after Birmingham, Alabama Mayor Larry Langford was convicted on 60 counts of bribery, money laundering, and tax evasion related to bond swaps for Jefferson County, Alabama. The SEC alleged that J.P. Morgan, which had been chosen by the county commissioners to underwrite the floating-rate sewer bond deals and provide interest-rate swaps, had made undisclosed payments to close friends of the commissioners in exchange for the deal. J.P. Morgan then allegedly made up for the costs by charging higher interest rates on the swaps. (ibid)
And its leveraged buy-out of Bear Stearns:
"The “rescuer” was not actually JPMorgan but was the Federal Reserve, the “bankers’ bank” set up by J. Pierpont Morgan to backstop bank runs; and the party “rescued” was not Bear Stearns, which wound up being eaten alive. The Federal Reserve (or “Fed”) lent $25 billion to Bear Stearns and another $30 billion to JPMorgan, a total of $55 billion that all found its way into JPMorgan’s coffers. It was a very good deal for JPMorgan and a very bad deal for Bear’s shareholders, who saw their stock drop from a high of $156 to a low of $2 a share. Thirty percent of the company’s stock was held by the employees, and another big chunk was held by the pension funds of teachers and other public servants. The share price was later raised to $10 a share in response to shareholder outrage and threats of lawsuits, but it was still a very “hostile” takeover, one in which the shareholders had no vote.
The deal was also a very bad one for U.S. taxpayers, who are on the hook for the loan. Although the Fed is privately owned, the money it lends is taxpayer money, and it is the taxpayers who are taking the risk that the loan won’t be repaid. The loan for the buyout was backed by Bear Stearns assets valued at $55 billion; and of this sum, $29 billion was non-recourse to JPMorgan, meaning that if the assets weren’t worth their stated valuation, the Fed could not go after JPMorgan for the balance. The Fed could at best get its money back with interest; and at worst, it could lose between $25 billion and $40 billion In other words, JPMorgan got the money ($55 billion) and the taxpayers got the risk (up to $40 billion), a ruse called the privatization of profit and socialization of risk. Why did the Fed not just make the $55 billion loan to Bear Stearns directly? The bank would have been saved, and the Fed and the taxpayers would have gotten a much better deal, since Bear Stearns could have been required to guaranty the full loan." (Source)