[Mercenary]

From 2018, new EU regulations will make it possible for you to give permission (probably when downloading a new phone app) for private companies (third party providers) to access all the information on across ALL your accounts, even if they are with seperate banks, credit cards and institutions. Worse still, if you give them power of attorney, they will be able to make transactions and financial decisions on your behalf, meaning they will have full control over your money.

For example, if you have a credit card with company x, a bank account with bank y, and a mortage with institution z and you give permission, a 3rd party provider (like google, amazon or apple) will be able to see all of that on one screen without contacting each place separately, then open or close accounts, move money, sign you up for new financial products or services that cost money, and generally royally fuck up your life while you sleep.


Here is an article about it in the Daily Mail from last October:

Quote:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/saving/...nking.html

By Sarah Davidson For Thisismoney.co.uk
Published: , 9 October 2017 |


What is open banking?

The UK Competition and Markets Authority is pushing through legislation to force UK banks and building societies to embrace open banking from 13 January 2018. This coincides with the European Payment Services Directive II (PSD2), another set of rules coming out of Brussels. Both are designed to force banks and building societies (and perhaps later insurance companies and investment houses) to provide better service by making it compulsory for them to open up their proprietary data and put it back in the hands of their customers. In theory, the rules should mean that over time we are able to open one app on our phones or log in to one platform online and see every financial account we have in one place. More than this, we should be able to transact within this app, purchasing from or switching between different providers.


Open Banking rules mean banks can share YOUR data:
Here's how to OPT OUT and keep your money safe online

Open Banking will see big banks provide access to customer data
The aim is to help and encourage start-ups to offer new financial services
These new apps could help you manage money and switch bills easily
But many customers are concerned about Open Banking and their data

In a little over three months' time, banks and building societies will start to provide access to your financial data in a bid to make it easier for you to manage your money. Rules originating in Brussels, known as the Payment Services Directive II (PSD2), together with a British version referred to as Open Banking, hit in mid-January and will see the biggest banks and building societies across Europe forced to provide standard open access to all their customer data to regulated third parties. Eventually this should mean that customers will be able to pull all of their financial accounts into one app through which they can easily switch to the best value deals on offer for savings, current accounts, loans, mortgages and even potentially energy bills. But in spite of the many advantages, customers remain concerned and confused by the implications of open banking. A recent survey of 2,000 people by consultancy firm Accenture suggested roughly seven in ten people do not want to share their personal financial data with third-party providers. The good news is, if you don't want to, you don't have to. But there are strong arguments for sharing your data if you do it safely. We explain how this will really work, how to protect yourself and your money and what the real threats will be after open banking becomes a reality.

How will my data be shared?

Open banking will force banks and other providers to make a standard set of 'APIs' available to regulated third parties. API stands for application programming interface. This is basically a set of codes that allow different and separate technology platforms to talk to each other. This means that, for example, American Express could 'talk' to Santander, meaning they'll be able to see whether you qualify for an Amex card based on your income and outgoings in your Santander current account. In order to have access to these APIs, companies must be regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority - so your data isn't available to just anyone. Data will also be encrypted and protected. And, you'll have to give your permission to share it. If you don't want your provider to share your data with third parties, it will remain locked away in just the same way as it is currently.

How do I opt out?

In fact, you don't need to opt out. In order for any third party to have access to your data, you will have to opt IN. The way you do this will be by using an app that allows you to drag in accounts from multiple providers. Giving the app access to your account is the trigger for your data to be shared by the provider with the app you're using. For example, say you are an HSBC customer using the HSBC beta app which is currently being piloted, if you download it only your HSBC accounts will initially be visible - just like in your existing mobile banking app. The new HSBC app allows you to pull in your other accounts from other banks, but to do this, you have to log in using your online banking details from that bank. By logging in to your Barclays current account through the HSBC app, you're consenting to Barclays sharing your data with HSBC.

Should I ever share login information?

This poses some serious security issues as it relies on you giving HSBC your login details to Barclays. This is exactly what NatWest has just warned its customers NOT to do. It's likely that other banks will follow. This is because if you share your personal login information, you're effectively giving up your right to protection. If a fraudster took money from your NatWest account after you'd shared your login with HSBC, neither bank would take responsibility for reimbursing you.

Is there a safe way to take advantage of open banking?

Right now, that's a matter of opinion. But in the future, there will be safer ways than exist at the moment. The security of sharing data relates to how apps gain your consent to access your data. There are a number of ways to do this. The app can ask you to log in to your other accounts using your personal details and can then access the data held in those accounts through the API connection. Or, they can use two factor authentication, which identifies users through a combination of two different components – for example, something you know (your password) with something you have (your mobile phone, or a Pinsentry/card reader device). The option recommended in the new rules is where you grant the app access to your account using a token, which can include access limitations. This is known as OAuth - a techy term for access delegation that is used already by millions of internet users when they opt to log in to Instagram or Uber using their Facebook, Twitter or Google account. When you login to Uber using Facebook, you are granting Facebook your permission to share data with Uber. This access is granted using a digital token.

With this method, it's also possible to set time limits or access limits. So, for example, you could grant a mortgage app temporary access to your current accounts to allow it to do a real-time assessment of your income and expenditure so it can work out automatically what mortgage you can afford. If the mortgage app was using OAuth you wouldn't need to give your current account password to them, keeping your money safe even if they got hacked. You could also give them access for a limited time period - while the mortgage application is going through for example - after which the token you assigned expires and your data is locked back into your bank.

If I want to opt in, how safe is my data?

Giving third parties open access to your data sounds scary but in fact, under open banking, your data is no more or less safe than it is right now.All banks have to invest heavily in protecting their customers' data and allowing interchange between regulated providers doesn't automatically mean your data is any less safe. Open banking does not mean a massive data dump of secure information to all and sundry through the cloud. If you consent, shared data will be encrypted and accessible only by regulated and vetted firms. However, all companies are open to being hacked - as the recent debacle with Equifax showed us. Open banking won't increase this risk though. Your data remains yours, and the institutions that hold it have a responsibility to protect it. What are the advantages of opting in to open banking?

The rules should mean that over time we are able to open one app on our phones or log in to one platform online and see every financial account we have in one place. If you can see you're paying 20 per cent interest on your MBNA credit card balance and earning 1.2 per cent interest on your savings with NatWest for example, this app should theoretically alert you and prompt you to switch to better rates or pay off the debt using the savings.

Similarly, if you've slipped off a mortgage deal on to your lender's hefty standard variable rate and could save by remortgaging, the system ought to help you. It should be able to search all your available options from all providers, allow cross checking with your income and expenses by using your current account data and then provide you with the option to sign up to a new mortgage deal you're already approved for. The initiative is designed to make it easier to manage our money with less effort and better returns through technology and automation. Benedict Ireland, of customer experience and technology company Splendid Unlimited, explains: 'People don’t necessarily want to "do" banking. They need to manage their finances but, for many, the less active management required the better. 'The greater automation open banking services will enable points to a future in which there will be less engagement between the customer and the bank providing that customer’s accounts or services. 'For now, our banking relationship is locked to our bank but this will change. Our banking experience is already digital and, like other digital experiences, is increasingly becoming owned by our mobile operating systems. 'We already trust Apple iOS and Google’s Android with transaction data – just think Apple Pay, Android Pay and Google Wallet. 'Should Apple or Google release a financial app, what’s to stop a migration similar to the migration away from Blackberry and Nokia, or Virgin Records and HMV?'

How can I opt in?

There are a number of other apps that already allow you to drag in information from your accounts with different providers, including Chip, Cleo, Moneybox, Money Dashboard, OnTrees and Plum. These currently require you to log in through their apps to your various accounts using your password information. They then scrape your data from your account and display it in their app. None of them allows you to transact in your other accounts through them as yet. It's possible that some of them will start to. It's also likely that price comparison websites, banks and new companies will launch open banking apps next year. Apple, Google, Facebook and Amazon are also well-placed to function as a platform through which you can view all of your financial information.

And how do I opt out?

As outlined above, to opt out of giving access to your data, simply don't use one of these apps or any other provider that asks for your account information and access. If you don't use open banking your data and money will remain protected by the provider your account is with.

Bottom line:

The global elites want to know exactly how much money you have in all your accounts in all banks AND then have full control over it.
If you aren't already in debt, they want to start getting you in debt (or put you in even more debt) so you can be their slave until you die.

[Mercenary]

Relevant wikipedia articles:



Open banking
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_banking

Account aggregation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Account_aggregation

[Leonard D Neubache]

It's getting harder to opt out of this stuff since these days they're phasing out branch banking, phone banking and virtually anything that doesn't come with a digital ten page "accept it or fuck off" disclaimer.

Once they push for a totally cashless system we're pretty well screwed.

[dicknixon72]

What would be a supposed advantage to open banking for the end-user consumer?

[Mercenary]

(12-28-2017 09:02 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

It's getting harder to opt out of this stuff since these days they're phasing out branch banking, phone banking and virtually anything that doesn't come with a digital ten page "accept it or fuck off" disclaimer.

Once they push for a totally cashless system we're pretty well screwed.

Eventually, what I think will happen is all those men who want to refuse or resist all these systems of control, will have to move to a dirt poor country, or go into a sort of internal exile to form a patriarchal community free of elite control.
Kind of like a modern day indian reservation.

[Matsufubu]

“And he causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: and that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name”

Rev 13: 16-17

[gework]

(12-28-2017 09:08 AM)dicknixon72 Wrote:  

What would be a supposed advantage to open banking for the end-user consumer?

Phone calls from Babu in Bangalore.

As well as this, most of the details you share with your bank are shared with credit rating agencies like Experian and Equifax, which aren't exactly known for bulletproof security and privacy. They also have real-time access to you bank balance. This is sold for huge sums to corporations for marketing and is used by the government as part of their little guy tax evasion snooping drag-net.

Also, that Equifax leak was nothing. I have the entire Experian database, which contains virtually every adult in the US with about 250 fields, including what your interests are, your finances, job, mortage, dob, address, phone, email, religion, political affiliation etc. This is one for Canada:



I presume the income column is deduced from their snooping into your bank account.

Companies with their T&Cs about 3rd parties routinely sell their customer data to Expirain, Equifax et. al. and it all get mashed together, bound on identifiers like name, address, phone, email.

Datasheet to entangle coming sometime in Spring next year.

[Mercenary]

(12-28-2017 04:28 PM)gework Wrote:  

As well as this, most of the details you share with your bank are shared with credit rating agencies like Experian and Equifax, which aren't exactly known for bulletproof security and privacy. They also have real-time access to you bank balance.

I'm well aware of this...however these new rules go way beyond what the credit agencies can see & do.

Here we are talking about private companies not only seeing EVERYTHING (every transaction) on all your accounts, but also having the power to open/close accounts, subscribe you to new services, and make huge financial decisions on your behalf.

It's like giving a complete stranger full power of attorney over your whole assets and liabilities.

[monster]

Credit card companies and the credit score bureaus already sell all your information.

Much of personal banking is basically hinged on credit purchases and cash is being phased out completely.

This is a small extension to all this data of you being sold.

I get angry at all this but then I wonder if its worth to fight and/or "hide" and really to me at least no, because you can't do anything anywhere then.

[Kapanda]

Somebody please give me a coherent version of who the (((globalists))) are and what the (((globalists))) want.

Aren't they already in charge of all major banks? If so, why exactly would they need to use legislation to get access to what they already have access to?

So okay, maybe they are in charge of all the major banks, but there are plenty of small banks not owned by the (((globalists))). Then that means that our governments are not controlled by the (((globalists))) right? Which are seemingly good news, given that it is so often insinuated that before Trump and Brexit, the West was controlled by (((globalists))). Because if that were the case, there would again be no need for this type of exposure, given that they would already have the means to know every single data point about your life at any given time (which the governments do have) and this legislative exposure would only hinder their (((globalist))) agenda.

[Leonard D Neubache]

You're a 1 rep 122 post blow in who seems to have a penchant for demanding that other members explain the world to him.

Go and do some research for yourself.

There's this thing called "google". Google it.

Seriously.

Quote:

...give me a coherent version of who the (((globalists))) are and what the (((globalists))) want.

Would you like that in pure text or picture book format?

[Kapanda]

Either would suffice, so long as it is clear.

Quote:

You're a 1 rep 122 post blow in

I'm about to get banned, aren't I?

Quote:

who seems to have a penchant for demanding that other members explain the world to him.

Go and do some research for yourself.

There's this thing called "google". Google it.

That's one way of deflecting challenges to your view. The same thing can be said in any discussion (and often is, when avoidance is the goal).

No, seriously. How exactly do you suggest I use Google to provide me with the perspective of rooshvforum.network users?

[Leonard D Neubache]

(12-29-2017 04:25 AM)Kapanda Wrote:  

...
No, seriously. How exactly do you suggest I use Google to provide me with the perspective of rooshvforum.network users?

[Kapanda]

I see. So instead of asking an open-ended question on the thread's topic, I should search via Google what every poster on rooshvforum.network has ever said about it first. Right.

[Repo]

(12-28-2017 10:49 PM)monster Wrote:  

Credit card companies and the credit score bureaus already sell all your information.

Much of personal banking is basically hinged on credit purchases and cash is being phased out completely.

This is a small extension to all this data of you being sold.

I get angry at all this but then I wonder if its worth to fight and/or "hide" and really to me at least no, because you can't do anything anywhere then.

No, I work for a bank that this will impact and this is pretty significant.

So right now banks leverage a ton of info off credit bureau's to determine credit worthiness, and to create models predicting which customers will pay them back, which won't, and which will be the most profitable.

The information we get from the credit bureau includes things like your loan balances, credit lines, amoumt of last payment, wether you make all minimum payments, twice the minimum, etc.

But now if you opt in they will be able to see what you actually use your card for on a day to day basis, your method of payment, how early exactly you pay, and all other kinds of things that the data modelers are drooling over. For example, if you use your credit card for online gambling or for other online money services that are associated with either gambling or potentially risky business, you can be flagged as a higher credit risk.

There is actually a chance that this will start to make credit bureau's obsolete. Right now some merchants simply choose not to report to credit bureau's because they are terified of what could happen if a customer disputes something, and draws out a lawsuit if they aren't happy with the result, even if they are wrong. So it can be easier to just not report things. Over time because of things like this, credit bureau's are getting less and less accurate or useful, and companies are always looking at how to get a leg up on the competition. FICO scores for example are a complete joke when it comes to predicting who will charge off, which is what they were originally designed for. Now practically nobody but small institutions use it for data models.

Anyway, alot of things are still uncertain how exactly this will turn out, but very interesting and scary.

[spokepoker]

Thanks for explaining it Repo.

[Kapanda]

(12-29-2017 08:46 AM)Repo Wrote:  

There is actually a chance that this will start to make credit bureau's obsolete.

Is that necessarily bad?

[porscheguy]

(12-29-2017 08:46 AM)Repo Wrote:  

There is actually a chance that this will start to make credit bureau's obsolete. Right now some merchants simply choose not to report to credit bureau's because they are terified of what could happen if a customer disputes something, and draws out a lawsuit if they aren't happy with the result, even if they are wrong. So it can be easier to just not report things. Over time because of things like this, credit bureau's are getting less and less accurate or useful, and companies are always looking at how to get a leg up on the competition. FICO scores for example are a complete joke when it comes to predicting who will charge off, which is what they were originally designed for. Now practically nobody but small institutions use it for data models.

Anyway, alot of things are still uncertain how exactly this will turn out, but very interesting and scary.

I’ve disputed a few things on credit reports. Basically, I had a few bad debts and the creditor offered me a settlement which I paid in full. Went back and checked my report to see a balance still owed. I called the creditor, and they were like “fuck you, you still owe us money.” I said “no, fuck you, you sent me a letter saying paid in full, now update my credit report.” They said they didn’t have to. So I went to equifax and made a dispute. The first thing the bureau does when they investigate is ask the creditor to provide updated info. The fair credit reporting act obligates the creditor to report accurately. So they reported a balance of 0, paid in full.

I’d guarantee that 95% of the people with a mortgage, 1-2 current car loans, $30k in available credit with minimal usage, and 750+ fico score are in no danger of defaulting on their loans regardless of having atm withdrawals for whorehouses and online poker. The majority of people with 700+ fico scores are a pretty safe bet. People 650-700 may have a few late payments, but probably won’t discharge. 600-650 are a risk but you’ll get them with some userous interest. Below 600 are the really high risk people. The banks know this. The only reason they want to rely on internal modeling is so they don’t have to pay the credit bureaus, so they can side step the fair credit reporting act, and try to squeeze more money out of responsible borrowers while citing some arbitrary financial activity as making them high risk.

Saying fico scores are a bad predictor of future behavior are like the people who say SATs are a poor predictor of college graduation. It may not have very good reliability or validity, but do you have something better? When it comes to the test, there is nothing better and that’s why the SAT, warts and all, is the gold standard. I would bet a fico score is better at predicting credit worthiness, than the SAT is at predicting college success. Because the fico score relies on previous behavior whereas the SAT does not.

The banks use of internal credit worthiness modeling is for the reasons I stated above, and to try to wind back the clock to a time when consumers had little to no access to their credit report, thus leaving them at the mercy of the banks.

You’ll have an 800 fico, and the bank will label you high risk because you make too many purchases at 7-11 within a few hours of going to the grocery store. Some (((motherfucker))) in the corporate office will argue “this guy can’t even remember to buy the cool whip on the grocery list how can we trust him to pay for this boat?” That’s the truth of the matter.

[Repo]

(12-30-2017 01:52 AM)porscheguy Wrote:  

(12-29-2017 08:46 AM)Repo Wrote:  

There is actually a chance that this will start to make credit bureau's obsolete. Right now some merchants simply choose not to report to credit bureau's because they are terified of what could happen if a customer disputes something, and draws out a lawsuit if they aren't happy with the result, even if they are wrong. So it can be easier to just not report things. Over time because of things like this, credit bureau's are getting less and less accurate or useful, and companies are always looking at how to get a leg up on the competition. FICO scores for example are a complete joke when it comes to predicting who will charge off, which is what they were originally designed for. Now practically nobody but small institutions use it for data models.

Anyway, alot of things are still uncertain how exactly this will turn out, but very interesting and scary.

I’ve disputed a few things on credit reports. Basically, I had a few bad debts and the creditor offered me a settlement which I paid in full. Went back and checked my report to see a balance still owed. I called the creditor, and they were like “fuck you, you still owe us money.” I said “no, fuck you, you sent me a letter saying paid in full, now update my credit report.” They said they didn’t have to. So I went to equifax and made a dispute. The first thing the bureau does when they investigate is ask the creditor to provide updated info. The fair credit reporting act obligates the creditor to report accurately. So they reported a balance of 0, paid in full.

I’d guarantee that 95% of the people with a mortgage, 1-2 current car loans, $30k in available credit with minimal usage, and 750+ fico score are in no danger of defaulting on their loans regardless of having atm withdrawals for whorehouses and online poker. The majority of people with 700+ fico scores are a pretty safe bet. People 650-700 may have a few late payments, but probably won’t discharge. 600-650 are a risk but you’ll get them with some userous interest. Below 600 are the really high risk people. The banks know this. The only reason they want to rely on internal modeling is so they don’t have to pay the credit bureaus, so they can side step the fair credit reporting act, and try to squeeze more money out of responsible borrowers while citing some arbitrary financial activity as making them high risk.

Saying fico scores are a bad predictor of future behavior are like the people who say SATs are a poor predictor of college graduation. It may not have very good reliability or validity, but do you have something better? When it comes to the test, there is nothing better and that’s why the SAT, warts and all, is the gold standard. I would bet a fico score is better at predicting credit worthiness, than the SAT is at predicting college success. Because the fico score relies on previous behavior whereas the SAT does not.

The banks use of internal credit worthiness modeling is for the reasons I stated above, and to try to wind back the clock to a time when consumers had little to no access to their credit report, thus leaving them at the mercy of the banks.

You’ll have an 800 fico, and the bank will label you high risk because you make too many purchases at 7-11 within a few hours of going to the grocery store. Some (((motherfucker))) in the corporate office will argue “this guy can’t even remember to buy the cool whip on the grocery list how can we trust him to pay for this boat?” That’s the truth of the matter.

Let me try to break it down like this.

Yes, in general people with below a 650 FICO are higher risk. But a FICO is just a snapshot at a particular moment in time, and there are all kinds of different reasons why someone may have a 650 FICO, some of which may be more applicable to the specific loan product that the customer is applying for.

So you have to look at what product is the customer applying for, why are they applying, which specific negative atrribrutes are you ok with, and which ones are dealbreakers? And dozens of other things that get baked into the models. At my job we literally have people with backrounds in rocket science and other professions that require a very high level of math to put together these complex models. And these people are paid very well to poach them from whatever unrelated profession they are coming from, so the idea that internal models are saving money by not relying on Ficos is just silly, especially when we still have to pay the bureau's for the credit reports, it's only the actual scores we aren't using, we are still using the attributes. The internal models are just simply better. Fico scores are way too broad and unspecific to be used for anything other than giving a person a rough idea of if they have good credit or not.

Another thought, there are plenty of people with 650 Ficos who are riskier than other people with 650 Ficos, and the banks use internal models to differentiate these. Hell, pockets of people with 620 Ficos on average may be less risky than a group of people with 700 Ficos. When you are in a competitive cutthroat environment, you have to be able to differentiate these people and market and lend accordingly, or you will soon be out of business.

[Repo]

Another example. Say a bank wants to send out preapproval notices to customers.

They will tell the bureau's, send me everyone who meets certain criteria, which will include things like

1) credit card debt below 10k
2) no 30 day deliq in past 6 months
3) No more than 2 new accounts opened in past 2 months
4) Credit utilization below 15%
Etc etc etc

But all these attributes are determined based on their internal models of who is a good credit risk, who will actually apply, and who is profitable. If banks just spammed out to everyone with a 650 or greater FICO, you would just be throwing money away.

[Zep]

http://www.rense.com

Quote:

Globalization, or globalism, means centralization operating on a global scale - that is to say, centralization aiming at global dictatorship, a kind of ultimate expansion of tyranny. It follows that everything you see in the realm of politics, economics, human rights, and especially in all things seen as social engineering, reflect the endeavors of centralization.

taken from,

http://www.rense.com/general70/glob.htm

more from this link:

Quote:

"Now we have globalism. It is an extension, to include the entire planet, of everything the British Empire aimed at. More than two centuries ago, Americans fought to free themselves from British Imperialism. Globalism, the current form taken by the lusts for empire is guaranteed tyranny for us all, except for the globalist elites. It is infinitely authoritarian in its mind set. It would seem that the globalist center of power will be seated at such a distance that there will be no concern or need for democracy, constitutionalism, or legal protections for common people, whose numbers are to be so drastically reduced."

The front line of the conflict we have with globalism is its very opposite, NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY.

"Whereas globalism seeks to centralize authority, power and wealth in the hands of its elite," Fowler said. "The interests of common people are served, not by centralization of those items, but by the opposite of centralization: by a distributive scheme regarding authority, power and wealth. National sovereignty is the only thing you have that protects those things that you most treasure. Without it, you have nothing. Providing you are willing to join forces with others like you, with the retention of national sovereignty, you might just have a fighting chance. If we lose our national sovereignty, hence our freedom and all else we care about, we will never get it back.

"The overlords of globalism appear now to be attempting to sprint to their goal of world dictatorship, and we now have some other things to worry us, not the least of which is the destructive power of several million illegal aliens pouring into our country every year.

"We have completely lost control of the political life of this country. The two-party system works splendidly for the globalists who captured our country some time ago. Those who see that the United States is in serious trouble are dismayed by the appearance that the great majority of our citizenry are not aware of it. They go on as if life is sweet and getting sweeter.

"As everyone knows, the two-party political system we have is rotten to the core. The public perception is that there are two ways to waste your vote: (1) vote the ticket of one of the major parties or (2) vote otherwise (i.e., third party or write in).

"Our legislative bodies are no longer responsive to the citizens and their needs, members of Congress and the Senate now answerable only to special interests represented by lobbying organizations such as AIPAC, the sources of wealth they depend on for necessary re-election money.

"Our manufacturing facilities and manufacturing jobs with them have been moved overseas. We are now dependent on China to produce and sell us what we need.

"As a result of profligate spending on wars and the maintenance of the huge military forces thought to be necessary for the Imperial power our government in its dream-like condition believes it to be, the United States now has the greatest burden of debt in its history, both public and private, accumulated during the period in which we acquired the greatest number of new millionaires and billionaires ever to grace our land, while the U.S. economy now perches on the precipice of collapse and bankruptcy, Alan Greenspan having performed magnificently for Wall Street.

"Our Constitution, laws and freedoms, are being trashed piecemeal by people who appear to place no value on those freedoms which the Constitution of the United States guarantees to its citizens, such people coming to America from various dictatorial regimes where they never acquired a respect for our love of freedom.

"The United States and its national sovereignty, we are told, are soon to become a thing of the past, the territory it now occupies to become part of a "region" in the globalist scheme consisting of Canada and Mexico with the former United States in between.

"We find that we have been substantially lied to about the purposes of environmental and land preservation measures, most of which we now know are tied into globalist endeavors under the sponsorship of the UN, to evict the public from most of the land we Americans thought of in the past as belonging to the people of our country for their use and enjoyment.

"Farmers who wish to continue to be farmers will not be allowed to produce their own seed for crops of subsequent years, but will have to apply to Monsanto or other corporate monstrosity for purchase of genetically modified seeds, from which only next year's crop may be grown.

"Law enforcement in The United States is rapidly being consolidated under the federal government and The Department of Homeland Security with its political biases, its inattention to aliens coming into the country, its taste for annoying ordinary American citizens with inappropriate personal searches at airports, its preemption of responsibility for local police departments and County Sheriffs, and other outrages."

Millions of illegal aliens marching in our streets in promotion of anarchy in the past two weeks without fear of our president manifesting his oath of office and our impotent Congress not standing for the rule of law--exhibit the worst behavior of our leaders. It also shows you that the reader was correct, "You Americans have been living an artificially high standard of living; it's time for you to drop down to the poverty levels of the rest of the Third World. Immigration will do that to you." Globalism-you won't like it because it will make America country like their countries. The American Dream dies with globalism.