Madison Ruppert, Contributor
The number is growing by the day and I still can’t seem to find any solid reason behind why this is going on, as all of the resignations are allegedly unrelated, which is hard to believe when we see such huge numbers in such a small time span.
While I have no problem speculating and putting forth potential answers to these kinds of mysterious questions (while being sure to note that it is nothing more than speculation), I have yet to come up with anything I feel is logically and factually consistent.
I have had many readers, indeed hundreds, email me telling me it is related to the supposed “end of financial tyranny” being written about by David Wilcock, Benjamin Fulford, and others.
There is indeed a massive lawsuit with some astounding allegations, but all of those are yet to move beyond anything but an allegation.
I’m a bit of an optimist, so I would love to believe that all of this is true, but the skeptic in me is screaming, “Where’s the evidence?” I have yet to be able to provide that evidence, nor has anyone else that I have been able to find.
If you have evidence that can back up the claims being made by Wilcock, Fulford, and others, please email me immediately. I beg of you, do not send me a link to the Divine Cosmos series as I have read it and it is all completely and totally unproven (I had to say it because that is mostly what people are sending me even though there is zero proof provided).
Add to the growing list of resignations Brian Sack, the head of the markets group at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
Sack was one of the major individuals behind the Federal Reserve’s monetary stimulus program and the move has left Wall Street shocked, according to the Denver Post.
According to a New York Federal Reserve press release issued recently, Sack tendered his resignation, but will remain in place until June 29.
June 29 is when “Operation Twist” – the Federal Reserve’s latest round of monetary stimulus – will come to a close.
The release said that after that date Sack will be placed on official leave until September 14. During this time Sack will have limited contact with the Fed.
Sack is leaving as the Federal Reserve’s monetary stimulus programs – better known as bailouts by most Americans – since the financial crisis in 2008 are coming under greater scrutiny.
Both bond holders and dealers along with investors are questioning if the Fed will enter into a third official round of Quantitative Easing, wherein they buy up their own bonds. Speaking colloquially, many experts refer to this as “printing money,” as that is what it effectively is.
They are also questioning if the third round of bond buying, which would likely be known as QE3, would actually stabilize the economy or leaving to inevitable eventual tightening of monetary conditions.
Many questions surround if the Fed’s activities will be necessary for sustained growth in the American economy with the constant threats in the economic and investment sectors remaining in place.
One expert was shocked by Sack’s resignation, and like me seems to be confused as to why such a thing would happen at a time like this.
“I’m dumbfounded,” said Raymond Stone, the co-founder of Stone & McCarthy Research Associates, which keeps close watch on the Federal Reserve’s policy. “He laid the groundwork for a lot of things the Fed has done and communicated clearly to the market. He did an excellent job in a difficult environment.”
Perhaps Sack realized that their program was doing nothing more than continuing to inflate the artificial bubble created by injections of cash into the market which only temporarily postpones an eventual collapse, likely making it even worse.
Perhaps Sack was fed up with observing the parasitic nature of the Federal Reserve and the unbelievable corruption that pervades the institution and decided that he no longer wanted to be part of robbing the American people blind.
Or maybe Sack saw an economic disaster on the horizon and opted to get out while he still could.
There is also the possibility that he resigned in order to avoid a future arrest, although given the near immunity banksters have enjoyed for so long, I doubt this is the case.
What the real reasons behind Sack’s decision, and the decision of hundreds of others in the financial and government sector, is anyone’s guess at this point.
However, we would be doing ourselves a disservice by not noting this trend and exploring the possibilities.
Once again, if you have any information or ideas on this subject, please contact me immediately at [email protected]. You can also contact me with tips on other subjects or even send me your original writing for publishing.
This article first appeared at End the Lie.