When you use ATM machines, you quickly learn that banks like to take advantage of you when you are vulnerable. If you are in desperate need of cash, can’t find an ATM owned by your bank, and your account is at a typical institution, you get ripped off. Most banks set the rules to make sure that every ATM transaction pays off (for the bank) as much as possible. According to SNL Financial, the five largest banks in the United States, that is JP Morgan Chase (JPM), Bank of America (BAC), Citibank (C), Wells Fargo (WFC),  and US Bankcorp, together earn almost $300 million every single quarter from ATM fees alone!

Inside the USA, it is bad enough. If you are unable to locate a machine owned by your bank, you will pay dearly. Typically, you will get hit with an average of $1.70 from your own bank, and about $3.00 by the bank that owns the ATM, resulting in an average cost of $4.70 each time you use your card at a machine that isn’t owned by your bank.

If you need money when you are outside the USA, the situation gets worse. Not only will they ding you with usage fees, but they will force you to pay up to a 3% or higher so-called “currency conversion fee!” This is true even though your bank has no involvement in the currency conversion process. Currencies conversion is always handled by Visa and Mastercard, and the networks already charge a 1% fee for doing it. The fee charged by your bank is on top of that. It is an abusive fee that compensates them for doing nothing.

Will you continue to allow yourself to be a willing victim? If not, what can you do? The answer is simple. Choose not to be a victim by picking a better bank! It’s not easy to find them, but there are a few financial institutions that do not impose unfair fees and costs upon hapless customers.

Charles Schwab Bank

Charles Schwab offers a so-called “High-Yield” Investor checking account. Theoretically, the account is tied to a Schwab brokerage account, but there is no obligation to fund the brokerage account. Schwab allows its customers to use ATM cards anywhere in the world, as many times as they want, without currency conversion fees or usage fees imposed by Schwab. They do not impose any currency conversion fee, above and beyond the 1% charged by the Visa network. Best of all, any ATM usage fees that are charged by the bank that owns the ATM machine are reimbursed at the end of each month, no matter where in the world that ATM machine may be located, and without limitation.

Alliant Federal Credit Union

Alliant is one of the largest credit unions in the United States, with over $8.2 billion in assets. It offers some very good free checking and savings accounts, some of which also pay very respectable interest rates. Account holders have access to 80,000 surcharge-free ATMs across the USA. These include Alliant owned ATMs, as well as machines that are part of the Alliance One, Allpoint, CO-OP Network, Credit Union 24, CU Here, and Publix Presto networks. In addition, it reimburses up to $20 per month in ATM fees, including the fees imposed by foreign banks. International withdrawals are only subject to the 1% fee that Visa charges to convert currencies.

Capital One 360

Capital One 360 is an internet bank that offers no minimum balance free checking and savings accounts. Like Schwab, it does not impose any ATM usage fees on its customers. Unlike Charles Schwab, it does not reimburse the ATM card usage fees imposed by the owners of the machines. Inside the USA, you can use any machine bearing the symbol of the “Allpoint” network completely free of charge. That network is immense, comprising 55,000 machines. You are almost certain, therefore, to find more than one Allpoint ATM wherever you might be, as long as you stay within the 50 states. Outside the USA, even over the border in Canada, the Capital One 360 card falls short, at least in comparison to Charles Schwab. It does not provide free use of Allpoint ATMs located outside the USA, nor does not reimburse any ATM usage fees, regardless of the location of the machine. Thankfully, like Schwab, Capital One does not charge any currency conversion fees above the 1% charged by Mastercard’s network.

Ally Bank

Ally is an internet bank that also offers a number of attractive no fee, no minimum balance checking and savings accounts. It also uses the Allpoint ATM network. Again, that allows you to use 55,000 ATM machines, all over the USA, free of charge. In addition, Ally reimburses up to $10 per month worth of bank charges for the use of ATMs outside the Allpoint network, so long as you stay inside the USA. Ally does not impose any usage charges when you use another bank’s ATM machine, regardless of where it is located. However, even withdrawals from Allpoint ATMs in other countries are subject to whatever usage fees are imposed by the owner of the machine. It charges a fee of 1% on foreign currency conversions above and beyond that charged by Visa/Mastercard. You will pay 2% on every currency conversion, still low by the standards of most banks, but double the charges at Schwab, Alliant FCU  and Capital One.

Bank of Internet USA

With a number of different accounts at “Bank of Internet USA”, you can use ATM anywhere within the USA, non matter who owns them, and get reimbursed for the charges. Reimbursement is dependent upon the type of account you have. Their Rewards Checking, CashBack Checking, and Essential Checking accounts reimburse 100% of the ATM fee by the end of the next business day, so long as the transaction takes place at an ATM inside the USA. There is a 2% foreign currency conversion rate for all international withdrawals and usage fees imposed by foreign banks are not reimbursed. Although the Bank of Internet USA does not levy fees of its own, the 2% foreign currency conversion rate brings your currency conversion cost up to 3%, making what would otherwise be a comparatively good bank into a lousy one for people who often travel abroad.


All of the options I’ve listed above give customers a much better deal than the typical ripoff offered by a vast majority of banks and credit unions. The award for “best ATM card”, however, clearly goes to Charles Schwab Bank, especially for people who live overseas or travel a lot. Following closely is Alliant Federal Credit Union.


Buy SynodThe Synod is a conspiracy of 8 large international banks who seek to control gold, stock, bond and commodity markets all over the world. Jack Severs runs for his life when he learns too much, as the most sophisticated surveillance system ever built is deployed to track him down. As the ever-tightening noose closes, he struggles to uncover evidence to save himself and his world from collapsing! An exciting, fictional, fun and educational thriller about the banking cartel, and how it affects business, politics and daily life.


August 10, 2016

The media pundits have been very busy claiming that Donald Trump is dropping dramatically in the polls. They claim that Hillary Clinton is skyrocketing even after the emails that show that she stole the primary election from Bernie Sanders. The polls are all over the place. The McClatchy Marist poll, for example, has Trump losing by 15 points. In contrast, the LA Times/USC poll has him down by only 1 point. Obviously, as Shakespeare once said “Something’s rotten in Denmark!”  It is not possible for these two polls to be telling the truth because they are too far apart.

The methodology used by each polling organization can be used to create a prefabricated result. Few, if any people, least of all those reporting the news, ever actually look deep enough into the “fine print” to discover how the results were fabricated. That is what we are going to do today. The techniques used to lie while “telling the truth” are generally very simple ones. I’ve seen it a thousand times in courts of law where one side has no case but, somehow, miraculously, managed to win. Discovering what the game is, generally speaking, simply requires an inquiring mind and a careful look beneath the hood.

My investigation shows that a majority of the mainstream media polls, during this Presidential election cycle, have been falsified. Before I share how I know this, however, let’s take a moment to understand the American electorate. In its most recent survey of party affiliation, done from July 13-17, 2016, Gallup found that the registered electorate is 28% Republican, 28% Democrat and 42% Independents. This is the key fact you need to understand before we turn our attention to what the pollsters are doing to manufacture the results.

We’ll take a quick but careful look at the methodology used by each polling organization, one at a time, to find out why most of the polls are showing that Hillary Clinton has moved strongly into the lead in this election cycle.

1) The NBC/Survey Monkey poll claims Hillary Clinton is leading by 10 points. But, you should always read the “fine print”. NBC’s “methodology report” states that they polled a selection of voters, and that 3,451 of them reported themselves as registered Republicans, 3,974 registered Democrats, and 3,915 Independents. The pool is comprised of approximately 30% registered Republicans, 35% registered Democrats, and 35% Independents. An excess of 5% Democrats over Republicans, when 81% of Democrats support Hillary Clinton and most of the rest support third party candidates is significant. We can assume that this excess of Democratic party member voters accounts for about 5% of Trump’s deficit in the poll. Other polls show that Trump leads with Independent voters by an average of about 14%. So, the 7% deficiency in Independents turns into another percentage point that should have gone to Trump. A more honest poll would have shown Trump down by 4%, which is within the margin of error in polling.

2) The ABC News/Washington Post poll claims Hillary Clinton is leading by 8 points. However, their methodology report shows that they call landline and cellular telephones and ask to speak with the youngest adult member of the household. The pollsters are, of course, well aware of the fact that the older people are more likely to support both Republicans and Mr. Trump. The poll deliberately favors whoever the Democratic candidate may be, although the bias is particularly strong here, because Trump does so much better with the older demographic. These pollsters also used a voter sample consisting of 33% registered Democrats, 27% registered Republicans, and 35% Independents. To make this poll reasonably reflect the real electorate, we need to subtract 5% worth of excess Democrats and another 1% or so because of the deficit of Independents. Adjusting this poll to the real electorate, therefore, means that Clinton leads by only 2%. That does not account for the fact that they seek out younger voters. Add that in, and Trump would probably end up being shown in the lead. The exact amount of that lead is not ascertainable because we don’t know how many young people, beyond their natural percentage, were added to the pool of potential voters.

3) The Mclatchy/Marist Poll claims Hillary Clinton is leading Donald Trump by 15 points! Once we examine the methodology, it again appears to be a deliberate attempt to falsify the result. The company claims to have polled a total of 1,132 people, including 36% registered Democrats, 27% Republican and 37% Independent. They included 8% more Democrats than exist in the real electorate, 1% less Republicans, and 5% less Independents. If we lop 10% off the top, Clinton is left with only a 5% lead. But, there’s more. This pollster also sought the youngest members of each household. The Harris Poll found that 61% of young people age 18-29 want Hillary Clinton to win the 2016 election, whereas only 33% want the Republican to win. Again, it is impossible to put an exact number on how much this skewered the poll, but the number could be 5% or more, depending on how many excess people in the 18-29 year age group were included.

4) The Bloomberg poll claims that Hillary Clinton is leading by 6 points. However, like the other pollsters, Bloomberg used an inaccurate sample of the electorate. Their sample was 25% Republican, 27% Democrat and 42% Independent. Add back in the 3% deficiency of Republicans, minus the 1% deficiency of Democrats, and you can subtract 2% from the 6%, resulting in a 4% lead for Mrs. Clinton, which is not far from the margin of error.

5) The Fox News poll shows Hillary Clinton leading by 10 points. Once we disassemble its methodology, we find the same problem. The Fox pollsters interviewed 1,022 potential voters. Of those, 42% were registered Democrats, 36% were Republican and only 18% were Independents. Subtract the 6% worth of excess Democrats, and the lead gets cut to 4%. The bias in the Fox New poll, however, is surprising. Most of the talking heads at Fox say that they support Trump. However, talking heads do not run the station. A few “never Trumpers” seem to have survived and managed to get control over the polling. The avid supporters of Bush and Romney seem more than willing to hand the keys to the White House and the Supreme Court over to the Democrats if it means denying it to Donald Trump. Such people must be in control of the polling at Fox.

6) According to the Reuters/IPSOS poll, Hillary Clinton is now leading Trump by 3%. However, the IPSOS polling methodology shares the same weaknesses as that described in the preceding polls. As in the other polls, the organization seems to have intentionally caused Democrats to be vastly over-represented in the sample pool. The pool is composed of 43% Democrats, 35% Republicans, and only 12% Independents. If you adjust this poll by the over-representation of Democrats and the severe under-representation of Independents, the result is a lead of about 6.5% in favor of Trump.

7) The LA Times/USC poll is now showing Hillary Clinton leading Trump by 1%. This particular poll is very different from the others. For one thing, it uses the same pool of about 2,000 randomly chosen people, repeatedly, to see how their view of the election changes over time. After careful examination, I cannot find hard information about the balance of preexisting political affiliation. Thus, it is impossible to determine whether the poll’s sample pool is in conflict with real world conditions. Accordingly, I cannot critique or praise this particular poll, except to say that when the other polls are normalized to the real world, a difference of 1% seems reasonably in line with reality.

The question is not whether or not the pollsters are falsifying the polls. The real question is simply why? Why work so hard to create a fantasy that will come crashing down when voters enter the voting booth?There are several reasons.

First, considerable time remains before the general election. Few people take the trouble to examine the methodology behind the polling. The pollsters can change the polls to be closer to reality, closer to the election, while avoiding losing all their credibility. If Hillary Clinton campaign contributors are mostly the “pay-for-play” contributors Republicans says they are, then the media knows that a poor showing in polls will cause contributions to dry up. Pay for play contributors make an investment, and they don’t want to make a losing one.

Most of the mainstream media, as well as all the entrenched special interests inside the beltway, support Hillary Clinton. In fact, an editor at the New York Times virtually admitted he would be willing to write false stories to prevent Trump from winning. The false polls make Trump look much weaker than he is, and this may have prevented Hillary Clinton’s donations from drying up. By disseminating these false polls, the media has also succeeded in peeling away support for Trump among several “on-the-fence” Republican elected officials. These elected officials are now afraid to link their fate to a person they view as a weak candidate.

Once you examine the real facts, and move outside the fantasy world, the two candidates are running neck and neck. A good debate performance or a few more damaging Hillary Clinton emails would catapult Trump into the lead. This is a horse race that anyone can still win.

Buy SynodThe Synod is a conspiracy of 8 large international banks who seek to control gold, stock, bond and commodity markets all over the world. Jack Severs runs for his life when he learns too much, as the most sophisticated surveillance system ever built is deployed to track him down. As the ever-tightening noose closes, he struggles to uncover evidence to save himself and his world from collapsing! An exciting, fictional, fun and educational thriller about the banking cartel, and how it affects business, politics and daily life.

Watch Orlando Massacre Shooter’s Father Sitting Right Behind Hillary Clinton Enthusiastically Supporting Her Bid For The Presidency

Seddique Matteen is the father of the man who shot and killed scores of gays and lesbians at the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando in the name of radical Islam. Watch him as he is caught, sitting right behind Hillary Clinton at her rally in Orlando!

Mr. Mateen has a satellite television show, which he aims at Pashtun Afghan immigrants in the USA and Europe. He is known to make pro-Taliban and anti-American statements. Afghan intelligence advised CBS News this June that they are monitoring his show carefully. Shortly after his son’s rampage, he commented, on the TV, that “God will punish those involved in homosexuality. It is not an issue that humans should deal with.”

After the rally, the news reporter interviewed him and he expressed his enthusiastic support for Hillary Clinton becoming the next President of the United States as you can see in the video. He advised that he is a Clinton supporter and showed the reporter a sign he’d created, stating that she is “good for national security.”

Buy SynodThe Synod is a conspiracy of 8 large international banks who seek to control gold, stock, bond and commodity markets all over the world. Jack Severs runs for his life when he learns too much, as the most sophisticated surveillance system ever built is deployed to track him down. As the ever-tightening noose closes, he struggles to uncover evidence to save himself and his world from collapsing! An exciting, fictional, fun and educational thriller about the banking cartel, and how it affects business, politics and daily life.


Watch The Shocking Iranian Video That Shows Donald Trump Right And America’s Mainstream Media Wrong!

Some days ago, Republican presidential candidate, Donald Trump, claimed to have seen a video, made by the Iranian government, that showed a ransom payment made by the American government. That sparked denials by the Obama administration as well as the President himself. It also sparked hit pieces against Trump by the mainstream media.

Just a few days ago, in fact, the Washington Post was running attack pieces against Trump, seeking to raise questions about his credibility. In a series of articles, like this one, the Post wrote that there was no evidence to support Trump’s claim. The New York Times piled on with the headline “Trump’s Iranian Propaganda Video a Concoction”.  Similar hit pieces were aired by CNN, Bloomberg, MSNBC, CBS, ABC. The entire Hillary Clinton-allied media, which comprises perhaps 95% of the mainstream media, simply went wild attacking Trump.

In fact, the hit pieces were so pervasive that, apparently, Trump began to doubt his own eyes. In a rare move, he withdrew the claim!  Now, however, there is video proof that the $1.7 billion dollars was ransom in exchange for hostages. Ironically, only one day after Trump backtracked, a team of investigative journalists at the BBC uncovered the very video he’d seen!

It is a documentary produced by the Iranian government entitled “The Rules of the Game.” In it, Iran brags about forcing the Obama administration to pay money before it would agree to release American hostages. The video was intended for internal Iranian consumption. It was never meant for western consumption, and certainly not by citizens of the USA. That’s why it’s entirely in the Farsi language.

I have appended a partial transcript of the English translation. In the interest of brevity, I have only attached the most important portions of the transcript, underneath the video itself.  I’ve also included a hyperlink to the full transcript so that anyone who wants to do so may read it in its entirety.

President Obama touted the release of hostages as a magnificent diplomatic achievement and a token of good will on the part of Iran, and gone on record claiming that “no ransom was paid, in spite of the fact that the payment was simultaneous with the hostage release. Listen to Obama here, as he denies the quid pro quo between the money and the release of hostages. He keeps a straight face throughout. Either the Iranians viewed the transaction very differently than the Americans, or he doesn’t know what the people who work for him are doing.

The video speaks for itself. It appears that Obama’s negotiating team were naive enough to confide in the Iranians their hesitancy to pay the ransom arose out of fear that it would be used by Republicans to attack Democrats.  Note the photo of one of the big pallets of cash that Trump described appears at 11:09 on the video.

Partial Transcript of the Iranian Farsi-language documentary video:

“…But this was not the Americans’ only worry. The Iranians had a costly proposal for the swap: the release of seven Iranians imprisoned in America, 1.7 billion dollars, and clearance of the names of 16 Iranians who, on the pretext of violating oppressive sanctions, had been placed on a list of those facing criminal prosecution in America. But this was not all that Iran wanted. The removal of Bank Sepah from the sanctions list was also added to Iran’s demands. All of this in exchange for the freedom of only four American nationals: a win-lose transaction in favor of the Islamic Republic of Iran and to the detriment of the American government. The Democrats’ worries were primarily that Obama’s electoral rivals, in the days leading up to the presidential elections, would hammer current government officials with the details of this transaction, using legal arguments, just as happened to Carter. An outcome that, as predicted, came to pass…

“…A member of the American Congress has asked the country’s Secretary of State to explain the payment of $1.7 billion to Iran at the same time as the prisoner exchange between the two countries. Ed Royce, the Republican Chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, in a letter to John Kerry wrote that the timing of the payment to Iran and the failure to inform Congress about it, made some worry that this sum was, in effect, ransom to Iran. Two weeks ago, the United States paid this amount to Iran to cover a principal sum of $400 million in Iranian property plus interest that had been frozen in the United States thirty five years ago.

“Another disturbing truth for America’s diplomatic apparatus is that this great victory was credited to the Revolutionary Guards, the Supreme National Security Council, and the security services of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and not to an American diplomatic success upon the implementation of the JPCOA…”

”…The story of the money sought by Iran goes back to the beginning of the victory of the Islamic Revolution. America blocked $400 million in Iranian assets that were to be delivered to Iran as military shipments. Now, in this exchange, the Iranians demand the entire $400 million in addition to $1.3 billion in deferred interest…”

If you want to read the rest of the transcript you can do it here.

Buy SynodThe Synod is a conspiracy of 8 large international banks who seek to control gold, stock, bond and commodity markets all over the world. Jack Severs runs for his life when he learns too much, as the most sophisticated surveillance system ever built is deployed to track him down. As the ever-tightening noose closes, he struggles to uncover evidence to save himself and his world from collapsing! An exciting, fictional, fun and educational thriller about the banking cartel, and how it affects business, politics and daily life.