Log in



Categories » ‘Politics’

THE CONGRESSIONAL SCUMBAG LIST

May 16th, 2011 by

Mr. SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. ALEXANDER, Mr. REID, Mr. MCCONNELL, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Ms. COLLINS, Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts, Mr. BINGAMAN, Mr. BLUMENTHAL, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. JOHANNS, Mr. LUGAR, Mr. REED, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Mr. CARPER, and Mr. KYL)introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

 

To reduce the number of executive positions subject to Senate confirmation.

 

Mar 30, 2011 – Introduced in Senate. This is the original text of the bill as it was written by its sponsor and submitted to the Senate for consideration. This is the latest version of the bill currently available on GovTrack.

 

Text of S 679 Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act of 2011

 

Mar 30, 2011 – Introduced in Senate. This is the original text of the bill as it was written by its sponsor and submitted to the Senate for consideration. This is the latest version of the bill currently available on GovTrack.

 

 

S 679 IS

 

112th CONGRESS

 

1st Session

 

S. 679

 

To reduce the number of executive positions subject to Senate confirmation.

 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

 

March 30, 2011

 

 

Mr. SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. ALEXANDER, Mr. REID, Mr. MCCONNELL, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Ms. COLLINS, Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts, Mr. BINGAMAN, Mr. BLUMENTHAL, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. JOHANNS, Mr. LUGAR, Mr. REED, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Mr. CARPER, and Mr. KYL)introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

 


 

A BILL

 

To reduce the number of executive positions subject to Senate confirmation.

 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

 

This Act may be cited as the ‘Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act of 2011’.

 

SEC. 2. PRESIDENTIAL APPOINTMENTS NOT SUBJECT TO SENATE APPROVAL.

 

(a) Agriculture-

           

(1) ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE FOR CONGRESSIONAL RELATIONS AND ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE FOR ADMINISTRATION- Section 218(b) of the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6918(b)) is amended–

 

(A) by striking ‘subsection (a)’ and inserting ‘subsection (a)(3)’;

 

(B) by striking subsection (c); and

 

(C) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (c).

 

(2) RURAL UTILITIES SERVICE ADMINISTRATOR- Section 232(b)(1) of the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6942(b)(1)) is amended–

 

(A) by striking ‘, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate’;

 

(B) by striking paragraph (2); and

 

(C) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2).

 

(3) COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION- Section 9(a) of the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act (15 U.S.C. 714g(a)) is amended in the third sentence by striking ‘by and with the advice and consent of the Senate’.

 

(b) Commerce-

 

(1) ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS- The provisions of the Act entitled ‘An Act to provide for the appointment of one additional Assistant Secretary of Commerce, and for other purposes’, approved July 15, 1947 (15 U.S.C. 1505), section 304 of title III of the Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce and the United States Information Agency Appropriation Act, 1955 (15 U.S.C. 1506), and the Act entitled ‘An Act to authorize an additional Assistant Secretary of Commerce’, approved February 16, 1962 (15 U.S.C. 1507), that require the advice and consent of the Senate shall not apply with respect to the appointment of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations.

 

(2) CHIEF SCIENTIST; NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION- Section 2(d) of Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1970 (5 U.S.C. App. 1) is amended by striking ‘, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate,’.

 

(3) ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION- Section 103(a)(2) of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration Organization Act (47 U.S.C. 902(a)(2)) is amended by striking ‘, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate’.

 

(c) Department of Defense-

 

(1) ASSISTANT SECRETARIES OF DEFENSE FOR LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS, PUBLIC AFFAIRS, AND NETWORKS AND INFORMATION INTEGRATION- Section 138(a)(2) of title 10, United States Code, as amended by section 901(b)(4)(A) of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, is further amended to read as follows:

 

‘(2)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the Assistant Secretaries of Defense shall be appointed from civilian life by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.

 

‘(B) The Assistant Secretary of Defense referred to in subsection (b)(5), the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs, and the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks and Information Integration shall each be appointed from civilian life by the President.’.

 

(2) ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY FOR FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT- Section 3016(a) of such title is amended–

 

(A) by inserting ‘(1)’ after ‘(a)’;

 

(B) by striking the second sentence; and

 

(C) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

 

‘(2)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the Assistant Secretaries of the Army shall be appointed from civilian life by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.

 

‘(B) The Assistant Secretary of the Army specified in subsection (b)(4) shall be appointed from civilian life by the President.’.

 

(3) ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE NAVY FOR FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT- Section 5016(a) of such title is amended–

 

(A) by inserting ‘(1)’ after ‘(a)’;

 

(B) by striking the second sentence; and

 

(C) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

 

‘(2)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the Assistant Secretaries of the Navy shall be appointed from civilian life by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.

 

‘(B) The Assistant Secretary of the Navy specified in subsection (b)(3) shall be appointed from civilian life by the President.’.

 

(4) ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE FOR FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT- Section 8016(a) of such title is amended–

 

(A) by inserting ‘(1)’ after ‘(a)’;

 

(B) by striking the second sentence; and

 

(C) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

 

‘(2)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the Assistant Secretaries of the Air Force shall be appointed from civilian life by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.

 

‘(B) The Assistant Secretary of the Air Force specified in subsection (b)(3) shall be appointed from civilian life by the President.’.

 

(5) MEMBERS OF NATIONAL SECURITY EDUCATION BOARD- Section 803(b)(7) of the David L. Boren National Security Education Act of 1991 (50 U.S.C. 1903(b)(7)) is amended by striking ‘by and with the advice and consent of the Senate,’.

 

(d) Department of Education-

 

(1) ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR LEGISLATION AND CONGRESSIONAL AFFAIRS AND ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR MANAGEMENT- Section 202(e) of the Department of Education Organization Act (20 U.S.C. 3412(e)) is amended by inserting after the first sentence the following: ‘Notwithstanding the previous sentence, the appointments of individuals to serve as the Assistant Secretary for Legislation and Congressional Affairs and the Assistant Secretary for Management shall not be subject to the advice and consent of the Senate.’.

 

(2) COMMISSIONER, REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMINISTRATION- Section 3(a) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 702(a)) is amended by striking ‘by and with the advice and consent of the Senate’.

 

(3) COMMISSIONER, EDUCATION STATISTICS- Section 117(b) of the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002 (20 U.S.C. 9517(b)) is amended by striking ‘, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate,’.

(e) Department of Energy- Section 203(a) of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7133(a)) is amended in the first sentence by striking ‘Senate;’ and inserting ‘Senate (except that the Assistant Secretary for Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs of the Department may be appointed by the President without the advice and consent of the Senate);’.

(f) Department of Health and Human Services-

(1) ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC AFFAIRS- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the appointment of an individual to serve as the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs within the Department of Health and Human Services shall not be subject to the advice and consent of the Senate.

(2) ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR LEGISLATION- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the appointment of an individual to serve as the Assistant Secretary for Legislation within the Department of Health and Human Services shall not be subject to the advice and consent of the Senate.

(3) COMMISSIONER, ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN, YOUTH AND FAMILIES- Section 915(b)(2) of the Claude Pepper Young Americans Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12311(b)(2)) is amended by striking ‘, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate,’.

(4) COMMISSIONER, ADMINISTRATION FOR NATIVE AMERICANS- Section 803B(c) of the Native American Programs Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 2991b-2(c)) is amended by striking ‘, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate’.

(g) Department of Homeland Security-

(1) DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE FOR DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS; ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR OF THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, GRANT PROGRAMS- Section 430(b) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 238(b)) is amended by striking ‘, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate’.

(2) ADMINISTRATOR OF THE UNITED STATES FIRE ADMINISTRATION- Section 5(b) of the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 2204(b)) is amended by striking ‘, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate,’.

(3) DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF COUNTERNARCOTICS ENFORCEMENT- Section 878(a) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 458(a)) is amended by striking ‘, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate’.

(4) CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER- Section 516(a) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 321e(a)) is amended by striking ‘, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate’.

(h) Housing and Urban Development; Chief Human Capital Officer, Assistant Secretary for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations, and Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs- Section 4(a) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Act (42 U.S.C. 3533(a)) is amended–

(1) by inserting ‘(1)’ after ‘(a)’;

(2) by striking ‘eight’ and inserting ‘5’; and

(3) by adding at the end the following:

‘(2) There shall be in the Department a Chief Human Capital Officer, an Assistant Secretary for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations, and an Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs, each of whom shall be appointed by the President and shall perform such functions, powers, and duties as the Secretary shall prescribe from time to time.’.

(i) Department of Justice-

(1) ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS-

(A) IN GENERAL- Chapter 31 of title 28, United States Code, is amended–

(i) in section 506, by striking ‘11 Assistant Attorneys General’ and inserting ‘10 Assistant Attorneys General’; and

(ii) by inserting after section 507A the following:

‘Sec. 507B. Assistant Attorney General for Legislative Affairs

‘The President shall appoint an Assistant Attorney General for Legislative Affairs to assist the Attorney General in the performance of the duties of the Attorney General.’.

(B) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENT- The table of sections for chapter 31 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 507A the following:

‘507B. Assistant Attorney General for Legislative Affairs.’.

(2) DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS- Section 302(b) of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3732(b)) is amended by striking ‘, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate’.

(3) DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE- Section 401(b) of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3741(b)) is amended by striking ‘, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate’.

(4) DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE- Section 202(b) of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3722(b)) is amended by striking ‘, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate’.

(5) ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION- Section 201(b) of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5611(b)) is amended by striking ‘, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate,’.

(6) DIRECTOR, OFFICE FOR VICTIMS OF CRIME- Section 1411(b) of the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10605(b)) is amended by striking ‘, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate’.

(j) Department of Labor-

(1) ASSISTANT SECRETARIES FOR ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT, CONGRESSIONAL AFFAIRS, AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS- Notwithstanding section 2 of the Act of April 17, 1946 (29 U.S.C. 553), the appointment of individuals to serve as the Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management, the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Affairs, and the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs within the Department of Labor, shall not be subject to the advice and consent of the Senate.

(2) DIRECTOR OF THE WOMEN’S BUREAU- Section 2 of the Act of June 5, 1920 (29 U.S.C. 12) is amended by striking ‘, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate’.

(k) Department of State; Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs, and Assistant Secretary for Administration- Section 1(c)(1) of the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 (22 U.S.C. 2651a(c)(1)) is amended–

(1) by striking ‘, each of whom shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and’; and

(2) by adding at the end the following: ‘Each Assistant Secretary of State shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, except that the appointments of the Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs, and the Assistant Secretary for Administration shall not be subject to the advice and consent of the Senate.’.

(l) Department of Transportation-

(1) ASSISTANT SECRETARIES- Section 102(e) of title 49, United States Code, is amended–

(A) by striking ‘(e) THE DEPARTMENT’ and all that follows through ‘An Assistant Secretary’ and inserting the following:

‘(e) Assistant Secretaries; General Counsel-

‘(1) APPOINTMENT- The Department has 5 Assistant Secretaries and a General Counsel, including–

‘(A) an Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs and an Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy, who shall each be appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate;

‘(B) an Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs and Chief Financial Officer and an Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs, who shall each be appointed by the President;

‘(C) an Assistant Secretary for Administration, who shall be appointed in the competitive service by the Secretary, with the approval of the President; and

‘(D) a General Counsel, who shall be appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate.

‘(2) DUTIES AND POWERS- The officers set forth in paragraph (1) shall carry out duties and powers prescribed by the Secretary. An Assistant Secretary’.

(2) DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION- Section 106 of title 49, United States Code, is amended–

(A) in subsection (b), by striking ‘. The Administration has a Deputy Administrator. They are appointed’ and inserting ‘, who shall be appointed’; and

(B) in subsection (d)(1), by striking ‘The Deputy Administrator must’ and inserting ‘The Administration has a Deputy Administrator, who shall be appointed by the President. In making an appointment, the President shall consider the fitness of the appointee to efficiently carry out the duties and powers of the office. The Deputy Administrator shall’.

(m) Department of Treasury-

(1) ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS- Section 301(e) of title 31, United States Code, is amended–

(A) striking ‘10 Assistant Secretaries’ and inserting ‘9 Assistant Secretaries’; and

(B) by inserting after the first sentence the following new sentence: ‘The Department shall have 1 Assistant Secretary not subject to the advice and consent of the Senate who shall be the Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs.’.

(2) ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC AFFAIRS AND DIRECTOR OF POLICY PLANNING-Section 301(e) of title 31, United States Code, as amended by paragraph (1), is amended by–

(A) striking ‘9 Assistant Secretaries’ in the first sentence and inserting ‘8 Assistant Secretaries’; and

(B) in the second sentence–

(i) by striking ‘1 Assistant Secretary’ and inserting ‘2 Assistant Secretaries’, and

(ii) by inserting ‘and the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs’ before the period at the end.

(3) ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR MANAGEMENT AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER- Section 301(e) of title 31, United States Code, as amended by paragraphs (1) and (2), is amended by–

(A) striking ‘8 Assistant Secretaries’ in the first sentence and inserting ‘7 Assistant Secretaries’; and

(B) in the second sentence–

(i) by striking ‘2 Assistant Secretary’ and inserting ‘3 Assistant Secretaries’, and

(ii) by striking ‘and the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs’ and inserting ‘, the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs, and the Assistant Secretary for Management, Chief Financial Officer, and Chief Performance Officer’.

(4) TREASURER OF THE UNITED STATES- Section 301(d) of title 31, United States Code, is amended–

(A) by striking ‘2 Deputy Under Secretaries, and a Treasurer of the United States’ and inserting ‘and 2 Deputy Under Secretaries’, and

(B) by inserting ‘and a Treasurer of the United States appointed by the President’ after ‘Fiscal Assistant Secretary appointed by the Secretary’.

(5) DIRECTOR OF THE MINT- Section 304(b)(1) of title 31, United States Code, is amended–

(A) by striking ‘, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate’; and

(B) by striking ‘On removal, the President shall send a message to the Senate giving the reasons for removal.’.

(n) Department of Veterans Affairs- Section 308(a) of title 38, United States Code, is amended–

(1) by striking ‘There shall’ and inserting ‘(1) There shall’;

(2) in paragraph (1), as designated by paragraph (1) of this subsection, by striking ‘Each Assistant’ and all that follows through the period at the end; and

(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:

‘(2) Except as provided in paragraph (3), each Assistant Secretary appointed under paragraph (1) shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.

‘(3) The following Assistant Secretaries may be appointed without the advice and consent of the Senate:

‘(A) The Assistant Secretary for Management.

‘(B) The Assistant Secretary for Human Resources and Administration.

‘(C) The Assistant Secretary for Public and Intergovernmental Affairs.

‘(D) The Assistant Secretary for Congressional and Legislative Affairs.

‘(E) The Assistant Secretary for Information and Technology.’.

(o) Appalachian Regional Commission; Alternate Federal Co-Chairman- Section 14301(b)(1) of title 40, United States Code, is amended by striking ‘by and with the advice and consent of the Senate’.

(p) Council of Economic Advisers, Members- Section 10 of the Employment Act of 1946 (15 U.S.C. 1023) is amended by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:

‘(a) Creation; Composition; Qualifications; Chairman and Vice Chairman-

‘(1) CREATION- There is created in the Executive Office of the President a Council of Economic Advisers (hereinafter called the ‘Council’).

‘(2) COMPOSITION- The Council shall be composed of three members, of whom–

‘(A) 1 shall be the chairman who shall be appointed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate; and

‘(B) 2 shall be appointed by the President.

‘(3) QUALIFICATIONS- Each member shall be a person who, as a result of his training, experience, and attainments, is exceptionally qualified to analyze and interpret economic developments, to appraise programs and activities of the Government in the light of the policy declared in section 2, and to formulate and recommend national economic policy to promote full employment, production, and purchasing power under free competitive enterprise.

‘(4) VICE CHAIRMAN- The President shall designate 1 of the members of the Council as vice chairman, who shall act as chairman in the absence of the chairman.’.

(q) Corporation for National and Community Service; Managing Director- Section 194(a)(1) of the National and Community Service Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12651d(a)(1)) is amended by striking ‘, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate’.

(r) National Council on Disability Members, Including Chairperson- Section 400(a)(1)(A) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 780(a)(1)(A)) is amended by striking ‘, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate’.

(s) National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities; National Museum and Library Services Board; Members- Section 207(b)(1)(D) of the Museum and Library Services Act (20 U.S.C. 9105a(b)(1)(D)) is amended by striking ‘, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate’.

(t) National Science Foundation; Board Members- Section 4(a) of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950 (42 U.S.C. 1863(a)) is amended by striking ‘, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate,’.

(u) Office of Management and Budget; Controller, Office of Federal Financial Management-Section 504(b) of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking ‘, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate,’.

(v) Office of National Drug Control Policy; Deputy Directors- Section 704(a)(1) of the Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 1998 (21 U.S.C. 1703(a)(1)) is amended to read as follows:

‘(1) IN GENERAL-

‘(A) DIRECTOR- The Director shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and shall serve at the pleasure of the President.

‘(B) DEPUTY DIRECTORS- The Deputy Director of National Drug Control Policy, Deputy Director for Demand Reduction, the Deputy Director for Supply Reduction, and the Deputy Director for State and Local Affairs shall each be appointed by the President and serve at the pleasure of the President.

‘(C) DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR DEMAND REDUCTION- In appointing the Deputy Director for Demand Reduction under this paragraph, the President shall take into consideration the scientific, educational, or professional background of the individual, and whether the individual has experience in the fields of substance abuse prevention, education, or treatment.’.

(w) Office of Navajo and Hopi Relocation; Commissioner- Section 12(b)(1) of Public Law 93-531 (25 U.S.C. 640d-11(b)(1)) is amended by striking ‘by and with the advice and consent of the Senate’.

(x) Office of Science and Technology Policy; Associate Directors- Section 203 of the National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C. 6612) is amended in the second sentence by striking ‘, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate,’.

(y) United States Agency for International Development-

(1) ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR LEGISLATIVE AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS- Notwithstanding section 624(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2384(a)), the appointment by the President of the Assistant Administrator for Legislative and Public Affairs at the United States Agency for International Development shall not be subject to the advice and consent of the Senate.

(2) ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR MANAGEMENT- Notwithstanding section 624(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2384(a)), the appointment by the President of the Assistant Administrator for Management at the United States Agency for International Development shall not be subject to the advice and consent of the Senate.

(z) Community Development Financial Institution Fund; Administrator- Section 104(b)(1) of the Community Development Banking and Financial Institutions Act of 1994 (12 U.S.C. 4703(b)(1)) is amended by striking ‘, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate’.

(aa) Department of Transportation; St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation; Administrator- Subsection (a) of section 2 of the Act of May 13, 1954, referred to as the Saint Lawrence Seaway Act (33 U.S.C. 982(a)) is amended by striking ‘, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate,’.

(bb) Mississippi River Commission; Commissioner- Section 2 of the Act of June 28, 1879 (33 U.S.C. 642), is amended in the first sentence by striking ‘, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate,’.

(cc) Governor and Alternate Governor of the African Development Bank-

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 1333(a) of the African Development Bank Act (22 U.S.C. 290i-1(a)) is amended by striking ‘, by and with’ and all that follows through ‘Bank’ and inserting ‘shall appoint a Governor and an Alternate Governor’.

(2) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS- Section 1334 of such Act (22 U.S.C. 290i-2) is amended–

(A) by striking ‘The Director or Alternate Director’ and inserting the following:

‘(b) The Director or Alternate Director’; and

(B) by inserting before subsection (b), as redesignated, the following:

‘(a) The President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint a Director of the Bank.’.

(dd) Governor and Alternate Governor of the Asian Development Bank- Section 3(a) of the Asian Development Bank Act (22 U.S.C. 285a(a)) is amended by striking ‘, by and with’ and all that follows through the end period and inserting ‘shall appoint–’

‘(1) a Governor of the Bank and an alternate for the Governor; and

‘(2) by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, a Director of the Bank.’.

(ee) Governors and Alternate Governors of the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development- Section 3 of the Bretton Woods Agreements Act (22 U.S.C. 286a) is amended–

(1) in subsection (a), by striking ‘, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint a governor of the Fund who shall also serve as governor of the Bank, and an executive director’ and inserting ‘shall appoint a governor of the Fund who shall also serve as governor of the Bank and, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, an executive director’; and

(2) in subsection (b), by striking ‘, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate,’ the first place it appears.

(ff) Governor and Alternate Governor of the African Development Fund- Section 203(a) of the African Development Fund Act (22 U.S.C. 290g-1(a)) is amended by striking ‘, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate,’.

(gg) National Board for Education Sciences; Members- Section 116(c)(1) of the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002 (20 U.S.C. 9516(c)(1)) is amended by striking ‘, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate’.

(hh) National Institute for Literacy Advisory Board; Members- Section 242(e)(1)(A) of the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (20 U.S.C. 9252(e)(1)(A)) is amended by striking ‘with the advice and consent of the Senate’.

(ii) Institute of American Indian and Alaska Native Culture and Arts Development; Member, Board of Trustees- Section 1505 of the American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian Culture and Art Development Act (20 U.S.C. 4412(a)(1)(A)) is amended by striking ‘by and with the advice and consent of the Senate’.

(jj) Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Projects- Section 106(b)(1) of the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act (division C of Public Law 108-32415 U.S.C. 720d(b)(1)) is amended by striking ‘, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate,’.

(kk) Public Health Service Commissioned Officer Corps-

(1) APPOINTMENT- Section 203(a)(3) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 204(a)(3)) is amended by striking ‘with the advice and consent of the Senate’.

(2) PROMOTIONS- Section 210(a) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 211(a)) is amended by striking ‘, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate’.

(ll) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Commissioned Officer Corps-

(1) APPOINTMENTS AND PROMOTIONS TO PERMANENT GRADES- Section 226 of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Commissioned Officer Corps Act of 2002 (33 U.S.C. 3026) is amended by striking ‘, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate’.

(2) POSITIONS OF IMPORTANCE AND RESPONSIBILITY- Section 228(d)(1) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 3028(d)(1)) is amended by striking ‘, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate’.

(3) TEMPORARY APPOINTMENTS AND PROMOTIONS GENERALLY- Section 229 of such Act (33 U.S.C. 3029) is amended–

(A) by striking ‘alone’ each place it appears; and

(B) in subsection (a), in the second sentence, by striking ‘unless the Senate sooner gives its advice and consent to the appointment’.

(mm) Chief Financial Officer Positions- Section 901(a)(1) of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking subparagraphs (A) and (B) and inserting the following:

‘(A) be appointed by the President; or

‘(B) be designated by the President, in consultation with the head of the agency, from among officials of the agency who are required by law to be appointed by the President, whether or not by and with the advice and consent of the Senate;’.

 

SEC. 3. WORKING GROUP ON STREAMLINING PAPERWORK FOR EXECUTIVE NOMINATIONS.

(a) Establishment- There is established the Working Group on Streamlining Paperwork for Executive Nominations (in this section referred to as the ‘Working Group’).

(b) Membership-

(1) COMPOSITION- The Working Group shall be composed of–

(A) the chairperson who shall be–

(i) except as provided under clause (ii), the Director of the Office of Presidential Personnel; or

(ii) a Federal officer designated by the President;

(B) representatives designated by the President from–

(i) the Office of Personnel Management;

(ii) the Office of Government Ethics; and

(iii) the Federal Bureau of Investigation; and

(C) individuals appointed by the chairperson of the Working Group who have experience and expertise relating to the Working Group, including–

(i) individuals from other relevant Federal agencies; and

(ii) individuals with relevant experience from previous presidential administrations.

(c) Streamlining of Paperwork Required for Executive Nominations-

(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Working Group shall conduct a study and submit a report on the streamlining of paperwork required for executive nominations to–

(A) the President;

(B) the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate; and

(C) the Committee on Rules and Administration of the Senate.

(2) CONSULTATION WITH COMMITTEES OF THE SENATE- In conducting the study under this section, the Working Group shall consult with the chairperson and ranking member of the committees referred to under paragraph (1) (B) and (C).

(3) CONTENTS-

(A) IN GENERAL- The report submitted under this section shall include–

(i) recommendations for the streamlining of paperwork required for executive nominations; and

(ii) a detailed plan for the creation and implementation of an electronic system for collecting and distributing background information from potential and actual Presidential nominees for positions which require appointment by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.

(B) ELECTRONIC SYSTEM- The electronic system described under subparagraph (A)(ii) shall–

(i) provide for–

(I) less burden on potential nominees for positions which require appointment by and with the advice and consent of the Senate;

(II) faster delivery of background information to Congress, the White House, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Diplomatic Security, and the Office of Government Ethics; and

(III) fewer errors of omission; and

(ii) ensure the existence and operation of a single, searchable form which shall be known as a ‘Smart Form’ and shall–

(I) be free to a nominee and easy to use;

(II) make it possible for the nominee to answer all vetting questions one way, at a single time;

(III) secure the information provided by a nominee;

(IV) allow for multiple submissions over time, but always in the format requested by the vetting agency or entity;

(V) be compatible across different computer platforms;

(VI) make it possible to easily add, modify, or subtract vetting questions;

(VII) allow error checking; and

(VIII) allow the user to track the progress of a nominee in providing the required information.

(d) Review of Background Investigation Requirements-

(1) IN GENERAL- The Working Group shall conduct a review of the impact of background investigation requirements on the appointments process.

(2) CONDUCT OF REVIEW- In conducting the review, the Working Group shall–

(A) assess the feasibility of using personnel other than Federal Bureau of Investigation personnel, in appropriate circumstances, to conduct background investigations of individuals under consideration for positions appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate; and

 

(B) consider the extent to which the scope of the background investigation conducted for an individual under consideration for a position appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, should be varied depending on the nature of the position for which the individual is being considered.

 

(3) REPORT- Not later than 270 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Working Group shall submit a report of the findings of the review under this subsection to–

 

(A) the President;

 

(B) the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate; and

 

(C) the Committee on Rules and Administration of the Senate.

 

(e) Personnel Matters-

 

(1) COMPENSATION OF MEMBERS-

 

(A) FEDERAL OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES- Each member of the Working Group who is a Federal officer or employee shall serve without compensation in addition to that received for their services as a Federal officer or employee.

 

(B) MEMBERS NOT FEDERAL OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES- Each member of the Working Group who is not a Federal officer or employee shall not be compensated for services performed for the Working Group.

 

(2) TRAVEL EXPENSES- The members of the Working Group shall be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, at rates authorized for employees of agencies under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code, while away from their homes or regular places of business in the performance of services for the Working Group.

 

(3) STAFF-

 

(A) IN GENERAL- The President may designate Federal officers and employees to provide support services for the Working Group.

 

(B) DETAIL OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES- Any Federal employee may be detailed to the Working Group without reimbursement, and such detail shall be without interruption or loss of civil service status or privilege.

 

(f) Non-Applicability of Federal Advisory Committee Act- The Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to the Working Group established under this section.

 

(g) Termination of the Working Group- The Working Group shall terminate 60 days after the date on which the Working Group submits the latter of the 2 reports under this section.

 

SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

 

The amendments made by this Act shall take effect 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act and apply to appointments made on and after that effective date, including any nomination pending in the Senate on that date.

 

Wanta-Reagan-Mitterrand Protocol Update-The Strauss-Kahn Honeytrap and the Bin Laden Psyop-Totally Exposed

May 15th, 2011 by

 

http://www.myspace.com/tom_heneghan_intel/blog

Hot EXPLOSIVE Back Breaking News

Awakening Americans: Behind the scenes intelligence briefings ALL patriot Americans MUST know…the REAL facts and truth the corporate-controlled fascist, extortion-friendly U. S. media covers up

by Tom Heneghan
International Intelligence Expert
Sunday  May 15, 2011
United States of America  –  It can now be reported that the U.S. Senate Banking Committee has recommended criminal prosecution of the gangster investment bank and brokerage Goldman Sachs, as well as the notorious criminal financial giant J. P. Morgan.

The criminal referrals have been sent to the U. S. Justice Department and now sit on the desk of compromised U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder.

The criminal referrals not only name Goldman Sachs and J. P. Morgan but former President George W. Bush aka BushFRAUD, former Bush Administration U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry 'Hank' Paulson, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, former Speaker of the House Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California, and last but not least, dysfunctional U.S. Secretary of State and former New York Senator, loser Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Item: Attorney General Holder, who was linked to the pardon of noted Bush-Clinton Crime Family Syndicate bagman Marc Rich, is now in a box with sources close to the New York Post reporting that both Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein and J.P. Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon are about to be indicted by a New York Federal Grand Jury.

Reference: The indictments deal with a violation of the New York state "bucketing" law which forbids false misrepresentation in the sales marketing of derivatives.

Note: And now the plot now thickens.  A great deal of the evidence submitted to the Senate Banking Committee, as well as New York state prosecutors, was supplied to them by none other than the current President of the International Monetary Fund and soon to be French Presidential candidate, Dominique Strauss-Kahn.

It is therefore no coincidence that at 4:40 p.m. yesterday, May 14th, Strauss-Kahn was removed from a departing flight and arrested early this morning by New York police and charged with sexual assault of a chambermaid who worked at the Sofitel hotel in New York City near Times Square.

Sofitel hotel at 45 West 44th Street in New York City

Reference: The Sofitel hotel has long been known as an outpost for foreign intelligence activity, specifically operations of the Israeli Mossad.

Note: What is also interesting about these events surrounding Strauss-Kahn is that for whatever reason Strauss-Kahn's diplomatic immunity was revoked by the U.S. State Department 24 hours  BEFORE  the alleged sexual incident occurred at the Sofitel hotel.

Item: The U.S. Secretary of State, of course, is none other than Hillary Rodham Clinton, who is now a subject of the aforementioned investigation triggered by evidence given to Federal and State prosecutors by none other than Strauss-Kahn.

I will leave it to the readers of this intelligence briefing to come to their own conclusion concerning this strange event.

And now the plot thickens even more!

We can now divulge that major felony charges have been prepared by Justice Department investigators that accuse the aforementioned members of the Bush Administration, including others, as well as Goldman Sachs and the Bank of America, in the  illegal  diversion of $1.5 TRILLION tied to the Wanta-Reagan-Mitterrand Protocols, which were taxes owed to the U.S. Treasury.

The $1.5 TRILLION were diverted aka illegally misdirected from a national security account at Bank of America in Charlotte, North Carolina to none other than the call cash accounts at Goldman Sachs.

This illegal activity was ordered by none other than former White House occupant George W. BushFRAUD and thisillegal order of diversion was carried out by former Bush Administration U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry 'Hank' Paulson and former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan.

Item: Former Bush U.S. Treasury Secretary John Snow resigned his position in advance of this illegal theft.  He was, of course, replaced by Paulson.

It is also important to remember that Paulson and Greenspan flew to China and France one day after the theft of the Protocol funds aka taxes due the U.S., Chinese and French treasuries in an attempt to bribe both Chinese and French officials as to change the terms of the Protocols and some how legalize this blatant THEFT.  It did not work.  Although Greenspan returned to the United States on a U.S. military aircraft, Henry 'Hank' Paulson was actually detained by European Union INTERPOL investigators in Heidelberg, Germany and had his passport revoked.

Paulson was eventually released and returned to the United States from Germany utilizing none other than an ISRAELI passport.

The Protocol fund were then, once again, illegally transferred and misdirected to a joint U.S. CIA-British MI6 proprietary account at Barclay Bank in England.

This account also involved the idemnification and insurance policy linked to U.S. government employee and CIA asset and 9/11 patsy Osama bin Laden aka Tim Osman.

The account was actually frozen after 9/11 by the Bush Administration.

It could not be UN-frozen until Osama bin Laden was declared dead.

The idemnification clause tied to bin Laden had a 10-year statute of limitation clause.

Most of the life insurance policies issued by Lloyds of London

??

are collateralized by Barclay's Bank.

P.S. Barclays Bank, J. P. Morgan and Goldman Sachs then proceeded to illegally write cross-collateralized derivatives on the frozen national security accounts and then use these derivatives to illegally trade both sides of the Euro currency futures and options market by cross-collateralizing the derivatives inside what is commonly known in the financial trading community as the difference between the bid and the ask, commonly known as the spread.

This is called electronic front running and bucketing.

The result of this illegal trading activity has increased the debt load of the smaller European Union nations like Spain, Portugal, Greece and Ireland.

Note: At this hour both Greece and Ireland do not want a 'bailout' from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) knowing this bailout would do nothing other than pay off the derivative holdings of Goldman Sachs and J. P. Morgan, which are on the books of these noted European nation members.

This is the evidence that has been supplied to both European and U.S. financial investigators that Dominique Strass-Kahn, President of the IMF has handed over.

P.P.S. At this hour we can divulge that the crime spree continues as Michael Cottrell, a former stooge of Christopher Story aka Edward Harle, is attempting to, once again, misuse the Wanta-Reagan-Mitterrand Protocols, all marked up in derivatives, to engage in an  illegal  attempt to proceed with a U.S. dollar refunding project that Cottrell, daddy Bush (George Herbert Walker Bush) and the Queen of England have NO authority from the IMF to conduct.

Again, the President of the IMF is Dominique Strass-Kahn now detained in New York City.

In closing, make no mistake, folks.  Christopher Story aka Edward Harle is NOT dead.  He is hard at work working for his master, Her Majesty the Queen, and the aforementioned daddy Bush stooge, Michael Cottrell, to STEAL U.S., French and Chinese Taxpayers' money.

Click to view:

http://www.scribd.com/full/55327045?access_key=key-13pvkaap2mwr3wd4dv87

Tom Heneghan's EXPLOSIVE Intelligence Briefings
International Intelligence Expert, Tom Heneghan, has hundreds of highly credible sources inside American and European Intelligence Agencies and INTERPOL–reporting what is REALLY going on behind the scenes of the corporate-controlled mainstream media cover up propaganda of on-going massive deceptions and illusions.

The Financial Powers That Be Are In A Trap of Their Own Making

May 12th, 2011 by

The International Forecaster

 

The new fiduciary, taxes to go higher next year, blatant crime in the financial world, shortside profits could be lost, a coming liquidity crisis, a coming chaos when leaving the market, a crime syndicate that runs our financial system, the Fed in control of the bond market, pain and stress continue in Europe.

 

ARTICLE FROM BOB CHAPMAN

Posted to International Forecaster website:

05 11 11

 

"For those wondering what happened in the silver market, Bob Chapman reports that there were five (5) margin increases in nine (9) days in the silver market taking margin requirements from $4,500 to $21,600. Adding insult to injury, simultaneously, all the market houses raised the margin requirements to $40,000 to $42,000 effectually taking the position that they were killing the long sales for the sake of the naked short sellers who were suffering in the $Billions$$. This is nothing more than blatant criminal activity on a mass scale to protect JPM, HSBC, GS Citi-Bank and Deutsch Bank all sanctioned by the CFTC, CME, SEC, NYSE, ASE, NASDAQ. When will we learn they are all out to screw us at our expense?" 

 

In legislation just proposed, and I don’t know by whom, nor do I have a number yet, the Dept of Labor has proposed a re-definition of who is a fiduciary, not under the Securities laws, but under ERISA, the law that governs tax advantaged retirement accounts, such as 401K and IRAs and it probably will include all retirement assets, we don’t have a definite direction yet of what they intend to do but it is my guess they want to limit those investments only to US government debt.

 

They may include some blue chips or funds, I don’t know. They may allow other high-graded fixed income products. These DOL-ERISA rules override all SEC rules. We don’t know the final form of the legislation, nor do we know whether it will be passed, but my guess it will be.  The government desperately needs to get those retirement funds invested in government debt.

 I would seriously think about terminating 401ks and IRAs by transferring the assets – without commission – into a personal account it then becomes a taxable event. I also believe there is a good chance that taxes will be higher next year.  There is also an outside chance that retirement assets could be frozen – such events would be negative on the general market because government would be directing brokerage houses to sell retirement assets. 

 

This is all in the planning stage, but it is very real. 

Your government attacks markets when they are most vulnerable and when it is politically expedient to do so. As we look back over 50 years we never would have believed things that go on today could ever have happened. The blatant presence of crime overwhelms you everywhere you look, particularly in the financial world. We are reminded of these conditions again as we reflect on what has happened in the commodity, gold and silver markets over the past two weeks. We saw an unprecedented five margin increases over nine days in the silver market, which took margin from $4,500 to $21,600. That in and of itself was disturbing, but what we saw from scores of commodity houses was even worse. Simultaneously many of them recommended the sale of commodities and they all raised margin limits to $40,000 to $42,000.

The excuse was there was too much volatility. The same volatility had been present in commodities for months yet few increases were implement. Could there have been another reason?

 

Could the naked short position of JPMorgan Chase and HSBC in silver have something to do with the double rise in margins?

We also ask how did all the commodity brokerages suddenly decide simultaneously to double CME margin requirements effectively blowing out most commodity positions of small and medium sized investors?

Did the Treasury Department or the Fed have anything to do with that? Of course they did. The naked short position of JPM and HSBC had to be protected because their loses were in the billions of dollars.

 

These past two weeks are a perfect example of market manipulation instituted to protect those too big to fail. These are two of the largest banks in the world and they just happen to be Fed shareholders. Morgan happens to be the Fed’s largest shareholder, so what else could we expect. From our viewpoint there is nothing less than a crime syndicate connecting banking, Wall Street, the Fed and the Treasury Department and Washington. The Fed has a balance sheet of almost $3 trillion, which is used to bail out Wall Street, banking and the government.

It has been our opinion for years that a sub-rosa relationship exists between the Fed, Treasury and hedge funds. One such relationship concerns naked shorting, which is rife throughout the financial markets and the SEC refuses to do anything about it. Another is the parking of Treasuries by the Fed in tax havens, such as the Cayman Islands.

 

Yes a crime syndicate runs our financial system. It has been functioning for years, but today it is arrogantly in your face. When from time to time these crooks are discovered and found responsible for financial crimes none from this elitist click ever go to jail. There are the fines to be paid by the corporation, which the shareholders get to pay for. The culprits are free to do the same thing over again. The SEC is nothing more than an appendage of major Wall Street firms, and the CFTC, Commodities Futures, Trading Corporation is worse. Just look at its most recent handiwork. The CFTC knew exactly what the CME and the commodity houses were up too in their quest to save JPM and the HSBC from $80 billion in losses. Even Bart Chilton, a member of the CFTC, says the actions in regard to silver over the past two weeks should be investigated. What we saw was blatant market manipulation.

We wonder who again told the CFTC and the SEC to look the other way?

Who instigated the attack on silver and gold and on the shares?

Is there no justice left in America?

Are we to continually be robbed by these crooks without any hope of lawful recourse?

It looks like that is going to be our fate. That is unless in 2 or 3 sentences you demand that every representative and senator stop this thievery. E-mail the CFTC, SEC, NYSE, ASE and Nasdaq and let them know you know what is going on and you want it stopped, now. If you are not successful you will continue to be robbed by these crooks. Even if you are unsuccessful these criminals will know you know exactly what they are doing.

 

As the paper markets come under massive manipulation by your government led by Obama Chief of Staff, William Daley, a former mid-west executive with JPMorgan Chase, the physical market in silver is almost non-existent, even after the fall in gold and silver prices. The industry is replete with stories of deliveries, some one to three months away. There is very little silver for sale. Thus, we have two totally distinctly different markets. The physical market is the place to be, but if you must use futures, take delivery.

In futures, options and derivatives you have seen how important the silver and gold markets are to the elitists. The recent manipulations have been done before and they’ll be done again, because the leveraged speculation industry is bigger than ever and the US government leads the industry from behind the scenes via JPM, GS, Citi, Deutsch Ban and HSBC. When these manipulations are pulled off these entities’ profit handsomely along with hedge funds that we believe are working in tandem with these players. What you just saw in the paper silver market probably was the biggest financial scam of all-time.

 

Remember, hedge funds are unregulated and they can do about anything they want. They are all in line to profit and are willing participants in our governments crime syndicate. We are also seeing these hedgies and others exploit the inefficiencies of exchange traded funds. This adds massive liquidity to the ETF’s, which are busy playing the same derivatives, options and futures. If you throw high frequency traders into the soup you have very explosive markets. As a result silver traded off 30% and ended last week off 27% – its biggest monthly decline in 35 years, thanks to your government. This makes it harder and harder to be an American when your own government is the enemy. If fact, all commodities were hit hard and oil was off close to 15%. Commodities overall fell 11%. That is not normal. That is the result of coordinated criminal activity. The insiders also used these negative events to rally the dollar and to keep the stock market elevated. Once the stock and bond market manipulations crack it will signal the beginning of the end of the elitist game. The Fed is almost totally controlling the bond market. The leverage being used from all quarters is enormous and you might ask what happens when de-leveraging takes place? It would be a reverse replay of 2007/08. Only this time except for the bonds and general market, positions almost all the bets are on the short side. That means short covering has to begin sooner or later and that could and probably will create a short squeeze not only in gold, silver and commodities, but also in gold and silver shares as well, where massive short and naked short positions have been accumulated. During such an episode much of the short side profits could be lost. Then there are the commodities houses, who pushed their clients out of the long side of commodities, gold and silver markets on to the short side, who have to cover and then go long again to glean those commissions. Will government be standing there telling them what to do? Perhaps, but the cover and going long again will be very hard to resist. Thus, as you can see there will be major resetting of long positions. That will be an easy sell coming off a highly profitable operation. That means if you are long you stay long. If you want to initiate new positions, or add to positions, you phase in your buying because no one ever really knows where the bottom is. Incidentally keep in mind that this time the action should be the exact opposite of 2007/08. Most all of the professionals are on the short side of a very crowed trade. This will be a liquidity crisis, but the reverse of the last one. The short side works just like the long side; both create self-reinforcing liquidity, as pros and speculators borrow more to finance their bets in what has become a grand casino. Short covering is far more difficult than normally going long, due to availability and partial de-leveraging. When everyone tries to get out the door at the same time, chaos ensues.

 

These past two weeks are reminiscent of 2008. The question is will the antics displayed in rigging markets, particularly in gold, silver and commodities bring about such a crisis? Will short side de-leveraging break the bubble? It is very possible that it will.

 

The comparisons are ominous and contagion could be the result. One thing is for sure the fundamentals for gold, silver and commodities are overwhelmingly positive. Thus, the upside potential is enormous, particularly when liquidity is fleeing other markets looking for a more profitable home.

The market has been telling us for two months that we will see a very large QE3. The phasing in, the transition, from QE2 and QE3 will be stealth and hardly noticeable. It will be happening, but it will be well hidden and probably called something else. It will have another face, but it will be the same old game, probably to the tune of $2.3 trillion, which will feed roaring inflation. We ask, under those circumstances how can commodities, gold and silver not rise in value? The transition in time will turn into a stampede in the search for wealth retaining safety and to offset the ravages of inflation. This could very well lead to a counter rally in commodities, gold and silver throughout the summer, which would be fully unexpected. Risk will be rampant, but gold, silver and commodities will have the fundamentals to support another very strong rally. Incidentally, treasury and Agency support for government will be close to $1 trillion minimum. Then there will be the matter of support for the economy. That could cost another $1 trillion or so, because we see congress not allocating any funds for stimulus. As an addendum we have recently seen the 10-year Treasury note yield fall from 3.65% to 3.15%. This is the work of the Fed and we see it as a warning that something bad lies ahead. We saw the same thing recently as the euro was manipulated from $1.25 to $1.49 in anticipation of another crisis in the euro zone and EU regarding Greece. A buffer zone was created for the euro to soften the fall in its value as Greece defaulted.

Then there is the dollar carry trade, which is the sale or shorting of low yielding dollar investments, the extent of which is unknown. This imponderable could cause dislocation, or severe problems.

Over the past month many are contemplating what effect Japan will have on the world economic and financial scene. How much inflation will they cause and export? How high will the yen go as capital is repatriated? No matter what all of these problems are it is positive for gold and silver. For this and other cited reasons the rest of the year will be wild for gold and silver. Japan is not only bullish for the precious metals, but super bullish. Japanese problems are in the process of spreading worldwide. Although we have little idea regarding their impact, any impact is bad.

 

The physical silver and gold markets are becoming further detached from the paper markets. Silver is hard to obtain and in many instances delivery is 2 to 3 months away. There are lines all over the world to buy silver. It could get to the point where no physical silver could be available. We wonder what the paper market would then do? Premiums are even being charged.

There are many fundamentally good reasons for higher precious metals prices. The dumping of the dollar, further warfare in Libya and the possibility that Mexico, after PRI takes the presidency next year, (they will continue to hold both Houses), may go to a silver backed peso. What a nightmare for the elitists. We predicted last May that the second half of 2011 would be volatile and in turmoil and we haven’t changed our minds.

 

There is no question that government and Comex are in a desperate trap of their own making. Silver shorts that are participating in leasing are lending cash to physical holders. They then may take delivery, because the borrowers have no cash. Physical silver drying up could cause a real problem for the shorts, known as a short squeeze. The first four months at Comex has seen problems and in the months ahead they will become worse. That could bring Gresham’s Law into play and more and more silver and gold would move out of circulation creating ever bigger shortages and higher prices in the process. The only way to stop hoarding is to allow gold and silver to rise in a free market and to stop the suppression.

 

Gold will continue to rise due to its status as the only real currency in the world. Then there is the added attraction of a hedge against inflation for both gold and silver.

 

The inflation caused by quantitative easing is not going away for three more years or more and it will spread in varying degrees worldwide. No matter the state of the euro and other major currencies the precious metals are headed higher. Do not look at the USDX. Watch the losses of all currencies versus gold. That is the true measure of what a currency is worth. Another negative unknown is will there by mandatory wage gains or price controls, neither of which will last more than 2 or 3 years, and bring disastrous catch up results.

Zero interest rates, QE1, 2, and 3 and fiscal profligacy rule the day. 70% to 85% of Treasury sales are to the Fed, which monetizes the debt sending inflation soaring. We have yet to hear of cuts in government spending. As a result the US may lose its AAA credit rating, which should have been lost long ago.

 

More than 40 states are near insolvency as are hundreds of municipalities. That as we predicted will become more visible in the second half of the year, along with the fate of the six-euro nations that are near insolvency as well. The creation of money and credit is integral worldwide as a method of keeping nations afloat and it cannot go on forever.

Inflation and lack of increasing wages are killing Americans every time they shop and this condition will continue for at least the next 2 to 3 years. In the process it will escalate. In that process all of business is under pressure as well and it will result in low profits and insolvencies.

 

Over the last year we have spent hours writing about and predicting what was going to happen in the euro zone and in the UK. Greece will probably default as we encouraged them to on Greek radio, TV and in their press. Ireland and Portugal should follow and Belgium, Spain and Italy could become victims as well. June 21st is the big day for Greece as the House votes on the issue of collateralizing Greece’s debt with virtually all the assets of the Greek state.

 

We do not believe that is going to happen and so there should be some kind of a default. If that happens Ireland and Portugal could quickly follow. Such events would change the makeup of the euro as those three countries returned to their own currencies having left banks and other sovereign nations with uncollectible debt and the distinct possibility of breaking up the euro. We do not believe the House in Portugal will approve the most resent bailout package as well, putting them in a similar position as that of Greece. If they don’t default they live in poverty for the next 50 years and in the case of Greece the bankers will end up owning most of the country.

 

The ECB, the European Central Bank, has raised interest rates; we do not expect another rise soon. Germany is doing fine, but the rest of the EU is either hanging on or is in serious financial and economic trouble.

England is simply a basket case and it is going to get worse.

Both gold and silver are facing massively short inventories on the Comex and the LBMA in London. In gold on Comex there has been five contracts for delivery for every one available. It is estimated the JPM and HSBC are naked short 45 to 1 in silver. Bonuses of 25% to 30% are being paid for contract owners to not take delivery of contracts. There was one instance of 80% being paid to a group of professionals.

 

Countries such as China, India, Russia, Iran, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico and Thailand continue to acquire and stockpile both silver and gold with the aim of backing their currencies with these precious metals. Due to such prudence there are shortages of both physical gold and silver worldwide, which means no matter how much manipulation the US government uses they won’t be able to control these and other commodity markets. Their scheme could very well blow up in their faces.

 

Silver and gold are so tight in supply that national mints are incapable of meeting demand. Delivery dates stretch out one to six months.

We have presented just a few of the many reason gold and silver are going higher irrespective of the criminal activity of the US government, the Fed, Wall Street and banking. Go long and stay long gold and silver, they are the only sure way to preserve your assets.

 

We have just had a new development that will no doubt change the way that the monopoly known as Comex operates. The Hong Kong Mercantile Exchange, on May 18, 2001, will start trading a 10 kilo (32-ounce) gold contract. That should cost the Comex more than 30% of its market and its monopoly. Comex will be hard pressed to manipulate markets like they just did raising margins five times in nine days at the behest of government and JPM and HSBC. This will also eliminate banging the close by hitting the bids, because all of the commercials (banks) are short.

We are going to see a completely new market world.

 

 

WHEN THE PEOPLE LOSE ALL FAITH IN THEIR GOVERNMENT

May 11th, 2011 by

 

http://www.newswithviews.com/JBWilliams/williams148.htm

By J.B. Williams
May 11, 2011
NewsWithViews.com

Running roughshod over the people by manipulating laws, transforming our system of government, destroying our currency, our economic and military superiority and generally forcing the people to accept a lower standard of living in order to make the rest of the world feel more equal to America, may seem like a good idea to the elites in charge, until the people lose all trust, faith and confidence in their government.

When the people determine once and for all, that their government is not their friend, but rather the greatest modern threat to American peace, prosperity and liberty, the rules of the game are going to change dramatically.

Once the people reach a point where they no longer trust anyone in their government, when every government action from the Executive, Judicial and Legislative branches seem just another lie intended to manipulate the masses into compliance, the people’s complacency will morph into unbridled rage in an instant. With nothing but liberty left to lose, the people will do whatever it takes to reclaim their freedom and deal with those so bold as to directly and overtly assault them.

How smart is it for the political elite to push Americans into that corner, and how close are we to this moment of truth?

America is Not the Middle East

Manipulating the people of the Middle East into a so-called “democratic uprising” was easy for Obama’s U.S. State Department. It was a classic Alinsky Rules for Radicals community organizing op and in parts of the world populated by uneducated people accustomed to living under the boot of brutal dictatorships, with no experience in freedom, liberty or self-reliance, it was a walk in the park for modern Marxists at the helm of U.S. foreign policy.

Even though many American citizens easily fall for the same tricks today, most Americans don’t. Many have been forced to answer their own questions over the last few years, researching and becoming familiar with things such as the Cloward-Piven Strategy being followed to the letter by the current DC regime.

Americans are cut from the cloth of freedom and liberty. They have never lived under anyone’s boot. They are a peaceful bunch, so long as you don’t try pushing them around. But when push comes to shove…

Don’t Tread on Me!

On most days, the average American is focused on making a living, raising a family, enjoying the fruits of their labor and the freedom and liberty endowed by our Creator. But when the policies of government directly interfere with the life style that Americans have taken for granted all of their lives, daily routines take a back seat to the preservation of the American Dream.

Americans are a hopeful bunch, no matter the circumstances or odds. They will hope for a better tomorrow no matter what. When they deem that the best hope for tomorrow rests in their own hands rather than in the hands of those who failed to govern wisely, they will take the necessary actions to protect freedom.

After all, in America, the people are the government. Politicians are only temporary servants of the people, who are easily and often replaced. The people are America. Yet the elites not forget…

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ­ That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ­ That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Tread on me at the risk of your own peril… That’s the message!

A Government Based on Blatant Lies

Sadly, our government now has such a consistent track record of blatant lies that very few American trust anything that drips from the lips of government officials today.

• Our military action in Libya is not a ‘no-fly zone” operation, it is an unconstitutional war intended to topple the Libyan government.

• The economic stimulus spending is not designed to return America to free-market prosperity, but rather to destroy any chance of future free-market prosperity.

• The mortgage crisis was not created by bad lenders; it was created by bad federal government lending requirements, which still persist today.

• Our debt crisis was not caused by greedy rich capitalists who do not pay their fair share in taxes; it was caused by more than seventy years of gross irresponsible government mismanagement that far exceeds the crimes of Bernie Madoff.

• President Obama issued a second false birth certificate after swearing for two-and a half years that the first forged COLB was his birth certificate, an outright lie, twice.

• Natural Born Citizen does not mean “born in Hawaii.” It means born the natural blood offspring of legal U.S. citizen father, and Obama does not pass the test. But nobody in the press will ask the right question – was his daddy ever a legal U.S. citizen?

• Democrats did not free the slaves, they fought against it. Republicans freed the slaves.

• Patriotic Americans are not terrorists; the people who fear American patriots are terrorists.

• Our government does not work to free people; it works to enslave people.

• The people don’t answer to the government; the government answers to the people.

• Our immigration system is not broken; it’s simply not enforced. A direct violation of constitutional law and U.S. sovereignty and security, and yet another lie.

We may or may not have recently killed Osama Bin Laden. The people trust nothing that their government tells them today and that’s because their government has a track record of lying to the people all day, every day, on every issue.

Patriotic Americans have been sending a clear message to Washington DC elites for a few years now, stop the lies and stop destroying our country. But Washington DC still isn’t listening, even after the 2010 landslide shift in legislative power.

Those Who Make Peaceful Revolution Impossible

There are two sides to this famous JFK quote and both sides must be heeded…

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable.” – This might be the most important statement ever made by John F. Kennedy. It is certainly the most unavoidably true statement he ever made.

If American patriots make it impossible for the current regime to complete their anti-American mission peacefully, forever altering our form of government into some insane international social justice experiment, I predict that they will become violent towards the American people in order to complete their revolution. They will do worse than they condemn Middle East regimes for doing today.

On the other hand, if the ruling class legal beagles persist in denying the people any peaceful remedy to the tyrannical theft of their country, I expect that sooner or later, the people will resort to violence as well. JFK’s point well made – on both sides of the battle for the future of America – “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable.”

Without the Consent of the Governed

Our government is legitimate only when it operates with the vast consent of the governed. Today, more than 60% of Americans opposes pretty much everything going on in Washington DC.

• More than 70% want an immediate stop to deficit spending and debt building
• 59% want federal funding cut off to illegal aliens and sanctuary cities
• 57% want ObamaCare repealed in total
• Only 1 in 4 have an overall favorable view of their federal government
• 57% believe America has been changed for the worse
• More than 75% still disapprove of congress even after the 2010 election
• Only 26% strongly support Obama
• Less than 40% of citizens trust either Eric Holder or Janet Napolitano
• Less than 40% trust the U.S. Supreme Court

The bottom line here is that citizens are fast losing faith, trust and confidence in their elected servants and that is largely due to a steady diet of overt lies from those servants, their anti-American policies and a total disregard for the will of the people or consent of the governed.

Worse yet, they are losing hope that there is any peaceful solution to the intentional dismantling of everything they believe in.

When the people lose total faith and all hope in a peaceful solution, nobody is going to like what happens next, least of all the governing elite.

What they thought they could control with fancy teleprompter speeches full of lies or carefully crafted violations of the rule of law aimed at silencing their critics, will in the end, make the uprisings in the Middle East look like a day at Disney.

No American in his or her right mind would call for or hope for violence as a solution to anything. But when liberty is the only thing left to lose, and no peaceful remedies exist, violence becomes just as predictable as JFK suggested.

Like most Americans, I had hoped to live a full life without ever seeing this day come in my country. But when all peaceful means of preserving freedom fail, freedom will be preserved by any methods available.

I am afraid that the ruling class elite have overlooked the reality that Americans are cut from the cloth of freedom and liberty. No matter the odds, no matter the cost, Americans will be free.For if Americans are not free, no man, women or child on earth will be free.

The outcome is certain, but the cost is not yet known. My hope is that the people will act peacefully, before only violent options remain.

I pray that the ruling elite come to their senses and realize that when the people lose all faith in the system the rulers have destroyed, the rules of engagement have changed as well. May God have no mercy on their souls if they push Americans into that corner…

The day of reckoning draws near.

© 2011 JB Williams – All Rights Reserved

OLDDOGS COMMENTS

AS SOON AS THE PEOPLE BECOME EDUCATED ON THE ATROSISITIES CREATED BY OUR GOVERNMENT BEING OBLIGATED TO THE BANKERS, AND NOT THE PEOPLE, ALL HELL WILL BREAK LOSE.

THERE WON’T BE A DEMOCRATIC PARTY THEN, OR A REPUBLICAN PARTY.

WE’LL ALL BE AMERICAN’S AGAIN.

THE ONLY WAY TO SUCCEED IS TO SECEDE!

 

 

 

 

UNDERSTANDING AMERICA’S FINANCIAL CRISES

May 7th, 2011 by

PART 1

Economics for Dummies 101

http://www.newswithviews.com/Coffman/mike122.htm

By Michael S. Coffman, Ph.D. and Kristie Pelletier
May 7, 2011
NewsWithViews.com

We are on the verge of a major economic catastrophe. It’s not a matter of if, but when it will come; and just how bad will it be. It’s about time you learned the truth. Your future depends on it.

[Author’s note: America is in the mess it is in because most American’s eye’s glaze over when trying to understand the complexity of economics. Because of that, we have allowed our economic system to become incredibly corrupted by those who profit politically or financially from our ignorance. Hence, we have broken our research into four parts, starting with an easy-to-read overview of what has happened to make the whole thing more comprehendible in Parts 1 & 2. By the time you get to Part III and IV you will learn of the century-old agenda to deliberately create this kind of crisis as a means of creating a world government.]

Washington has been up to mischief and we haven’t been paying attention. Most of us just work and pay our taxes. Then we work more to pay the increases in taxes that inevitably come. That is why we are in the state we are in. At the beginning of 2008 most of us said “Fannie and Freddie who? Do I know them?”

America got a wakeup call three years ago. We cannot afford to go back to sleep. It doesn’t take a degree in economics to see that. All it takes is the ability to read, and listen to what is being said. We are witnessing major economic history in the making globally and right here at home.

For the vast majority of us, our eyes glaze over with the complexities of it all; Budget, Deficit, Debt, Credit Ratings, Unfunded Liabilities, T-bills, Notes, The Fed, and the IMF. So many words, philosophies, and methods are bandied about with regard to finances that it can become very difficult to sort it all out. Yet, America is on the brink of utter financial catastrophe and we must take the time to understand what is happening, who is doing it, and how we can fix it. We won’t get a second chance.

First, we need to define some key terms you’ll hear used in the news. If you already know them, good for you. You’re ahead of most Americans. You might want to skip ahead to Part III. A very simplified definition for Budgetis a plan for spending money for a specific time frame. Deficitis the gap that occurs between the budget, or plan for spending, and the actual income received during that time frame. Debtbasically consists of the accumulation of deficits over time.

Inflation is the increase in the cost of goods and services. You already know that. However,inflation is normally caused by an increase in the supply of money which in turn devalues the dollar; i.e. the value of each dollar falls. Real inflation has been 20 percentthe past ten years. That means that the dollar is only worth $.80 today compared to ten years ago. Looking at historical inflation, what cost $1 in 1950 would cost $9 today. Conversely, what costs $1 today would only cost $0.11 in 1950.

There is no good definition for hyperinflation. It occurs when inflation goes out of control and reaches very high levels; say greater than 25 percent/year. An example is the Weimar Republic (Germany) following World War I. The harsh reparation payments imposed on Germany following the war, in combination with promised increased wages, reduced hours, expanded education and a slew of new social programs (sound familiar?) created the conditions for hyperinflation.

In 1919 the German mark was worth about 3 marks per dollar. In 1921 the German mark had slid to 75 marks per U.S. dollar. By 1922 it was worth 400 marks to the dollar and in 1923 it plunged to 7000 marks per dollar. As bad as that was, it was the “good ‘ol days.” By November of 1923 it took about4 billion marks per dollar.[1]

Got it? Sure, you say. It’s clear as mud. Ponder on it because it is about to destroy you. In fact, there are many in the world and in our government who hope you never figure it out because they are robbing you blind and blaming your misery on the rich.

Now, the very small percentage of our population who truly understands the intricacies of the global economy will see these simple definitions as Economics for Dummies 101. They will groan and find something else to read. Start with Part III. But if you are the average American who has simply been working and paying your taxes without taking the time and effort it requires to understand and then change what is happening in Washington, you many want to keep reading.

We are in for an economic tsunami unlike anything we have ever experienced in this country before.As the government continues to spend astronomical amounts of money it doesn’t have, purportedly to fix the gargantuan financial crisis the nation faces, they have to finance these expenditures by borrowing money. To do this, the government sells Treasury Securities in four forms; Treasury bills, Treasury notes, Treasury bonds, and Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS). These all have varying lengths of time to maturity and levels of interest paid to the holder.

Historically, budget deficits have been relatively small and the national debt has grown slowly. For decades the deficits and borrowing was constrained by the fact America was on the gold standard. However, when President Nixon took the United States off of the gold standard in the 1970s, politicians saw a bonanza and deficits increased dramatically. When our deficits increased, so did our national debt.There was a brief reprieve in the 1990s to the growing debt as a Republican Congress and President Clinton brought deficits down.However, following 911 and the initiation of the War on Terror, deficits skyrocketed.

Here’s where most people’s eyes glaze over. Force your eyes to focus and your mind to be engaged for a few more moments. The spending policies of Presidents G.W. Bush and Obama have more than doubled the U.S. national debt from $5.7 trillion in 2000 to $14.3 trillion in mid-2011. Thespending policies of Presidents G.W. Bush and Obama have more than doubled the U.S. national debt from $5.7 trillion in 2000 to $14.3 trillion in mid-2011. The deficit is projected to be a whopping $1.65 trillion for 2011 alone. Interest on the National Debt is expected to top $430 billion for 2011.

Today, the debt has risen to an incomprehensible $14.29 trillion dollars. Your share of it is $46,030. Your spouse and child also owe $46,030 each. For a family of four it’s $184,000. Uncle Sam will demand you, your children and your children’s children repay the debt they created. The interest alone is 4 billion a day or over $5,000 a day! 

But that’s not the worst of it. Social Security, Medicare and Prescription Drug unfunded liabilities total $113.6 trillion! Liabilities include those legal debts that must be paid in the future. Unfunded liabilitiesare legal debts in which promised payments are not budgetedand exceed all defined ability to pay them. The U.S. unfunded liabilities equal one million dollars per taxpayer! That money has to be somehow raised in future undefined revenues. It is the single biggest problem we are facing as a nation.

There’s more. State unfunded liabilities for public sector pension plans could reach $3 trillion. Unlike the federal government, these states can’t print more money. They must balance the books or go bankrupt.

But wait, it gets much worse. In the two and a half years he has been in office, President Obama has racked up a deficit that nearly equals the combined debt created by all the presidents up to G.W. Bush.His initial 2012 budget continued piling up debt at rates that will double the debt to $26 trillion in 10 years.

Are you ready to pull your hair out? You should be. But there is still more. Along with this incomprehensible debt, the Federal Reserve (Fed) is printing money out of thin air. It’s called Quantitative Easing 1 and 2 (QE1 & QE2). The U.S. dollar is deliberately being made worthless. High inflation, perhaps even hyperinflation, is inevitable unless drastic actions are taken now. Four years ago economist and business consultant John Williams estimated hyperinflation and the total collapse of the dollar was likely by 2018. However, two and a half years of Obama’s reckless spending along with QE1 and QE2 havepushed that estimate to 2012, or even earlier.

Inflation is already happening. Food and energy prices are soaring. At least part of the soaring gasoline prices is due to the devaluation of the dollar so it takes more dollars to buy a gallon of foreign oil. Yet, the Obama administration is telling Americans the debt is manageable and there is no inflation.

Incredibly, the government now leaves food and commodities (like gas) out of its inflation calculation, drastically lowering reported inflation. By doing so, it gives a completely falsepicture of inflation that has real world consequences. Because reported inflation is half of what it actually is, increases in Social Security (SS) cost of living adjustments have also been cut in half. Likewise, SS recipients should have received large increases in benefits the past two years. Instead, they received no increase at all. In the same way, those things that hit you in the pocketbook are also left out of the inflation index. You see prices skyrocket every time you go to the supermarket or gas station, but are told inflation is only 2.5 percent. The reason it doesn’t compute is thatthe government is inflating its way out of its debt and not telling you! If inflation was calculated as it was before 1980, it would be over 10 percent!

When the numbers start to get that big and complicated something just switches off in the mind of the average person, and it feels kind of like we are dealing with fake money, like a monopoly game. That is exactly what Congress is doing. They are running our country’s finances like they think it is a game of monopoly and they are working with “play” money. The numbers aren’t really real and they don’t really mean anything. It’s not their money anyway so they don’t really care. They are right about one thing, it isn’t their money.It’s ours, our children’s, their children’s, their children’s…

Take a deep breath and let’s break down the numbers to something perhaps more understandable. Take just the $4 trillion owed to foreign nations; that’s $4,706,310,000,000. We are still a young nation, 235 years old. Let’s use that number to break it down. The resulting number is 20,026,851,064. That’s still over 20 billion per year, every year for 235 years. That number is still too big to really wrap your mind around. How about almost 55 million a day, every day, since the Declaration of Independence; Still pretty big; it is over 2.2 Million dollars every hour since John Hancock, signed, well, his John Hancock. The total debt is rapidly approaching FOUR times that amount.

Congress develops its budgets with PLANNED deficits. They actually plan to spend more than they have coming in. Why not? It’s just monopoly money to them and there is so much need they want to fix (including lining their own pockets for many). The deficits planned for this year and next are 1.6 and 1.5 trillion dollars respectively. All of that will pile onto our debt.

The United States government has a legislated debt ceiling, a maximum amount that it is allowed to owe. That number is currently at $14.294 trillion, the nation’s actual debt is rapidly approaching that amount. More than half of that has accumulated in the last decade. There will be a concerted effort in the next several weeks to raise that debt limit. President Obama is leading the charge demanding a hike in the limit with no strings attached. On April 15 he declared, “We will raise the debt limit. We always have. We will do it again.”

As usual, Obama is talking out of both sides of his mouth. The last stand-alone vote on raising the debt limit on which President Obama voted as a Senator was in 2006. Then Senator Obama voted against raising the debt ceiling, saying,

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills… Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren… I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit.

In this same diatribe, he rails against big indebtedness run up by President Bush all the while President Obama himself presides over an increase that added almost as much to the National Debt in his first 19 months than all of the presidents from Washington to Reagan combined. Obama’s criticism of Bush was right, the debt did rise exponentially under President Bush starting at $5.727 trillion and ending with $10.6 trillion in 8 years. The U.S. Treasury Department reported in October, only a year and nine months after he was inaugurated, Obama himself had already added over 3 trillion dollars to the National Debt.

The party a candidate belongs to isn’t nearly as important as the beliefs and actions of that candidate. We need to elect people who will stop mortgaging our futures.

Unsustainable is just not a strong enough word to describe the economic situation we are facing. Disaster is a better word. While the debt continues to soar upwards, Washington likes to make a lot of noise about reducing deficits, while doing nothing of any real substance, to actually solve the problem. For the two weeks Congress was at each other’s throats to come up with a measly $38.5 billion cut, $85 billion in deficits were added to our national debt!!! The cuts are a farce. In March alone, deficit spending was $188 billion. That’s $6 billion a day! The total for 2011 is already at $829.4 billion (6 months’ worth). At this rate, the total for 2011 could hit $1.66 trillion.

Even with the optimistic prognosticators claiming that the current recession will end soon, the Obama Administration forecasts federal deficits that average more than $1 trillion annually for the next ten years, amounting to 7 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP).[3] America’sGDP in April 2011 is $14.6 trillion. In other words, we owe in debt almost as much as we produce each year. The debt crisis is worsening so fast that economists have trouble keeping up with it. It is now forecast that the debt will exceed the GDP of the U.S. this year! Just last year economists thought it wouldn’t happen until 2020!

In concluding Part 1 of this series on the economy, it is obvious America is in deep trouble, regardless of what the Obama administration or media claim. In Part II the global implications will be explored and what it means to America. Part III the effort to find solutions is actually politics as usual—demagoguery. Part IV will define who is ruining our economy and why they are doing it. In conclusion, there is growing concern that we might see hyperinflation. A real-world example of what this would mean occurred in the Weimar Republic discussed earlier in this article.

This is what happened to one family;

Karl Bonhoeffer, the father of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the humble Christian pastor who stood up to Hitler and died by firing squad for it, had a life insurance policy that paid 100,000 marks at maturity; about $1.2 million in today’s dollars. He faithfully paid his premiums for 50 years. When the policy matured towards the end of 1923 and Bonhoeffer cashed it in, the 100,000 marks could buy a bottle of wine and strawberries. By the time he received the money, it would only buy the strawberries.[2]

If we don’t stop the insanity in Washington, this could be our future. It doesn’t have to be. Every American has a responsibility to tell their Representative and Senators in Washington to make deep and meaningful cuts to the 2012 budget. If your Representative or Senator does not make those cuts, he or she must not be reelected in 2012 if they are up for reelection.

Footnotes:

1. Eric Metaxas. Bonhoeffer, Pastor Martyr, Prophet, Spy. (Thomas Nelson, New York) 2010. Pp. 43-44.
2. Ibid. p 44.
3. The GDP is the total market value of all final goods and services produced in a country in a given year, equal to total consumer, investment and government spending, plus the value of exports, minus the value of imports. It might be easier to understand the GDP as the total net value of all economic activity in a country. The Per Capita GDP is the GDP divided by the population of a nation. It is a very powerful tool to compare year to year and nation to nation.

Michael Coffman. Rescuing a Broken America, (Morgan James Publishing, New York), 2010. P 67

© 2011 Michael Coffman – All Rights Reserved


Dr. Coffman is President of Environmental Perspectives Incorporated (epi-us.com) and CEO of Sovereignty International (sovereignty.net) in Bangor Maine. He has had over 30 years of university teaching, research and consulting experience in forestry and environmental sciences. He produced the acclaimed DVD Global Warming or Global Governance (warmingdvd.com). His newest book, Rescuing a Broken America (rescuingamericabook.com) is receiving wide acclaim. He can be reached at 207-945-9878.

E-Mail: mcoffman@epi-us.com

Website: DiscerningToday.org

 

If We Can’t Unite To Topple Fed Dictator Ben Bernanke, Our Complete Collapse Into Neo-Feudalism Is Assured

May 2nd, 2011 by

AMPEDSTATUS.COM

The fact that millions of Americans aren’t demanding Ben Bernanke’s immediate resignation proves how horrifically propagandized and unaware the American public is.

As someone who spends 60 hours a week analyzing the news, chronicling every step down in America’s decline, it has become incredibly depressing to see Bernanke maintain his position of power and continue his reign of terror. I can’t even sleep through the night anymore. Colleagues say that they try not to let it get to them too much by telling themselves that there is only so much you can do, and ultimately people get what they deserve. I have always refused to buy into that line of thinking. I know how effective the mainstream media is in propagandizing people, and unless you have significant time to research these issues, there is no way for the average working American to truly grasp the information that they need to.

All that being said, I’m quickly losing faith in the people who do knowwhat is going on. There are millions of people who read independent news reporting daily and know exactly what is happening. There are millions of people who understand that we now live in a banana republic that is systematically looting the country to enrich one-tenth of one percent of the population. There are also millions of people who understand that Ben Bernanke and the Federal Reserve banking system is the central planning force behind this looting.

Almost every day there is more evidence of the outright corrupt actions of the Federal Reserve and their primary dealers on Wall Street. Their campaign of economic shock and awe is so overwhelming, there have been so many corrupt actions that it is hard to list them all, or even pick out which ones to highlight as the most egregious. Here are just a few off the top of my head; the audacity of it all, and knowing the obvious consequences that these actions entail, is enough to make your head explode from complete frustration:

·  Trillions of American taxpayer dollars were given, in secrecy, to the banks/people who were most responsible for causing the crisis in the first place.

·  After causing the crisis, they took our tax dollars and gave themselves all-time record-breaking bonuses.

·  They gave American taxpayer money to foreign banks and corporations, with billions going to places like Libya.

·  They funneled hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars into to the Cayman Islands, robbing us some more by directly subsidizing tax evasion.

·  They also added to the deficit by lending American tax dollars to their primary dealer banks, so the banks could then lend that same money back to the government at higher interest rates, leading to significant profits for the banks, at the further expense of the American public.

·  Through bailout programs they gave sweetheart deals to their friends, which socialized any loses and privatized all the profits.

·  They aid and abet trillions of dollars in accounting fraud.

·  They routinely manipulate the stock market.

·  And now, to top it all off, they are deliberately causing inflation in food, gas and basic necessities, while devaluing the dollar.

As I said, the list goes on, and you are probably grinding your teeth thinking of other egregious examples that I haven’t mentioned.

All of this can be summed up by the fact that we now have the most severe inequality of wealth in American history. The Fed’s policies have strategically and deliberately impoverished tens of millions of people to enrich what amounts to a small group of global bankers. They have aided and abetted trillions of dollars in fraudulent activity. This is not a conspiracy theory! This is the unfortunate reality of our crisis.

It is not hyperbole to call Ben Bernanke a financial terrorist who is committing crimes against humanity. This is a bold and blatant fact. At this point, no one can seriously debate against this anymore.

Watching Bernanke stride to the podium, smiling for his scripted press conference on Wednesday, was yet another depressing moment in our downfall. People keep debating why it was that Bernanke gave the press conference. Some say that it was a defensive tactic, an acknowledgement of the need to increase the propaganda campaign and cast the “illusion of transparency.” Perhaps, but I feel he also gave the press conference for the same reason that terrorists release video statements. He wants to show the world that he is still a free man who can terrorize tens of millions of people in broad daylight and get away with it. He wants to show us that he can shove our face into the dirt while smiling for the cameras. The main message of the press conference wasn’t anything that Bernanke had to say, it was to show the people of America that he can rob us, set our future on fire and still be walking the red carpet with fawning reporters and cameras flashing in his imperial presence – a way of demonstrating that the financial terrorists are still in charge, running the show.

We’ve been trying to bring people together to call for Bernanke’s removal and to break up the Federal Reserve banking system. With all the evidence that is now a matter of public record, you would think it would be easy to get people down to Wall Street on June 14th to demand this. Yet, sadly, it is still incredibly difficult to unite people on even this common sense common ground.

What does that tell you about our future prospects?

If we can’t even unite to topple Bernanke, our complete collapse into neo-feudalism is assured.

If you are interested in defending your family and future against Bernanke’s genocidal economic policies, send me an email: David@AmpedStatus.com

 

 

Grand Junction consensus on Obama’s B.C.

April 30th, 2011 by

 

This story ran on the 5 and 10 p.m. NBC news network, Channel 8, in Grand Junction (fly-over country).  In reading the numerous remarks the story generated, about half of the people think it's an intentional diversion from something else.

 In reading the numerous remarks the story generated, about half of the people think it's an intentional diversion from something else.  The general consensus is that only an idiot
would make such an apparently altered document available unless he/she wanted it to become the focus for news over the weekend.  MB

GRAND JUNCTION, Colo. — Even after the White House offered up President Obama's birth certificate, there are still those who are questioning it's legitimacy.

One Grand Junction man who works as a graphic artist says he has discovered something strange about the certificate. "There's no doubt that it has been edited and quite significantly," James Colby said.

He's been involved in graphic arts since 2004 and has never had a reason to doubt our president's birthplace. In fact, he says he is politically independent. Yet, Colby says he can't ignore the obvious.

After downloading the birth certificate straight off of the White House's website, he started noticing the apparent flaws in a computer program called Adobe Illustrator.

"Legitimate digitized, scanned documents will always have [a] faded appearance… There are too many jagged features, here." he said as the scoured the certificate. "So, it's not a single document, it's actually 'composit' layers."

Colby says scanned images should only have one digitized layer. He says President Obama's birth certificate has almost 50 layers. "You can see the layers flash yourself just by rapidly zooming in and out in your web browser. That means that the browser is rendering different layers."

Colby concedes that there are some instances where scanned images produce multiple layers. "It's a program called OCR that converts text in the images into computer readable text," he said. "But, it would never work on signatures. So, the fact that the signatures have been edited discounts the possibility of it being OCR."

Colby continued pointing out the apparent problems. "You'll notice the white background behind these letters, which is also super-imposed, actually covers up a little bit of the 'D' in this word," he explained. "Even his name has been edited, all except for the 'R' in 'Barack.'"

But, Colby cannot figure out why the White House would release something so obvious. "The question is why is it so obvious," he said. "Maybe the original certificate was damaged, maybe it was faded, maybe someone was just trying to clean it up. [But,] you'd think if that was the case, they would supply the original certificate just so there would be no suspicions."

Colby says as strange as the edits are, they don't prove a thing. But, he believes that they do point in one direction. "It's definitely been edited in it's entirety, so the indication would point to the probability of it being fake," he said. "But, nobody can really make that claim."

Colby isn't alone in believing the birth certificate has been altered. Other graphic artists and various conservative groups from across the country are saying the same thing.

OLDDOGS COMMENT

In the little minds of Obama’s supporters, they probably think it’s to his advantage to keep the public division open and hotter.

Divide and Conquer!

WHAT ABOUT OBAMAS INDONESIAN CITIZENSHIP?

April 29th, 2011 by

Obama is ‘not’ constitutionally eligibleto be President

(Lafayette Hill, PA – 04/28/11) – Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the first Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama on August 21, 2008 challenging Obama’s lack of “Constitutionally Eligibility” to serve as President of the United States stated that Obama’s release of this document that Obama calls his long form Birth Certificate raises further questions of the legitimacy of the document itself.  Moreover, even if it were a legitimate birth certificate, which it is not, it still does not answer the question of Obama’s Constitutional Eligibility.

Berg said, “The Birth Certificate issued by Obama on national Television, have missing factors: Mother’s address; length and weight of baby; and where the signature of Stanley Ann Dunham appears, it says “mother or informant”.  Additionally, the authenticity of the document itself is already being questioned for many reasons”

Berg continued, “Even if Obama could produce a long form Birth Certificate, which is highly doubted, it fails to answer the questions of Obama’s adoption in Indonesia.”

Berg said, “I have received many calls claiming Obama could not have lost his U.S. citizenship by his mother’s acts of expatriation.  In part this is true, however, he Nationality Act of 1940, revised 1952, Section 318(a) states, “A former citizen of the United States expatriated through the expatriation of such person’s parent or parents and who has not acquired the nationality of another country by any affirmative act other than the expatriation of his parent or parents may be naturalized upon filing a petition for naturalization before reaching age of Twenty-Five [25] years and upon compliance with all requirements of the naturalization laws with the following exceptions:  (b) No former citizen of the United States, expatriated through the expatriation of such person’s parent or parents shall be obliged to comply with the requirements of the immigration laws, if he has not acquired the nationality of another country by any affirmative act other than the expatriation of his parent or parents, and if he has come or shall come to the United States before reaching the age of twenty-five years. (c) After his naturalization such person shall have the same citizenship status as if he had not been expatriated.”

Berg continues, “Renewing an Indonesian Passport after the age of 18 is an affirmative act, as you are swearing allegiance to another Country. 

Soetoro/Obama renewed his Indonesian Passport when he traveled to Pakistan that is why he had to stop in Indonesia first.  Remember, in 1981, Dunham was divorcing Soetoro in Hawaii and was not in Indonesia.  Obama/Soetoro admits to traveling to Indonesia first and then onto Pakistan.  Soetoro/Obama claims in his book “Dreams from my father” that he stopped in Indonesia to visit his mother.  But again, his mother was not in Indonesia, she was in Hawaii with Maya, divorcing Lolo Soetoro.  In addition, the State Department has stated in response to a FOIA [Freedom of Information] request that they do not have a U.S. Passport application on file for Barack H. Obama.”

Berg said, “Despite the above however, Indonesia required Obama/Soetoro to do a bit more upon his 18th birthday.  In fact the Indonesian law gives until the age of Twenty-One [21].  Soetoro/Obama would have had to sign an Affidavit relinquishing his Indonesian citizenship and said Affidavit had to be sent to the Indonesian Government before reclaiming any U.S. citizenship he may have once held.

When it comes to the citizenship of individuals in other countries, we are prevented from interfering, Hague Convention 1930.  During the late 60′s all the way up until 2006 Indonesia did not allow dual citizenship.  In 2006, Indonesia changed their laws to permit dual citizenship; however, Indonesia has had its battles with enforcing their new law permitting dual citizenship.

From the legal research we have done, it appears that Soetoro became an Indonesian citizen.  When Soetoro/Obama was approximately four [4] years old his parents divorced and thereafter, Soetoro/Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, married Lolo Soetoro, a citizen of Indonesia.  Evidence points to the fact that Lolo Soetoro either signed a government form legally ‘acknowledging’ Soetoro/Obama as his son, or ‘adopted’ Soetoro, either of which changed any citizenship status Soetoro/Obama had to a “natural” citizen of Indonesia.

At the time Barry Soetoro was in Indonesia, all Indonesian students were required to carry government identity cards or Karty Tanda Pendudaks, as well as family card identification called a Kartu Keluarga.  The Kartu Keluarga is a family card which bears the legal names and citizenship status of all family members.

Soetoro/Obama was registered in a public school as an Indonesian citizen by the name of Barry Soetoro. Indonesia did not allow foreign students to attend their public schools in the late 1960’s or 1970’s, and any time a child was registered for a public school, the child’s name and citizenship status were verified through the Indonesian Government. There was no way for Soetoro/Obama to have attended school in Jakarta, Indonesia legally unless he was an Indonesian citizen, as Indonesia was under tight rule and was a Police State. See Constitution of Republic of Indonesia (Undang-Undang Dasar Republik Indonesia 1945), Law No. 62 of 1958.  These facts indicate that Obama/Soetoro is an Indonesian citizen, and therefore he is not eligible to be President of the United States. and his father was listed as Lolo Soetoro, M.A according to the Indonesian school records.  See, Constitution of Republic of Indonesia (Undang-Undang Dasar Republik Indonesia 1945), Chapter 13, Law No. 62 of 1958 (all citizens of Indonesia have a right to education).  Under Indonesian law, when a male acknowledges a child as his son, it deems the son, in this case Soetoro/Obama, an Indonesian State citizen. See, Constitution of Republic of Indonesia, Law No. 62 of 1958 concerning Immigration Affairs and Indonesian Civil Code (Kitab Undang-undang Hukum Perdata) (KUHPer) (Burgerlijk Wetboek voor Indonesie).

Furthermore, under the Indonesian adoption law, once an Indonesian citizen adopts a child, the adoption severs the child’s relationship to the birth parents, and the adopted child is given the same status as a natural child and the child takes the name of his step-father, in this case, Soetoro. See Indonesian Constitution, Article 2.

The Indonesian citizenship law was designed to prevent apatride (stateless) or bipatride (dual) citizenship.  Indonesian regulations recognized neither apatride nor bipatride (stateless or dual) citizenship.  Since Indonesia did not allow dual citizenship; neither did the United States (since the United States only permitted dual citizenship when ‘both’ countries agree); and since Obama/Soetoro was a “natural” citizen of Indonesia, the United States would not step in or interfere with the laws of Indonesia. Hague Convention of 1930.”

As a result of Soetoro/Obama’s Indonesian ‘natural’ citizenship status, Soetoro/Obama could never regain U.S. ‘natural born’ status, if he in fact ever held such, which we doubt.  Soetoro/Obama could have only become ‘naturalized’ if the proper paperwork were filed with the U.S. State Department, after going through U.S. Immigration upon his return to the United States; in which case, Soetoro/Obama would have received a Certification of Citizenship indicating ‘naturalized’. 

Berg continued, “Regardless, we have been unable to locate any records indicating that Soetoro/Obama attempted to and/or actually did take the proper steps through the State Department in order to be here in our Country legally”

Further, there is no evidence that Soetoro/Obama ever ‘legally’ changed his name from Barry Soetoro to Barack Hussein Obama – therefore his legal name is still ‘Barry Soetoro’.

OLDDOGS COMMENT

Folks, it looks to me like this nappy headed liar pulled one over on America, and don't bother looking for an apology from him, or me.

 

OBAMA CONFIRMS – NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN

April 29th, 2011 by

http://www.newswithviews.com/JBWilliams/williams147.htm

 

By J.B. Williams

April 29, 2011
NewsWithViews.com

[Disclaimer:The opinion expressed in this article are solely those of JB Williams and not necessary the opinion of NWV, it's staff or other writers.]

As the media blitz to silence questions about Obama’s eligibility for office become shrill, Obama finally releases his so-called “long form” birth certificate (aka, a birth certificate), confirming once and for all that he is not a natural born citizen of the United States in compliance with Article II of the U.S. Constitution.

Let the impeachment begin!

The document posted on the White House web site, reported to be Obama’s actual birth certificate, appears to be a very poor forgery even to the untrained eye. But that’s not really the big story here…

The release of this document actually proves a few things much more important at this stage of the debate.

• Obama lied – having claimed for two years to have already released his birth certificate, which birthers correctly identified as only a COLB (Certification of Live Birth). Now he has released his birth certificate, allegedly.

• The press lied – swearing to Obama’s lie, also claiming over and over and over again for two years, that Obama had already released his birth certificate. He had not. Now he has, maybe.

• Barack Hussein Obama I is his natural birth father – and since he was never a citizen of the United States, Barack Obama II cannot possibly be a natural born citizen of the United States.

• Most people don’t know what natural born citizen means.

To be or not to be a natural born citizen

The official definition of natural born citizen is as follows –

1. natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

2. those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

3. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens

4. in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

For those still having trouble following along, a natural born citizen is one born the natural offspring of a father who was at the time of birth, a U.S. citizen.

Now that Obama has confirmed that his natural birth father was a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. He has confirmed that he is not a natural born citizen of the United States.

As a result, the U.S. Constitution says he cannot be president of the United States, just as birthers have claimed for over two years. Article II – Section I – Clause V of the U.S. Constitution is very clear on the matter –

“No person except a natural born citizen, (or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution,) shall be eligible to the office of President;”

Case closed!

As the confirmed natural born son of a foreign father who was at no time in his life a citizen of the United States, Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen of the United States and he cannot be president of the United States, just as many suspected and the constitution states unequivocally.

However, now that all Americans know the truth, what can they do about it?

Impeach immediately!

Some have claimed that Obama cannot be impeached because he was not legally elected, as a candidate who was a fraud from the start. I’m not a lawyer, but I disagree.

From the moment that Supreme Court Justice Roberts administered the oath of office to Barack Obama on January 20, 2009, he has sat in the people’s White House as the official president of the United States and has in fact made a disaster of our nation and much of the free world while sitting in that chair.

Not only can he be impeached, he must be. He must be impeached, removed from office and maybe put in prison for life for his intentional outright fraud.

Further, all in his administration, in congress and in the Supreme Court who knew he was a fraud and did nothing to stop this nightmare, must immediately resign and be charged with conspiracy to commit fraud as well.

In any free representative republic, there is nothing more vital than the integrity of our system. Once the people have lost faith in the integrity of the system, there is no system. No individual or group of politicians is more important than the preservation of our system of self-governance. All who were complicit must be held accountable in order to protect and preserve our constitutional republic.

1. I call for the immediate impeachment of Barack Hussein Obama for the high crime of fraud and breach of the public trust.

2. I call upon House Representative Allen West to initiate impeachment proceedings against Barack Hussein Obama at once.

Allen West is a retired Military Colonel who has sworn an oath to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution and the people of the United States, twice, as a soldier and as a House Representative.
He took an oath to protect and preserve against all enemies, foreign and domestic and he currently has the confidence of the American people as an honorable man.

Last, the main stream press who has lied on Obama’s behalf, misleading the American public for almost three years regarding the fraud in the people’s White House, must be held accountable too. I call upon all American citizens to boycott all of the media outlets and personalities that carried water for the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on the American public.

The United States Patriots Union is making its secure People’s Lobby software available to the public, free of charge, for the purpose of contacting your House representatives regarding the impeachment of Barack Hussein Obama II.

Patriots prepared to take action can do so by contacting their House Representatives here. Join a Patriots Union discussion on this matter Friday night at 9:00 PM ET.

© 2011 JB Williams – All Rights Reserved

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts


JB Williams is a business man, a husband, a father, and a writer. A no nonsense commentator on American politics, American history, and American philosophy. He is published nationwide and in many countries around the world. He is also a Founder of Freedom Force USA and a staunch conservative actively engaged in returning the power to the  legal citizens of America.

Web site 1: www.freedomforce.us/

Web site 2: www.jb-williams.com/

E-Mail: JBWilliams09@gmail.com


 

Home

Con Games and Currency Destruction

April 25th, 2011 by

 

 

LewRockwell.Com

 

Con Games and Currency Destruction

GOLD-BRICS

by Gary North

Back in the era of World War II, a goldbrick was a slacker in the military. He was the guy who always seemed to be able to find a reason not to pull his own weight, as the phrase went.

The low-level Army grunts who wore the boots that were on the ground had a saying: "Never volunteer for anything." But you weren't supposed to be a slacker. Somewhere in between unofficial status as a red hot and a goldbrick was where most people wanted to be.

The term "goldbricking" has been extended to life outside the military. We read this on Wikipedia.

Goldbricking, in today's terms, generally refers to staff who use their work internet access for personal reasons while maintaining the appearance of working, which can lead to inefficiency. The term originates from the confidence trick of applying a gold coating to a brick of worthless metal.

Goldbricking is the creation of an illusion of value. The successful goldbrick keeps his employer in the dark about his productivity. He seems to be working. He isn't. He seems to be producing value. He isn't.

In business, people can hide in the shadows of the salary system. If you work 100% on commission, you can't hide. The reality of your output is measurable and objective. But salaried positions are not equally clear. Goldbricks operate in the zones of guesswork.

THE PREMIER GOLDBRICK ECONOMIST

Four large formerly Third World nations are rapidly becoming competitive in world markets. They are Brazil, Russia, India, and China. Their acronym is BRIC.

It may seem strange that Russia is on the list. For two generations, from 1900 to 1930, economists told the world that the Soviet Union was a powerful competitor. The USSR proved that central planning was effective. In fact, it was a charade. The USSR was a basket case economically. It was a facade. It was, in fact, the greatest goldbrick nation in history. It was a giant illusion. It appeared to be productive, but it wasn't. The government published fake statistics. Western academics believed these statistics.

A few economists issued warnings about the unreliability of the Soviet statistics, but their peers did not take these warnings seriously. It took a journalist, Richard Grenier, to correctly identify the reality of Soviet economy. He called the USSR "Bangladesh with missiles."

Right up until the collapse of the USSR, Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Samuelson wrote in his widely assigned textbook on economics that the USSR proved that central planning could achieve high output. Economist Thomas DiLorenzo has offered two choice quotations from Samuelson's textbook.

"Every economy has its contradictions …. What counts is results, and there can be no doubt that the Soviet planning system has been a powerful engine for economic growth." – 1985 edition.

"Contrary to what many skeptics had earlier believed, the Soviet economy is proof that … a socialist command economy can function and even thrive." – 1989 edition.

Yet by 1989, it was clear to everyone that the USSR was bankrupt. Soviet Premier Gorbachev was coming to Western governments and bankers, begging for more aid.

Two years earlier, the unknown economist Judy Shelton had sounded the warning: the USSR was about to collapse economically. She got a polite hearing, but there was no bandwagon effect. Samuelson tried to head off this loss of faith among economists.

Admittedly, Samuelson may not have written these words. Maybe co-author William Nordhaus wrote them. By that stage, Samuelson had long since retired. The book's royalties had made him a multimillionaire. Intellectually speaking, he was by 1985 a very rich goldbrick. He appeared to be working, but he wasn't.

But his view on the USSR had not changed. One critic has reminded us of this.

In the 1973 edition of his famous textbook Economics he predicted that though the Soviet Union then had a per capita income roughly half that of the United States, it would catch up to the United States in per capita income by 1990, and almost certainly would by 2015 because of its superior economic system.

Paul Samuelson was the premier goldbrick in the economics profession in the second half of the twentieth century. He appeared to be working hard, but his output was substandard. He got very rich teaching millions of freshmen how to have careers as goldbricks: how to give the illusion of valuable work, but never producing anything that could be applied profitably to the economy. Keynesianism is goldbrick economics.

MERCANTILISM AND ITS DISCONTENTS

In recent days, we have been fed news reports about a meeting of officials of the BRIC nations. They supposedly are about to abandon the U.S. dollar. They supposedly will establish trading agreements with each other based on a currency other than the dollar. An April 14 report published by Reuters is typical.

The BRICS group of emerging-market powers kept up the pressure on Thursday for a revamped global monetary system that relies less on the dollar and for a louder voice in international financial institutions.

This means precisely nothing. Whose louder voice? What is a loud voice? What is the exchange rate of loud voices?

Meeting on the southern Chinese island of Hainan, they said the recent financial crisis had exposed the inadequacies of the current monetary order, which has the dollar as its linchpin.

What was needed, they said in a statement, was "a broad-based international reserve currency system providing stability and certainty" – thinly veiled criticism of what the BRICS see as Washington's neglect of its global monetary responsibilities.

I see: stability and certainty. Certainty. How do we get certainty in a changing world? The only certainties are death, taxes, and central bank currency manipulation.

There was a system that brought some stability and reduced uncertainty. That was the international gold standard. It ended in 1914, when World War I began. It had been a compromised system. It rested on fractional reserve banking and central banking. That is, it rested on IOUs from banks: "Yes, you can withdraw your gold coins at any time." It was a fraud, and World War I exposed this fraud. The banks quit redeeming the IOUs for gold, and the central banks confiscated the gold from the commercial banks.

The BRICS are worried that America's large trade and budget deficits will eventually debase the dollar. They also begrudge the financial and political privileges that come with being the leading reserve currency.

I see. But how, exactly, does the United States run these annual trade deficits? Because the central banks of the BRIC nations buy U.S. Treasury debt with newly created fiat money.

Why do they do this? To keep up the value of the dollar in relation to their currencies. Why do they do this? To subsidize their own export sectors.

The BRIC nations can bring down the American trade deficits at any time. They stop buying Treasury debt. Simple. But that will reduce exports to the United States, because it will make their currencies more expensive. The politicians in the BRIC nations do not want that.

So, they gripe. Something must be done – something that does not reduce exports, something that keeps the dollar high, and something that does not give an advantage to American consumers. What might that be?

In a word, nothing. There are no free lunches. There are no mercantilistic policies to subsidize exports that do not thereby subsidize the lifestyles of the customers in the other nations that buy the exports.

"The world economy is undergoing profound and complex changes," Chinese President Hu Jintao said. "The era demands that the BRICS countries strengthen dialogue and cooperation."

NEW SYNDICATES IN THE BLOC

Dialogue. Yes. Bureaucrats will talk to each other. I ask: What is the exchange value of talk among bureaucrats? How many flat-screen TVs will a week of dialogue purchase?

In another dig at the dollar, the development banks of the five BRICS nations agreed to establish mutual credit lines denominated in their local currencies, not the U.S. currency.

The head of China Development Bank (CDB), Chen Yuan, said he was prepared to lend up to 10 billion yuan to fellow BRICS, and his Russian counterpart said he was looking to borrow the yuan equivalent of at least $500 million via CDB.

Can you believe this? The banker is named Chen Yuan. That would be like an American banker named Dollar Bill.

Anyway, he will lend the Russians money. How does he think he will get this money back? The Russians are notorious for not repaying. The country is run by ex-Communist apparatchiks – Putin being #1 – and criminal syndicates. It has moved from being Bangladesh with missiles to Sicily with missiles.

"We think this will undoubtedly broaden the opportunities for Russian companies to diversify their loans," Vladimir Dmitriev, the chairman of VEB, Russia's state development bank, told reporters.

The Russians are about to make the Chinese an offer they can't refuse.

These are criminal syndicates with printing presses.

The leaders reviewed the global role of the Special Drawing Right, the IMF's accounting unit and reserve asset, which some experts believe could grow into a partial substitute for the dollar.

But they stepped around the issue of whether the yuan should join the SDR, saying only that they welcomed discussion of the composition of the SDR's basket of currencies.

We are seeing the equivalent of a meeting among the gangs in "The Godfather." They all came to China to talk over how they will divide up the territories. They all want a say in the matter.

THE IMF AS THE COSA NOSTRA

The IMF is supposed to be the cover. The problem is this: the IMF has no power. It is a clearing house for loans. Western nations, mainly the United States, have provided the cover. They guarantee loans made to the IMF. Investors in the West who want secure loans buy IMF bonds. Governments toss in extra money from time to time. There is no IMF currency. There are no futures exchanges in SDRs. The IMF is said to have gold. Buy this gold was contributed by Western governments long ago in order to bail out emerging nations.

A member-country official said the group was split on whether China's currency, which cannot be freely exchanged except for trade and investment purposes, met the criteria for being part of the SDR.

We have China, which issues IOU nothings, looking to be a player. What does the IMF issue? Promises to lend IOU nothings issued by Western nations.

This has been going on for 60 years.

"There is a need for a broad-basing of the international monetary system. The SDR is an instrument to do that, but we still have no unanimity on the inclusion of the Chinese currency in the SDR as of now," said the official, who declined to be identified.

Right. Some gutless functionary tells the reporter that China's IOU nothings that you cannot present at a bank for redemption may not qualify for entrance into the SDR world, where the IMF extends loans in various IOU nothings – loans that can be redeemed at Western banks.

China holds more IOU nothings from Western governments than any other nation, yet the other BRICs don't think China's IOU nothings qualify.

Though keen on a more diverse global monetary order, Beijing has given no indication that it is ready to make the yuan freely tradable or to dismantle capital controls as the price for the prestige of being part of the SDR.

This is Alice through the looking glass. This is Abbott and Costello doing "Who's on first?" This is the world of international central banking.

The BRICS caucus is a work in progress. Thursday's brief meeting, held under tight security at a beach-front hotel, was only its third summit and the first to include South Africa.

I'll say it's a work in progress. It's a goldbrick work in progress. People are going through the motions of working. Nothing of value is being produced, but the exercise gets reported in the media.

"Our economic potential, political influence and our development prospects as an alliance are exceptional," Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said.

CONCLUSION

This is sound and fury, signifying little. This is grist for journalistic mills. This is chaff, not wheat.

We live in a world of illusion. The goldbrick central banks with their paper gold and endless promises keep us dancing to their tunes. But there is not one tune. There are many. Cacophony rules.

Central bankers have only two policies, as gold coin dealer Franklin Sanders has pointed out: inflation and blarney. We are getting lots of both.

 

KUDOs TO REBEKAH SUTHERLAND

April 24th, 2011 by

 

NOTE:  Although some of you researched this information in the past, and you failed to see the connections, there is new information coming to light about it.  British intelligence officers have given us great information. 

Plus, the Crown Sisters (like Lynn Cheney, Hillary Clinton, Michelle Obama, etc.) have been exposed.  There husbands are dubbed the "Man in the Middle" for The Crown activities in the world.  (Go to www.abeldanger.net/ and to the Audio Archives or access the transcribed archives starting with May 19, 2010.)

LEARN …the drum beat of globalist NWO is quickening.  The Royal Wedding coming this weekend brings potential activities that you might need to understand . .. learn.  The banking cartel has the USA in checkmate, and soon the board will be swept clean.  The game begins again … LEARN.

Reporting.
R.E. Sutherland, M.Ed./sciences
Freelance Investigative Reporter
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
QUOTES

VIDEO-World Super Power
LINK: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGhl7ysL_1U

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AT6eodnYZGg&NR=1

PERSONAL TRANSCRIBED NOTES:

The London city-state became a sovereign state in 1694. 

King William III of Orange privatized the Bank of England and handed it over to the bankers.

In 1812, Nathan Rothschild crashed the English Stock Market and scammed control of the Bank of England. [ADDENDUM]

Today the City-State of London is the world’s financial power center and the wealthiest square mile on the face of the earth.

It houses the Rothschild controlled Bank of England, Lloyd of London, London Stock Exchange, all British banks, the office of 384 foreign banks, and 70 U.S. banks.

It has its own courts, its own laws, its own flag, and its own police force.

It is not part of greater London, or England or the British Commonwealth, and pays no taxes.

The City-State of London houses Fleet Street’s newspaper and publishing monopolies.

It is the headquarters for English Freemasonry, and headquarters for the money cartel known as The Crown.

Contrary to popular belief, The Crown is not the royal family or the British Monarch.

The Crown is the private City-State of London.

It has a council of 12 members, who rule the corporation under a mayor called “The Lord Mayor.”

The Lord Mayor and his 12 member Council serve as proxies, or representatives, who sit in for 13 of the world’s wealthiest most powerful banking families.

This ring of 13 ruling families includes:  the Rothschild family, the Warburg family, the Oppenheimer family, and the Schiff family.

These families and their descendants run the Crown Corporation of London.

The Crown Corporation of London holds the title to worldwide Crown land and Crown colonies like Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.

The British Parliament and the British Prime Minister serve as a public front for the hidden power of the ruling Crown families.

Like the City State of London and the Vatican, a third city state was officially created in 1982, that city-state is called the District of Columbia, and is located on 10 square miles of land in the heat of Washington.

The District of Columbia flies its own flag, and has its own independent constitution.  Although geographically separate, the city-state of London, Vatican and D.C. are one interlocking empire called The Empire of the City.

The flag of the District of Columbia has 3 red stars, one fo reach city state in the three city empire.

This corporate empire of 3 City-States controls the world ECONOMICALLY through London’s inner city, MILITARILY through the District of Columbia, and SPIRITUALLY through the Vatican.

The constitution for the District of Columbia operates under a tyrannicalRoman Law known as “Lex Fori” which bears no resemblance to the U.S. Constitution.

INSERT: Definition of Lex Forifrom Black’s Law Dictionary – “The law of the forum, or court; that is, the positive law of the state, country, or jurisdiction of whose judicial system the court where the suit is brought or remedy sought is an integral part.  Substantive rights are determined by the law of the place where the action arose, “Lex loci,” while the procedural rights are governed by the law of the place of the form, “lex fori.”  (Mitchell v. Mitchell, La.App. 5 Cir., 483 So.2d 1152, 1154.) 

When Congress passed the Act of 1871, it created a separate corporate government for the District of Columbia.  This treasonous Act allowed the District of Columbia to operate outside the original constitution of the U.S. and outside of the best interest of the American citizens. 
END.
++++++++++
ADDENDUM for information purposes only

Nathan Mayer Rothschild

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

This article is about the 18th and 19th century financier. For his grandson, see Nathan Mayer Rothschild, 1st Baron Rothschild.

 

Nathan Mayer Rothschild(16 September 1777 – 28 July 1836) was a Londonfinancierand one of the founders of the international Rothschild familybankingdynasty. He was born in Frankfurt am Main, the fourth child of Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1744–1812) and Gutle Schnapper (1753–1849).

 

Contents

[hide]

Life

In 1798, at the age of 21, he settled in Manchester and established a business in textile trading and finance, later moving to London, England and making a fortune in trading bills of exchange through a banking enterprise begun in 1805.

In 1816, his two elder brothers were granted noble status (Freiherr or Baron) by the Emperor of Austria. They were now permitted to prefix the Rothschild name with von or de. Their device of four arrows became five when in 1818 Nathan too was elevated, although he chose not to use his aristocratic title Nathan Mayer, Freiherr von Rothschild.

 

Family

On 22 October 1806 in London he married Hannah Barent-Cohen (1783–1850), daughter of Levi Barent-Cohen (1747–1808) and wife Lydia Diamantschleifer and paternal granddaughter of Barent Cohen and wife, whose other son Salomon David Barent-Cohen (d. 1807) married Sara Brandes, great-grandparents of Karl Marx.[1] Their children were:

  1. Charlotte Rothschild (1807–1859) married Anselm von Rothschild
  2. Lionel Nathan (1808–1879)
  3. Anthony Nathan (1810–1876)
  4. Nathaniel (1812–1870)
  5. Hannah Mayer (1815–1864) married Hon. Henry FitzRoy (1807–1859)
  6. Mayer Amschel (1818–1874)
  7. Louise (1820–1894) married Mayer Karl von Rothschild

Business

He operated first as a textile merchant in Manchester, then from 1804 he began to deal on the London stock exchange in financial instruments such as foreign bills and government securities.

From 1809 Rothschild began to deal in gold bullion, and developed this as a cornerstone of his business. From 1811 on, in negotiation with Commissary-General John Charles Herries, he undertook to transfer money to pay Wellington's troops, on campaign in Portugal and Spain against Napoleon, and later to make subsidy payments to British allies when these organized new troops after Napoleon's disastrous Russian campaign.

His four brothers helped co-ordinate activities across the continent, and the family developed a network of agents, shippers and couriers to transport gold – and information – across Europe.This private intelligence service enabled Nathan to receive in London the news of Wellington's victory at the Battle of Waterloo a full day ahead of the government's official messengers.[2]

In 1818 he arranged a £5 million loan to the Prussian government and the issuing of bonds for government loans formed a mainstay of his bank’s business. He gained a position of such power in the City of London that by 1825–6 he was able to supply enough coin to the Bank of England to enable it to avert a liquidity crisis.

In 1824 he founded the Alliance Assurance Company (now Royal & SunAlliance) with Moses Montefiore.

In 1835 he secured a contract with the Spanish Government giving him the rights to the Almadén mines in southern Spain, effectively gaining a European mercury monopoly.[3]

Nathan Meyer Rothschild was known for his role in the abolition of the slave trade through his part-financing of the £20 million British government buyout of the plantation industry's slaves.[4] However in 2009 it was claimed that as part of banking dealings with a slave owner, Rothschild used slaves as collateral. The Rothschild bank denied the claims and said that Nathan Mayer Rothschild had been a prominent civil liberties campaigner with many like-minded associates and “against this background, these allegations appear inconsistent and misrepresent the ethos of the man and his business”.[5]

He set up his London business, N. M. Rothschild and Sons at New Court in St Swithin's Lane, City of London, where it trades today. He also purchased a country house at Gunnersbury Park near Acton in western London.

 

Description

An anonymous contemporary described Nathan Rothschild at the London Stock Exchange as "he leaned against the 'Rothschild Pillar' … hung his heavy hands into his pockets, and began to release silent, motionless, implacable cunning":[6]

"Eyes are usually called the windows of the soul. But in Rothschild's case you would conclude that the windows are false ones, or that there was no soul to look out of them. There comes not one pencil of light from the interior, neither is there one gleam of that which comes from without reflected in any direction. The whole puts you in mind of an empty skin, and you wonder why it stands upright without at least something in it. By and by another figure comes up to it. It then steps two paces aside, and the most inquisitive glance that you ever saw, and more inquisitive than you would ever have thought of, is drawn out of those fixed and leaden eyes, as if one were drawing a sword from a scabbard. The visiting figure, which has the appearance of coming by accident and not by design, stops just a second or two, in the course of which looks are exchanged which, though you cannot translate, you feel must be of most important meaning. After this, the eyes are sheathed up again, and the figure resumes its stony posture.
During the morning, numbers of visitors come, all of whom meet with a similar reception and vanish in a similar manner. Last of all the figure itself vanishes, leaving you utterly at a loss".[7]

 

Death

By the time an infected abscess caused his death in 1836, his personal net worth amounted to 0.62% of British national income.[8]

 

He had also secured the position of the Rothschilds as the preeminent investment bankers in Britain and Europe. His son, Lionel Nathan Rothschild (1808–1879), continued the family business in England.

 

Nathan Mayer Rothschild and his wife Hannah are buried in the Brady Street Ashkenazi Cemetery in Whitechapel.

 

Legend

In the 19th century a legend began which accuses him of having used his early knowledge of victory at the Battle of Waterloo to speculate on the Stock Exchange and make a vast fortune.[9]

Frederic Morton relates the story thus:[10]

 

To the Rothschilds, [England's] chief financial agents, Waterloo brought a many million pound scoop.
… a Rothschild agent … jumped into a boat at Ostend … Nathan Rothschild … let his eye fly over the lead paragraphs. A moment later he was on his way to London (beating Wellington's envoy by many hours) to tell the government that Napoleon had been crushed: but his news was not believed, because the government had just heard of the English defeat at Quatre Bras. Then he proceeded to the Stock Exchange.

 

Another man in his position would have sunk his work into consols, already weak because of Quatre Bras. But this was Nathan Rothschild. He leaned against "his" pillar. He did not invest. He sold. He dumped consols.
…Consols dropped still more. "Rothschild knows," the whisper rippled through the 'Change. "Waterloo is lost."
Nathan kept on selling … consols plummeted—until, a split second before it was too late, Nathan suddenly bought a giant parcel for a song. Moments afterwards the great news broke, to send consols soaring.

 

We cannot guess the number of hopes and savings wiped out by this engineered panic.

 

Research by the Rothschild family[11] and others[12] has shown that this legend originated in an anti-Semitic French pamphlet in 1846, was embellished by John Reeves in 1887 in The Rothschilds: the Financial Rulers of Nations and then repeated in other later popular accounts, such as that of Morton. Many of the alleged facts stated are incorrect. For example, it has been shown that the size of the market in government bonds at the time would not have enabled a scenario producing a profit of anything near £1 million.[13] The historian Niall Ferguson states that the Rothschilds' couriers did get to London first and alerted the family to Napoleon's defeat; however, since the family had been banking on a protracted military campaign, the losses arising from the disruption to their business more than offset any short-term gains in bonds after Waterloo. Rothschild capital did soar, but over a much longer period: Nathan's breakthrough had been prior to Waterloo, when he negotiated a deal to supply cash to Wellington's army. The family made huge profits over a number of years from this governmental financing by adopting a high-risk strategy involving exchange-rate transactions, bond-price speculations, and commissions.[14]

 

See also

Notes

1.      ^"Barent Cohen". GeneAll.net. http://www.geneall.net/U/per_page.php?id=318477. Retrieved 2010-07-08. 

2.      ^Victor Gray and Melanie Aspey, "Rothschild, Nathan Mayer (1777–1836)", Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, Sept 2004; online edn, May 2006 accessed 21 May 2007.

3.      ^Rothschild (1912-01-01). "Bullion Department". Rothschildarchive.org. http://www.rothschildarchive.org/textguide/?doc=/textguide/articles/bullion#Quicksilver. Retrieved 2010-07-08. 

4.      ^"Hochschild, Adam "Bury the Chains: Prophets and Rebels in the Fight to Free an Empire's Slaves" Houghton Mifflin: New York, NY (2005). p.347". Worldcat.org. http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/56390513. Retrieved 2010-07-08. 

5.      ^[1]

6.      ^Morton, Frederic. (1962). The Rothschilds: A Family Portrait. London: Secker & Warburg. p69.

7.      ^Morton, Frederic. (1962). The Rothschilds: A Family Portrait. London: Secker & Warburg. pp69–70. [Morton does not cite the source of this quotation].

8.      ^Niall Ferguson, The Ascent of Money (2008), 88.

9.      ^"Contrary to stories emanating from an article about the family in a late nineteenth-century magazine with decidedly antisemitic undertones, Rothschild's first concern on this occasion was not the potential financial advantage on the market which the knowledge would have given him; he and his courier immediately took the news to the government." – Victor Gray and Melanie Aspey, "Rothschild, Nathan Mayer (1777–1836)", Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, Sept 2004; online edn, May 2006 accessed 21 May 2007.

10.  ^Morton, Frederic. (1962). The Rothschilds: A Family Portrait. London: Secker & Warburg. pp53–54.

11.  ^Victor Rothschild – "The Shadow of a Great Man" in Random Variables, Collins, 1984.

12.  ^Ferguson, Niall. The World's Banker: The History of the House of Rothschild. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1998, ISBN 0-297-81539-3

13.  ^Approximately £50,000,000 when inflation adjusted to 2006 pounds sterling per MeasuringWorth.com accessed October 27 2007.

14.  ^The House of Rothschild, Volume 1: Money's Prophets, 1798–1848. Niall Ferguson (1999), New York: Penguin. ISBN 0-14-024084-5

References

External links

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ae/Flag_of_the_United_Kingdom.svg/32px-Flag_of_the_United_Kingdom.svg.png

United Kingdom portal


OLDDOGS COMMENTS

Some of my readers have ridiculed Rebekah in the past for “going too far”.

I say she is the most thorough of all researchers I know.

If you don’t have the time or inclination to follow the links and see what she has done for you, don’t dump your complaints here.

And for all of you dumb asses who still believe we elect our leaders, and everything is their fault for not following the constitution.

Grow up !

 

 

WAR

April 22nd, 2011 by

 

OLDDOGS COMMENTS

 

Be warned, seeking truth about the history of America is a heart breaking experience, and also finding out what kind of people we really are is an experience that will change your life. This is not what I wanted to learn!

However, the evidence is undeniable and only an informed and heart broken society can change.

If, after you have satisfied yourself that this information is true, and you still support the government that controls all of these atrocities, do not consider yourself an American.

WHAT BETTER REASON FOR SECESSION CAN BE FOUND, THAN TO REALIZE WE PERSONALLY, HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO BUILDING THE MOST EVIL GOVERNMENT IN HISTORY?

 

 

NewsWithViews.com

http://www.newswithviews.com/Duncan/al109.htm

WAR

PART 1

By Al Duncan

April 15, 2011

"War, what is it good for? Absolutely nothing!" Edwin Starr, 1969.

From a rational perspective, this statement is accurate; when viewing it from a political, financial, or ideological perspective it is false.

In 1948, George Orwell wrote the novel 1984. In his magnificently prophetic portrayal of a futuristic world, much like the world we live in today, he makes a number of profoundly factual statements. Orwell writes, "War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength."

A word's definition cannot be changed; however, by deviously clever design, the implications certainly can. "Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind," George Orwell.

Today, U.S. military troops are being sent to annihilate lands, property, homes, buildings, and entire cities filled with people, all under the pretext of what are called Peacekeeping Missions.

The U.S. has troops permanently stationed in over 133 countries. Military spending is 5.8 times more than China, 10.2 times more than Russia, and 98.6 times more than Iran. The defense budget is $708 billion, which is more than all other discretionary parts of the federal budget. There is no country on earth that can challenge the U.S. militarily.

"In war, truth is the first casualty," Aeschylus, 525 BC – 456 BC

In December 2, 2009, Brian Ross, a senior U.S. intelligence official told ABC News that "There was an approximate estimate of 100 al Qaeda members left in Afghanistan. The small number was part of the intelligence passed on to the White House as President Obama conducted his deliberations. As he justified sending 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan at a cost of $30 billion a year, President Barack Obama's description Tuesday of the al Qaeda 'cancer' in that country left out one key fact: U.S. intelligence officials have concluded there are only about 100 al Qaeda fighters in the entire country."

According to the L.A. Times, January 13, 2010. There are at least 21,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan. With only 100 enemy fighters left, who are they fighting, why are additional troops needed, and why are they still there? It's evident that there are hidden motives behind war, and for certain, this war that is being waged on terror.

"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act," George Orwell.

President Dwight Eisenhower, a Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) member, Four Star General and apparent war mongrel repentant, stated in a 1953 speech, "Every gun that's made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It's spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hope of its children."

Today the cost of a destroyer equals 8000 houses, a fighter plane equals food for 6-million people and a bomber equals a modern school in more than 30 cities. "War is a way of shattering to pieces, or pouring into the stratosphere, or sinking in the depths of the sea, materials which might otherwise be used to make the masses too comfortable, and hence, in the long run, too intelligent," George Orwell.

Eisenhower was the first to introduce the term, Military Industrial Complex, in his January 17, 1961 Farewell Address, he warned the American people, "in the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the Military Industrial Complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."

"Anyone who trades freedom for security deserves neither freedom nor security," Benjamin Franklin.

There are six major components fueling the mightiest industry on earth: the Military, the Defense Industry, the CIA, Population Control, Congress, and Think Tanks, such as the Project For The New American Century. These groups have no accountability to American voters.

The members list for the Project of the New American Century (PNAC), 1997-2006, reads like a who's who of former high-level government and military officials: Richard Perle, Elliot Abrams, Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and William Kristol (all CFR or Trilateral Commission members) are some of the members that mold a seamless transition between the financial and the political, while gaining enormous personal and corporate benefits with each transformation. This interlocking connection is now so enmeshed that the financial elites and the political elites are literally the same.

The PNAC said that the U.S. forces are "the cavalry on the new American frontier." They said that the U.S. must "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars as a core mission." They state that "Focuses must be on long-term policy issues such as the strategic implications of defense policies and tactical considerations, including what types of weapons the military should develop," All of this is to be done at the U.S. taxpayer's expense.

One PNAC report contained ambivalent language toward bioterrorism and genetic warfare: "New methods of attack-electronic, non-lethal, biological-will be more widely available… Combat will likely take place in new dimensions, in space, cyberspace, and perhaps the world of microbes… Development of 'world-wide command-and-control system' to contain dangerous regimes… Advanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target' specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool."

As far back as 1998 there were reports from the PNAC stating: "The U.S. must take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein is in power. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein. Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan are essential locations that must be controlled." All of this is at the expense of the American solider and the U.S. taxpayers.

We learn from a study released from The Center For Public Integrity, March 28, 2003, that states, "After September 11, 2001, at least 71 companies got contracts to go into Afghanistan and Iraq and all of the top 10 companies had ex-U.S. officials on their boards of directors as top executives who had worked in the Pentagon or other top government positions."

The Center For Public Integrity statement continues: "Of the 30 members of the Defense Policy Board, the government-appointed group that advises the Pentagon, at least nine have ties to companies that have won more than $76 billion in defense contracts in 2001 and 2002. Four members are registered lobbyists, one of whom represents two of the three largest defense contractors. And here was just one shopping list, the Air Force wanted 312 B-2 stealth bombers, $500 million each; the Marine Corps wanted 12 V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor helicopters, $136 million each; the Army wanted $240 million to produce the LHX, a new reconnaissance and attack helicopter, $33 billion; the Navy wanted 5 Aegis guided-missile destroyers, at $3.6 billion." All of this is at the American taxpayer's expense.

I reiterate, there is no country on earth that can challenge the U.S. militarily.

Each piece of a bomber, a submarine, an aircraft carrier, a fighter jet is made in a different state, in a different congressional district, reaping enormous financial gains, and thus guaranteeing approval from each House member. It has nothing to do with what benefits the country; it's about what benefits the corporation and politicians.

"War is not meant to be won, it's meant to be continuous. Hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance. In principle the war effort is always planned to keep society on the brink of starvation. The war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects and its object is not victory," George Orwell.

PART 2

Politicians look at war much differently than the public.

In 1981, President Reagan issued Executive Order 12333, known as “Title 18, Section 6,” authorizing U.S. intelligence services to establish and operate corporations for intelligence purposes and deny any intelligence community connection. Now, U.S. intelligence services could covertly establish and operate corporations with taxpayer’s funds, they could compete against taxpayers with taxpayer’s funds and they could legally lie about their real “corporate” purpose. [click here]

From 1989 to 1993 Dick Cheney (a founding member of the Project for the New American Century, the group that planned the takeover of the Middle East) served as Secretary of Defense. August 1992 a contract was cut with Kellogg, Brown and Root Services Corp (KBR), a subsidiary of Halliburton, to study whether the Pentagon should use the private sector for service-type jobs such as preparing food, latrine and laundry cleaning, etc.; services previously provided by U.S. servicemen. Cheney approved a contract with KBR, calling it “a terrific deal”. Within 10-years KBR and Halliburton acquired between 700 to 800 contracts, employing approximately 100,000 people worldwide. [click here]

From 1995 to 2000, Cheney was chief executive and chairman of Halliburton, the major provider of products and services to the military. Most of Halliburton's government contracts were won by its construction subsidiary, KBR. Under Cheney the company benefited from $3.8 billion in government contracts or insured loans. Cheney’s wealth also advanced from $700,000 to $65mil in 5 years. [click here]

Walter Pincus, of the Washington Post, December 16, 2009, stated, “According to a study by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), a provider of background information to members of Congress on a bipartisan basis, the surge of 30,000 U.S. troops into Afghanistan could be accompanied by up to 56,000 contractors, expanding personnel from the U.S. private sector in a war zone. CRS expects an additional 26,000 to 56,000 contractors to be sent to Afghanistan, bringing the number of contractors in the country to anywhere from 130,000 to 160,000.” This would all take place at the U.S. taxpayer’s expense.

Apparently, Halliburton brought Cheney in to open doors for contracts, not only in Washington, but Capitals around the world. It would also appear that while electing George W. Bush, we also elected a government contractor and PNAC member as Vice President.

October 10, 2002, Congress passed Joint Resolution 114, granting the president the right to use force against Iraq at his discretion. If the president, advised by members of the Military Industrial Complex, establishes a need to drop bombs or send land forces somewhere, the Pentagon is then utilized to shape the News to sway the public in support of the latest strategic plan. [click here]

So let us continue down the money-trail of collusion and corruption as we examine some of the revolving doors between the Military Industrial Complex, the corporate/banking world and the U.S. government.

Director and co-founder of the Carlyle Group, William Conway, recently boasted about his bank and the cast of ex-Presidents and former officials, including George H. W. Bush, James Baker III, and Frank Carlucci, on its payroll. It is the use of former government officials for their access to government bureaucracies to determine contractual relations. It is inside knowledge—knowing exactly where the government is going to spend money and then investing in it. [click here]

Under Frank Carlucci (former CIA deputy director and Defence Secretary), Carlyle has become the nation's eleventh-largest defence contractor, a major arms exporter to Saudi Arabia and Turkey, one of the biggest foreign investors in South Korea and Taiwan, a key player in global telecommunications, wireless, real estate, and healthcare markets. Since 1987 it has invested $6.4 billion in 233 transactions, with a 35 percent return rate on its completed investments. [click here]

Considering the huge profits (the military is now 36 percent of the annual budget) and the enormous power involving corporations, the Military Industrial Complex, and the U.S. government, it is understandable that anyone in opposition to a strong defense policy poses a huge threat. [click here]

In 1515, Machiavelli authored The Prince, here is a quote regarding mercenaries, “The mercenaries and auxiliaries are useless and dangerous, and if anyone supports his country by the arms of mercenaries, he’ll never stand firm or sure, as they are disunited, ambitious, without discipline, faithless, bold amongst friends, cowardly amongst enemies, they have no fear of God and keep no faith with men.”

Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, PhD, U.S. Air Force, stated, "In terms of people, there are 1,473,900 active personnel and 1,458,500 reserves. That’s before the broad-based government and military outsourcing rage [Private Military Company] of the last 15 years. Total numbers of PMCs exceed all U.S. combat forces combined.” [click here]

Founded by former U.S. Navy Seal, Erik Prince, Blackwater is currently the largest of the U.S. state department's private security contractors, it’s earned more than $1 billion from the U.S. government in the last nine years. [click here]

"What we know now is that Blackwater was part of the highest level, the innermost circle strategizing and exercising strategy within the Bush administration," says Jan Schakowsky, chair of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, "Erik Prince operated at the highest, most secret level of the government. Prince was more trusted than the U.S. Congress because Vice President Cheney made the decision not to brief Congress." [click here]

On August 19, 2009, the New York Times ran an article by Mark Mazzetti, who stated, “In 2004 the CIA hired outside contractors from the private security contractor Blackwater USA as part of a secret program to locate and assassinate top operatives of Al Qaeda, according to current and former government officials.” [click here]

Joseph Black, CIA Directorate of Operations, testified to Congress, "There’s a before 9/11, and there’s an after 9/11. After 9/11 the gloves come off." Black outlined a ‘no-limits, aggressive, relentless, worldwide pursuit of any terrorist who threatens us.’ In 2004 Black bragged, ‘over 70 percent of Al Qaeda's leadership had been arrested, detained or killed.’”

"’Outsourcing gave the agency more protection in case something went wrong,’ said a retired intelligence officer intimately familiar with the assassination program.”

September 16, 2007, Blackwater USA guards killed 17 Iraqi civilians trying to drive away from a Baghdad square. Lt. Col. Mike Tarsa, whose squad reached Nisoor Square 25 minutes after the gunfire subsided, reported, “Based upon eyewitness interviews and discussions with Iraqi police, we concluded that the shootings were criminal.” Their conclusions mirrored the Iraqi government, which said the Blackwater guards killed 17 people. [click here]

According to Blackwater USA, “Based on information available to us, we understand that these individuals acted within the rules set forth by the government and that no criminal violations occurred. It is important to note that these men are presumed innocent, that an indictment is only the first step in the Judicial process, and that these men have not been convicted of anything.” [click here]

The Associate Press reported that, “Citing Justice Department missteps, a judge dismissed all charges against the Blackwater guards accused in the killing of 17 civilians in Baghdad's Nisour Square in 2007.” [click here]

On October 25, 2007, Brian Ross of CBS News reported, “Even as she accepted the resigation of State’s security chief, Justine Sincavage, who was responsible for all State Department Security contracts for Iraq and Afghanistan, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice promoted two senior staffers who directly oversaw Blackwater security operations.

“Current and former officials were outraged,” Ross continued. “‘It is ironic; on the day the assistant secretary for DSS resigns, the two people with oversight responsibility for the program get promoted,’ said one current State Department official who asked not to be named

“Another State official who would not be named went further, calling the promotions of Sincavage and Barry a symptom of “a perverted system of government.”

Ross concludes, “’Two people got promoted in the face of all this mismanagement and controversy—talk about government B.S.,’ said another. ‘What does it say when the State promotes the two people into the Bureau of Diplomatic Security’s most senior positions, when if they had properly managed the programs under their responsibility, we would not be in this mess.’” [click here]

When a New York Times journalist asked George W. Bush in March 2005, how he would justify the practice of extraordinary rendition, Bush replied, “Torture is never acceptable, nor do we hand over people to countries that do torture.” But with the emergence of de-classified U.S. Government documents and the findings of independent investigations, it has become clear that Bush’s statements were merely a façade for the surprise ‘holidays’ that the CIA was granting to terrorist suspects at the time. Even in the post-Bush era, the Obama administration has, continued to utilize and justify the use of extraordinary rendition. [click here]

Also included in President Reagan’s Executive Order 12333, under United States Intelligence Activities, Section 2.11 of the order was a provision stating: “Prohibition on Assassination. No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.” Section 2.12 of the order prohibits indirect participation in activities prohibited by the order, stating: “Indirect participation. No agency of the Intelligence Community shall participate in or request any person to undertake activities forbidden by this Order.” E.O. 12333.” [click here]

However, on July 30, 2008, President Bush issuedExecutive Order 13470 amending Executive Order 12333. The Order states, in pertinent part: “The United States Government has a solemn obligation, and shall continue in the conduct of intelligence activities under this order, to protect fully the legal rights of all United States persons, including freedoms, civil liberties, and privacy rights guaranteed by Federal law.” [click here]

President George W. Bush then gave the CIA, and later the military, authority to kill U.S. citizens abroad if evidence existed that an American was involved in organizing or carrying out terrorist actions against the U.S. or U.S. interests, military and intelligence officials said. [click here]

According to Dana Priest, January 27, 2010, the Obama administration has adopted the same stance, “The operations, approved by President Barrack Obama, involved several dozen troops from the U.S. military’s clandestine Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), whose main mission is tracking and killing suspected terrorists. The recent JSOC list included three U.S. citizens.” [click here]

Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush seized the authority to order American citizens to be murdered based on the unproven claimes that they are associated with Terrorism and pose "a continuing and imminent threat to U.S. persons and interests." They are afforded no trial to contest these accusations, they are just eleminated.

The quote from the disgruntled State official calling our government system “a perverted system of government” is an understatement. Individuals and governments, in the name of peacekeeping and fighting terrorism, are being decimated because they will not submit to the extortion and tyranny being perpetrated upon them by the U.S. government and its band of NATO militia. If we are honest with ourselves, a cesspool of corruption permeates every branch of American government today; they are thieves and liars and murders and they can accurately be described as white-collar gangsters.

We, the people, had best come together. For the enemy is not the Democrats or the Republicans; the enemy is not liberalism or conservatism. The enemy is the devil, and he is directing an elite group of luciferians who are bent on corrupting everything that is Godly by everything that is ungodly.

And the outcry from the American people is deafening in its silence.

To be continued next week

© 2011 Al Duncan – All Rights Reserved

“Al Duncan is the author of The Master Plan, which is now being revised. He is also compiling a booklet of about 60 short articles for publication and future availability. Until recently, he wrote a weekly column for a local newspaper, the Lake County Record Bee, distributed by Associated Press. The readers were basically secular and unaware of the New World Order, so his articles were written hoping to educate the reader on this subject. However, Al realizes that NewsWithViews attracts an informed reader, who is seeking to expand his or her understanding of the truths behind the daily events, and how these truths can best help them meet the challenges ahead.

 

E-Mail: alduncan@pacific.net

 

 

 

 

Bretton Woods II The Final Enslavement of Mankind

April 20th, 2011 by

Bretton Woods II The Final Enslavement of Mankind

April 19, 2011 posted by Veterans Today

Totalitarian Collectivism

“The rising powers must be present at the creation of this new system in order to ensure that they will be active supporters.” – George Soros

Charges of a conspiracy theory are a convenient pretext to dismiss criticism when the global financial elites meet to shape the next evolution of centralized control of all economic activity. When Mayer Amschel Rothschild admitted, “Give me the power of the money and it will not matter anymore who is commanding”, he exposed the true nature of international finance. The new front man for the shadow masters of money is George Soros. His visibility is used to deflect attention away from the supra national circle of recluse manipulators, who set the agenda for globalism. The history of world politics is really the chronicle of money, debt and banking. Only by understanding this clash of titans, can one interpret the language of worldwide finance.

It is not often that you get to look into the window of the future before it takes place. The obsession with the political posturing of the torturous grinding process that produces a kosher sausage product causes acute indigestion. Banking is one such example and the INET, The Institute for New Economic Thinking, who sponsored the Bretton Woods II conference is the Neshama gourmet version of ground up animal flesh. Funneling the herd into the corral of a new world currency openly discussed, as the panacea for the coming collapse of international finance, is the height of totalitarian arrogance.

Soros, in The Alchemy of Finance wrote, “To put it bluntly, I fancied myself as some kind of god or an economic reformer like Keynes…. As I made my way in the world, reality came close enough to my fantasy to allow me to admit my secret, at least to myself.”

Some of the attendees and speakers at the INET conference included:

Gordon Brown, former U.K. Prime Minister.

Paul Volcker, former Fed Chairman and chairman of President Obama’s Economic Advisory Board.

Economist Jeffrey Sachs, director of The Earth Institute.

Joseph E. Stiglitz, former senior vice president and chief economist for the World Bank and Nobel Prize winner in Economics.

INET Executive Director Rob Johnson, former managing director at Soros Fund Management.

Columbia professor Jeffrey Sachs, who sits on the board of INET is known for his ‘Shock Therapy’.  Aaron Klein reports in WND. “Sachs is, a special adviser to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, is founder and co-president of the Soros-funded Millennium Promise Alliance. He has been a World Bank consultant who formerly directed Harvard’s Institute for International Development, which he turned into a major conduit advocating for World Bank and International Monetary Funds use for structural adjustment programs in the Third World and beyond”.

Mr. Klein then cites from the Investor’s Business Daily.

“A Millennium goal called for a “currency transfer tax,” a “tax on the rental value of land and natural resources,” a “royalty on worldwide fossil energy projection — oil, natural gas, coal,” “fees for the commercial use of the oceans, fees for airplane use of the skies, fees for use of the electromagnetic spectrum, fees on foreign exchange transactions, and a tax on the carbon content of fuels.”

Does this sound like a global tax contrived to fund a centralized and top down authoritarian structure to replace nation states? The old Tobin Tax never dreamed of such grand designs. The psychosis of the Soros model is axiomatic, but the mainstream media avoids such characterization.

Back in the mist of the market meltdown, Gideon Rachman of the Financial Times warns about a previous precursor of the Soros’ venue, “like most sequels, Bretton Woods II is not going to be nearly as good as the original. The first conference gave birth to the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Its successor will be duller and less consequential.” If Mr. Rachman believes that creating the IMF and World Bank was good for the planet, he must have sat next to Soros at the London School of Economics.

Mr. Rachman cites his reservations for the success of a second Bretton Woods back in 2008.

“The first reason for this is that the global financial crisis – bad as it is – is hardly the second world war. The war destroyed the established order and so the statesmen who drew up the postwar institutions had a blank piece of paper on which to doodle.

Second, there is not enough time. The original Bretton Woods conference benefited from two years of preparation, not two weeks.

Third – and rather important – the countries that are meeting in Washington this weekend disagree. The Europeans, who adore all forms of international governance, are pushing for new global regulators for the international financial system. The Americans and Chinese – more jealous of their national sovereignty – are more cautious.”

Pat Buchanan reacts to the British Empire’s effort to enshrine Lord Keynes into the national constitution during this latest attempt to draft a unified draconic banking system.

“(Gordon) Brown wants the IMF to become the “global central bank,” the Fed of the world economy. No way, Brownie. Americans are not going to fund such a bank, nor cede it authority, nor abide by its dictates. We are not yet a Third World nation dependent on the IMF.”

However, is Pat right on this one? With the Soros influence in this Obama administration is any American safe from the whims of the banksters?  Is there the will in Congress to confront the executive abuses of this puppet president? When the ultimate crunch finally enfolds the TARP and “too big to fail”, bailouts will be small potatoes. The BRIC countries are already calling for the replacement of the counterfeit dollar as the reserved currency.

Going back further in time to 2004, John Brimelow in Market Watch, identifies the key issue with floating currency rate exchange.

“What everyone has is a massive Chinese undervaluation problem. Any exchange rate discussion that fails to start with this fact is fatuous.

In 1993, China fixed its currency, the yuan, at $1 = Y8.28.

Since then, capital and technology have poured into China. It has built up foreign exchange reserves more than ten-fold, to almost $500 billion, an expansion almost unmatched in history.

Yet the decline of the dollar in the past two years has effectively dragged down the pegged yuan another 35 percent against the major currencies — exactly the reverse of what should have happened, given China’s exporting success.”

Just think how much further the dollar has sunk while Chinese reserves have grown to unbelievable levels. No one is saying that a currency crisis is not real. The point is that international finance has the goal to become the credit-funding agent for the entire world.

Dan Gainor from the Media Research Center reveals the plan to put China in the catbird seat.

“INET isn’t subtle about its aims for the conference. Johnson interviewed fellow INET board member Robert Skidelsky about “The Need for a New Bretton Woods” in a recent video. The introductory slide to the video is subtitled: “How currency issues and tension between the US and China are renewing calls for a global financial overhaul.” Skidelsky called for a new agreement and said in the video that the conflict between the United States and China was “at the center of any monetary deal that may be struck, that needs to be struck.”

Watch the video The Need for a New Bretton Woods for the Skidelsky interview. Then view the Panel at INET’s Bretton Woods Conference for the real story behind the push for a single global central bank system.

“This is the heart of much of our economic catastrophe.  Sovereign governments are sacrificing themselves for private banking institutions. Trillions upon trillions of taxpayer dollars, world-wide, are being transferred to banks that have destroyed themselves many times over with their Enron-style Ponzi schemes and ‘creative accounting.’ The question is, how long will people stand for it? Soon it will be too late. So far, Iceland is the ONLY country whose people have made the right choice, while Ireland and Greece have made the devastatingly wrong choice — with Portugal ready to follow suit.”

The significance of the Soros conference at Bretton Woods is that national governments are an endangered species if they do not eliminate the banking cartel that is the primary global dictatorship that faces mankind. The avarice Rothschild culture that underpins the debt created money system is the most dangerous terrorist that seeks to impose the ultimate Global Gulag on every county. The Totalitarian Collectivism we all face is upon us. Soros is an evil man, but the system that he is part of is bent on eliminating or subjugating any regime, like Iceland, that repudiates the rule of banksters.

These financers are admittedly the evil rulers of society. Any attempt to force a singular currency and a universal taxation levee is a fulfillment of the final enslavement of man-kind.  Bretton Wood II is an outline for things to come. The debt created money cartel is ready to impose their captivity on sovereign governments. Soros is telegraphing their plan. We are engaged in the final battle for liberty and America is losing the war. The inevitable dollar default is the tool used to sentence you to death row. Now is the time to seek divine guidance and beg for national forgiveness.

The Truth About Silver and Inflation

April 16th, 2011 by

 

NATIONAL INFLATION ASSOCIATION

 

The Truth About Silver and Inflation

Silver futures surged today to a new 31-year high of $42.80 per ounce. Silver is up 146% since NIA declared silver the best investment for the next decade on December 11th, 2009, at $17.40 per ounce. All we need is for silver to rise by another 15.5% and silver will reach its all time high set in 1980 of $49.45 per ounce.

Keep in mind, silver's high of $49.45 per ounce in 1980 would equal about $140 per ounce in today's dollars adjusted to the consumer price index and about $400 per ounce in today's dollars adjusted to the real rate of price inflation. Despite silver's huge gains in recent months, we have yet to see silver rise by $2 or more in a single day. When we start to see a true "silver mania" with investors around the world rushing out of their U.S. dollars and panic buying silver, we expect to see silver gain by $5 to $10 in a single day on more than one occasion.

Back in February of last year when silver dipped to below $15 per ounce, we sent out an alert saying, "NIA believes this is a once in a lifetime entry point for those wishing to go long silver at a bargain basement price". NIA suggested silver call options in February of last year that ended up gaining over 1,000%. NIA's latest silver stock suggestion is currently up 175% from our profile price.

In NIA's top 10 predictions for 2010, we predicted a major decline in the gold/silver ratio, which was 64 at the time. The gold/silver ratio declined in 2010 down to 46, and in our top 10 predictions for 2011, we predicted another major decline in the gold/silver ratio and projected for it to decline this year to 38. NIA has been the most bullish organization in the world on silver, yet recent gains in the price of silver have surpassed even our short-term expectations. The gold/silver ratio is now down to 35 and we believe it will decline to at least 16 this decade, and possibly as low as 10.

The artificially high gold/silver ratio of the past century will be looked back at as an anomaly caused by the silver price suppression scheme of the Federal Reserve, which was in cahoots with Bear Stearns and now JP Morgan. NIA's President Gerard Adams exposed this scheme in NIA's critically acclaimed documentary 'Meltup', which has now been viewed by over 1 million people with an overwhelming 96% of its viewers giving it a thumbs up, a world record for an economic documentary. According to Mr. Adams, the Federal Reserve chose to bail out Bear Stearns and not Lehman Brothers, because Bear Stearns was the holder of a massive naked short position in silver that they were on the verge of being forced to cover.

It is not a coincidence that Bear Stearns failed on the very day silver reached its then multi-decade high of $21 per ounce. Bear Stearns was on the verge of being forced to cover their naked short position, which could have sent silver from $21 per ounce to $50 per ounce overnight. By bailing out Bear Stearns and allowing JP Morgan to acquire Bear Stearns' assets with the promise to cover any losses derived from them, JP Morgan was able to continue managing the silver short position and orchestrate a manipulative take down in 2008 from $21 per ounce down to $8 per ounce.

Only ten times more silver has been produced in world history than gold and from the years 1000 to 1873, a period of 873 years, the gold/silver ratio remained between 10 and 16. In fact, the Coinage Act of 1834 defined a gold/silver ratio of 16. The gold/silver ratio started to rise after silver was demonetized in 1873. Despite silver being demonetized, we saw the gold/silver ratio return to 16 on three occasions during the past century: in 1919, 1968, and 1980.

It was only ten months ago in June of 2010 that the gold/silver ratio was 70. With the gold/silver ratio now at 35, it means that silver investors have seen their purchasing power double over the past ten months, while those with their savings in U.S. dollars have seen their purchasing power decline by 20%. That's right, forget about NIA's silver call option that gained over 1,000% and forget about NIA's most recent silver stock suggestion that is currently up 175%; the simple act of following NIA's most basic suggestion of getting rid of your U.S. dollars and buying physical silver means that over the past ten months, your purchasing power has doubled while non-NIA members with U.S. dollars lost 1/5 of their real wealth.

The Federal Reserve can claim all they want that there is no inflation, but as we write this article we are eating Ben & Jerry's ice cream that we just bought at Quick Chek for $5 a pint. Three years ago, the same pint of Ben & Jerry's ice cream at Quick Chek cost us $3. Three years ago, one ounce of gold would have bought 295 pints of Ben & Jerry's ice cream and it still buys 295 pints of Ben & Jerry's ice cream today. Three years ago, one ounce of silver would have bought 5.7 pints of Ben & Jerry's ice cream and today it buys 8.5 pints of Ben & Jerry's ice cream.

Americans with their savings in U.S. dollars can today only afford 3/5ths of the ice cream that they could have bought three years ago, but those with their savings in gold have maintained their purchasing power, and those with their savings in silver have greatly increased their purchasing power. NIA is 100% sure that the gold/silver ratio will decline to at least 16 within the next few years, and that will mean those with silver will once again more than double their purchasing power. Considering that the gold/silver ratio overshot to the upside and was as high as 100 in 1991, we fully expect it to overcorrect to the downside and possibly reach a low of 10 this decade. That would mean a more than tripling of ones purchasing power from the current ratio of 35.

When silver rose to $49.45 per ounce in 1980, the government said that the rise was due to the Hunt brothers "cornering" the silver market. The truth is, silver reached $49.45 in 1980 due to the massive inflation that was created by the U.S. government during the 1970s, and the Hunt brothers were used as a scapegoat. The Hunt brothers were accumulating silver in order to protect themselves from a collapsing U.S. dollar, just like NIA has been encouraging its members to do in a countless number of articles and videos over the past two years.

When the Hunt brothers were accused by the U.S. government of "cornering" the silver market and trying to manipulate silver prices higher, they only owned a concentrated long position of approximately 100 million ounces of silver. JP Morgan today has a concentrated naked short position in silver of approximately 122.5 million ounces, but the U.S. government doesn't seem to have any problem with it.

The problem with the Hunt brothers' strategy of accumulating such a large concentrated long position in silver is that after silver prices rose, their position was simply too large for them to ever sell without causing silver prices to crash. With silver reaching $49.45 per ounce in early 1980, the world was about to lose confidence in the U.S. dollar, which would have caused an outbreak of hyperinflation. In a desperate attempt to save the U.S. dollar and prevent hyperinflation, the CBOT raised margin requirements and limited traders' positions to only 3 million ounces of silver futures. The COMEX also limited traders' positions to 10 million ounces of silver futures. Not only that, but the COMEX and CBOT only had a total of 120 million ounces of silver in inventory, and the COMEX was likely going to default from futures contract holders requesting physical delivery. The COMEX was forced to go into "liquidation only" mode, ending all silver futures contract buying.

Combined with the Federal Reserve rapidly rising interest rates, silver prices began to plunge and the Hunt brothers were hit with massive margin calls. On one single day in March of 1980 when the Hunt brothers were forced to liquidate a large part of their position, silver lost 1/3 of its value, declining by over $5 to $10.80 per ounce. That represented a total decline of 78% from its high two months earlier.

NIA has been receiving a countless number of emails asking if now is the time to sell silver, and if silver could crash by 78% once again like it did in 1980. The fact is, while the Hunt brothers' 100 million ounce concentrated silver position was on the long side, JP Morgan's 122.5 million ounce concentrated silver position is on the short side.

While the Hunt brothers' long position was impossible to sell without causing silver prices to crash, JP Morgan's naked short position is impossible to cover without causing silver prices to explode to the upside. Being that the CFTC was so quick in 1980 to support the position limits that were then imposed by the CBOT and COMEX, NIA believes it would only be fair for the CFTC to mandate similar position limits today. This is unlikely to occur because the U.S. government believes JP Morgan's silver manipulation to be a good thing, since it is giving the phony appearance that the U.S. dollar still has purchasing power. The free market will ultimately win in the end and silver prices will soar through the roof to where they belong based on supply and demand fundamentals.

It is important to spread the word about NIA to as many people as possible, as quickly as possible, if you want America to survive hyperinflation. Please tell everybody you know to become members of NIA for free immediately at: http://inflation.us

 

West vs. China: A New Cold War Begins On Libyan Soil

April 13th, 2011 by

From: becworks@gmail.com

Patrick Henningsen

Infowars.com
April 13, 2011

http://www.infowars.com/west-vs-china-a-new-cold-war-begins-on-libyan-soil/print/

The question as to why US-led NATO forces are determined to engineer a regime change in Libya is now becoming clear. Whilst media pundits and political experts still argue over whether the Libyan rebel gangs are actually being backed and directed by US, UK and Israel intelligence agencies, broader long-range Western policy objectives for Libya are being completely ignored.

One only has to read the strategic briefings in U.S. AFRICOM documents to realise the true endgame in Libya: the control of valuable resources and the eviction of China from North Africa.

When the US formed AFRICOM in 2007, some 49 countries signed on to the US military charter for Africa but one country refused: Libya. Such a treacherous act by Libya’s leader Moummar Qaddafi would only sow the seeds for a future conflict down the road in 2011.

NATO: It’s been reduced to a mere private security force for western corporate interests.

According to Dr Paul Craig Roberts, the situation with Qaddafi is much different than the other recent protests in the Arab world. “Why is NATO there?” has become to real question, says Roberts, who fears that risky involvement stemming from American influence could lead to catastrophic breaking point in Libya.

WHY WE ARE IN LIBYA: a revealing interview with Dr Paul Craig Roberts.

CHINESE INTERESTS IN LIBYA

According to Bejing’s Ministry of Commerce, China’s current contracts in Libya number no less than 50 large projects involving a contracts in excess of 18 billion USD. What is even more revealing here is that due to the recent instability in the North African region, China’s investments have taken a serious hit. The recent political turmoil in the region has caused China’s foreign contracted projects  to drop with new contracts amounting to $ 3,470,000,000, down 53.2%. Among them, the amount of new contracts in Libya, down by 45.3%, 13.9% less turnover; to Algeria, the amount of the contract fell 97.1%, turnover decreased by 10.7% – all within the first 2 months of this year.

In addition to the numerous Chinese investments in Libya, the North African nation has also recently completed one of the most expensive and advance water works projects in world history- Libya’s Great Man Made River. A 30 year venture, finished only last year, gives Libya the potential for an agricultural and economic boom that would certainly mean trouble for competing agri-markets in neighbouring Israel and Egypt. It could also transform Libya into the emerging “bread basket” of Africa. With global food prices on the rise, and Libya possessing a stable currency and cheap domestic energy supply, it doesn’t take an economic genius to see what role Libya could play in the global market place.

VALUABLE ASSET: Libya’s Great Man Made River.

Central to AFRICOM’s strategic goals is to confront the increasing Chinese influence on the continent. One AFRICOM study suggests that China will eventually dispatch troops to Africa to defend its interests there:

“Now China has achieved a stage of economic development which requires endless supplies of African raw materials and has started to develop the capacity to exercise influence in most corners of the globe. The extrapolation of history predicts that distrust and uncertainty will inevitably lead the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to Africa in staggering numbers…”

So we have a vocalised fear on the part of US military planners, of a military confrontation with China… in Africa. Today it’s Libya, but tomorrow, it will be in Sudan. Does this sound a little familiar?  Well, it should…

THE NEW COLD WAR WITH CHINA

What this data does show clearly is that the strategic policy objectives outlined in Washington’s AFRICOM, particularly those ones designed to confront and minimise China’s economic interest in Africa, are working well as a result of instability in the region.   In effect, what we are witnessing here is the dawn of a new Cold War between the US-EURO powers and China. This new cold war will feature many of the same elements of the long and protracted US-USSR face-off we saw in the second half of the 20th century. It will take place off shore, in places like Africa, South America, Central Asia and through old flashpoints like Korea and the Middle East.

AFRICOM: outlining America’s new military playground.

What makes this new cold war much deeper and more subtle than the previous one, is that it will not be cloaked in a popular ideology like ‘Capitalism vs Communism’. This new war is all about one thing: natural resources. The capture and control of the world’s remaining resources and energy supplies will be the theme which will govern- and literally fuel, all major conflicts in the 21st century. It will be fought through numerous proxies, and on far-flung pitches across the globe but it will never be spoken of by the White House Press Secretary or the Foreign Office in Downing Street.

Early reports out of Libya confirm that “Rebels” are being backed and directed by Western intelligence agencies.

INSURGENTS NOT PROTESTORS

The great PR spin trick in the run up to NATO’s carpet bombing run in Libya was the West’s ability to characterise Libya’s violent armed gangs as mere protestors. The average American, British or French media consumer equated the Libyan uprising with those previously in Tunisia and Egypt. Then reality of course was that they were anything but. However, the bells of freedom and democracy had indeed rung, so all that was really needed at that point was a clever WMD-like diplomatic trick to dazzle the rows of intellectually challenged diplomats at the UN in New York City. The ‘No Fly Zone’ was repackaged and worked well enough for politicians to get their foot in the door to their respective War Rooms.

It seems to have worked so far but the next phase- ground troops and a NATO military occupation of Libya, will be somewhat more complicated to execute without sustaining heavy political fallout. All of these complexed efforts are used to shroud western corporate and military long-term agendas in the region, all part and parcel of the New Resources Cold War with China.

A military and CIA advocate appears on CNN to promote the White House party line on regime change.

HISTORY IS STILL A BITCH

Few will argue that the average western observer and mainstream media consumer suffers from chronic historical amnesia. For Americans in particular, relevant history only extends as far back as the previous season of Dancing With the Stars, or American Idol.  Some might argue that this is by design, that on whole the masses have been conditioned to be passive actors in the new media-rich modern democracy because it makes managing the herds much easier.

The lessons of Afghanistan and Iraq have yet to return home for the US and Great Britain- both projects are still going concerns for the massive cartel of western corporations. This has allowed ambitious bureaucrats in Washington, London and Paris to try their hand again in Libya. In time however, Americans and Europeans will come to learn what ever citizen and subject already learned many times over throughout history. In theory it may work, but in practice, “Occupation” is a paradox. The US-UK may draw plans in private to occupy an Iraq or a Libya indefinitely but history doesn’t jibe with these imperial ambitions.

It will end one day, and end badly because the Neo-Roman Anglo-American Empire with all its legions abroad, cannot manage its fragile domestic affair back at home. First comes the fall of the Senate, then the rise of the Caesar, and finally the collapse of the Denarius($) at home. The once great empire goes out with a whimper- too fat and too bankrupt to carry on.

As the Great Resource Wars of the 21st century continue to rage on unabated, one question comes to mind: what will mindful citizens in the aggressor countries do to change this present course of history? Judging by ease at which the West managed to pull of their latest heist in Libya, I would say… very little right now.

Patrick Henningsen’s article first appeared on 21st Century Wire.


Article printed from Infowars: http://www.infowars.com

URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/west-vs-china-a-new-cold-war-begins-on-libyan-soil/

There are only two types of human beings.

April 11th, 2011 by

 

Type one just wants everyone to leave everyone else alone and these humans are students and advocates of the Philosophically Mature Non-Aggression Principle.

 

Type two refuses to leave others alone and these scumbags are the Mob-oc-racy Looter Minions with their hoards of bureaucrats, jackboots, and mercenaries that perpetuate the loot and booty gravy-train.

 

You are either the one…or the other!

And type two is on my shit list!

Globalists Coming Full Circle:

April 11th, 2011 by

Obama executes final leg of Neo-Conservative imperialism

Activist Post

Tony Cartalucci, Contributing Writer

Long before the verified lies of Qaddafi's "door-to-door" genocide and even before the media cleverly tagged the engineered destabilization of the Middle East the "Arab Spring," Libya was already marked for destabilization and regime change. For nearly thirty years the US and UK have funded groups both inside Libya and beyond its borders in various attempts to remove Qaddafi from power. The current administration's feigned ignorance over the nature of the rebels in Libya is nothing short of absolute deception. The CIA and MI6 are on record for decades following, and in many cases supporting, these very groups.

Below is a partial time line covering Western efforts to implement regime change in Libya.

1980sUS-CIA backed National Front for the Salvation of Libya (NFSL) made multiple attempts to assassinate Qaddafi and initiate armed rebellion throughout Libya.
1990s: Noman Benotman and the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) wage a campaign of terror against Qaddafi with Osama Bin Laden's assistance.
2003: Upon Qaddafi's abandonment of WMD programs, Libya's collaboration with MI6 & the CIA to identify and expose the LIFG networks begins, giving Western intelligence a windfall of information regarding the group.
2005NFSL's Ibrahim Sahad founds the National Conference of Libyan Opposition (NCLO) in London England.
2011: Early February, the London based NCLO calls for a Libyan "Day of Rage," beginning the "February 17th revolution."
2011: Late February, NFSL/NCLO's Ibrahim Sahad is leading opposition rhetoric, literally in front of the White House in Washington D.C. Calls for no-fly zone in reaction to unsubstantiated accusations Qaddafi is strafing "unarmed protesters" with warplanes.
2011: Late February, Senators Lieberman and McCain and UK PM David Cameron call for providing air cover for Libyan rebels as well as providing them additional arms.
2011: Early March; it is revealed UK SAS special forces are already operating inside Libya
2011: Mid-March; UN adopts no-fly zone over Libya, including air strikes. Immediately, the mission is changed from "protecting civilians" to "ousting Qaddafi." Egypt violates the arms embargo of UN r.1973 with Washington's full knowledge by supplying Libyan rebels with weapons, while Al Qaeda's ties to the rebels are admitted by everyone including the rebels themselves.

Recently, Fareed Zakaria on his CNN show interviewed a former Libyan Al-Qaeda associate, Noman Benotman, to dispel "allegations" that Al Qaeda was playing a key role in the rebellion against Qaddafi. Benotman would concede that Al Qaeda was involved but not significantly, suggesting there were only a few hundred fighters. The Washington Times would later quote Benotman upgrading the number to a thousand. Then after Libyan rebel leader Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi admitted to recruiting extremists into his ranks and that he believed Al Qaeda members were "good Muslims," Benotman began back peddling and even claiming, "The way they start to make statements or to understand the conflicts is unbelievable, beyond my imagination. The only explanation I can offer is because they have been affected – whether they like it or not – by the wave of democracy."

 

It should be noted that Al-Hasidi, the Libyan rebel commander, received his training in Afghanistan and witnessed the US bombing campaign which began in late 2001. He would fight Americans in Afghanistan and was eventually captured in Pakistan, handed over to the US and later released back to Libya in 2008. Now the same man that fought Americans is being provided American air cover over Benghazi while he leads fellow Al Qaeda fighters, some of which fought Americans in Iraq as well.

For the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, which was founded in the mountains of Afghanistan during the CIA-backed war against the Soviets, then fighting the Americans in both Afghanistan and Iraq, now having the CIA back on the ground in Libya by their side may seem like a reunion of sorts, punctuated by the irony of jets flying overhead that had been hunting them abroad but are now protecting their lives. But to the thousands of US soldiers who have died and the tens of thousands maimed and destroyed supposedly fighting Al Qaeda, to the Americans who have been financially bled to death over the last ten years of war, and to the millions of people in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and now Libya who have been killed, maimed, displaced or otherwise affected by the "War on Terror," it is more like the punchline of a bad joke.

But the implications go much deeper than merely a conjured army of duped extremists, serving the globalist agenda every step of the way. The implications are deep, and dark indeed.

The Grander Agenda

Ten days after 9/11, General Wesley Clark visited the Pentagon where an officer from the Joint Staff warned him of an impending attack on Iraq. After the Afghan invasion, this officer shared with Clark a document handed down from the Office of the Secretary of Defense indicating plans to attack and destroy the governments of 7 countries; Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Iran, Lebanon and Libya. General Wesley Clark would go on to share this story in a 2007 speech given to the Commonwealth Club of California where he repeated this list.

 

Of course, the campaigns have already begun against each of the nations Clark listed. Iraq was invaded, decimated, and has been occupied by US troops since 2003. In 2006, Israel attempted to invade and dismantle Hezbollah in Lebanon but the conflict ended in a stalemate and an eventual Israeli withdrawal. Somalia was attacked by a proxy Ethiopian invasion force with US air support starting in 2007, but it too eventually ended in failure. A silent war has already begun within Iran, including covert military operations, the arming of terrorists, assassinations, and 2 failed US backed color revolutions. Sudan has been recently carved into two states and Syria is now being intentionally destabilized by US trained and funded activists.

And now, of course in Libya's case, aerial bombardment by US, UK, and French warplanes has begun, while the CIA and MI6 are on the ground attempting to collapse the Qaddafi regime.

Wesley Clark would backtrack in his 2007 talk in California and recall a conversation he had in 1991 with then Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Paul Wolfowitz regarding Desert Storm. Clark was told that America's intervention in Iraq proved that the US could use its military force and the Soviets wouldn't stop them. Wolfowitz said the US had 5-10 years to clean up the old Soviet "client regimes" before the next super power rose up and challenged western hegemony. Clark claimed that this, along with the aftermath of 9/11 constituted a policy coup where Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and the other members of the of Project for a New American Centuryhad hijacked US foreign policy to destabilize and turn the nations of the Middle East upside down – much the way they are now. The "Neo-Conservative" element of this current round of destabilization goes deeper than the promotion of war, as the "Neo-Cons" have uncharacteristically dedicated themselves to "human rights" and "democracy" side-by-side with the likes of George Soros and Zbigniew Brzezinski.
 

General Wesley Clark tells of how Middle East destabilization 
was planned as far back as 1991, with the destruction of Iraq, 
Syria, Lebanon, Sudan, Somalia, Libya, and Iran on the
drawing board following the invasion of Afghanistan. 

Bush campaigned on an anti-war, anti-nation building platform. Obama then pledged to roll back the agenda Bush swindled the nation into, only to then continue it in earnest. All along we have been treated to the theatrics of the corporate-owned media, with pundits on the left and right reacting in shock and surprise as these engineered events unfolded according to plan.

Despite Wolfowitz' agenda being meted out nearly 20 years ago, the ham-fisted nature of both the operation itself in Libya and the propaganda surrounding it suggests a rushed sense of desperation on the globalists' behalf. Wesley Clark suggested that the operation to destabilize the Middle East and Northern Africa would take 5 years, starting in 2001. Wolfowitz believed that in 1991 the operation would have taken 5-10 years. The failed FBI attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 was most likely the staged impetus to trigger the first blitzkrieg. Not only did the attacks fail to cause the catastrophic effects needed to justify such an operation, the Egyptian informant assisting the FBI had recorded his conversations with agents indicating that they were indeed building a bomb for extremists and providing them with real explosives as well.

1993 would have fit in perfectly to tip off Wolfowitz' plan. Upon failing, he and his PNAC cadre would attempt to destroy the World Trade Center buildings again, this time successfully on September 11, 2001. The catastrophic loss of life, the confusion, and the rage that was left in its wake gave the PNAC what they called a "new Pearl Harbor" they claimed they needed in their September 2000 report titled "Rebuilding America's Defenses."

 

These men, who in fact helped create Al Qaeda in the mountains of Afghanistan to face the Soviets in the 80s would call on their legion of foreign mercenaries to wreck havoc across the planet, heralding globalist intervention along the way. Certainly this had nothing to do with defending America or spreading "democracy" but rather bolstering the hegemony of the corporate-financier oligarchythat both the PNAC cadre and the bankers who thoroughly saturate Obama's administration constitute.

What appears to have happened is a costly delay in 1993 and a post-9/11 campaign that has dragged on 5 years longer than expected. With the same clumsy hands fumbling in Libya also trying to stab simultaneously at both Moscow and Beijing with their agenda laid on the table openly for all to see, failure on the globalists' behalf now may incur a wrathful response from a planet about to truly awaken.

It should be expected that that any excuse to complete regime change in Libya will be made, including creating the conditions necessary to put troops on the ground – be it because of a failing rebellion, a false flag attack carried out in Qaddafi's name, or even feigned fears the globalists' own Al Qaeda might "seize" Libya should they not intervene. Similarly, with the US openly admitting to funding subversive activities across the Arab world, in Iran, and even as far as China, the globalists have painted themselves into an irredeemable, inescapable corner of confrontation.

Look past the feckless puppets occupying our public offices and toward the corporations and financial empires that are our true "misleaders." Boycott these corporations and systematically replace them by getting self-sufficient as an individual, as a household, and as a community. Independence is freedom, freedom is independence and the dominion of this dark empire can be broken by understanding that they need us, we do not need them.

For ways to battle the globalists by achieving self-sufficiency and freedom through independence please read on:

Self-Sufficiency 
Alternative Economics
The Lost Key to Real Revolution
Boycott the Globalists
Naming Names: Your Real Government

Tony Cartalucci's articles have appeared on many alternative media websites, including his own at 
Land Destroyer Report.    

Congress Delivered Articles of Impeachment for tyrant Obama

April 9th, 2011 by

 

http://www.infowars.com/bruce-fein-articles-of-impeachment/

Bruce Fein
April 8, 2011

I.
THE IMPEACHMENT POWER

1. Article II, Section IV of the United States Constitution provides: “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

2. According to James Madison’s Records of the Convention, 2:550; Madison, 8 Sept., Mr. George Mason objected to an initial proposal to confine impeachable offenses to treason or bribery:

Why is the provision restrained to Treason & bribery only? Treason as defined in the Constitution will not reach many great and dangerous offences. Hastings is not guilty of Treason. Attempts to subvert the Constitution may not be Treason as above defined–As bills of attainder which have saved the British Constitution are forbidden, it is the more necessary to extend: the power of impeachments.

3. Delegates to the Federal Convention voted overwhelmingly to include “high crimes and misdemeanors” in Article II, Section IV of the United States Constitution specifically to ensure that “attempts to subvert the Constitution” would fall within the universe of impeachable offences. Id.

4. Alexander Hamilton, a delegate to the Federal Convention, characterized impeachable offenses in Federalist 65 as, “offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words, from the violation or abuse of some public trust. They are of a nature which with peculiar propriety may be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done to society itself.”

5. In 1974, the House Judiciary Committee voted three articles of impeachment against then President Richard M. Nixon for actions “subversive of constitutional government.”

6. Father of the Constitution, James Madison, observed that, “Of all the enemies of public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other…. War is the true nurse of executive aggrandizement.”

7. James Madison also instructed that “no nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.”

8. The exclusive congressional power to commence war under Article I, section VIII, clause XI of the Constitution is the pillar of the Republic and the greatest constitutional guarantor of individual liberty, transparency, and government frugality.

II.
THE “DECLARE WAR” CLAUSE

9. Article I, Section VIII, Clause XI of the United States Constitution provides: “The Congress shall have the power … To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;”

10. Article II, Section II, Clause I of the United States Constitution provides: “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.”

11. The authors of the United States Constitution manifestly intended Article I, Section VIII, Clause XI to fasten exclusive responsibility and authority on the Congress to decide whether to undertake offensive military action.

12. The authors of the United States Constitution believed that individual liberty and the Republic would be endangered by fighting too many wars, not too few.

13. The authors of the United States Constitution understood that to aggrandize power and to leave a historical legacy, the executive in all countries chronically inflates danger manifold to justify warfare.

14. John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the United States, in Federalist 4 noted:

[A]bsolute monarchs will often make war when their nations are to get nothing by it, but for the purposes and objects merely personal, such as thirst for military glory, revenge for personal affronts, ambition, or private compacts to aggrandize or support their particular families or partisans. These and a variety of other motives, which affect only the mind of the sovereign, often lead him to engage in wars not sanctified by justice or the voice and interests of his people.

15. Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist 69 that the president’s Commander-in-Chief authority

…would be nominally the same with that of the King of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first general and admiral of the confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war, and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies; all which by the constitution under consideration would appertain to the Legislature.

16. In a written exchange with Alexander Hamilton under the pseudonym Helvidius, James Madison wrote:

In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department. Beside the objection to such a mixture to heterogeneous powers, the trust and the temptation would be too great for any one man; not such as nature may offer as the prodigy of many centuries, but such as may be expected in the ordinary successions of magistracy. War is in fact the true nurse of executive aggrandizement. In war, a physical force is to be created; and it is the executive will, which is to direct it. In war, the public treasures are to be unlocked; and it is the executive hand which is to dispense them. In war, the honours and emoluments of office are to be multiplied; and it is the executive patronage under which they are to be enjoyed. It is in war, finally, that laurels are to be gathered, and it is the executive brow they are to encircle. The strongest passions and most dangerous weaknesses of the human breast; ambition, avarice, vanity, the honourable or venial love of fame, are all in conspiracy against the desire and duty of peace.

17. James Madison also wrote as Helvidius to Alexander Hamilton:

Those who are to conduct a war cannot in the nature of things, be proper or safe judges, whether a war ought to be commenced, continued, or concluded. They are barred from the latter functions by a great principle in free government, analogous to that which separates the sword from the purse, or the power of executing from the power of enacting laws.

18. On June 29, 1787, at the Federal Convention, James Madison explained that an executive crowned with war powers invites tyranny and the reduction of citizens to vassalage:

In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.

19. In a letter dated April 4, 1798, James Madison wrote to Thomas Jefferson:

The constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, & most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care, vested the question of war in the Legislature. But the Doctrines lately advanced strike at the root of all these provisions, and will deposit the peace of the Country in that Department which the Constitution distrusts as most ready without cause to renounce it. For if the opinion of the President not the facts & proofs themselves are to sway the judgment of Congress, in declaring war, and if the President in the recess of Congress create a foreign mission, appoint the minister, & negociate a War Treaty, without the possibility of a check even from the Senate, untill the measures present alternatives overruling the freedom of its judgment; if again a Treaty when made obliges the Legislature to declare war contrary to its judgment, and in pursuance of the same doctrine, a law declaring war, imposes a like moral obligation, to grant the requisite supplies until it be formally repealed with the consent of the President & Senate, it is evident that the people are cheated out of the best ingredients in their Government, the safeguards of peace which is the greatest of their blessings.

20. During the Pennsylvania Convention to ratify the Constitution, James Wilson, a future Justice of the United States Supreme Court, observed:

This system will not hurry us into war; it is calculated to guard against it. It will not be in the power of a single man, or a single body of men, to involve us in such distress; for the important power of declaring war is vested in the legislature at large: this declaration must he made with the concurrence of the House of Representatives: from this circumstance we may draw a certain conclusion that nothing but our national interest can draw us into a war.

21. In 1793, President George Washington, who presided over the Federal Convention, wrote to South Carolina Governor William Moultrie in regards to a prospective counter-offensive against the American Indian Creek Nation: “The Constitution vests the power of declaring war with Congress, therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they have deliberated upon the subject, and authorized such a measure.”

22. President Thomas Jefferson, who served as Secretary of State under President Washington, in a statement before Congress regarding Tripoli and the Barbary Pirates, deemed himself “unauthorized by the Constitution, without the sanction of Congress, to go beyond the line of defense.” He amplified: “I communicate [to the Congress] all material information on this subject, that in the exercise of this important function confided by the Constitution to the Legislature exclusively their judgment may form itself on a knowledge and consideration of every circumstance of weight.”

23. In a message to Congress in December, 1805 regarding potential military action to resolve a border dispute with Spain, President Thomas Jefferson acknowledged that “Congress alone is constitutionally invested with the power of changing our condition from peace to war, I have thought it my duty to await their authority for using force.” He requested Congressional authorization for offensive military action, even short of war, elaborating:

Formal war is not necessary—it is not probable it will follow; but the protection of our citizens, the spirit and honor of our country, require that force should be interposed to a certain degree. It will probably contribute to advance the object of peace.

But the course to be pursued will require the command of means which it belongs to Congress exclusively to yield or deny. To them I communicate every fact material for their information, and the documents necessary to enable them to judge for themselves. To their wisdom, then, I look for the course I am to pursue; and will pursue, with sincere zeal, that which they shall approve.

24. In his War Message to Congress on June 1, 1812, President James Madison reaffirmed that the shift in language from make to declare in Article I, Section VIII, Clause XI of the United States Constitution authorized at the Constitutional convention did not empower the Executive to involve the United States military in any action aside from defense against an overt attack. Although President Madison was convinced that Great Britain had undertaken acts of war against the United States, he nevertheless maintained that he could not respond with military force without congressional authorization. He proclaimed:

We behold, in fine, on the side of Great Britain, a state of war against the United States, and on the side of the United States a state of peace toward Great Britain.

Whether the United States shall continue passive under these progressive usurpations and these accumulating wrongs, or, opposing force to force in defense of their national rights, shall commit a just cause into the hands of the Almighty Disposer of Events, avoiding all connections which might entangle it in the contest or views of other powers, and preserving a constant readiness to concur in an honorable re-establishment of peace and friendship, is a solemn question which the Constitution wisely confides to the legislative department of the Government. In recommending it to their early deliberations I am happy in the assurance that the decision will be worthy the enlightened and patriotic councils of a virtuous, a free, and a powerful nation.

25. In his Records of the Convention, 2:318; Madison, 17 Aug., James Madison wrote that the power “To declare war” had been vested in the Congress in lieu of the power “To make war” to leave to the Executive “the power to repel sudden attacks.”

26. Mr. Elbridge Gerry “never expected to hear in a republic a motion to empower the Executive alone to declare war,” but still moved with Mr. Madison “to insert declare—in place of make” in Article I, Section VIII, Clause XI. Id.

27. Mr. George Mason was against “giving the power of war to the Executive, because not safely to be trusted with it; or to the Senate, because not so constructed as to be entitled to it. He was for clogging rather than facilitating war; but for facilitating peace.” Yet Mr. Mason “preferred declare to make.” Id.

28. Mr. Roger Sherman “thought [the proposal] stood very well. The Executive shd. be able to repel and not to commence war.” Id.

29. Delegates to the Federal Convention overwhelmingly approved the motion to insert “declare—in place of make,” to deny the Executive power to initiate military action, but to permit the Executive to repel sudden attacks unilaterally. Id.

30.Then Congressman Abraham Lincoln sermonized:

Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so, whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose — and you allow him to make war at pleasure…. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after you have given him so much as you propose. If, to-day, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, “I see no probability of the British invading us” but he will say to you “be silent; I see it, if you don’t.”

The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress, was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons. Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This, our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood.

31. Crowning the President with unilateral authority to commence war under the banner of anticipatory self-defense, prevention of civilian slaughters, gender discrimination, subjugation of ethnic or religious minorities, or otherwise would empower the President to initiate war without limit, threatening the very existence of the Republic. Although a benevolent Chief Executive might resist abuse of an unlimited war power, the principle, if ever accepted by Congress, would lie around like a loaded weapon ready for use by any successor craving absolute power.

32. Thomas Paine justly and rightly declared in Common Sense that “in America, the law is king. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other.”

33. Article 43 Paragraph 3 of the Charter of the United Nations provides that all resolutions or agreements of the United Nations Security Counsel “shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.”

34. Article 43 Paragraph 3 of Charter of the United Nations was included specifically to allay concerns that prevented the United States of America from ratifying the League of Nations Treaty in 1919.

35. That treaty risked crowning the President with the counter-constitutional authority to initiate warfare. On November 19, 1919, in Section II of his Reservations with Regard to Ratification of the Versailles Treaty, to preserve the balance of power established by the United States Constitution from executive usurpation, Senator Henry Cabot Lodge resolved as follows:

The United States assumes no obligation to preserve the territorial integrity or political independence of any other country or to interfere in controversies between nations — whether members of the League or not — under the provisions of Article 10, or to employ the military or naval forces of the United States under any article of the treaty for any purpose, unless in any particular case the Congress, which, under the Constitution, has the sole power to declare war or authorize the employment of the military or naval forces of the United States, shall by act or joint resolution so provide.

The rejection of Lodge’s reservations by President Woodrow Wilson and his Senate allies insured defeat of the treaty.

36. Section 2(c) of the War Powers Resolution of 1973 clarifies Presidential authority to undertake military action as follows:

The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

37. In United States v. Smith, 27 F. Cas. 1192 (1806), Supreme Court Justice William Paterson, a delegate to the Federal Convention from New Jersey, wrote on behalf of a federal circuit court:

There is a manifest distinction between our going to war with a nation at peace, and a war being made against us by an actual invasion, or a formal declaration. In the former case it is the exclusive province of Congress to change a state of peace into a state of war.

38. In Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267 (1890), the Supreme Court of the United States held:

The treaty power, as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments, and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government, or in that of one of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter, without its consent.

39. In his concurrence in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 642-643 (1952), which rebuked President Harry Truman’s claim of unilateral war powers in the Korean War, Justice Robert Jackson elaborated:

Nothing in our Constitution is plainer than that declaration of a war is entrusted only to Congress. Of course, a state of war may in fact exist without a formal declaration. But no doctrine that the Court could promulgate would seem to me more sinister and alarming than that a President whose conduct of foreign affairs is so largely uncontrolled, and often even is unknown, can vastly enlarge his mastery over the internal affairs of the country by his own commitment of the Nation’s armed forces to some foreign venture.

40. All treaties are subservient to the exclusive congressional power to commence war. In Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 18 (1957), the United States Supreme Court held:

There is nothing in [the Constitution’s text] which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result.

41. Unconstitutional usurpations by one branch of government of powers entrusted to a coequal branch are not rendered constitutional by repetition. The United States Supreme Court held unconstitutional hundreds of laws enacted by Congress over the course of five decades that included a legislative veto of executive actions in INS v. Chada, 462 U.S. 919 (1982).

42. In their dissent in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004), Justices John Paul Stevens and Antonin Scalia recognized the “Founders’ general distrust of military power lodged with the President, including the authority to commence war:

No fewer than 10 issues of the Federalist were devoted in whole or part to allaying fears of oppression from the proposed Constitution’s authorization of standing armies in peacetime. Many safeguards in the Constitution reflect these concerns. Congress’s authority “[t]o raise and support Armies” was hedged with the proviso that “no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years.” U.S. Const., Art. 1, §8, cl. 12. Except for the actual command of military forces, all authorization for their maintenance and all explicit authorization for their use is placed in the control of Congress under Article I, rather than the President under Article II. As Hamilton explained, the President’s military authority would be “much inferior” to that of the British King… (Citing Federalist 69, Supra.)

43. On December 20, 2007, then Senator Hillary Clinton proclaimed: “The President has the solemn duty to defend our Nation. If the country is under truly imminent threat of attack, of course the President must take appropriate action to defend us. At the same time, the Constitution requires Congress to authorize war. I do not believe that the President can take military action — including any kind of strategic bombing — against Iran without congressional authorization.”

44. Then Senator Joseph Biden stated in a speech at the Iowa City Public Library in 2007 regarding potential military action in Iran that unilateral action by the President would be an impeachable offense under the Constitution:

It is precisely because the consequences of war – intended or otherwise – can be so profound and complicated that our Founding Fathers vested in Congress, not the President, the power to initiate war, except to repel an imminent attack on the United States or its citizens.

They reasoned that requiring the President to come to Congress first would slow things down… allow for more careful decision making before sending Americans to fight and die… and ensure broader public support.

The Founding Fathers were, as in most things, profoundly right.

That’s why I want to be very clear: if the President takes us to war with Iran without Congressional approval, I will call for his impeachment.

I do not say this lightly or to be provocative. I am dead serious. I have chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee. I still teach constitutional law. I’ve consulted with some of our leading constitutional scholars. The Constitution is clear. And so am I.

I’m saying this now to put the administration on notice and hopefully to deter the President from taking unilateral action in the last year of his administration.

If war is warranted with a nation of 70 million people, it warrants coming to Congress and the American people first.

45. In a speech on the Senate Floor in 1998, then Senator Joseph Biden maintained: “…the only logical conclusion is that the framers [of the United States Constitution] intended to grant to Congress the power to initiate all hostilities, even limited wars.”

46. On December 20, 2007, then Senator Barack Obama informed the Boston Globe, based upon his extensive knowledge of the United States Constitution: “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”

III.
USURPATION OF THE WAR POWER OVER LIBYA

47. President Barack Obama’s military attacks against Libya constitute acts of war.

48. Congressman J. Randy Forbes (VA-4) had the following exchange with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates during a March 31, 2011 House Armed Services Committee Hearing on the legality of the present military operation in Libya:

Congressman Forbes: Mr. Secretary, if tomorrow a foreign nation intentionally, for whatever reason, launched a Tomahawk missile into New York City, would that be considered an act of war against the United States?

Secretary Gates: Probably so.

Congressman Forbes: Then I would assume the same laws would apply if we launched a Tomahawk missile at another nation—is that also true?

Secretary Gates: You’re getting into constitutional law here and I am no expert on it.

Congressman Forbes: Mr. Secretary, you’re the Secretary of Defense. You ought to be an expert on what’s an act of war or not. If it’s an act of war to launch a Tomahawk missile on New York City would it not also be an act of war to launch a Tomahawk missile by us at another nation?

Secretary Gates: Presumably.

49. Since the passage of United Nations Security Council resolution 1973 on March 19, 2011, the United States has detonated over 200 tomahawk land attack cruise missiles and 455 precision-guided bombs on Libyan soil.

50. Libya posed no actual or imminent threat to the United States when President Obama unleashed Operation Odyssey Dawn.

51. On March 27, 2011, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated that Libya never posed an “actual or imminent threat to the United States.” He further stated that Libya has never constituted a “vital interest” to the United States.

52. United Nations Security Council resolution 1973 directs an indefinite United States military quagmire in Libya, authorizing “all necessary measures” to protect Libyan civilians, which clearly contemplates removal by force of the murderous regime of Col. Muammar Qadhafi.

53. In a Letter From the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate sent March 21, 2011, President Barack Obama informed Members of Congress that “U.S. forces have targeted the Qadhafi regime’s air defense systems, command and control structures, and other capabilities of Qadhafi’s armed forces used to attack civilians and civilian populated areas. We will seek a rapid, but responsible, transition of operations to coalition, regional, or international organizations that are postured to continue activities as may be necessary to realize the objectives of U.N. Security Council Resolutions 1970 and 1973.”

54. In his March 21, 2011 letter, President Barack Obama further informed Members of Congress that he opted to take unilateral military action “…in support of international efforts to protect civilians and prevent a humanitarian disaster.”

55. President Barack Obama has usurped congressional authority to decide on war or peace with Libya, and has declared he will persist in additional usurpations of the congressional power to commence war whenever he decrees it would advance his idea of the national interest. On March 28, 2011, he declared to Congress and the American people: “I have made it clear that I will never hesitate to use our military swiftly, decisively, and unilaterally when necessary to defend our people, our homeland, our allies, and our core interests” (emphasis added).

56. President Obama’s humanitarian justification for war in Libya establishes a threshold that would justify his initiation of warfare in scores of nations around the globe, including Iran, North Korea, Syria, Sudan, Myanmar, China, Belarus, Zimbabwe, Cuba, and Russia.

57. In Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928), Justice Louis D. Brandeis wrote on behalf of a majority of the United States Supreme Court:

Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding.

58. President Barack Obama has signed an order, euphemistically named a “Presidential Finding,” authorizing covert U.S. government support for rebel forces seeking to oust Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, further entangling the United States in the Libyan conflict, despite earlier promises of restraint. Truth is invariably the first casualty of war.

59. In response to questions by Members of Congress during a classified briefing on March 30, 2011, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton indicated that the President needs no Congressional authorization for his attack on the Libyan nation, and will ignore any Congressional attempt by resolution or otherwise to constrain or halt United States participation in the Libyan war.

60. On March 30, 2011, by persistent silence or otherwise, Secretary Clinton rebuffed congressional inquiries into President Obama’s view of the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution of 1973. She failed to cite a single judicial decision in support of President Obama’s recent actions, relying instead on the undisclosed legal opinions of White House attorneys.

61. President Barack Obama, in flagrant violation of his constitutional oath to execute his office as President of the United States and preserve and protect the United States Constitution, has usurped the exclusive authority of Congress to authorize the initiation of war, in that on March 19, 2011 President Obama initiated an offensive military attack against the Republic of Libya without congressional authorization. In so doing, President Obama has arrested the rule of law, and saluted a vandalizing of the Constitution that will occasion ruination of the Republic, the crippling of individual liberty, and a Leviathan government unless the President is impeached by the House of Representatives and removed from office by the Senate.

In all of this, President Barack Obama has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

 

OLDDOGS COMMENT

 

THROW THE BASTARD OUT, AND MIZ CLINTON WITH HIM!

 

This nation is OCCUPIED by FOREIGN INTERESTS and we have a major battle taking place –  part of it is to hide/mask their OCCUPATION as long as they can and the other is the FINAL ACT of Destruction for all things American.  I do hope that readers are quietly preparing for what is to come on this land we like to call ours but in reality it is owned by foreign interests and controlled by them as well.  Some of our people may like to holler out HELL NO IT ISN'T but the reality is that it IS and to deny that is to deny reality.  There are a good number of us who are aware and have learned the art of Guerilla Warfare because that is what is going to take place.  Hit & Run – quietly – swiftly – and to have a small group that we can trust and depend upon.  I use movies to illustrate things every so often and in this instance, I use those Mel Gibson films – The Patriot – Braveheart – for how to go after the ENEMY.   While it is true we may well die (our flesh and bone) in the act of fighting but if you have truly *prepared* (for your eternal body/spirit) then the loss of the flesh and bone is no big deal and it may bring another to make a decision on their eternal life.  We are in a SPIRITUAL WAR  – and there is only one way to fight that –  SPIRITUALLY!!

Jackie Juntti
WGEN    idzrus@earthlink.net

Global experts ponder seizing control of Earth’s atmosphere

April 7th, 2011 by

 

On secluded country estate, global experts ponder seizing control of Earth's atmosphere

Associated Press

Last update: April 3, 2011 – 4:34 AM

CHICHELEY, England – To the quiet green solitude of an English country estate they retreated, to think the unthinkable.

Scientists of earth, sea and sky, scholars of law, politics and philosophy: In three intense days cloistered behind Chicheley Hall's old brick walls, where British saboteurs once secretly trained, four dozen international thinkers pondered the planet's fate as it grows warmer, weighed the idea of reflecting the sun to cool the atmosphere, debated the question of who would make the decision.

The unknown risks of "geoengineering" — in this case, tweaking Earth's climate by dimming the skies — left many uneasy.

"If we could experiment with the atmosphere and literally play God, it's very tempting to a scientist," said Kenyan earth scientist Richard Odingo. "But I worry."

Arrayed against that worry is the worry that global warming — in 20 years? 50 years? — may abruptly upend the world we know, by melting much of Greenland into the sea, by shifting India's life-giving monsoon, by killing off marine life.

If climate engineering research isn't done now, climatologists say, the world will face grim choices in an emergency. "If we don't understand the implications and we reach a crisis point and deploy geoengineering with only a modicum of information, we really will be playing Russian roulette," said Steven Hamburg, a U.S. Environmental Defense Fund scientist.

The question's urgency has grown as nations have failed, in years of talks, to agree on a binding long-term deal to rein in their carbon dioxide and other greenhouse-gas emissions blamed for global warming. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the U.N.-sponsored science network, foresees temperatures rising as much as 6.4 degrees Celsius (11.5 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2100, swelling the seas and disrupting the climate patterns that nurtured human civilization.

Science committees of the British Parliament and the U.S. Congress urged their governments last year to look at immediately undertaking climate engineering research — to have a "Plan B" ready, as the British panel put it, in case the diplomatic logjam persists.

Britain's national science academy, the Royal Society, subsequently organized the Chicheley Hall conference with Hamburg's EDF and the association of developing-world science academies. From six continents, they invited a blue-ribbon cross-section of atmospheric physicists, oceanographers, geochemists, environmentalists, international lawyers, psychologists, policy experts and others, to discuss how the world should oversee such unprecedented — and unsettling — research.

An Associated Press reporter was invited to sit in on their discussions, generally off the record, as they met in large and small groups in plush wood-paneled rooms, in conference halls, or outdoors among the manicured trees and formal gardens of this 300-year-old Royal Society property 40 miles (64 kilometers) northwest of London, a secluded spot where Britain's Special Operations Executive trained for secret missions in World War II.

Provoking and parrying each other over questions never before raised in human history, the conferees were sensitive to how the outside world might react.

"There's the `slippery slope' view that as soon as you start to do this research, you say it's OK to think about things you shouldn't be thinking about," said Steve Rayner, co-director of Oxford University's geoengineering program. Many geoengineering techniques they have thought about look either impractical or ineffective.

Painting rooftops white to reflect the sun's heat is a feeble gesture. Blanketing deserts with a reflective material is logistically challenging and a likely environmental threat. Launching giant mirrors into space orbit is exorbitantly expensive.

On the other hand, fertilizing the ocean with iron to grow CO2-eating plankton has shown some workability, and Massachusetts' prestigious Woods Hole research center is planning the biggest such experiment.Marine clouds are another route: Scientists at the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado are designing a test of brightening ocean clouds with sea-salt particles to reflect the sun.

Those techniques are necessarily limited in scale, however, and unable to alter planet-wide warming. Only one idea has emerged with that potential.

"By most accounts, the leading contender is stratospheric aerosol particles," said climatologist John Shepherd of Britain's Southampton University.

The particles would be sun-reflecting sulfates spewed into the lower stratosphere from aircraft, balloons or other devices — much like the sulfur dioxide emitted by the eruption of the Philippines' Mount Pinatubo in 1991, estimated to have cooled the world by 0.5 degrees C (0.9 degrees F) for a year or so.

Engineers from the University of Bristol, England, plan to test the feasibility of feeding sulfates into the atmosphere via a kilometers-long (miles-long) hose attached to a tethered balloon.

Shepherd and others stressed that any sun-blocking "SRM" technique — for solar radiation management — would have to be accompanied by sharp reductions in carbon dioxide emissions on the ground and some form of carbon dioxide removal, preferably via a chemical-mechanical process not yet perfected, to suck the gas out of the air and neutralize it.

Otherwise, they point out, the stratospheric sulfate layer would have to be built up indefinitely, to counter the growing greenhouse effect of accumulating carbon dioxide. And if that SRM operation shut down for any reason, temperatures on Earth would shoot upward.

The technique has other downsides: The sulfates would likely damage the ozone layer shielding Earth from damaging ultraviolet rays; they don't stop atmospheric carbon dioxide from acidifying the oceans; and sudden cooling of the Earth would itself alter climate patterns in unknown ways.

"These scenarios create winners and losers," said Shepherd, lead author of a pivotal 2009 Royal Society study of geoengineering. "Who is going to decide?"

Many here worried that someone, some group, some government would decide on its own to conduct large-scale atmospheric experiments, raising global concerns — and resentment if it's the U.S. that acts, since it has done the least among industrial nations to cut greenhouse emissions. They fear some in America might push for going straight to "Plan B," rather than doing the hard work of emissions reductions.

In addition, "one of the challenges is identifying intentions, one of which could be offensive military use," said Indian development specialist Arunabha Ghosh.

Experts point out, for example, that cloud experimentation or localized solar "dimming" could — intentionally or unintentionally — cause droughts or floods in neighboring areas, arousing suspicions and international disputes.

"In some plausible but unfortunate future you could have shooting wars between your country and mine over proposals on what to do on climate change,' said the University of Michigan's Ted Parson, an environmental policy expert.

The conferees worried, too, that a "geoengineering industrial complex" might emerge, pushing to profit from deployment of its technology. And Australian economist-ethicist Clive Hamilton saw other go-it-alone threats — "cowboys" and "scientific heroes."

"I'm queasy about some billionaire with a messiah complex having a major role in geoengineering research," Hamilton said.

All discussions led to the central theme of how to oversee research.

Many environmentalists categorically oppose intentional fiddling with Earth's atmosphere, or at least insist that such important decisions rest in the hands of the U.N., since every nation on Earth has a stake in the skies above.

But at the meeting in March, Chicheley Hall experts largely assumed that a coalition of scientifically capable nations, led by the U.S. and Britain, would arise to organize "sunshade" or other engineering research, perhaps inviting China, India, Brazil and others to join in a G20-style "club" of major powers.

Then, the conferees said, an independent panel of experts would have to be formed to review the risks of proposed experiments, and give go-aheads — for research, not deployment, which would be a step awaiting fateful debates down the road.

Like Isaac Newton and Charles Darwin, John Shepherd is a fellow of the venerable Royal Society, but one facing a world those scientific pioneers could not have imagined.

"I am not enthusiastic about these ideas," Shepherd told his Chicheley Hall colleagues. But like many here he felt the world has no choice but to investigate. "You would have a risk-risk calculation to make."

Some are also making a political calculation.

If research shows the stratospheric pollutants would reverse global warming, unhappy people "would realize the alternative to reducing emissions is blocking out the sun," Hamilton observed. "We might never see blue sky again."

If, on the other hand, the results are negative, or the risks too high, and global warming's impact becomes increasingly obvious, people will see "you have no Plan B," said EDF's Hamburg — no alternative to slashing use of fossil fuels.

Either way, popular support should grow for cutting emissions.

At least that's the hope. But hope wasn't the order of the day in Chicheley Hall as Shepherd wrapped up his briefing and a troubled Odingo silenced the room.

"We have a lot of thinking to do," the Kenyan told the others. "I don't know how many of us can sleep well tonight."

 

 

Constitutional Consternation

April 7th, 2011 by

 

Constitutional Consternation

 

by R.E. Sutherland, M.Ed./sciences

becworks@gmail.com

 

July 10, 2010

Presented to the Americans for Constitutional Government

Sugar Creek Club House – Annual picnic

 

 

DISCLAIMERS

 

1.  This author loves government so much that she desires three branches of government; and all three operating in a check-and-balanced manner.  I am pro-government when it protects the individual.

2.  I am not an attorney, nor do I hand out legal advice.  I am an American who was educated in the public school system, which taught “Ignorance of the law is no excuse.”  Therefore, I have performed my duty, studied what is available to me, used whatever talents my Creator assigned to me, and the following are my observations based upon knowledge, which the federal government mandated that I develop on my own.

3.  This author is not anti-Catholic, anti-Semitic, anti-Protestant, or anti-anything else.  This author is Pro-Factual, Pro-Truth, and Pro-Freedom.  Everything shared with you is open to your own investigation and interpretation.  You are free to “believe” anything you wish.

4.  This author is not interested in Conspiracy Theories.  A conspiracy by definition must be (1) hidden and (2) illegal.  Instead, this author is focused on items that have been written in the legal documents of Record and the legislation by which our freedoms have disappeared.  This author is only interested in being extremely correct.

5.  My work is not finished.  It is entirely selfish.  I have no hope, nor any reason, to expect others to accept what I am learning.  Forgive me for saying this, but I do not care if you reject it.  This investigation is for me.  I do not wish to save the world; instead, I must save my own sanity.  I must understand why things are happening which appear un-American.  I am hunting.  You are welcome to read the answers to my questions.  I am compiling huge amounts of research into a streamlined format to increase cognitive comprehension and to enhance discussion for further research.  My hope is that you will not place yourself in jeopardy to defend the Constitution.

INTRODUCTION

I am a scientist and a teacher with a love for investigative journalism.  My love for research was first discovered while sitting on my living room floor surrounded by encyclopedias, magazines, and books, writing a health report in the fifth grade.  The love for research is innate.  The search for answers to the questions “why” and “how” have created an incredible journey for this soul, which appears to be leading right smack into the center of the prophetic Book of Revelations, the Mayan calendar, the I Chi, and most prophetic works through the ages. 

I do not create an opinion, and then find facts to support it.  Instead, I find facts, and they lead me to more questions.  That is the Scientific Method.  When facts are true, then they can be used to predict outcomes with accuracy.  That is the only real proof of factual certainty.

PROLOGUE

FACT:The  Theory of Cognitive Dissonance [TCD] was developed by  Leon Festinger and published by Stanford University Press ( 1957)    The theory says that the mind involuntarily rejects information that is not in line with previous thoughts/or actions.   Festinger observed: “A person can deal with the pressure generated by changing the dissonance of the old behavior to harmonize with information.  But if the person is committed to the old behavior and way of thinking, he simply rejects the new information.”  That explains why so many Americans say, “I don’t believe it” when they are presented with new information, and why the Left-leaning agenda is able to brand thinkers as “conspiracy nuts” and “extremists.”

I apologize to many of you today, because you are going to learn things that rearrange the molecules of your brain.  When things that we thought were true, are proven false, then it can be traumatic.  Do not hide from new realities; instead, embrace them. Make a paradigm shift and go on.   Individual responsibility for facts and truths leads one to freedom and independence.

INVESTIGATION

FACT:  About 30 years ago, a team of men came together with the sole purpose of going back through the historical legal paperwork to find out why judges were rendering the decisions they were making. The documents and original books filled up a warehouse.  Today, most of the team is dead.  They were ridiculed for their discoveries, because they had tapped into the real power behind the government.  Nonetheless, they discovered the Truth, and one of the team successfully implemented that Truth for himself.  He is the only real free Man in the country.  I interviewed him five hours and read his works.  His knowledge when combined with the other research in my files, led to incredible disclosures and understanding about our government.

CONCLUSION:   The United States of America has been locked into a Babylonian economic system the extends from the blend of pagan Emperor Constantine and the Roman Catholic Church in 382 A.D., which is under the control of the King of England, who is owned by the Vatican per the Treaty of 1213.  In 1611, King James had the Bible translated into an official English version.  King James happened to be the most powerful Freemason in history, because he  ruled Scotland and England at the same time.   In 1776, the rebellion in the colonies was halted and the aristocrats were placed into “checkmate” by the Vatican, whose message was delivered by the King’s agents.  From that point until today, Americans have been taught a Myth about their own history, which holds them in slavery to the most powerful corporation on earth which resides in Rome, Italy.  Americans have been deliberately kept ignorant of the Truth.

 

QUESTION: Is the United States Constitution in effect today?

FACT:  President Bush II told the GOP leadership during a meeting about the Patriot Act in November of 2005:  QUOTE:"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face! It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"

FACT:  Citizens feel like they are under siege from all branches of government.  They must pay taxes and fees that consume over 50% of their earned wages.  They formed the National Rifle Association and the Gun Owners of America to prevent the government from taking away firearms, which are supposedly protected under the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights. There is an invasion from Mexico that is ignored by the federal level, yet it is constitutionally mandated to protect the borders.

 

QUESTION:  Where are the Declaration of Independence and The United States Constitution physically located?

ANSWER:The Declaration of Independence is missing.

QUOTE:  In the Woman’s Day magazine, July 7, 2009, there is a box entitled, “Independence Day by the Numbers” which states: “25 = Number of copies of the Declaration of Independence known to exist.  (No originals with the famous signatures are known to remain.) END QUOTE

ANSWER:  The original handwritten copy of The United States Constitution, according to the National Archives and records Administration, QUOTE:  “ . .. Is on display at the National Archives and Records Administration in Washington, D.C.” END QUOTE

 

QUESTION:  Can Americans access all of their pubic documents?

ANSWER:No.

QUOTE:“2006 controversy over reclassification– In March 2006, it was revealed by the Archivist of the United States in a public hearing that a memorandum of understanding between Collins and various government agencies existed to ‘reclassify’, (i.e., withdraw from public access), certain documents in the name of national security, and to do so in a manner such that researchers would not be likely to discover the process. [SOURCE: gwu.edu (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20060411/index.htm)(2006-04-11)]

 

 

 

QUESTION: Was the entire creation of the United States of America a con job?

ANSWER:Yes.

QUOTEfrom Edmond Burke in March 22, 1775 with his Speech on Conciliation with America:

“. . . Let the colonies always keep the idea of their civil rights associated with your government–they will cling and grapple to you, and no force under heaven will be of power to tear them from their allegiance.  But let it be once understood that your government may be one thing and their privileges another, that these two things may exist without any mutual relation–the cement is gone, the cohesion is loosened, and everything hastens to decay and dissolution.  As long as you have the wisdom to keep the sovereign authority of this country as the sanctuary of liberty, the sacred temple consecrated to our common faith, wherever the chosen race and sons of England worship freedom, they will turn their faces toward you.  The more they multiply, the more friends you will have, the more ardently they love liberty, the more perfect will be their obedience.  Slavery they can have; they can have it from Spain; they may have it from Prussia.  But until you become lost to all feeling of your true interest and your natural dignity, freedom they can have from none but you.  This commodity of price, of which you have the monopoly.  This is the true Act of Navigation, which binds to you the commerce of the colonies, and through them secures to you the wealth of the world.  Deny them this participation of freedom, and you break that sole bond which originally made, and must still preserve, the unity of the empire. . . Let us get an American revenue as we have got an American empire.  English privileges have made it all that it is; English privileges alone will make it all it can be.”

QUESTION:  Is there legal evidence that the Constitution did not apply to the American people at large from the very beginning?

ANSWER:Yes.                                

QUOTE:

The Padleford Case

“But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in Court, on the ground of a breach in the Constitution. The Constitution, it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it. States are the parties to it.

Padleford, Fay & Co. v. The Mayor & Aldermen of the City of Savanna, 14 Ga 438, 520, S.C. Georgia (1854)

______________________________________________


SEO Powered By SEOPressor