Categories » ‘Banking Fraud’
May 12th, 2012 by olddog
By Publius Huldah.
On election night, November 2, 2010, Rep. John Boehner said in his victory speech:
…While our new majority will serve as your voice in the people’s House, we must remember it is the president who sets the agenda for our government. … [emphasis added]
Next morning, Ezra Klein commented in the Cult of the President lives on:
I’d like Boehner to show us where in the Constitution it says that the president sets the agenda for the government.
But Boehner is not as astute as Ezra Klein, and does not know that it is our Constitution which sets the “agenda” for the federal government. The agenda the Constitution sets restricts the federal government to war, international relations & commerce; and domestically, the establishment of an uniform commercial system: a monetary system based on gold & silver, weights & measures, patents & copyrights, a bankruptcy code, and mail delivery (Art. I, Sec. 8, cls.1-16). 1
And because none of the House Republicans seem to know that our Constitution sets the agenda, and don’t know that our Constitution also enumerates the powers delegated to the President, they are allowing Obama to carry out his “agenda” to transform our Country into a fascist dictatorship.
What are the Enumerated Powers of the President?
The powers of the President are “carefully limited” and precisely defined by our Constitution. In Federalist Paper No. 71 (last para), Alexander Hamilton asks,
…what would be … feared from an elective magistrate of four years’ duration, with the confined authorities of a President of the United States?…[emphasis added] 2
The answer to Hamilton’s question is this: There would be nothing to fear if Presidents obeyed the Constitution. But they don’t obey it because the dolts in Congress don’t make them obey it!
Well, then! Here is the complete list of the President’s enumerated powers:
Art. I, Sec. 7, cls. 2 & 3, grants to the President the power to approve or veto Bills and Resolutions passed by Congress.
Art. I, Sec. 9, next to last clause, grants to the executive Branch – the Treasury Department – the power to write checks pursuant to Appropriations made by law – i.e., by Congress.
Art. II, Sec. 1, cl.1, vests “executive Power” [see below] in the President.
Art. II, Sec. 1, last clause, sets forth the President’s Oath of Office – to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”.
Art. II, Sec. 2, cl.1:
- makes the President Commander in Chief of the armed forces when they have been called by Congress into the actual service of the United States. 3
- authorizes the President to require the principal Officers in the executive Departments to provide written Opinions upon the Duties of their Offices.
- grants the President power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for offenses against the United States, 4 but he can not stop impeachments of any federal judge or federal officer.
Article II, Sec. 2, cl. 2 grants to the President the power:
- to make Treaties – with the advice and consent of the Senate. 5
- to nominate Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls, federal judges, and various other officers – with the advice and consent of the Senate.
Article II, Sec. 2, cl. 3 grants to the President the power to make recess appointments, which expire at the end of Congress’ next session.
Art. II, Sec. 3:
- Imposes the duty on the President to periodically advise Congress on the State of the Union, and authorizes the President to recommend to Congress such measures as he deems wise.
- Authorizes the President, on extraordinary Occasions, to convene one or both houses of Congress [e.g., when he asks Congress to declare War]; and if both houses can not agree on when to adjourn, he is authorized to adjourn them to such time as he deems proper.
- Imposes the duty upon the President to receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers.
- Imposes the duty upon the President to take care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and
- Imposes the duty upon the President to Commission all the Officers of the United States.
That’s it! Anything else the President does is unlawful and a usurpation of powers not granted.
What is the “executive Power”?
So! The granting of the “executive Power” to the President is not a blank check giving him power to do whatever he wants. The “executive Power” is merely the power to put into effect – to implement – those Acts of Congress which are within Congress’ enumerated powers. Thus, if Congress establishes “an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (as authorized by Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 4), it is the President’s duty to implement and enforce the law Congress makes. The President is to carry out – to execute – Acts of Congress.
But note well: His Oath of Office – to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution”, shows that the President must use his independent judgment 6 as to which acts of Congress are and are not constitutional. Thus, as shown in this paper, “The Oath Of Office: The Check On Usurpations By Congress, The Executive Branch, & Federal Judges“, the President has the duty, imposed by his Oath, to act as a “check” on Congress (and on federal courts, as well).
Accordingly, when Congress makes a “law” which is not authorized by the Constitution, it
…would not be the supreme law of the land, but a usurpation of power not granted by the Constitution”… Federalist No. 33 (last two paras); 7
and since the President’s Oath requires him to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution“, the President must refuse to enforce an unconstitutional “law” made by Congress. Otherwise, he’d be in collusion with the legislative branch to usurp power over The People. 8
So, then! Acting as a check on Congress (and federal courts) by refusing to enforce unconstitutional “laws” (and opinions), as well as the duty of entertaining foreign dignitaries, are the only occasions where the President may act alone. His prime responsibility is to do what Congress tells him.
Article I, Sec. 1 & The Unconstitutional Administrative Law State
Now, you must learn of “administrative law” – i.e., rulemaking by Executive Agencies. 9
Article I, Sec.1, U.S. Constitution, says:
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.
That little phrase is of immense importance. It means what it says, that only Congress may make laws: laws are to be made only by Representatives whom we can fire every two years, and by Senators whom we can fire every six years.
But in Joseph Postell’s “must read” paper, “Constitution in Decline“, he shows that during the administration of the nefarious Woodrow Wilson, Congress began delegating its lawmaking powers to agencies within the Executive Branch. Since then, Congress passes an overall legislative scheme, and delegates the details to be written by un-elected, un-accountable bureaucrats in the various Executive Agencies. They write the “administrative rules” which implement the Legislation. The result is the execrable Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), which is accepted, by the indoctrinated members of my profession, as “law”. Go here to see the abominable CFR.
May the President Lawfully Make “Executive Orders”?
The Guiding Principle is this: The President has no authority to do ANYTHING apart from constitutional authority or statutory authority (assuming the statute itself is constitutional).
1. So! Respecting those matters within his constitutional authority & duties, and authority & duties imposed by constitutional statutes, the President may make “orders” – call them “executive orders” if you like.
For example: It is the President’s constitutional duty “to take care that the Laws be faithfully executed”. Thus, he has the duty to enforce [constitutional] laws made by Congress. How does he enforce the laws? Sometimes, by means of “orders”.
To illustrate: Say Congress makes a law, as authorized by Art. I, Sec. 8, clause 6, making it a felony to counterfeit the Securities and current Coin of the United States. If U.S. Attorneys are not prosecuting counterfeiters, the President should “order” them to do it. Or fire them.
But say Congress makes a law which purports to make possession of shotguns shorter than 18 inches a crime. Since the President’s Oath requires him to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution”, he is obligated to “order” the U.S. Attorney General and the U.S. Attorneys to refuse to prosecute anyone for possession of sawed-off shotguns. Why? Because such a “law” is unconstitutional as outside the scope of the legislative powers granted to Congress in Our Constitution. It also violates the Second Amendment.
Clearly, such an order to refuse prosecution falls within the President’s constitutional duties (enforce the Constitution), and he is giving an order to people within the Executive Branch. The President is the one who is charged with carrying out the Acts of Congress – he has the “executive Power”. But because of his Oath, he may not carry out unconstitutional “laws”. That is one of the checks on Congress.
The President may also properly make orders addressing housekeeping issues within the Executive Branch: Dress codes, no smoking or drinking on the job, he may encourage executive agencies to hire qualified handicapped people, and the like. Just as if you have a business, you may make orders addressing such matters.
So! Do you see? The President may lawfully make orders to carry out his constitutionally imposed powers and duties, and powers bestowed by statutes which are constitutional; and he may address “housekeeping” issues within the Executive Branch.
2. But a President may not lawfully, by means of “orders”, exercise powers not delegated to him by the Constitution or by (constitutional) Acts of Congress.
Yet Obama has issued various executive orders which are unlawful because they are not authorized by the Constitution or by (constitutional) Acts of Congress. Here are two executive orders which are particularly pernicious because they undermine our foundational Principle of “Federalism”, and have as their object the “improper consolidation of the States into one … republic.”: 10
E.O.13575 – Establishment of the White House Rural Council: This E.O. provides for over 25 federal departments & agencies to run every aspect of rural life!
E.O. Establishing Council of Governors: The effect of this E.O. is to erase the Independence and Sovereignty of the States and consolidate us into a national system under the boot of the Executive Branch.
Joseph Stalin couldn’t do better than this. These E.O.s are blatantly unconstitutional as usurpations of powers not granted in The Constitution! So, Nullify them!
3. Likewise, executive agencies may not, by means of “administrative rulemaking”, usurp the powers of Congress. (Remember, because of Art. I, Sec.1, all rulemaking by executive agencies is unconstitutional)!
Here are several cases of such unconstitutional rulemaking:
a) When Congress refused to pass the DREAM ACT, which provided a path to citizenship for certain categories of illegal aliens, ICE had no authority to implement it, in whole or in part, by executive “memo”! Power over Rules of Naturalization (i.e., who qualifies for citizenship and what are the procedures) is expressly granted to Congress by Article I, Sec. 8, cl. 4, which grants to Congress alone the Power “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”.
The President has no constitutional power over immigration & naturalization except to enforce the Acts of Congress respecting those subjects. Article II, Sec. 3, which imposes upon the President the duty to “take care that the Laws be faithfully executed”, requires the President to enforce such constitutional Acts of Congress.
But if Congress refuses to make a law respecting naturalization, a President who enacts it anyway, via “executive order”, or “administrative regulation”, or “administrative memo” by his underlings in the various executive agencies, is acting lawlessly. His unlawful acts should be nullified, and he should be removed from office for his usurpation.
b) Congress recently did not pass three sinister and grotesquely unconstitutional bills Obama wanted: “Card check“, “Cap and Trade“, and the Disclose Act. These bills are unconstitutional as outside the scope of the legislative powers granted by our Constitution to Congress. Nowhere does our Constitution give Congress authority to make laws about labor unions (“card check”), or to regulate carbon emissions – CO2, the stuff humans and animals exhale, and plants & trees need for photosynthesis (“cap and trade”), or requiring people with federal contracts to report their personal political activities to the Executive Branch (“Disclose Act”)!
Since Congress may not lawfully make laws on such subjects, no one can. Yet, Obama is circumventing the Constitution and implementing these three failed & unconstitutional bills by agency rulemaking or executive order!:
The National Labor Relations Board, is implementing “card check” by agency regulation. Read this.
The Environmental Protection Agency is implementing “cap and trade” by agency regulation. Read this.
And it appears that Obama – in furtherance of his “agenda” to reward his supporters and punish non-supporters – is considering signing an executive order to implement the Disclose Act. Read this.
So! Let us sum this up: The President must always uphold our Constitution. When Congress makes an unconstitutional law, the President must refuse to implement it; and he may, by means of executive orders, instruct people in the Executive Branch not to comply. E.g., if a President orders the U.S. Attorneys to decline to prosecute persons for possession of sawed-off shotguns, he would be acting lawfully because Congress has no authority to ban them. But the President is violating the Constitution when he implements “card check” by agency rules made by the NLRB; when he implements “cap & trade” by agency rules made by the EPA; and the “Disclose Act” by executive order, because the President and executive agencies (as well as Congress) do not have authority over these objects; and further, no one in the Executive Branch has authority to make “laws”!
What Should we do about illegal Executive Orders & Rules made by Executive Agencies?
A Congress filled with he-men and she-women, instead of ignorant cowards, wusses, and wimps, would impeach obama for his usurpations in signing unconstitutional executive orders, and in circumventing Congress by having executive agencies implement, by means of administrative rules, legislation which Congress did not pass. In Federalist Paper No. 66 (2nd para), Hamilton expressly states that impeachment is an essential check on a President who encroaches on the powers of Congress; and in Federalist No. 77 (last para), points out that impeachment is the remedy for “abuse of the executive authority”.
But since the people in Congress are too ignorant and weak to rid us of the abomination in the White House, the States and Counties must nullify unconstitutional executive orders and administrative rules, or submit to slavery and the destruction of our Constitutional Republic. Since State and County officials have taken the Oath to support the U.S. Constitution (Art. VI, last cl.), they are bound by Oath to refuse to submit to illegal executive orders and illegal agency rules.
And of course, WE THE PEOPLE and our businesses must also spit on such illegalities by the Executive Branch. Our “creature” (Federalist No. 33, 5th para, Hamilton), has turned into Frankenstein, and has lost all legitimacy. PH
1 In Federalist No. 45 (9th para), James Madison, Father of Our Constitution, says,
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. [boldface added]
2 In Federalist No. 48, Madison points out that in our representative republic,
…the executive magistracy is carefully limited; both in the extent and the duration of its power… (5th para) [i.e., limited & enumerated powers and 4 year terms]
…the executive power being restrained within a narrower compass [than that granted to the legislative branch], and being more simple in its nature… (6th para)
In Federalist No. 75 (3rd para), Hamilton says,
…The essence of the legislative authority is to enact laws, or, in other words, to prescribe rules for the regulation of the society; while the execution of the laws, and the employment of the common strength, either for this purpose or for the common defense, seem to comprise all the functions of the executive magistrate… [boldface added]
In Federalist No. 78 (6th para), Hamilton says,
…The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules … The judiciary … has no influence over … the sword or the purse …and …must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm … for the efficacy of its judgments. [boldface added].
Read the list of the President’s enumerated powers! The President’s powers really are “confined” and “carefully limited” to carrying out laws made by Congress and enforcing certain judicial decisions, military defense (a power shared with Congress), appointing officials (subject to Congress’ approval), and entertaining foreign dignitaries. That’s it!
3 Only Congress has the power to declare war (Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 11)! See clauses 12-16 showing that Congress has the power to determine the funding for the military, and to make the Rules for the discipline & training of the military and the Militia.
4 Re “Offenses against the United States”: I explain here the criminal laws Our Constitution permits Congress to make. It’s a short list. Take note, you federal criminal defense lawyers.
5 I explain the treaty making power of the United States in two papers here
6 During the Terri Schiavo case, Alan Keyes spoke on the radio about the constitutional powers of the President. I seem to recall that Dr. Keyes spoke of the President’s obligation to exercise his “independent judgment” as to whether an act of Congress or a federal court opinion is constitutional. Whatever he said, he opened my eyes, and enabled me to see the elegant beauty of our Constitution.
7 Hamilton also says in Federalist No. 33 (6th para)
…it will not follow…that acts of …[the federal government] which are NOT PURSUANT to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of … [the States], will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such… [T]he clause which declares the supremacy of the laws of the Union [Art. VI, cl. 2]…EXPRESSLY confines this supremacy to laws made PURSUANT TO THE CONSTITUTION … [caps are Hamilton’s, boldface mine]
8 Madison says in Federalist No. 44 (last para before 2.):
…the success of the usurpation [by Congress] will depend on the executive and judiciary departments, which are to expound and give effect to the legislative acts; … [boldface added]
The President must not collude with the legislative or judicial branches to usurp power over The People! He must honor his Oath!
9 Most of the existing “federal” executive agencies are unconstitutional. They meddle in matters which are not the business of the federal government, as power over the matters is not granted by our Constitution to the federal government. Here are a few of the unconstitutional federal agencies: the Departments of Agriculture, Labor, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Energy, Education, Transportation, and Homeland Security. Likewise for the Environmental Protection Agency, the Federal Communications Commission, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the National Economic Council, the Small Business Administration, the Council on Environmental Quality, etc., etc., etc.
10 Progressives have erased the concept of “federalism” from our minds. “Federalism” refers to the form of our government & the division of powers between the national government and the States. A “Federation” (which is what our Constitution creates) is an alliance of independent States associated together in a “confederation” with a national government to which is delegated authority over the States in specifically defined areas ONLY (i.e., the enumerated powers granted to Congress by our Constitution). Those enumerated powers are the only areas wherein the national government is to have authority over the States. In all other matters, the States have supremacy, are independent, and sovereign! Learn more of “federalism” here and here.
Our Framers warned against the consolidation of the sovereign States into one national sovereignty: In Federalist No. 32 (2nd para), Hamilton writes,
An entire consolidation of the States into one complete national sovereignty would imply an entire subordination of the parts; and whatever powers might remain in them, would be altogether dependent on the general will. But as the plan of the convention [the Constitution] aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, EXCLUSIVELY delegated to the United States…. [caps are Hamilton’s; boldface mine]
Federalist No. 62 (5th para) says,
… the equal vote allowed to each State is at once a constitutional recognition of the portion of sovereignty remaining in the individual States, and an instrument for preserving that residuary sovereignty. So far the equality ought to be no less acceptable to the large than to the small States; since they are not less solicitous to guard, by every possible expedient, against an improper consolidation of the States into one simple republic. [boldface mine]
And in Federalist No. 39 (6th para), Madison says,
“But it was not sufficient,” say the adversaries of the proposed Constitution, “for the convention to adhere to the republican form. They ought, with equal care, to have preserved the FEDERAL form, which regards the Union as a CONFEDERACY of sovereign states; instead of which, they have framed a NATIONAL government, which regards the Union as a CONSOLIDATION of the States.” And it is asked by what authority this bold and radical innovation was undertaken? The handle which has been made of this objection requires that it should be examined with some precision….[caps are Madison’s]
Madison then gives a brilliant exposition of the “national” and “federal” aspects of Our Constitution. More than any other Paper, No. 39 addresses the primary political problem of our Time: The destruction of “federalism” by eradicating all vestiges of sovereign & independent States.
We are a trusting People easily lead astray. Make something sound “patriotic”, and we are all for it. Since 1892, American public school children have been indoctrinated with the statist Lie that ours is an indivisible national government. This was done by means of the Pledge of Allegiance: “….one nation … indivisible…”. Is it any wonder that the author of this nasty bit of poison, Francis Bellamy, was a socialist who worked with the National Education Association to institute this statist indoctrination into the public schools? This pernicious pledge is why you don’t know, and no one knows, that our Constitution created a “federation” of sovereign & independent States, united only for the limited purposes enumerated in the Constitution. Wikipedia has good info on Bellamy. PH
May 6th, 2012 by olddog
Conflicts across the globe and an international respect for Barack Obama have created the perfect setting for establishment of “a New World Order,” according to Henry Kissinger, the Nobel Peace Prize winner and former secretary of state under President Nixon.
Kissinger has long been an integral figure in U.S. foreign policy, holding positions in the Nixon, Ford and Reagan administrations. Author of over a dozen books on foreign policy, Kissinger was also named by President Bush as the chairman of the Sept. 11 investigatory commission.
Kissinger made the remark in an interview with CNBC’s “Squawk on the Street” hosts Mark Haines and Erin Burnett at the New York Stock Exchange, after Burnett asked him what international conflict would define the Obama administration’s foreign policy.
“Hope of the Wicked,” where author Ted Flynn reveals the greatest
deception in modern history – corporations, foundations and governments
converging to bring about a New World Order.
“The president-elect is coming into office at a moment when there is upheaval in many parts of the world simultaneously,” Kissinger responded. “You have India, Pakistan; you have the jihadist movement. So he can’t really say there is one problem, that it’s the most important one. But he can give new impetus to American foreign policy partly because the reception of him is so extraordinary around the world. His task will be to develop an overall strategy for America in this period when, really, a new world order can be created. It’s a great opportunity, it isn’t just a crisis.”
The phrase ‘new world order’ traces back at least as far as 1940, when author H.G. Wells used it as the title of a book about a socialist, unified, one-world government. The phrase has also been linked to American presidents, including Woodrow Wilson, whose work on establishing the League of Nations pioneered the concept of international government bodies, and to the first President Bush, who used it in a 1989 speech.
“A new partnership of nations has begun, and we stand today at a unique and extraordinary moment,” said Bush before a joint session of Congress. “Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective – a new world order – can emerge: A new era … in which the nations of the world, east and west, north and south, can prosper and live in harmony.”
The phrase “New World Order” causes alarm for many Americans, particularly those concerned about an international governing body trumping U.S. sovereignty or those that interpret biblical prophecy to foretell the establishment of a one-world government as key to the rise of the Antichrist. Conspiracy theorists, too, have latched on to the phrase, concerned that powerful financial or government figures are secretly plotting to rule the world.
Kissinger’s ties to government and international powers – as well as his use of the phrase – have made him suspect in the eyes of many who are wary of what “new world order” might actually mean.
“There is a need for a new world order,” Kissinger told PBS interviewer Charlie Rose last year, “I think that at the end of this administration, with all its turmoil, and at the beginning of the next, we might actually witness the creation of a new order – because people looking in the abyss, even in the Islamic world, have to conclude that at some point, ordered expectations must return under a different system.”
As WND reported, Kissinger was also part of last year’s super-secret Bilderberg Group, an organization of powerful international elites, including government, business, academic and journalistic representatives, that has convened annually since 1954.
According to sources that have penetrated the high-security meetings, the Bilderberg meetings emphasize a globalist agenda and promote the idea that the notion of national sovereignty is antiquated and regressive.
CNBC’s Haines concluded the Kissinger interview by asking, “Are you confident about the people President-elect Obama has chosen to surround him?”
Kissinger replied, “He has appointed an extraordinarily able group of people in both the international and financial fields.”
Posted by: Erin
Some unprecedented news today, folks. Never in the history of the United Nations has a U.S. President taken the chairmanship of the powerful UN Security Council. Perhaps it is because of what could arguably be a Constitutional prohibition against doing so. To wit: Section 9 of the Constitution says:
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
The UN has a standing military force, we are held to it’s global policies, and we have an Ambassador to the UN just as we do to other foreign States. Clearly the argument can be made that the UN can be considered a foreign State. Our heads of State don’t serve at the UN, Ambassadors do.
Nonetheless, the rotating chairmanship of the UN Security Council goes to the U.S. this month. The normal course of business would have U.S. Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice take the gavel. However, this time will be different. Constitution be damned, Barack Hussein Obama has decided to put HIMSELF in the drivers seat, and will preside over global nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament talks slated to begin September 24th. The Financial Times says:
Barack Obama will cement the new co-operative relationship between the US and the United Nations this month when he becomes the first American president to chair its 15-member Security Council.
The topic for the summit-level session of the council on September 24 is nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament – one of several global challenges that the US now wants to see addressed at a multinational level.
UN officials also hope a climate change debate on September 22 will give fresh impetus to the search for a global climate deal at Copenhagen in December. There are also hopes a possible meeting between Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli prime minister, and Mahmoud Abbas, Palestinian Authority president, that Mr. Obama would host, could lead to a breakthrough about a timetable for Middle East peace.
Here is what the UN Security Council does. Picture Obama as the Chair of this committee with this power.
Under the UN Charter, the functions and powers of the Security Council are:
* to maintain international peace and security in accordance with the principles and purposes of the United Nations;
* to investigate any dispute or situation which might lead to international friction;
* to recommend methods of adjusting such disputes or the terms ofsettlement;
* to formulate plans for the establishment of a system to regulate armaments;
* to determine the existence of a threat to the peace or act of aggression and to recommend what action should be taken;
* to call on Members to apply economic sanctions and other measures not involving the use of force to prevent or stop aggression;
* to take military action against an aggressor;
* to recommend the admission of new Members;
* to exercise the trusteeship functions of the United Nations in “strategic areas”;
* to recommend to the General Assembly the appointment of the Secretary-General and, together with the Assembly, to elect the Judges of the International Court of Justice.
No American president has ever attempted to acquire the image of King of the Universe by officiating at a meeting of the UN’s highest body. Obama apparently believes that being flanked by council-member heads of state like Col. Moammar Qaddafi — who is expected to be seated five seats to Obama’s right — will cast a sufficiently blinding spell on Americans.
He undoubtedly hopes that the horrid state of the nation’s economy, turmoil over health care, and a summer of racial scapegoating will pale by comparison. This role as UN Security Council chair will allow him to make decisions, influence legislation and resolutions, and set the agenda.
Right Soup will be closely following this very unsettling turn of events. Like I always say, pay attention to what Obama DOES, not just what he says.
Share this Right Soup with others:
Related Posts on Right Soup:
Most Recent Posts on Right Soup:
Lord, we pray that you will infect the body and brains of the International Banking Cartel with worms to eat them from the inside out, and all of those who have supported them these many years, and especially this usurper scumbag in the oval office. Send their souls to everlasting torment.
Restore America to a lawful government, and the minds of the citizens to full cognition of the benefits of being independent, self controlled and responsible for their own conduct. Men who need no guidance from anyone but you.
In the name of Jesus Christ, Amen
James P. Harvey
April 26th, 2012 by olddog
by LAWRENCE SELLIN, PHD April 25, 2012
The United States is no longer what John Adams described as a government of laws and not of men. It has become the opposite.
Many of those presently in the federal government have violated their oaths of office to support and defend the Constitution, they have obstructed justice and they have scorned and rejected citizens' attempts to petition for the redress of grievances.
The continuous stonewalling by both parties' elite is clearly directed toward preventing an investigation that would reveal a federal government riddled with corruption and that operates solely for the benefit of politicians and their wealthy power-brokers.
The conspiracy of silence by the political establishments and the associated news blackout by a compliant media can only be explained by complicity in a cover-up of criminal acts that, if they became known, would enrage the American people and rock the political system to its core.
If there is another explanation, I would like to know it.
The plain fact is that if the candidates were fully vetted and the activities of the Democrat and Republican establishments were fully known, the American people would rise up in open rebellion.
Between now and Election Day, there is a window of opportunity to fight the permanent political corruption in Washington, D.C., restore the Constitution and uphold the rule of law. After that, it is "Game Over."
As Abraham Lincoln noted, the American people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution. The loyalty of the American people is to our country and our Constitution, not to shady officeholders or petty bureaucrats.
For too long we have been silent and inattentive. We must now overthrow those responsible for the endemic corruption in our federal government.
The American people are frustrated because they have believed that politicians can be informed or influenced in the spirit of representative government. That is impossible because the political establishments represent only themselves, only care about winning elections and the power and wealth it brings to them, not about the principles upon which our country was founded.
Petitioning the current Congress for the redress of grievances is futile. Members of Congress have turned a deaf ear to the voices of their constituents. They can no longer be trusted as the guardians of our posterity. In regard to members of Congress, the words of Thomas Paine come to mind:
"The world will be puzzled to decide whether you are an apostate or an impostor; whether you have abandoned good principles, or whether you ever had any."
The political establishments have now decided that they alone will determine which parts of the Constitution they will choose to follow and which ones they prefer to ignore. Their propaganda ministry, the mainstream media, will provide the necessary thought control.
The whims of politicians have replaced the Constitution as the basis for the rule of law in the United States. It is a recipe for chaos.
Thomas Jefferson wrote:
"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance?"
The first "shots" of the Second American Revolution have not been fired, but the battle lines have been drawn.
The days of education and persuasion of corrupt politicians are over.
The time for resistance has come.
This offer expires November 6, 2012.
Ok, let’s start from the beginning again, since so many are still enamored with the Original Constitution.
The United States exists in two forms: The original United States that was in operation until 1860; a collection of sovereign Republics in the union. Under the original Constitution the States controlled the Federal Government; the Federal Government did not control the States and had very little authority.
The original United States has been usurped by a separate and different UNITED STATES formed in 1871, which only controls the District of Columbia and it’s territories, and which is actually a corporation (the UNITED STATES CORPORATION) that acts as our current government. The United States Corporation operates under Corporate/Commercial/Public Law rather than Common/Private Law.
The original Constitution was never removed; it has simply been dormant since 1871. It is still intact to this day. This fact was made clear by Supreme Court Justice Marshall Harlan (Downes v. Bidwell, 182, U.S. 244 1901) by giving the following dissenting opinion: “Two national governments exist; one to be maintained under the Constitution, with all its restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside and Independently of that Instrument.”
The rewritten Constitution of the UNITED STATES CORPORATION bypasses the original Constitution for the United States of America, which explains why our Congressmen and Senators don’t abide by it, and the President can write Executive Orders to do whatever he/she wants. They are following corporate laws that completely strip sovereigns of their God given unalienable rights. Corporate/Commercial/Public Law is not sovereign (private), as it is an agreement between two or more parties under contract. Common Law (which sovereigns operate under) is not Commercial Law; it is personal and private.
To understand this document, you need to understand some basic terms. for a complete understanding.
The basic terms are:
De Jure – Existing by right or according to law; original, lawful. Common Law operates under De Jure terms.
De Facto – In practice but not necessarily ordained by law; in fact, in reality. Corporate Law operates under De Facto terms.
Sovereign – A real person. Sovereigns can own property while Citizens/Subjects cannot. According to the original Constitution, all government comes from the Sovereign Individual. Without the Sovereign Individual, there is no government.
U.S. Citizen/Subject – A corporate fictitious entity that merely represents the real person. It acts as a “strawman.” [To call oneself a “sovereign citizen” or “sovereign subject” is an oxymoron, since “sovereign” and “citizen/subject” are mutually exclusive of each other.] When asked if you are a “U.S. Citizen” on corporate legal documents, if you check “yes,” you agree to the terms of Corporate Law and unknowingly relinquish your sovereign status and transfer all of your rights to the UNITED STATES CORPORATION since you are now under contract.
Corporation – A non-human, fictitious entity. Corporate fictitious entities are denoted in all caps. This includes the names of Citizens/Subjects. Your fictitious “strawman” entity is addressed in all caps, i.e. JOHN SMITH, rather than John Smith.
Common Law – God’s law. Common Law and the system of De Jure Juries apply to sovereigns in disputes. In Common Law, contracts must be entered into knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally.
Admiralty/Maritime Law/International Law – The King’s law. Deals with criminal acts that only apply to international contracts. Under this law, the people are no longer sovereign. The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) that the United States practices is based on Admiralty Law. Under the UCC, contracts do not have to be entered into knowingly. Simple agreements can be binding, and as long as you exercise the benefits of that “agreement,” you must meet the obligations associated with those benefits. If you accept the benefit offered by the government, then you MUST follow, to the letter, each and every statute involved with that benefit. That “benefit” is the Federal Reserve Notes (U.S. dollars). By paying for things with U.S. dollars you are unknowingly giving up all of your Constitutional rights and are legally obligated to follow all of the UCC statues. But you were NEVER told this. NOTE: this is why we cannot close down the Federal Reserve!
Lawful – A term used in Common Law.
Legal – A term used in the UCC which applies to Corporate Law.
HOW THE CONSTITUTION WAS USURPED BY THE CORPORATION
(note by Panama Legal: These are the basic premises adhered to by the people in the movement and the people in the Sovereign movement. The Government is a Corporation actually functioning as the Federal Government. Thus it does not have to follow the constitution. Also it does not matter if Obama is not a natural born citizen since it is a corporation he is the head of. The corporation gets the permission of the people to reign over them by deceit. This is done by wording in the Birth Certificates, Social Security Cards, driving Licenses, IRS forms, Marriage Licenses and other documents. They always refer to the “person” in all capital letters. This means the name represents a corporate entity. This is how the corporation courts get jurisdiction over you. Their courts do not fly the “reaL” American flag. They use the military or admiralty flag. For a discourse on this try this website: http://www.usavsus.info/
What the theory is goes like this. When you enter a US Courtroom there is a military or admiralty flag flying. The US Military does not have the protection of the constitution, neither does this apply to admiralty laws with ships at sea. When you enter a court room and cross through that little wooden gate they have and go to the area where the plaintiff (prosecutor) and defendant sit along with judge, court reporter, you are entering a “ship” or a foreign country as evidenced by the admiralty or military flag flying thus the constitution has no applicability and you are under equity law not common law. The flaw with their scheme is that there is no full disclosure to the people about any of this. This is brief over simplified synopsis of the scam run by the federal corporation.
Here is a Timeline of events that lead to the current United States.
In 1788 (January 1), The United States was officially bankrupt.
In 1790 (August 4), Article One of the U.S. Statues at Large, pages 138-178, abolished the States of the Republic and created Federal Districts. In the same year, the former States of the Republic reorganized as Corporations and their legislatures wrote new State Constitutions, absent defined boundaries, which they presented to the people of each state for a vote…the new State Constitutions fraudulently made the people “Citizens” of the new Corporate States. A Citizen is also defined as a “corporate fiction.”
In 1845, Congress passed legislation that would ultimately allow Common Law to be usurped by Admiralty Law. www.barefootsworld.net/admiralty.html explains this change. The yellow fringe placed at the bottom of court flags shows this is still true. Before 1845, Americans were considered sovereign individuals who governed themselves under Common Law.
In 1860 – Congress was adjourned Sine Die – Lincoln could not legally reconvene Congress.
In 1861, President Lincoln declared a National Emergency and Martial Law, which gave the President unprecedented powers and removed it from the other branches. This has NEVER been reversed.
In 1863, the Lieber Code was established taking away your property and your rights.
From 1864-1867, Several Reconstruction Acts were passed forcing the states to ratify the 14th Amendment, which made everyone slaves.
In 1865, the capital was moved to Washington, D.C., a separate country – not a part of the United States of America.
In 1871, The United States became a Corporation with a new constitution and a new corporate government, and the original constitutional government was vacated to become dormant, but it was never terminated. The new constitution had to be ratified by the people according to the original constitution, but it never was. The whole process occurred behind closed doors. The people are the source of financing for this new government.
In 1917, the Trading with the Enemy Act (TWEA) was passed. This insightful video from [link to movielocker.com/4084)] states the following: “This act was implemented to deal with the countries we were at war with during World War I. It gave the President and the Alien Property Custodian the right to seize the assets of the people included in this act and if they wanted to do business in this country they could apply for a license to do so. By 1921, the Federal Reserve Bank (the trustee for the Alien Property Custodian) held over $700,000,000 in trust.” Understand that this trust was based on our assets, not theirs.
In 1933, 48 Stat 1, of the TWEA was amended to include the United States Person because they wanted to take our gold away. Executive Order 6102 was created to make it illegal for a U.S. Citizen to own gold. In order for the Government to take our gold away and violate our Constitutional rights, we were reclassified as ENEMY COMBATANTS.”
In 1933, there was a second United States bankruptcy. In the first bankruptcy the United States collateralized all public lands. In the 1933 bankruptcy, the U.S. government collateralized the private lands of the people (a lien) – they borrowed money against our private lands. They were then mortgaged. That is why we pay property taxes.
From a speech in Congress in The Bankruptcy of the United States Congressional Record, March 17, 1993, Vol. 33, page H-1303, Speaker Representative James Trafficant Jr. (Ohio) addressing the House states:
“…It is an established fact that the United States Federal Government has been dissolved by the Emergency Banking Act, March 9, 1933, 48 Stat. 1, Public Law 89-719; declared by President Roosevelt, being bankrupt and insolvent. H.J.R. 192, 73rd Congress m session June 5, 1933 – Joint Resolution To Suspend The Gold Standard and Abrogate The Gold Clause dissolved the Sovereign Authority of the United States and the official capacities of all United States Governmental Offices, Officers, and Departments and is further evidence that the United States Federal Government exists today in name only.
The receivers of the United States Bankruptcy are the International Bankers, via the United Nations, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. All United States Offices, Officials, and Departments are now operating within a de facto status in name only under Emergency War Powers. With the Constitutional Republican form of Government now dissolved, the receivers of the Bankruptcy have adopted a new form of government for the United States. This new form of government is known as a Democracy, being an established Socialist/Communist order under a new governor for America. This act was instituted and established by transferring and/or placing the Office of the Secretary of Treasury to that of the Governor of the International Monetary Fund. Public Law 94-564, page 8, Section H.R. 13955 reads in part: “The U.S. Secretary of Treasury receives no compensation for representing the United States…
Prior to 1913, most Americans owned clear, allodial title to property, free and clear of any liens of mortgages until the Federal Reserve Act (1913) “Hypothecated” all property within the Federal United States to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, in which the Trustees (stockholders) held legal title. The U.S. Citizen (tenant, franchisee) was registered as a “beneficiary” of the trust via his/her birth certificate. In 1933, the Federal United States hypothecated all of the present and future properties, assets, and labor of their “subjects,” the 14th Amendment U.S. Citizen to the Federal Reserve System. In return, the Federal Reserve System agreed to extend the federal United States Corporation all of the credit “money substitute” it needed.
Like any debtor, the Federal United States government had to assign collateral and security to their creditors as a condition of the loan. Since the Federal United States didn’t have any assets, they assigned the private property of their “economic slaves,” the U.S. Citizens, as collateral against the federal debt. They also pledged the unincorporated federal territories, national parks, forests, birth certificates, and nonprofit organizations as collateral against the federal debt. All has already been transferred as payment to the international bankers.
Unwittingly, America has returned to its pre-American Revolution feudal roots whereby all land is held by a sovereign and the common people had no rights to hold allodial title to property. Once again, We the People are the tenants and sharecroppers renting our own property from a Sovereign in the guise of the Federal Reserve Bank. We the People have exchanged one master for another.”
In 1944, Washington D.C. was deeded to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) by the Breton Woods Agreement. The IMF is made up of wealthy people that own most of the banking industries of the world. It is an organized group of bankers that have taken control of most governments of the world so the bankers run the world. Congress, the IRS, and the President work for the IMF. The IRS is not a U.S. government agency. It is an agency of the IMF. (Diversified Metal Products v. IRS et al. CV-93-405E-EJE U.S.D.C.D.I., Public Law 94-564, Senate Report 94-1148 pg. 5967, Reorganization Plan No. 26, Public Law 102-391.)
HOW CAN WE REPAIR OUR COUNTRY RIGHT NOW?
“The Supreme Court has said the De Jure Government offices still exist but the people have failed to occupy them.
Remember Downs v. Bidwell and the dissenting opinion of Justice Marshall Harlan? He said that two national governments exist; one to be maintained under the Constitution, with all its restrictions. This is one that We the people need to force our elected public officials to occupy – De Jure rule.
We need to change that by organizing Grand Juries and putting our officials back under De jure rule and out of the Corporate (or Military) Rule that they are currently operating under.
Our elected officials will then have to operate under the limits of their Oath of office to uphold the U.S. and State Constitutions, circa 1860. When they violate the Oath it’s a capital crime.
The reason we go back to 1860 is because that is the last time we had lawful laws in this country.
Where do the people get their power to convene a Grand Jury? The Magna Carta, 1215.
Our Founding Fathers looked back to history for precedent when they decided they wanted to change their government. What they found was the Magna Carta Liberatum, the Great Charter of Freedoms. It set a precedent that changed the face of England forever, by establishing that the King was not above the law.
King John of England signed the Magna Carta after immense pressure from the Church and his barons (the people). The King often lived above the law, violating both Feudal and Common Law, and was heavily criticized for his foreign policy and actions in England. The Barons, with the support of the Church, pressured King John to spell out a list of their rights and guarantee that those rights would be enforced. The Barons provided a draft, and after some negotiation, King John put his seal to the Magna Carta in Runnymede, in June of 1215.
Section 61 set rules for establishing the Grand Jury. It states: Since we have granted all these things for God, for the better ordering of our kingdom, and to allay the discord that has arisen between us and our barons (people), and since we desire that they shall be enjoyed in their entirety, with lasting strength, forever, we give and grant to the barons the following security: The barons shall elect twenty-five of their number to keep, and cause to be observed with all their might, the peace and liberties granted and confirmed to them by this charter. If we, our chief justice, our officials, or any of our servants offend in any respect against any man, or transgress any of the articles of the peace or of this security, and the offense is made known to four of the said twenty-five barons, they shall come to us.”
Well. Lots of luck with that one folks!
At this point, it should be evident to anyone with a cranial capacity the size of a tea cup that FORCE is the deciding factor, not law. So, all of you cowpokes who want the original Constitution back better pony up and lock & load. And, be prepared to kill your brothers in uniform who have missed a few classes in history. Does CIVIL WAR come to mind? THAT is what it will take to get your precious De Jure Constitution back. Not ready for that? Well then, go back to bitching about those scumbags in congress who are laughing their fat ass off, and getting rich in the process. OH, and don’t forget to vote!
Fellow American’s, there is thousands of citizen’s out there that have a far higher comprehension of this legal crap than I do, and for many years they have tried this and that to regain our beloved Constitution and rule of law, but for every attempt, nothing has worked, and will not in the future unless the entire Nation is re-educated, which I cannot see happening. Do not mis-understand my sarcasm, it is the result of a heart broken old man that truly feels a sense of responsibility for this mess, and a deep shame for my fellow citizens who prefer slavery over death on the field of battle. Is life in bondage so precious that you would accept it without a fight? As for me, I would rather be a quadriplegic than give respect to these Bastards in DC, and only my advanced age and lack of strength keeps me from sending as many of them as possible to hell where they belong. PLEASE,,, read this article over and over, until you feel like a man who has just been notified his wife and daughters have been raped and murdered. Only then will you understand my rage!
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
April 24th, 2012 by olddog
By Pete Papaherakles
Could gaining control of the Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran (CBI) be one of the main reasons that Iran is being targeted by Western and Israeli powers? As tensions are building up for an unthinkable war with Iran, it is worth exploring Iran’s banking system compared to its U.S., British and Israeli counterparts.
Some researchers are pointing out that Iran is one of only three countries left in the world whose central bank is not under Rothschild control. Before 9-11 there were reportedly seven: Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, Libya, Cuba, North Korea and Iran. By 2003, however, Afghanistan and Iraq were swallowed up by the Rothschild octopus, and by 2011 Sudan and Libya were also gone. In Libya, a Rothschild bank was established in Benghazi while the country was still at war.
Islam forbids the charging of interest, a major problem for the Rothschild banking system. Until a few hundred years ago, charging interest was also forbidden in the Christian world and was even punishable by death. It was considered exploitation and enslavement.
Since the Rothschilds took over the Bank of England around 1815, they have been expanding their banking control over all the countries of the world. Their method has been to get a country’s corrupt politicians to accept massive loans, which they can never repay, and thus go into debt to the Rothschild banking powers. If a leader refuses to accept the loan, he is oftentimes either ousted or assassinated. And if that fails, invasions can follow, and a Rothschild usury-based bank is established.
The Rothschilds exert powerful influence over the world’s major news agencies. By repetition, the masses are duped into believing horror stories about evil villains. The Rothschilds control the Bank of England, the Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank, the IMF, the World Bank and the Bank of International Settlements. Also they own most of the gold in the world as well as the London Gold Exchange, which sets the price of gold every day. It is said the family owns over half the wealth of the planet—estimated by Credit Suisse to be $231 trillion—and is controlled by Evelyn Rothschild, the current head of the family.
Objective researchers contend that Iran is not being demonized because they are a nuclear threat, just as the Taliban, Iraq’s Saddam Hussein and Libya’s Muammar Qadaffi were not a threat.
What then is the real reason? Is it the trillions to be made in oil profits, or the trillions in war profits? Is it to bankrupt the U.S. economy, or is it to start World War III? Is it to destroy Israel’s enemies, or to destroy the Iranian central bank so that no one is left to defy Rothschild’s money racket?
It might be any one of those reasons or, worse—it might be all of them.
Anyone who has read my two sites and newsletters already knows what I think about the Rothschild family, but for the benefit of any new reader let me make it short and sweet. The whole family should be exterminated, along with the other seven families that comprise their cartel. If that offends anyone’s sensibilities, tough shit!
Any person with more than one inch between their ears can find volume’s of information about them to justify their extermination. Let their entire blood line be wiped from the face of the earth, and their souls be tormented in hell for eternity.
If I were President of the United States Corporation which is owned lock stock and barrel by the members of the International Investment Banking Cartel, I would gather together the leaders of the earth’s governments and demand their support in the elimination of the entire Cartel. Shortly, there would be peace on earth, as the major cancer of human societies would be gone forever.
Read all of the articles on http://anationbeguiled.com and http://anationbeguiled.wordpress.com before you decide I am a loose cannon and report me to your hero’s in DC.
Let this be a warning to all on planet earth. You will shortly see atrocities on earth beyond your imagination, if you don’t do your home work and conclude that I am right, and demand from your leaders their extermination.
This is the single most important thing you will ever do in your lifetime!
The atrocities this family is directly responsible for in the history of their existence is mind numbing and irreputable proof of humanities stupidity.
The banking cartel should have been eliminated centuries ago and prohibited from ever coming back.
To kill a snake, cut off it’s damn head,
and usuery is the most most poisoness vipor of humanity.
April 17th, 2012 by olddog
April 16, 2012
Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetoro aka Barry Dunham aka Barack Dunham – all known aliases of the occupant in the White House. I will refer to him as Barry Soetoro since that appears to be the last known legal name of the mystery man.
Over the past four years I have followed every case filed, read every brief submitted and a million words on the constitutional meaning of 'natural born citizen'. Only those in denial or whose ideological agenda depends on Barry staying in office refuse to acknowledge that Soetoro was born with dual citizenship. He was ineligible in 2008 and he's still ineligible in 2012.
In the only oral arguments to actually take place out in Georgia, the end result has been the same. Two weeks ago, the Georgia Supreme Court checked their manhood at the door and ruled against all the plaintiffs. Those judges followed the cowardly path taken by Judge Mahili in his original decision to allow Barry on the Georgia ballot despite the undeniable legal facts presented by plaintiffs during the original hearings. However, what the Georgia Supreme Court did was even more reprehensible according to Van Irion, Liberty Legal Foundation, who represented David Welden:
"Both LLF and Georgia Representative Mark Hatfield pointed out to the Court the date on which the Secretary of State planned to certify the election. Yet the Court sat on our filings for seven days, then ruled on the day certification had been planned. If we had been given one or two days we could have filed an emergency motion with the U.S. Supreme Court. Currently the Justice assigned to review such motions from Georgia is the most Constitutional originalist, Justice Clarence Thomas. I'm sure that the Georgia Supreme Court is aware that Justice Thomas would have been our next step, had we had time to file another motion. The Georgia Court ensured that such review was not possible by waiting until the last day to rule before our motion became moot. It is possible that this timing was nothing more than a busy court not being able to rule faster, but after what we have seen in Georgia, do you believe that? Even if that is true, what does it say about this Court's level of respect for the importance of this case? The Court didn't even bother to spell our client's name correctly! I believe that this latest ruling proves that Georgia law does not apply to the powerful."
As I have written in many columns, Barry cannot be impeached. He usurped the office of the presidency. The only legal method to remove him is through the Quo Warranto statute. A proper QW was filed on January 3, 2012, by presidential candidate, Montgomery Blair Sibley. He filed a Certified Petition for Writs Quo Warranto and Mandamus in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, the proper legal forum. The judge, Amy Jackson Berman, apparently doesn't have the courage to address this issue because she has refused to respond.
Forty days after Sibley's filing, the District Court Judge had not ruled on any part of the suit, so he filed a petition for mandamus with the Circuit Court of Appeal. The Appeals Court then ruled: “The district court's delay in ruling on the petition for writ of quo warranto is not so egregious or unreasonable as to warrant the extraordinary remedy of mandamus.” Sibley then filed with the U.S. Supreme Court: "On April 20, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether to fast-track the determination of Obama's constitutional eligibility to be President."
Unfortunately, a new effort is underway and being heavily promoted by popular talk show hosts like Alex Jones. 'Impeach 2012' is a project by Sean Stone, son of movie producer, Oliver Stone. Another wasted effort by someone who, while his intentions may be from the heart, apparently has zero understanding of the constitutional problem of impeaching someone who never held the office. THAT is the meat of the legal issue. Alex Jones has had Dr. Edwin Vieria on his show several times and I believe he respects Edwin's undisputed status as an expert on constitutional issues. Edwin addressed this issue back in 2008:
"Seventh, if Obama does become an usurper posturing as “the President,” Congress cannot even impeach him because, not being the actual President, he cannot be “removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” (see Article II, Section 4). In that case, some other public officials would have to arrest himwith physical force, if he would not go along quietlyin order to prevent him from continuing his imposture. Obviously, this could possibly lead to armed conflicts within the General Government itself, or among the States and the people.
"Eighth, even did something approaching civil war not eventuate from Obama’s hypothetical usurpation, if the Establishment allowed Obama to pretend to be “the President,” and the people acquiesced in that charade, just about everything that was done during his faux “tenure in office” by anyone connected with the Executive Branch of the General Government, and quite a bit done by the Legislative Branch and perhaps the Judicial Branch as well, would be arguably illegitimate and subject to being overturned when a constitutional President was finally installed in office. The potential for chaos, both domestically and internationally, arising out of this systemic uncertainty is breathtaking.
"The underlying problem will not be obviated if Obama, his partisans in the Democratic Party, and his cheerleaders and cover-up artists in the big media simply stonewall the issue of his (non) citizenship and contrive for him to win the Presidential election. The cat is already out of the bag and running all over the Internet. If he continues to dodge the issue, Obama will be dogged with this question every day of his purported “Presidency.”
I can't tell you how many emails I've received over the past few years from "patriots" who say they don't care whether or not he can't be impeached from a constitutional prospective, "we" have to impeach him anyway to get him out of office!
That position is no different than those we battle against who care nothing for the U.S. Constitution regarding Barry and his ineligibility. Two wrongs do not make a right. Don't people get it yet? Don't they understand if you play the game by their rules you will lose every time?
There will be no impeachment by the Outlaw Congress. Fact challenged, U.S. Rep. Walter B. Jones Jr., [R-NC] has introduced a resolution to impeach for high crimes and misdemeanors except that as a usurper, Soetoro never had legal authority to act as Commander-in-Chief.
The Republicans know such a resolution will go no where. It was introduced March 7, 2012, and has a grand total of 2 co-sponsors. As Bush was to Pelosi, Barry is to the GOP for the 2012 elections. The deal makers in the Outlaw Congress are fully aware that we the people know they are responsible for allowing the electoral college vote to proceed on January 9, 2009, installing an impostor president in the White House. Jones' resolution is simply throwing scraps to the peasants to appease. Keep them herded in the wrong direction which protects the gross negligence by every incumbent on January 9, 2009.
Those who continue to spend time and money on an impeachment are working for the wrong side whether they know it or not. If Soetoro's "presidency" is allowed to stand as legitimate, again, it will set one of the worst legal precedents in the history of this country. I hope that people like Alex Jones will stop promoting that effort.
While Sheriff Joe's Cold Posse continues their investigation, is there any other legal method to remove Barry from the White House? You can't say remove him from office since he was never eligible to run in 2008. Because Barry was never eligible to be on the ballot in any state, no one had the right to vote for him in 2008.
There's no question Soetoro's Selective Service Registration Card is a forgery. I don't believe there's doubt any longer he has been using someone else's social security number. The birth certificate he has presented to the world is a forgery. But, how do we legally deal with it as we wait to see what the U.S. Supreme Court decides on April 20, 2012, and beyond?
By demanding a special prosecutor be appointed to deal with only one issue: The forged birth certificate. The role of a special counsel is to investigate wrong doing by the Executive Branch. Barry Soetoro released a forged document in his "official" capacity on April 27, 2011. He "owns it" now and for that alone, a special counsel could be appointed.
Why not include the forged Selective Service (SS) card and use of someone else's social security number (SSN) to a special counsel? Because the SS card forgery was committed before he was "elected". I'm not a lawyer, so I can't say whether or not Barry can still be indicted and prosecuted under federal law for forging his SS registration form. The statute of limitations might have already run.
As for using someone else's SSN, Soetoro can weasel out of that one by saying his deceased mother applied for the number while he was a minor and he never had reason to question it. (Smirk)
Second, and I didn't believe it until I read the cases, courts have now given the green light in promoting identify theft. In 2010, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that a man who used his real name but someone else's Social Security number to obtain a car loan was not guilty of "criminal impersonation," overturning convictions by lower courts. That followed a ruling the prior year by the U.S. Supreme Court, quote: "A Mexican man who gave a false SSN to get a job at an Illinois steel plant could not be convicted under federal identity theft laws because he did not knowingly use another person's identifying number. The ruling overturned an opinion by a federal appeals court in St. Louis — and contradicted earlier findings by circuit courts in the Southeast, upper Midwest and the Gulf states."
Oh, that's right. That thief used someone else's SSN to get a job, but didn't commit a crime because he "did not knowingly use another person's identifying number". Well, just whose number did that thief think he was using since it wasn't his own? Those judges should be thrown off the bench for literally opening the door for more identity theft ruining people's lives.
Soetoro can be indicted and prosecuted after he leaves "office" for carrying out a "scheme to defraud" the public via his "dishonest services"; United States v. Frega, 179 F.3d 793 (9th Cir. 1999). He most certainly can be indicted, and hopefully convicted, under the wire fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. §1343. That is not idle speculation. The impostor president, knowing he was ineligible, solicited campaign funds via television, radio and the Internet to the tune of about $700 million dollars. Those charges alone, if convicted, would put him in federal prison for a long time.
The House Judiciary Committee has the power and authority to demand a special counsel. The conundrum is not an easy one to overcome. Current law allows the U.S. Attorney General to appoint a special counsel. The thoroughly corrupt, Eric Holder, will never appoint one to investigate the putative president's deliberate release of a forged document. A forged document that allegedly reinforces his eligibility. The House Judiciary Committee could take the extraordinary step of going to the U.S. District Court in Washington, DC and demand a special counsel be appointed.
If Rep. Jones feels so strongly about impeachment, perhaps some of his constituents can educate him on why that cannot and will not happen and to support appointment of a special counsel. To not support such an appointment will speak volumes.
If the millions of Americans who are putting their efforts towards impeachment would flood the House Judiciary Committee with letters demanding a special counsel, it would raise the stakes to a new level. It would also make Barry's situation so untenable he "resigns" or his handlers force him to leave; we know how issues "grow legs". The question of why would Barry use a forged birth certificate raises the one legal issue for which he can be removed from the White House: his dual citizenship at birth, not where he was born. A special counsel would be forced to address that issue. It's called motive.
At this time we don't know what Sheriff Joe will do with his final investigation as far as a legal enforcement body. But, every member of the U.S. House of Representatives is up for reelection this November. Remind members of the Judiciary Committee and your incumbent that if they don't stand up for the U.S. Constitution now, look for a new job. Hit your incumbent at every town hall meeting, every fund raiser and any where else he/she appears. Republicans desperately want this to go away, but we the people can show them it isn't and we will not stop until Barry Soetoro aka Barack Obama is brought to justice for his crimes.
1- The conundrum of removing Obama/Soetoro from office (5.11.2011)
2- Follow up on Quo Warranto as it relates to removing Obama/Soetoro (5.12.2011)
3- Why Obama cannot be impeached (7.14.2011)
4- Obama could be removed by his own signature (7.22.2011)
April 15th, 2012 by olddog
Now that we know the Federal Reserve is a privately owned, for-profit corporation,
a natural question would be: who OWNS this company?
Peter Kershaw provides the answer in "Economic Solutions"
where he lists the ten primary shareholders in the Federal Reserve banking system.
1) The Rothschild Family – London
2) The Rothschild Family – Berlin
3) The Lazard Brothers – Paris
4) Israel Seiff – Italy
5) Kuhn-Loeb Company – Germany
6) The Warburgs – Amsterdam
7) The Warburgs – Hamburg
8) Lehman Brothers – New York
9) Goldman & Sachs – New York
10) The Rockefeller Family – New York
Now I don't know about you, but something is terribly wrong with this situation. Namely, don't we live in AMERICA? If so, why are seven of the top ten stockholders located in FOREIGN countries? That's 70%! To further convey how screwed-up this system is, Jim Marrs provides the following data in his phenomenal book, "Rule By Secrecy.
" He says that the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which undeniably controls the other eleven Federal Reserve branches, is essentially controlled by two financial institutions:
1) Chase-Manhattan (controlled by the Rockefellers) – 6,389,445 shares – 32.3%
2) Citbank – 4,051,851 shares – 20.5%
Thus, these two entities control nearly 53% of the New York Federal Reserve Bank. Doesn't that boggle your mind? Now, considering how many trillions of dollars are involved here, and how the bankers are WAY above our "selected" officials in Washington, D.C., do you think the above-listed banks and families have an inordinate amount of say-so in how our country is being run? The answer is blindingly apparent.
Where does the money come from?
We all know that the Federal Reserve CORPORATION prints money – then loans it, at interest, to our government. But wait until you see what a total scam this process is. But before we get to the meat of this issue, let's remember one thing about the very essence of banking – primarily that money should have some type of standard upon which its value is based. In the case of America, we operate on what is called a "gold standard" (i.e. our money is backed by gold).
So, with that in mind, let's look at how money is actually created, and at what cost. If the Federal Reserve wants to print 1,000 one-hundred ($100) bills, their total cost for ink, paper, plates, labor, etc. would be approximately $23.00 (according to Davvy Kidd in "Why A Bankrupt America"). Now, if you do the math, the total cost of 10,000 bills would be $230.00 ($.023 x 10,000). But, and here's the catch – 10,000 $100 bills equals $1,000,000! So, the Federal Reserve can "create" a million dollars, then LEND it to the U.S. Government (with interest) for a total cost of $230.00! That's not a bad deal, huh!
The banking industry calls this process "seignorage." I call it outright THEFT. Why? Well, regardless of the immense profit margin ($1,000,000 for $230), plus the huge interest payments, our government then needs to STEAL the American people's money to payoff their debts via a Mob-like agency called the IRS. So the bankers steal from the government, then the government turns around and steals from the people. I'm no genius, but who do you think is getting screwed in this process? US – the people at the bottom rung of the ladder.
What's worse is that – now catch your breath – there's NO MORE gold left in Fort Knox! It's all gone. In other words, the GOLD STANDARD that our financial system was based upon is now an illusion. We can't convert our money into gold — only other currency. The entire underlying basis for our money is now a lie – a sham. The Federal Reserve has become so arrogant that they've become a literal MONEY MAKING MACHINE, creating currency out of thin air! So that's where the Fed gets their money – they literally make it, then lend it to us so they can make even MORE money off of it.
Money As A Religion
The above-detailed process has become so ridiculous that William Grieder, former assistant managing editor of the Washington Post, wrote a book in 1987 entitled, "Secrets of the Temple: How the Federal Reserve Runs the Country" that details how the Controllers have conditioned us to accept this absurd situation.
To modern minds," he writes, "it seemed bizarre to think of the Federal Reserve as a religious institution. Yet the conspiracy theorists, in their own demented way, were on to something real and significant. The Fed did also function in the realm of religion. Its mysterious powers of money creation, inherited from priestly forebears, shielded a complex bundle of social and psychological meanings. With its own form of secret incantation, the Federal Reserve presided over awesome social ritual, transactions so powerful and frightening they seemed to lie beyond common understanding."
Mr. Grieder continues, "Above all, money was a function of faith. It required implicit and universal social consent that was indeed mysterious. To create money and use it, each one must believe, and everyone must believe. Only then did worthless pieces of paper take on value.
Do you get it? MONEY is an ILLUSION! Why? Because the gold standard upon which our money is supposed to be based has been eliminated. There's no more gold in Fort Knox. It's all GONE! Now, money really IS only paper!!! In the past, money was supposed to represent something of tangible value.
Now it's simply paper!
Taken one step further, many of us don't even use paper money any more! Why? Well, here's a scenario. Many places of employment directly deposit their employee's paychecks into the bank. Once the money is there, when bill time comes around, the person in question can write out a stack of checks to pay them. Plus, when they need gasoline they use a credit card; and groceries a debit card. If this person goes out for dinner on Friday night, they can charge the tab on their diner's card. But what about the tip? They simply scribble in the amount at the bottom of the check. So far, the person hasn't spent a single dollar bill. Plus, if you bring electronic banking into the picture, we've virtually eliminated the use for money.
And, God forbid, what happens when encoded microchips are implanted into the backs of our hand?
In essence, money has become nothing more than an illusion – an electronic figure or amount on a computer screen. That's it! As time goes on, we have an increasing tendency toward being sucked into this Wizard of Oz vortex of unreality. Think about it. Americans as a whole are carrying more personal debt than in any other time in history. Plus our government keeps going further and further into the hole, with no hope of ever crawling out. But we have less and less actual MONEY! We're being enslaved by the debt of electronic blips on a computer screen! And 70% of the banks that control this debt via the Federal Reserve exist in foreign countries! What in God's name is going on?
As author William Bramley says, "The result of this whole system is MASSIVE debt at every level of society."
We're getting screwed in a sickening way, folks, and the people doing it are demented magician-priests that use the ILLUSION of money as their control device. And I hate to say it, but if we allow things to keep going as they are, the situation will only get worse. Our only hope … ONLY HOPE … is to immediately take drastic action and remedy this crime.
Aaron Russo on The Federal Reserve & How to Shut it Down
[link to video.godlikeproductions.com]
let the Truth be known..
let's abolish the federal reserve, please
1st: Martial Law is declared by President Lincoln on April 24th, 1863, with General Orders No. 100; under martial law authority, Congress and President Lincoln institute continuous martial law by ordering the states (people) either conscribe troops and or provide money in support of the North or be recognized as enemies of the nation;
this martial law Act of Congress is still in effect today. This martial law authority gives the President (with or without Congress) the dictatorial authority to do anything that can be done by government in accord with the Constitution of the United States of America. This conscription act remains in effect to this very day and is the foundation of Presidential Executive Orders authority; it was magnified in 1917 with The Trading with the Enemy Act (Public Law 65-91, 65th Congress, Session I, Chapters 105, 106, October 6, 1917). and again in 1933 with the Emergency War Powers Act, which is ratified and enhanced almost every year to this date by Congress.
Today these Acts address the people of the United States themselves as their enemy.
2nd: The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 created a private corporation (hereinafter “Corp. U.S.”, Trademark name, “United States Government”) owned and operated by the actual government for the purpose of carrying out the business needs of the government under martial law. This was done under the constitutional authority for Congress to pass any law within the ten mile square of Washington, District of Columbia.
(link to pdf image file of the full 1871 Act)
3rd: In said Act, Corp. U.S. adopted their own constitution (United States Constitution),
which was identical to the national Constitution (Constitution of the United States of America)
except that it was missing the national constitution's 13th Amendment
and the national constitution's 14th, 15th and 16th amendments
are respectively numbered 13th, 14th and 15th amendments in the Corp. U.S. Constitution.
At this point take special notice and remember this Corp. U.S. method of adopting their own Constitution, they will add to it in the same manner in 1913.
4th: Corp. U.S. began to generate debts via bonds etc., which came due in 1912, but they could not pay their debts so the 7 families that bought up the bonds demanded payment and Corp. U.S. could not pay. Said families settled the debt for the payments of all of Corp. U.S.' assets and for all of the assets of the Treasury of the United States of America.
5th: As 1913 began, Corp. U.S. had no funds to carry out the necessary business needs of the government so they went to said families and asked if they could borrow some money. The families said no (Corp. U.S. had already demonstrated that they would not repay their debts in full). The families had foreseen this situation and had the year before finalized the creation of a private corporation of the name "Federal Reserve Bank". Corp. U.S. formed a relationship with the Federal Reserve Bank whereby they could transact their business via note rather than with money. Notice that this relationship was one made between two private corporations and did not involve government; that is where most people error in understanding the Federal Reserve Bank system—again it has
no government relation at all. The private contracts that set the whole system up even recognize that if anything therein proposed is found illegal or impossible to perform it is excluded from the agreements and the remaining elements remain in full force and effect.
6th: Almost simultaneously with the last fact (also in 1913), Corp. U.S. adopts (as if ratified) their own 16th amendment. Tax protesters challenge the IRS tax collection system based on this fact, however when we remember that Corp. U.S. originally created their constitution by simply drafting it and adopting it; there is no difference between that adoption and this—such is the nature of corporate enactments. You must also note that this amendment has nothing to do with our nation, with our people or with our national Constitution, which already had its own 16th amendment. The Supreme Court ruled that it did nothing that was not already done other than to make plain and clear the right of the United States (Corp. U.S.) to tax corporations. We agree, considering that they were created under the authority of Corp. U.S.
7th: Next (also 1913) Corp. U.S., through Congress, adopts (as if ratified) its 17th amendment.
This amendment is not only not ratified, it is not constitutional; the nation's Constitution forbids Congress from even discussing the matter of where Senators are elected, which is the subject matter of this amendment. According to the United States Supreme Court, for Congress to propose such an amendment they would first have to pass an amendment that gave them the authority to discuss the matter.
8th: Accordingly, in 1914, the Freshman class and all Senators that successfully ran for reelection in 1913
by popular vote were seated in Corp. U.S. Senate capacity only; their respective seats from their States
remained vacant because neither the State Senates nor the State Governors appointed new Senators to replace them as is still required by the national Constitution for placement of a national Senator.
9th: In 1917, Corp. U.S. enters W.W. I and passes their Trading with the Enemies Act.
10th: In 1918, President Wilson is reelected by the Electoral College but their election is required to be confirmed by the constitutionally set Senate; where the new Corp. U.S. only Senators were allowed to participate in the Electoral College vote confirmation the only authority that could possibly have been used for electoral confirmation was corporate only. Therefore, President Wilson was not confirmed into office for his second term as President of the United States of America and was only seated in the Corp. U.S. Presidential capacity.
Therefore the original jurisdiction government's seats were vacated because the people didn't seat any original jurisdiction government officers.
It is important to note here that President Wilson retained his capacity as Commander in Chief of the military. Many people wonder about this fact imagining that such a capacity is bound to the President of the nation; however, When John Adams was President he assigned George Washington to the capacity of Commander in Chief of the military in preparation for an impending war with France. During this period, Mr. Adams became quite concerned because Mr. Washington became quite ill and passed on his acting military authority through his lead General Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Adams was concerned that if war did break out Mr. Hamilton would use that authority to create a military dictatorship of the nation. Mr. Adams averted the war through diplomacy and the title of Commander in Chief was returned to him.
(See: John Adams, by David McCullough, this book covers Mr. Adams concerns over this matter quite well.)
11th: In 1933, Corp. U.S. is bankrupt, they force a banking holiday to exchange money backed Federal Reserve Notes with “legal tender” Federal Reserve Notes the Trading with the Enemies Act is adjusted to recognize the people of the United States as enemies of Corp. U.S.
12th: Some time after 1935, you ask Social Security Administration for a relationship with their program. With the express purpose of generating Beneficiary funds to United States General Trust Fund (GTF) the Social Security Administration creates an entity with a name (that sounds like your name but is spelled with all capital letters) and an account number (Social Security number). They give you the Social Security card and let you know that the card does not belong to you but you are to hold it for them until they want it back. If you are willing to accept that responsibility over the card you activate the card by signing it, which gives you the ability to act as the fiduciary for the cards actual owner Corp. U.S. and you can use the card’s name and number to thus transact business relations for the card’s actual owner. You are also to note that though the card verifies its agency (you as the single person with authority to control the entity so created) it is not for use as identification. On review: notice the Social Security Administration was the creator of the entity, they offered you the opportunity to serve its Trustee capacity (by lending it actual consciousness and physical capacity), they gave you something (the card) that does not belong to you to hold in trust and they reserved the actual owner of the thing (Corp. U.S.) as the beneficiary of the entity—by definition, this only describes the creation and existence of a Trust. More importantly: the name they gave this Trust is not your name, the number they gave the Trust is not your number and your lending actual consciousness and physical capacity to this Trust’s Trustee capacity does not limit you or your capacity to separately act in your natural sovereign capacity in any way—what you do, when you do it and how you do it is still totally up to you.
13th: In 1944, under the Bretton Woods Agreement, Corp. U.S. is quit claimed to the International Monetary Fund, and becomes a foreign controlled private corporation.
14th: In 1962, considering the states were forced to carry out their business dealings in terms of Federal Reserve Notes (foreign notes), which is forbidden in the national and State constitutions, out of the necessity the states began protecting themselves from the people by forming corporations like Corp. U.S. Accordingly, those newly formed corporate state administrations began adopting Corp. U.S. suggested uniform codes and licensing structures that allowed better and more powerful control over the people, which thing the original jurisdiction governments of this nation had no capacity to do. Our Constitutions secure that the governments do not govern the people rather they govern themselves in accord with the limits of Law. The people govern themselves. Such is the foundational nature of our Constitutional Republic.
15th: By 1972, every State government in the union of States had formed such private corporations
(Corp. State), in accord with the IMF admonition, and the people ceased to seat original jurisdiction government officials in their State government seats.
Now, having stated these historical facts, we ask you not to believe us,
but rather prove these facts for yourself.
We then ask you to contact us and share your discovery with us.
When you find there is no error in this historical outline,
then remember these simple facts and let no one dissuade you from the truth.
The Bottom Line: when you speak about these private foreign corporations
remember that is what they are and stop calling them government.
Further, it is very important that we cease to attempt to fix them.
It is far more important that we learn how to reseat our original jurisdiction government and spread the word about the truth. By reseating our State and national governments in their original jurisdiction nature, we gain the capacity to hold these private foreign corporations accountable.
They owe us a lot of money, in fact they owe us more money than there is available in the world.
In fact it is impossible for them to pay and that gives us the leverage we need to take back our nation and put things right. The process is a simple one. The difficulty is in getting our people to wake up to the truth. That's why we ask you to prove the truth for yourself and contact us with your discovery. That means that you must stop acting and communicating like you are anything other than the sovereign that God created you to be.
And, stop referring to Corp. U.S. or the STATE OF 'X' as anything other than the private foreign corporations that they are. And, finally, stop listening to the Bigfoot Patriot Mythology that is espoused by those that only give these facts lip service.
It's time to wake up and follow the truth, time to repent and become a moral and honorable society instead of lauding our Piety while we stand guilty of:
a) not knowing the truth;
b) not living the truth;
c) believing God will save us even though we have the tools to know the truth the ability to use the tools but we refuse to live by the truth and use the tools we have to save ourselves and thereby become free.
The biggest problem with that get all excited about uniting against the tyranny of Corp. U.S. is that they are blind to the truth having no remedy so they bail out of "the system" hell bent for a rebellion even the scripture says cannot be won with conventional weapons of war. Would that we could instead follow the admonition of the King of Kings and unite with truth to legally, lawfully and peacefully reseat our original jurisdiction government thereby taking back the control our nation in accord with law.
L.T. Oates-Ambassador for South Carolina free state
Please sign up on your states link at
Media Relations: (269) 978-5630
Fax: (949) 416-2623
How to Sign up On-Line: http://republicoftheunitedstates.org/user/register
April 9th, 2012 by olddog
Written by Gary North on April 9, 2012
The man in charge of the Federal Reserve’s infamous “operation Twist” has just announced that he is quitting. At age 41, hardly anyone quits the FED.
He is at the New York FED, the privately owned branch that is in charge of executing Federal Reserve policy, His name is Brian Sack.
He is the head of the markets group at the NY FED.
He has overseen Operation Twist, whereby the FED buys long-term U.S. government bonds to force down long-term interest rates. This is a subsidy to the mortgage market.
Operation Twist is set to expire on the day Sack retires: January 29.
Will the FED begin a new round of monetary inflation? Or will the FED unwind these positions by selling these bonds?
I think the answers are yes and no. Yes, tyhe FED will inflate. No, it will not unwind.
“I’m dumbfounded,” said Raymond Stone, co-founder of Stone & McCarthy Research Associates, which closely tracks Fed policy. “He laid the groundwork for a lot of things the Fed has done and communicated clearly to the market. He did an excellent job in a difficult environment.”
The FED runs bailouts. Yet this FED official is bailing out.
What does he think is coming?
I have no clue what he thinks is coming, but this is what I think is coming. Those who are invested in Bonds are going to experience a blood bath, the dollar will only be used as toilet paper, commodities will soar, food will disappear form the normal distribution, transportation will come to a screeching halt, people unprepared will panic, martial law will be welcomed by the dull and ignorant, the military will be providing transportation to the death camps, and those of us who have prepared and ready to die protecting our homes will be slaughtered. Expatriation takes more time than we have left, so ammo up and hunker down.
April 5th, 2012 by olddog
By Doug Hagmann
On Saturday, March 31, 2012, a press conference was held by a commissioned law enforcement body to present additional findings from their investigation into the bona fides and background of a man currently occupying the highest elected position in America. The investigation not only includes the forensic irregularities of the birth documentation submitted by Barack Hussein Obama, but into two additional areas. The official law enforcement investigation is also encompassing problems confirmed to exist with the authenticity of his selective service registration, a matter we’ve previously reported. Additionally and perhaps more explosive, investigation has broadened into the actions of Hillary Clinton and her closest political operatives during the latter part of the 2008 presidential campaign.
Most people following this issue are aware of the irregularities surrounding Obama’s selective service registration. Yet few appear to be aware that detectives from the Arizona investigative team have been methodically securing affidavits documenting alleged criminal activity by the Obama campaign during the 2008 Democratic Party primary.
“Something” happened during the latter portion of the campaign that involved Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama. Recall that Obama and Clinton ditched the press and their respective staff members to meet in secret during the late night hours of Thursday, June 5, 2008, at the home of Senator Dianne Feinstein. The meeting lasted about an hour, and what was discussed was never publicly disclosed.
The expansion of the official investigation is being deliberately ignored by the mainstream media, including outlets often identified with the conservative agenda. Evidence suggests that this deliberate media “blackout” is being orchestrated and ordered at the highest levels of the American government.
Preliminary investigative findings
On March 1, 2012, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio held a press conference to announce their preliminary findings of a six-month long investigation into the legitimacy of Barack Hussein Obama’s long form birth certificate that was published on the White House website on April 27, 2011. At that press conference, Sheriff Arpaio stated that the official investigation, conducted by seasoned and sworn law enforcement officers, found “probable cause to believe that the [document] is a computer generated forgery.” Arpaio added: “I do not believe that it is a scan of an original 1961 paper document, as represented by the White House when the long-form birth certificate was made public.” [Emphasis added].
I’ve spoken at length with lead Detective Mike Zullo in my capacity as an investigator before and after that initial press conference. It is clear that the objective of his team of seasoned and sworn law enforcement officers is to seek and expose the truth about Obama’s background and legal qualifications for the highest office in the land, wherever it might lead. Authenticated evidence of any type, including exculpatory evidence is being sought as well.
Detective Zullo confirmed, however, that their efforts are being obstructed by government officials, and publicly marginalized by the media. Based on most recent investigative findings, government agencies have blocked legitimate subpoena efforts, or worse, might have altered or destroyed evidence with apparent impunity.
Such actions or inactions of government agencies in this regard should give pause to even the most ardent detractors of the eligibility matter if they were at all interested in the truth.
Threats to the media
We were perhaps the first to document and report the threats to the media in a columnpublished on August 4, 2009, citing evidence we obtained dating back to late 2008.Information provided here over two years ago was publicly confirmed by lead investigator Mike Zullo in a March 22, 2012 interview published this week by the Western Center for Journalism. Excerpted from that report:
The executive producers of the national show, 3 hours before air time, pulled the script, literally leaving the temporary host with no script whatsoever.
For a nationally syndicated show, this is absolutely unheard of, particularly with a fill-in doing the show. Programing [sic] is scheduled days in advance as hours of work and preparation often go into them; it is after all a business and one which must inform accurately. To have a script tossed just hours before airing is simply not done without explanation or substitution.
Lead Investigator Zullo revealed in this conversation that several individuals have come forth to provide testimony; the identity of these witnesses is being withheld for their protection. They identify producers, reporters, T.V. and radio personalities who have been told specifically by intimidating individuals who state clearly, they are not going to report on this story. These witnesses have been told: “If you breathe a word about it on air, we will make certain you never work in this business again,” said Investigator Zullo. Apparently those making the threats have the power to carry through on them.
Some of these witnesses have been told this along with a sinister inquiry into how a family member is doing over at XYZ (details have been changed to protect witness identity), or some other means of letting that person know the powers that be know exactly where their family members are…
As also confirmed by law enforcement, our investigation has found that the threats to the media have taken several forms. At the highest of corporate levels, it appears that government agencies such as the FCC, the FTC and even the IRS are being used to force parent companies into compliance with the administration’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” warnings. Complicity reigns in other cases where contributions buy exclusives, the mainstay of mainstream media. And in others, it simply comes down to something that can be termed “presstitution,” or the act of acquiescence to keep their positions and lifestyles in exchange for their silence.
Perhaps the most insidious threats of all, however, involve individuals working in the media but are not in the limelight, yet could provide information about the activities behind the scenes intrinsic to the media’s complicity. As detailed above by Detective Zullo, threats do not stop at the specter of unemployment, but extend to the well-being of their families.
Threats to Sheriff Joe Arpaio
In the midst of the investigation spearheaded by Sheriff Arpaio’s team, the Obama justice department has ratcheted up its legal campaign against the Sheriff for enforcing the law against illegal aliens within his jurisdiction. This is a shameful tactic being employed by the Holder Justice Department under orders by the Obama administration.
Out on a limb
Findings by the commissioned law enforcement body have been met with a campaign of propaganda short on facts but heavy on baseless ridicule and hollow charges of racism. Such tactics should come as no surprise.
A 2009 Christmas ornament on the White House Christmas tree featured a picture of Mao Zedong, communist leader of China in the twentieth century. The reign of Mao Zedong was facilitated by the communist government’s use of propaganda and media censorship. While the White House and their own “Ministry of Propaganda,” Media Matters, trivialized the existence of a communist in the White House, former White House Communications Director Anita Dunn proudly embraced Mao as one of her favorite political philosophers in a speech she delivered the previous June.
Anyone with the most basic knowledge of history can see the tactics used to refute valid concerns about the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama are quite consistent with the tactics of Mao’s oppressive regime. It is apparent that the Mao Christmas ornament did not fall from the White House tree.
Who is really occupying the Oval Office?
The Arizona investigative team of commissioned law enforcement officers found probable cause that the most basic of all forms of identity for the man sitting in the Oval Office, the birth certificate of Barack Hussein Obama II, is a computer generated forgery. Think about that for a moment. The document that has the imprimatur of the Obama White House is likely a forgery.
Furthermore, that document was posted only after Obama authorized his legal team to fight against any release of his identification papers that also include his school and passport records, among others. The fight did not come without a cost. Estimates of legal expenses to prevent disclosure of identifying documents are well into the seven figures.
Despite such effort and expense, some well-known analysts and pundits want us to believe that Obama was “playing” his enemies with a needless diversion, claiming that the eligibility issue was nothing more than a distraction from “real” issues. Many others have since folded with the release of the purported “real” birth certificate released last April, stating that the matter is closed.
To accept that the matter should be rendered moot with the release of the Obama authorized document, one must then admit that the initial document presented by Obama sanctioned myth-busting sites was not legitimate.
Others simply choose to remain silent, or believe the answer is to “vote Obama out” in November. Is that how we now address possible criminal activity at the highest levels of government? If so, I would submit that Richard Nixon is owed an apology, posthumously.
As unbelievable as it sounds, it is a fact that the actual legal identity of the individual who has occupied the office of the President of the United States for the last 3-1/2 years remains a very legitimate and valid question. It is also a fact that this individual has used Barry Soetoro as his legal name, and there has been no authenticated evidence to show that he legally changed it back to Barack Hussein Obama II at any time during his adult life.
To Russia with love?
If the issue of Obama’s legal identity seems trivial and a fringe issue in the scheme of things, consider the path this country has taken over the last three-and-a-half years. Even more frightening, consider the path not yet taken.
A window into that path was opened by a “hot” microphone that captured Obama’s utterances to Russian President Dmitri Medvedev on March 26, 2012. The world heard Obama say that he would have more flexibility in his second term to adjust our missile defense program to the better liking of the Russians.
The media turned this insight into his plans for the defense of our allies and homeland into tongue-in-cheek reports, downplaying the significance of his statements.
No one in the media or elsewhere are making any connection to a very peculiar 2005 incident involving Obama, a junior Senator and member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Richard Lugar, a Republican Senator from Illinois and chairman of that committee, and the Russian FSB.
During their travels to Russia for the purposes of nuclear disarmament talks, the delegation was detained at the Russian airport of Perm by the FSB for about three hours in August 2005. The Russian FSB confiscated Barack Hussein Obama’s passport. Initial reports indicated an irregularity with his passport, although subsequent reports downplayed the incident. What was the real reason for this very strange detention, and what does the FSB know about Obama’s passport that Americans have been prevented to see?
Over the objections of career politicians, race bating progressive attack dogs, intellectually dishonest political pundits and a compromised media, it should be very clear by now that it is in the best interest of this country for the truth to revealed about Barack Hussein Obama II, or is it Barry Soetoro?
The survival of our nation is at stake.
April 2nd, 2012 by olddog
By Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh
Let the influx of money be ever so great, if there be no confidence, property will sink in value…The circulation of confidence is better than the circulation of money.” —James Madison, Speech, Virginia Convention, June 20, 1788
According to data from the University of Illinois professors Lawrence H. Officer and Samuel H. Williamson, the value of the dollar had depreciated so much by 2008 that it took $5.31 to buy what it cost $1 in 1971 when Nixon decided that the dollar would no longer be backed by gold. Until then, $35 could buy a troy ounce of gold every day. Our dollar today is worth less than 19 cents when compared to 1971 and the price of gold fluctuates between $1,500-1,700 per ounce.
Between February 2002 and December 2004, the value of the dollar dropped against the euro by 40 percent, a significant decline that was largely ignored by the media. (William J. Baumol and Alan S. Blinder)
The U.S. dollar has continued its decline in spite of the rosy economic picture presented by the MSM in the last four years.
Members of Congress cannot claim ignorance about the declining trend of the U.S. dollar because Craig K. Elwell, a specialist in Macroeconomic Policy, wrote a report on February 23, 2012 for the Congressional Research Service, “The Depreciating Dollar: Economic Effects and Policy Response.”
Any currency, including the dollar, is affected by demand from foreign governments, foreign nationals, or foreign corporations who wish to purchase goods, services, and assets from the country that issues the currency.
In order to buy our stocks, bonds, real estate, goods, and services, foreigners must first buy our currency, thus creating a demand for it.
The supply of dollars comes from the Federal Reserve System (the Fed) who prints money or issues electronic credit to its member banks. Transactions are made directly in cash or electronically in the form of debit and credit through the bank of the buyer and seller of currency.
If we have a large trade deficit with other nations, and we do because we usually import more goods than we do export, the value of the dollar decreases. The dollar decreases in value as a direct response to the “net increase in the supply of dollars on the foreign exchange markets.” (Craig K. Elwell)
A net increase in the demand for dollars on foreign exchange markets can increase the value of the dollar.
According to Craig K. Elwell, in 2007, “at the peak of the last economic expansion, the U.S. capital account recorded $1.5 trillion in purchases of foreign assets by U.S. residents (representing a capital outflow) and $2.1 trillion in purchases of U.S. assets by foreign residents (representing a capital inflow).”
Congress cannot affect exchange rates directly, but the value of the dollar “can be affected by decisions made on policy issues facing the 112th Congress, including decisions related to generating jobs, raising the debt limit, reducing the budget deficit, and stabilizing the growth of the federal government’s long-term debt.” (Craig K. Elwell)
In other words, stop regulating the remaining U.S. industry to death while destroying small businesses that create jobs. Stop the non-existent man-made global warming nonsense. Everyone knows that politicians want power; it is not about the environment. Stop catering to the United Nations third world dictatorships. Stop wasting taxpayers’ dollars on solar panel black holes, invest in natural gas, clean coal, nuclear, and fossil fuel generated energy. Stop the non-existent green job creation lie, the Tesla “brick,” and the GM Volt electric car that nobody wants to buy. We want mobility. Stop sending our jobs overseas. Stop building corporate headquarters and entire industrial cities in China or India with U.S. dollars. Stop spending money we do not have. Stop borrowing money from China in order to spend it on wars, welfare, policing the planet, and supporting third world dictatorships who wish us harm. We are not Don Quixote de la Mancha “tilting at windmills,” attacking an imaginary enemy. We want to build a successful future, not the pipe dream of progressives.
Investors look for countries with a stable government, a high rate of return, good economic growth, and low inflation rates to park their excess capital. During the period of 1994-2003, U.S. had an expected rate of return of 8.6 percent (International Monetary Fund).
Current low interest rates in the U.S., kept so by Fed policy, give the U.S. no interest rate advantage over other developed countries. It is thus in the better interest of investors to move their capital to emerging economies, putting a further strain on the U.S. dollar.
If the dollar was expected to depreciate further due to a weak economy and out-of-control government spending, dollar assets would not be attractive to investors, they would seek new ways to diversify. By doing so, the value of the dollar would be eroded even more. “Diversifying to other currencies would be troublesome for the $11 trillion in U.S. securities held by foreigners.” (Craig K. Elwell)
The dollar is currently holding on because U.S. has a high degree of liquidity (securities can be turned quickly into cash with a daily turnover of $588 billion) and a variety of assets such as the bond market ($32 trillion total, $11 trillion government bonds).
Although the United States has been a safe bet in the past for foreign investors, as the largest debtor in the world, the federal government is now a default risk because of its lavish spending, which can downgrade Treasury securities and thus weaken the dollar.
Long-term assets are no longer seen as safe in the U.S. The dollar dropped 17 percent in value during 2009-2011. The European Union debt crisis in 2011-2012 with the potential default of Greece, its two bailouts, Italy’s bailout, Spain and Ireland, and the austerity measures demanded by Germany and France, gave the U.S. dollar a boost in value of 5 percent.
Central bank holdings are propping the U.S. dollar for the time being, in particular China with $3.2 trillion in exchange reserves, and Japan with $1.3 trillion.
The rising inflation rate in this country is depreciating the dollar as well. The purchasing power of the dollar is falling. All you have to do is take a trip to Italy. Prices are 44 percent higher not necessarily because of higher manufacturing costs, but simply because the exchange rate of the dollar against the euro is so weak.
A depreciated dollar will indirectly cause interest rates to go up. Current Federal Reserve policy is to keep interest rates low as a “monetary stimulus.” Despite low interest rates, demand for loans by small businesses and households is low because so many people are unemployed and businesses do not wish to expand in an economy burdened by expensive regulations and the specter of Obamacare liabilities. The Fed policy cannot successfully control both exchange rates and interest rates.
“The IMF study estimated that if the dollar had remained at its peak of early 2002, by the end of 2007, the price of gold would have been $250 per ounce lower, the price of a barrel of crude oil would have been $25 a barrel lower, and nonfuel commodity prices would have been 12 percent lower.” (Craig K. Elwell)
When the President says that nothing that we do can affect the price of oil, even if we drill everywhere, he is disingenuous. We can start by repealing the unfortunately named Affordable Healthcare Act that is bankrupting the country. We can drill on our own soil. We can implement logical and sane energy policies that restore the health of the U.S. economy and foreign investors’ trust in our government. The dollar is still the world’s “reserve currency.” China and Russia are trying to replace the dollar with another currency as trust in our government’s fiscal responsibility is waning.
Just maybe, after it’s too late, some of you will believe this is a planned depreciation of the dollar to remove it as a reserve currency and transfer economic leadership to china’s currency. Or, just a step in the process of a global currency from the BIS
March 31st, 2012 by olddog
I UNDERSTAND THE READER MAY NOT BE INTERESTED IN WHAT YOU MAY ASSUME IS DULL STATISTICS. HOWEVER, YOU SHOULD BE INTERESTED IN FINDING OUT WHAT A BUNCH OF THIEVES YOUR GOVERNMENT IS. READ ON!
Want answers? Rate of Mortgage Foreclosures?
Well then, here they are:
1. Collective government (local and federal) is the #1 investors in the majority of the mortgages. Government does so by being the #1 investor with the banks; mortgage institutions; mortgage security fund pools; etc. We are talking a few trillion-dollars in “collective” totals.
2. Since the bubble burst in 2008, the government investment funds have been creating specialty funds with names like: “Residential Real-estate Opportunity Fund” ; “Residential Real-estate Rollover Fund” ; “Commercial Property Opportunity Fund” ; and so on, so on into ad-nauseous. They have used these investment funds to take over residential and commercial property at pennies on the dollar (10c to 40c on the dollar).
Thousands if not hundreds-of-thousands of properties each year since 2008 which they can now sell at 80c on the dollar or lease / rent out to other parties. These specialty investment funds have been “very” profitable, of which creates the LARGEST conflict of interest per the judicial or administrative cooperating with the financial institutions to kick the late pay home owner out of their houses on to the streets. Boils down to nothing other than systematic theft in a symbiotic relationship to perpetuate theft-by-taking.
[ It is kind of like Foxes bringing a chicken rancher to court being that the rancher objected to the Foxes eating chickens from his coop, and the case will be decided by the fox’s extended family (the judges) to determine the only issue to be allowed at the table, with that being: if the rancher is to be fined; jailed; or forfeit his chicken coop to the Foxes. ]
3. It is part of the communist manifesto that all real property is to be owned by the state. The state has mover this along over the last forty-years with the first phase being the implementation of Property-Tax. Any party subject to property-tax is truly but a renter and not a true owner. If they do not pay their rent, their property will be stolen from them.
The housing market bubble burst at the end of 2008 was no accident. It was a staged take-over to the tune of trillions of dollars in less than two-months at the end of 2008. Derivatives were used to pull that one off and the profits were accomplished by and through government institutional accounts positioned “Globally”.
Since that time government institutional investment accounts and funds have focused on buying up the real property at 10cto 40c on the dollar. Trillions of dollars of property in collective totals:
TREASON: “Treason doth never prosper; what’s the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it treason.” Sir John Harrington, 1561-1612
To view a few of these new government institutional property take-over accounts, Google your local government state pension fund CAFR. The investments broken up into categories both domestic and international are easily seen there being that the pension funds are still required to list every investment held.
As an easy reference to view the New York State retirement fund or CALSTERS, they can be viewed at the following links – http://cafr1.com/CALSTRS.html andhttp://cafr1.com/NYSR.html
4. In many local venues when property-tax was implemented, safeguards were put into place to keep the local government from seizing your property if you became six-months or one-year in the arrears. In most venues the local government was restricted from going after your property, and could do so if you became four-years in the arrears.
Local governments got around this time restriction by modifying how mortgages were written. The new mortgages make the lending institution responsible for collecting the property tax in with the monthly mortgage payment. Here if you do not pay the property tax and fall delinquent on your mortgage, the financial institution can in six months move for eviction and the courts put their stamp of approval on it.
The intent and motive for that quick stamp of approval is based on nothing other that self interest to perpetuate their own investment return and move a new body in who will stay current on paying the property-tax assessed and mortgage payments that government through the back door owns by investment in the first place.
5. How do you get the full and complete cooperation of government on issues that are contrary to the public’s interest?
ANSWER: Give government the largest cut of the profit for doing so.
Again: TREASON: “Treason doth never prosper; what’s the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it treason.” Sir John Harrington, 1561-1612
Walter Burien – CAFR1.com
FACT: The state Treasurer's offices also run Investment Pools…these reside OUTSIDE of the State Budgets…they get interest … which are posted in the Bank of New York…and legislators lie about their existence. Walt Burien discovered them in New Jersey during 1996, brought the facts out to the public, which continues to "doubt" their existence….bunch of dummies who refuse to read the actual accounts.
FACT: Now, we learn about another investment pool that uses FEES gathered by the Courts….all with silence from Congress…which means it has Congressional approval.
QUESTION: Why does the "government" want to arrest you? [HINT: It wants your money….]
Do not bother your legislators with your opinion, because they are not listening to you…AND…For the Record, resistance is futile.
R.E. Sutherland, M.Ed./sciences
Freelance Investigative Science Reporter
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: "email@example.com © ™ original works" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2012 11:30:18 -0500
Subject: CRIS MISC COURT REGISTRY INVESTMENT SYSTEM & MISC
*Court Registry Investment System*
Back in 1990, Federal judges and clerks down in South Texas got to thinking "Damn, with all the fees lying around, shouldn't we invest it and make some money off it?"
Pretty soon, they cooked up the Court Registry Investment System (CRIS), on the recommendation of financial analyst (now Clerk) Mike Milby, and with permission of the U.S. Treasury and Federal Reserve Board of Governors.
The pooled funds never actually leave the US Treasury account in the Texas Commerce Bank of Houston because the Bank invests them in US Treasury Bills through CRIS investment managers at JP Morgan. Thus all 25 member US Court Districts always have funds available to disburse for their various purposes.
Not only does the court have several billion dollars in the pool and over a billion dollars invested at any one time, but also it earns upwards of a million dollars a month in interest alone. And it charges a registry fee of upwards of 10% for managing the investment (rather than taking the fees out of earnings). Member District Courts share proportionately in CRIS earnings.
See the US COURTS press release on CRIS
see Google links
I have attached a RAR archive containing documents. If you cannot open it, get and use WinRAR <http://rarlabs.com/> or Jzip <http://jzip.com/> or 7zip<http://www.7-zip.org/> .
See the 1990 documents (attached) establishing CRIS in the South Texas USDC below. 25 Districts share it:
Amended Order Establishing the Court Registry Investment System (CRIS) – Term Fund View PDF <http://www.txs.uscourts.gov/district/genord/1990/1990-48.pdf>
Memorandum of Procedures for Investment and Allocating Earnings on Assets of the United States District Court View PDF <http://www.txs.uscourts.gov/district/genord/1990/1990-47.pdf>
Order Establishing the Court Registry Investment System (CRIS) – Term Fund View PDF <http://www.txs.uscourts.gov/district/genord/1990/1990-46.pdf>
Order for Assessment of a Management Fee on Funds Placed in the Court Registry View PDF <http://www.txs.uscourts.gov/district/genord/1990/1990-45.pdf>
The order establishing CRIS says this:
Registry deposits with known disbursement horizons exceeding 100 days require an investment strategy of purchasing longer term U. S. Treasury Securities.
The CRIS-Term Fund meets this need. The objectives of the CRIS-Term Fund in order of importance are: 1) to assure the safety of Registry Funds; 2) to maintain sufficient quarterly liquidity to provide adequate and timely disbursement of funds as directed by the court, and 3) to achieve the highest rate of return consistent with objectives 1 and 2.
The Clerk, U. S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas is ORDERED to establish the CRIS-Term Fund. The initial CRIS-Term Fund investments shall be one year U. S. Treasury Securities or multiple U. S. Treasury securities, which have an average maturity and an average yield approximately equal to one year U.
S. Treasury Securities. The CRIS-Term Fund shall provide a minimum of quarterly liquidity, unless a special order of disbursement from a participating court is entered.
Subsequent investments shall meet the CRIS-Term Fund objectives and shall be made with judgment and care, under circumstances then prevailing, that persons of prudence, discretion and intelligence would exercise in the management of their own affairs.
DONE at Houston, Texas, on this the day of December, 1990.
United States District Court
The amended order above says this (interesting)
On December 27, 1990, a General Order was entered under Number 90-46 establish @ Registry investment System (CRIS)-Term Fund which is companion to the existing CRIS Liquidity Fund. This Fund is egtablished to meet the unique requirements of the Court Of the Southern District of New York to invest, manage and disburse large sums on deposit in 88 Civ 6209 (S/D NY) styled Securities and Exchange Commission vs. Drexel, Burnham, Lambert; et al- Upon the request of Michael R. Milken and the presiding judge of the Court of the Southern District of New York, Order No. 90-46 is amended to include the following language; it is hereby ORDERED that the funds and their investments on deposit in the CRIS shall, under the supervision of the Court of the Southern District of New York, be available solely for utilization pursuant to, and in furtherance of the purposes described in, the Final Judgment of permanent injunction and other relief as to Michael R.
Milken, in said Court.
DONE at Houston, Texas, on this the 29th day of December, 1990.
The order assessing a registry management fee of 10% says this:
Under the notice in the October 24, 1990 edition of the Federal Register, Vol. 55, No. 206, at Page 42887.
It is ORDERED that the Clerk assess the registry management fee at a rate equal to ten percent (10%) of the total earnings for funds deposited on or after December 1, 1990. The fee shall be assessed each time earnings are allocated to the Court's registry of pooled accounts and other interest bearing accounts, beginning December 1, 1990 and continuing while the funds are held in the Court's registry. The fee will be assessed for all funds invested regardless of the nature of the case underlying the investment. The Clerk shall assess a fee equivalent to the first 45 days earnings or one-eight percent of earnings on an annual basis for funds deposited prior to December 1, 1990.
ADOPTED by the Full Court this day of 1990.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
The above-linked document shows how federal courts earn interest on the money they receive in fees, fines, etc. Basically they invest the money, presumably on petition from the payor, through the South Texas USDC CRIS.
Procedures begin on page 36.
Pages 44 through 59 provide flow charts showing how CRIS administers the money through JP Morgan (which gets a nice fee for the service).
Page 64 contains the excerpt from the Federal Register
Pages 65 and 66 give the CRIS investment pool summary for 2006
If you have a more recent report, send it to me.
And now, some questions:
– Do you suppose the investment managers securitized the investment fund?
– Shouldn't the investment fund reduce the amount of fees the people must
pay for court services, transcripts, PACER, and so on?
– When you pay fines or fees, should you designate them to go into CRIS
– If you do designate them for CRIS, will YOU receive the earnings?
– Should you write to your legislators about this?
MORE OLDDOG COMMENTS
Surely by now, you do believe the investigators logic is “FOLLOW THE MONEY” and “CRITICAL THINKING”. SO, ask your self, since the government is a profit seeking business and not just legislators and bureaucrats’ WHO GET’S THE PROFITS? WE SURE AS HELL DON’T! Now is a good time to further investigate the claims that America really is a privately controlled corporation, for funneling the riches of American Enterprise back to the International Investment Banking Cartel, and the Vatican. Our money is going somewhere folks, and this theory is as creditable as any out there. WOULD YOU NOT WANT TO FIND OUT WHO RAPED AND MURDERED YOUR BEAUTIFUL INNOCENT DAUGHTER? Apathy, in the face of imminent disaster is inexcusable!
Since you will not believe what I have published on this subject, go and find out for your self, WHERE IS THE MONEY?
March 16th, 2012 by olddog
Michael Snyder, The Economic Collapse
Would America be a better place without Goldman Sachs? Of course it would. The "vampire squid" of Wall Street does not care about the future of America. Sadly, Goldman Sachs apparently does not even care much about their own clients. What Goldman Sachs is all about is making as much money as humanly possible. In the end, there is nothing wrong with making money, but there are constructive ways to make money and there are destructive ways to make money.
Unfortunately, Goldman Sachs seems to find the destructive path almost irresistible. Greg Smith, the head of the U.S. equity derivatives business for Goldman Sachs in Europe, the Middle East and Africa made headlines all over the world on Wednesday when he resigned publicly from Goldman Sachs in a scorching editorial in the New York Times.
Smith said that he could "honestly say that the environment now is as toxic and destructive as I have ever seen it". Considering what we know has gone on at Goldman over the past decade, that is very frightening to hear. So could this be the beginning of the end for Goldman Sachs? And if it is, will America be a better place when Goldman is gone?
You would think that at some point clients of Goldman would become so sick and tired of the stories of corruption coming out of the firm that they would simply walk away.
Unfortunately, corruption is so endemic on Wall Street that Goldman Sachs really does not seem out of place. The truth is that a lot of the things that are said about Goldman could also be said about JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup and Morgan Stanley.
But in recent years Goldman Sachs has truly become a national symbol of what is wrong with our financial system. As the American people become fed up with institutions such as Goldman, hopefully we will start to see some of them disappear.
The following are 11 reasons why America would be a better place without Goldman Sachs….
#1 Even after all of the negative publicity we have seen in recent years, Goldman Sachs appears to not have learned any lessons. The following is how Greg Smith described the three ways to get ahead at Goldman Sachs….
"What are three quick ways to become a leader? a) Execute on the firm’s “axes,” which is Goldman-speak for persuading your clients to invest in the stocks or other products that we are trying to get rid of because they are not seen as having a lot of potential profit. b) “Hunt Elephants.” In English: get your clients — some of whom are sophisticated, and some of whom aren’t — to trade whatever will bring the biggest profit to Goldman. Call me old-fashioned, but I don’t like selling my clients a product that is wrong for them. c) Find yourself sitting in a seat where your job is to trade any illiquid, opaque product with a three-letter acronym."
#2 Goldman Sachs is one of the too big to fail banks and those banks just keeping getting bigger than ever. Back in 2002, the top 10 U.S. banks controlled 55 percent of all U.S. banking assets. Today, the top 10 U.S. banks control 77 percent of all U.S. banking assets. So if we couldn't afford to let them fail back in 2008 because they were so big, why did we allow them to become even larger?
#3 The Federal Reserve shows great favoritism to big Wall Street banks such as Goldman Sachs. For example, between December 1, 2007 and July 21, 2010 the Federal Reserve made 814 billion dollars in secret loans to Goldman Sachs.
#4 Goldman Sachs is at the heart of the derivatives bubble that threatens to throw the entire global financial system into chaos. At this point, Goldman Sachs has over 53 trillion dollars of exposure to derivatives.
According to the New York Times, the big Wall Street banks completely control derivatives trading. In fact, the New York Times says that representatives from JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America and Citigroup hold a secretive meeting each month to coordinate their domination over the derivatives market….
On the third Wednesday of every month, the nine members of an elite Wall Street society gather in Midtown Manhattan.
The men share a common goal: to protect the interests of big banks in the vast market for derivatives, one of the most profitable — and controversial — fields in finance. They also share a common secret: The details of their meetings, even their identities, have been strictly confidential.
#5 Goldman Sachs was at the very heart of the financial crisis of 2008 which plunged the entire global economy into a very deep recession. In the years leading up to the financial crisis of 2008, Goldman Sachs was putting together mortgage-backed securities that they knew were garbage and they marketed them to investors as AAA-rated investments. On top of that, Goldman then often made huge bets against those exact same securities which turned out to be extremely profitable when those securities crashed and burned.
The following is how the New York Times described what was going on at the time….
"Goldman was not the only firm that peddled these complex securities — known as synthetic collateralized debt obligations, or C.D.O.’s — and then made financial bets against them, called selling short in Wall Street parlance. Others that created similar securities and then bet they would fail, according to Wall Street traders, include Deutsche Bank and Morgan Stanley, as well as smaller firms like Tricadia Inc."
Sylvain Raynes, an expert in structured finance at R & R Consulting in New York, said at the time that he was absolutely shocked by what Goldman was doing….
"The simultaneous selling of securities to customers and shorting them because they believed they were going to default is the most cynical use of credit information that I have ever seen"
#6 Goldman Sachs played a huge role in getting Greece, Italy and several other European nations into so much debt. The following is an excerpt from an article by Andrew Gavin Marshall….
In the same way that homeowners take out a second mortgage to pay off their credit card debt, Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan Chase and other U.S. banks helped push government debt far into the future through the derivatives market. This was done in Greece, Italy, and likely several other euro-zone countries as well. In several dozen deals in Europe, “banks provided cash upfront in return for government payments in the future, with those liabilities then left off the books.” Because the deals are not listed as loans, they are not listed as debt (liabilities), and so the true debt of Greece and other euro-zone countries was and likely to a large degree remains hidden. Greece effectively mortgaged its airports and highways to the major banks in order to get cash up-front and keep the loans off the books, classifying them as transactions.
#7 Goldman Sachs is working very hard to help state and local governments sell off our highways, water treatment plants, libraries, parking meters, airports and power plants to the highest bidder. Much of the time foreigners are the highest bidders for these precious infrastructure assets.
The following is how Dylan Ratigan described what is going on….
On Wall Street, setting up and running “Infrastructure Funds” is big business, with over $140 billion run by such banks as Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and Australian infrastructure specialist Macquarie. Goldman’s 2010 SEC filing should give you some sense of the scope of the campaign. Goldman says it will be involved with “ownership and operation of public services, such as airports, toll roads and shipping ports, as well as power generation facilities, physical commodities and other commodities infrastructure components, both within and outside the United States.” While the bank sees increased opportunity in “distressed assets” (ie. Cities and states gone broke because of the financial crisis), the bank also recognizes “reputational concerns with the manner in which these assets are being operated or held.”
#8 At the same time that Goldman Sachs is causing all sorts of trouble for everyone else, their employees are making crazy amounts of money. During 2010, employees of Goldman Sachs brought in more than 15 billion dollars in total compensation.
#9 Goldman Sachs has way too much influence over the federal government. There is a reason why it is commonly referred to as "Government Sachs". No matter who is the White House, people that used to work for Goldman and other big Wall Street banks always seem to be crawling around.
Last year, Michael Brenner wrote the following about the composition of the Obama administration….
Wall Street's takeover of the Obama administration is now complete. The mega-banks and their corporate allies control every economic policy position of consequence. Mr. Obama has moved rapidly since the November debacle to install business people where it counts most. Mr.William Daley from JP Morgan Chase as White House Chief of Staff. Mr. Gene Sperling from the Goldman Sachs payroll to be director of the National Economic Council. Eileen Rominger from Goldman Sachs named director of the SEC's Investment Management division. Even the National Security Advisor, Thomas Donilon, was executive vice president for law and policy at the disgraced Fannie Mae after serving as a corporate lobbyist with O'Melveny & Roberts. The keystone of the business friendly team was put in place on Friday. General Electric Chairman and CEO Jeffrey Immelt will serve as chair of the president's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness.
#10 Employees from Goldman Sachs pour way too much money into our national elections. In 2008, donations from individuals and organizations affiliated with Goldman Sachs donated more than a million dollars to Barack Obama. This time around they are pouring huge amounts of cash into Mitt Romney's campaign.
#11 Goldman Sachs is still a "vampire squid" as Matt Taibbi once so famously proclaimed in Rolling Stone….
"The first thing you need to know about Goldman Sachs is that it's everywhere. The world's most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money. In fact, the history of the recent financial crisis, which doubles as a history of the rapid decline and fall of the suddenly swindled dry American empire, reads like a Who's Who of Goldman Sachs graduates."
Once again, there is nothing wrong with making money.
And there is certainly nothing wrong with working in the financial system.
But there is a right way to do things and there is a wrong way to do things.
Goldman Sachs is doing things very much the wrong way, and America would be a better place without them.
Remember this statement! The day will come when American’s will wonder why they did not demand a covert strike on the Investment Bankers, for if any human being deserves to die at the hand of justice it is these scumbags In the International Investment Banking Cartel. They are directly responsible for more atrocities than anyone who has lived in the history of civilization. Roasting them in public is not enough pain to compensate for what they have done. Hitler, and Stalin were saints in comparison to them.
March 15th, 2012 by olddog
Also read Bank of America Too Crooked to Fail at http://anationbeguiled.wordpress.com
In a story that should be getting lots of attention, American Banker has released an excellent and disturbing exposé of J.P. Morgan Chase's credit card services division, relying on multiple current and former Chase employees. One of them, Linda Almonte, is a whistleblower whom I've known since last September; I'm working on a recount of her story for my next book.
One of the things we were promised by the lawmakers who passed the Dodd-Frank reform bill a few years back is that this would be a new era for whistleblowers who come forward to tell the world about problems in our financial infrastructure. This story now looms as a test case for that proposition. American Banker reporter Jeff Horwitz did an outstanding job in this story detailing the sweeping irregularities in-house at Chase, but his very thoroughness means the news may have ramifications for Linda, which is why I'm urging people to pay attention to this story in the upcoming weeks.
The Cliff's Notes version of the story goes something like this: Late in 2009, Chase's credit card services division sold a parcel of nearly $200 million worth of credit card judgments to a debt collector at a discount. This common practice in the credit-card industry is a little like a bookie selling the outstanding debts of his delinquent gamblers to a leg-breaker for 25 cents on the dollar. If the leg-breaker gets half the delinquents to pay, the deal works out for both sides — the bookie gets 25 percent of money he wasn't going to collect, and the leg-breaker makes a 100 percent profit.
In the case of credit cards, of course, you're selling the debts to collection agents, not leg-breakers, but aside from that unpleasantly minor distinction the process is the same. The most valuable kinds of sales in this world are sales of credit card judgments, in other words accounts in which the debtor has already been successfully brought to court. That, ostensibly, is what this bloc of accounts Chase sold in 2009 involved.
Almonte came to Chase in the summer of 2009 as a mid-level executive in the credit card services division's offices in San Antonio, and was quickly put in charge of preparing the documentation for this enormous sale of credit card judgments. When Chase regional offices from places like southern California and Illinois began sending in the papers for these "judgments," Almonte very soon found out that something was seriously wrong. From Horwitz's piece:
Nearly half of the files [Linda’s] team sampled were missing proofs of judgment or other essential information, she wrote to colleagues. Even more worrisome, she alleged in her wrongful-termination suit, nearly a quarter of the files misstated how much the borrower owed.
In the "vast majority" of those instances, the actual debt was "lower that what Chase was representing," her suit stated.
Linda subsequently found an enormous range of errors. Some judgments, she told me, were not judgments at all. In some cases, she said, Chase actually owed the customer money.
When she brought these concerns to her superiors, what do you think their response was? They told her and others to shut up and just sell the stuff anyway. Her boss, Jason Lazinbat, allegedly told her "she had better go along with the plan to sell the misrepresented asset."
Think of the consequences of this: because Chase was so anxious to make money off this debt sale, countless credit card borrowers would now have collection agents chasing them for money they did not owe. The debt-buyer, too, was victimized by being sold accounts it could not collect on. It is almost impossible to estimate how many man-hours of pointless court proceedings would be lost because of this decision.
Anyway, when Linda refused to go along with the sale, she was fired. This was in November of 2009. She then went through a post-firing odyssey that is an epic tale in itself: her many attempts to get any of the major bank regulators interested in this case were disturbingly fruitless for a long time (although the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency is apparently looking into it now), and she struggled to find work in the industry.
She has been repeatedly harassed and has gone through all sorts of personal hardship as a result of this incident. She filed a whistleblower claim with the SEC as part of the new whistleblower program created by Dodd-Frank, but so far there's been no progress there.
When I met Linda last year, my first reaction to her story was that I was skeptical. The tale she told went far beyond the bank knowingly selling millions of dollars worth of errors into the financial system. She also recounted, firsthand, the bank's elaborate robosigning operation, which Horvitz, talking to other Chase employees, also discussed:
"We did not verify a single one" of the affidavits attesting to the amounts Chase was seeking to collect, says Howard Hardin, who oversaw a team handling tens of thousands of Chase debt files in San Antonio. "We were told [by superiors] 'We're in a hurry. Go ahead and sign them.'"
And there were other stories…suffice to say that the picture Linda painted of life inside Chase reminded me a little of Upton Sinclair's The Jungle: they were putting just about everything into those sausages. When I was writing it all up for my book I went through a period where I was waking up nights, seized with the urge to close every credit account I had – her story makes you think that most credit card companies are essentially indistinguishable from giant identity theft operations.
Again, though, when I first heard the story, I was skeptical – until I found other people in the company who verified Almonte's account, all the way down the line. Horvitz, too, found numerous employees in Chase's credit card services division who confirmed the story of the company knowingly selling a mountain of errors into the market, and manufacturing robo-signed documents to the tune of thousands per week.
The financial crash wouldn't have happened if even a slim plurality of financial executives had done what Linda Almonte did, i.e. simply refuse to sign off on a bogus transaction. If companies had merely upheld their own stated policies and stayed within the ballpark of the law, none of these messes could have accumulated: fraudulent mortgages wouldn't have been sold, families wouldn't have been foreclosed upon based on robo-signed documentation, investors wouldn't have been duped into buying huge packets of "misrepresented assets."
But most executives didn't refuse to go along, precisely because powerful companies make it so hard on people who come forward. Almonte, after being fired, entered into a modest settlement with Chase that prohibited her from coming forward publicly. At the time she entered into the settlement she was in an extremely desperate state, and she made a bad decision, taking a very bad deal.
Still, like Jeffery Wygand, the tobacco scientist from the movie The Insider, she was sitting on top of a story that, morally speaking, should not ever be protected by a confidentiality agreement — and the subsequent lack of regulatory action eventually moved her to speak out to people like Horvitz and me. Of course, now that her story is out there in public, the concern is that the bank will move swiftly to take her to court.
This person does not have any money, so an action by Chase at this point would be purely punitive, to send a message to future whistleblowers. They'll be more likely to do it if they think no one is paying attention. I'll keep you posted on that score.
In the meantime, please check out Horvitz's piece. It should give everyone who has a credit card pause. See it below.
OCC Probing JPMorgan Chase Credit Card Collections
First in a series
JPMorgan Chase & Co. took procedural shortcuts and used faulty account records in suing tens of thousands of delinquent credit card borrowers for at least two years, current and former employees say.
The process flaws sparked a regulatory probe by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and forced the bank to stop suing delinquent borrowers altogether last year.
The bank's errors could call into question the legitimacy of billions of dollars in outstanding claims against debtors and of legal judgments Chase has already won, current and former Chase employees say.
For the banking industry at large, the situation at Chase highlights the risk that shoddy back-office procedures and flawed legal work extends well beyond mortgage servicing.
"We did not verify a single one" of the affidavits attesting to the amounts Chase was seeking to collect, says Howard Hardin, who oversaw a team handling tens of thousands of Chase debt files in San Antonio. "We were told [by superiors] 'We're in a hurry. Go ahead and sign them.'"
Hardin left the bank in 2010 to work in a different industry.
Chase declined repeated requests to discuss details of its consumer debt collection activities.
Company documents, court filings, and interviews with seven current and former employees reveal that Chase's credit card litigation operation was allegedly plagued by unreliable external attorneys, management's disregard for accuracy, and patchy technology.
The bank's computer systems frequently disagreed about how much debtors actually owed, several of the Chase sources say.
The employees' stories corroborate allegations made by Linda Almonte, a former mid-level business process executive in Chase's San Antonio-based Credit Card Litigation Support Group. Dismissed in November 2009 after six months on the job, Almonte filed whistleblower complaints and a wrongful termination suit claiming that she was fired for objecting to the sale of credit card debts with erroneous balances.
Almonte's complaints drew the attention of the OCC, former Chase employees say, and led to the April 2011 shutdown of a formidable collections operation that generated several billion dollars of legal judgments every year.
Few details of the OCC's investigation are available, but current and former Chase employees confirm that staffers from the agency's enforcement division spent two months gathering information in the San Antonio facility late last year. A person familiar with the OCC's review says that the regulator is taking the situation very seriously.
This is the first article in a series that will look at what allegedly went wrong in Chase's credit card litigation operation — and how those missteps could roil the banking and debt collection industries.
The root of Chase's card collections failures was more machine than man. Chase maintains a patchwork of computer systems that don't always communicate well, according to former employees who used them. Meet TSYS, TCSF and RMS.
TSYS is what outsiders assume a global bank's customer data system looks like. Licensed from Total Systems Services Inc. and managed by Chase, it's the modern and versatile system that consumers ultimately talk to when they check their credit card balance online.
TSYS only handles current accounts, however. When customers stop paying credit card bills, their accounts are passed to TCSF, for collections and litigation, and eventually to RMS for charge-offs.
Each of Chase's systems handles its own tasks just fine. The problem employees faced is that TCSF and RMS can only talk to each other through TSYS, and each of the systems operates by its own rules. This means that when presented with the question of how much a customer owes, each might spit out a different answer.
"I came across that on a regular basis," says Carole McGinn, who retired in 2010 from the credit card litigation support group in San Antonio. The discrepancies were usually minor, she and three other employees say, but payments by heavily delinquent borrowers would throw the records seriously out of whack.
"There was no way to reconcile those balances that I knew of," says McGinn, who worked at Chase for almost 15 years.
To overcome this problem, Chase's business process staff reviewed records in multiple systems and reconciled the accounts manually.
Chase's relationship with outside debt collectors posed another potential glitch. In populous states like California, Illinois and Florida, the bank employed in-house attorneys who were wired into all of its relevant computer systems.
Elsewhere, it relied on what credit card litigation staffers referred to as "outhouse attorneys." Paid according to how much money they recovered, the outsiders were connected only to TCSF, the litigation system. Former Chase employees say some of the firms, such as thesince-imploded Mann Bracken LLP, were known for poor recordkeeping.
Chase's San Antonio crew was well versed in dealing with their computer systems' quirks and the outside firms' foibles. They adjusted accordingly, monitoring outside law firms for errors and stripping inaccurate charges from accounts.
"We made it work," says a former employee.
"Everything in Dollars Collected"
Things began to change in 2008, when Chase replaced the credit card division's San Antonio management, current and former Chase employees say. The bank installed Edmond Helaire as the San Antonio operations director, and he hired Jason Lazinbat as his No. 2.
Chase staffers who spoke with American Banker say they were never told the reason for the house-cleaning, but several speculate that the bank was looking to increase recoveries. Even before the financial crisis made a shambles of consumers' finances, Chase's expanding credit card portfolio and growing propensity to sue for unpaid debts had dramatically increased the volume of cases it handled.
At the beginning of the last decade, Chase recouped $130 million a year from bad consumer debt of all stripes. By 2009, recoveries on credit cards alone exceeded $1.2 billion. Over the next two years, the bank would charge off more than $20 billion in credit card accounts. Litigation was the most profitable way to handle the bad debts.
Lazinbat was a Chase veteran with experience overseeing teams of debt collectors. He chafed at what he saw as the duplicative checks and balances that the old guard considered essential to ensuring the numbers were accurate, former employees say.
Lazinbat "measured everything in terms of number of dollars collected," says a former Chase employee who requested anonymity. "He did not understand that in the process world, that's not what you look at. That's not the metric."
Chase spokesman Paul Hartwick responded to messages left for Lazinbat, who declined to comment.
Rank-and-file staff began complaining about orders to take shortcuts as part of the broader culture clash, current and former employees say. The conflict ended when Lazinbat and Helaire terminated several key mid-level officials in 2008 and early 2009, employees say.
"Documents Were Trashed"
One of the replacements brought in was Linda Almonte, a congenitally upbeat former Washington Mutual process execution manager who gets excited about Six Sigma quality control.
By the time of Almonte's May 2009 arrival, the rapidly expanding portfolio of delinquent accounts and the quirks in Chase's systems had produced serious problems, she and others say.
The outside attorneys were one flashpoint. The records the law firms used to sue people sometimes differed from Chase's own files at an alarming rate, according to a routine Chase presentation prepared by Almonte and later submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission. Some law firms' records disagreed with Chase's in almost 20% of cases sampled, a rate far above what is regarded as an acceptable level of errors.
"That's horrendous," says a former Chase attorney who was informed of the numbers by American Banker.
The outsiders' lack of access to TSYS was one weakness. Another was that the law firms' recovery-based pay encouraged slapdash work, says the former attorney and other former Chase employees.
"They did not make a meaningful review of what they had," the attorney says.
The staff of the Credit Card Litigation Support Group grappled with quality control and how to ascertain that customers did, in fact, owe the company money. In one Chase email, Almonte suggested to Lazinbat that the bank should negotiate with delinquent customers before suing them. Doing so, she wrote, would "weed out additional accounts that were settled or payments made that are not showing up in the system."
Other things were falling through the cracks. Borrower correspondence sent to the San Antonio facility, such as bankruptcy notifications, address changes, and hardship requests were being dropped on an unmanned desk, according to a 2009 printout from Chase's troubleshooting log.
"There is no existing … process in place that states what action should take place when … this correspondence is received," notes a log entry submitted by an employee.
(The emails and internal records cited in this story are pulled from Almonte's whistleblower complaints. While Chase has declined to discuss them, former employees attested to the documentation's apparent legitimacy.)
Documents weren't simply misplaced: Chase shredded incoming correspondence such as records of borrower payments and counter-judgments extinguishing debts, Almonte alleged in her wrongful termination suit.
While none of the people who spoke with American Bankerwitnessed this, McGinn says she also heard colleagues acknowledge that some correspondence had been destroyed.
"I understand there were documents trashed, yes," she says. McGinn retired from the San Antonio facility in June of 2010 after she says she became uneasy with how it was being managed.
"My mouth was going to get me in more trouble than I could live with," McGinn says.
Three Signers, Billions in Debt
Former Chase employees say they used to consider the mass production of affidavits by document signers to be at most a technical concern. This is because quality control staff traditionally vetted the files thoroughly for bankruptcies, identity theft, and errors before passing the documents to signers.
But given their growing concerns about possible errors in underlying collections and litigation records, these procedural issues began to seem substantive.
One of Chase's most prolific affidavit signers was Ruben Alcaraz, one of three San Antonio liaisons with the in-house collections attorneys, court filings indicate. By law, collection affidavits require the signer to be familiar with the bank's pertinent records.
(The failure to follow similar procedures in the mortgage market is what created the industry's foreclosure robosigning problems.)
"Based upon my review of the Plaintiff's books and records of Defendant's account(s), I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in the attached pleading," states one Pennsylvania card-debt affidavit signed by Alcaraz. "This verification is made subject to the penalties of [Pennsylvania law] relating to unsworn falsification to authorities."
Numerous former employees say that Alcaraz and his colleagues rarely if ever reviewed such files. They routinely signed stacks of affidavits on flights and in meetings, which in some cases were attended by Helaire, Lazinbat and Chase compliance staffers. Nobody objected, Almonte and others say.
Alcaraz also describes himself in the court documents as an "officer of the bank" and an "Assistant Treasurer." High-level Chase management had instructed the staff to stop signing documents using such titles around the middle of the last decade, four Chase sources say. But Lazinbat ordered them to do it anyway. An operator for Chase's internal switchboard identified Alcaraz as a "business analyst."
"Hardly, if ever, was anything verified," Almonte's SEC complaint states. "There was constant complaining by the Attorney Liaisons about having to manually sign these affidavits … they always questioned why they could not have them digitally signed in bulk."
"Each and every one of those [affidavits] should have been manually checked," says Hardin, framing the issue as one of basic quality control. "There was a lot of need for diligence, and sometimes that just didn't happen."
A message left for Alcaraz was returned by Chase spokesman Hartwick, who said that Alcaraz declined to comment.
"A Huge Cleanup"
Almonte says she initially limited her criticism of Chase's operations to pushing internally for improvements.
"I have a lot of areas where the ball was dropped … and now we have a huge cleanup," she wrote in an email to Lazinbat in October 2009.
While Almonte says her relationship with Helaire and Lazinbat was initially excellent, it fell apart when she began questioning how the bank was handling the sale of $200 million of legal judgments to an outside debt collection company.
Nearly half of the files her team sampled were missing proofs of judgment or other essential information, she wrote to colleagues. Even more worrisome, she alleged in her wrongful-termination suit, nearly a quarter of the files misstated how much the borrower owed.
In the "vast majority" of those instances, the actual debt was "lower that what Chase was representing," her suit stated.
Among the files Chase was selling, Almonte said, were former Providian Financial Corp debts that had previously belonged to the failed Washington Mutual. (JPMorgan acquired Wamu's assets from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. in 2008.) The Providian files had been labeled with a code that that the credit card litigation group used to signal "toxic waste," she says.
Another person familiar with the files confirmed that the Providian accounts were commonly referred to with that term. The debt had long been considered unreliable and lacked documentation. It was never supposed to be sold, this person says.
A review of state court records shows that second-hand debt buyers are suing people who allegedly owe money on the Chase-Wamu-Providian accounts, however. Informed that the files have surfaced in court, the former Chase employee who confirmed the files' "toxic" status was appalled.
"That's crazy," the person says. "I can't believe they [Chase officials] did that."
Almonte called for the bank to halt the debt sale, but was warned by Lazinbat that "she had better go along with the plan to sell the misrepresented asset," she later wrote in her employment lawsuit.
Almonte says she refused Lazinbat's order and escalated her concerns to his boss, Helaire. Chase fired her on Nov. 30, 2009.
Carole McGinn was not a party to discussions about the debt sale but confirms the thrust of Almonte's claims. "I know she [Almonte] was looking into things that they didn't want her looking into," McGinn says.
The following March, Almonte filed her wrongful termination suit. First reported by the San Antonio Express-News, the case brought Chase's alleged problems into public view.
"This is not an accident anymore," Almonte now says. "The same people who created this problem at Chase are still in charge. They aren't going to fix it unless they're forced to."
NEXT: Almonte sues. The OCC gets interested. Chase fires in-house collections attorneys and the reliability of its judgments comes into question.
DON'T BE A FOOL, USE YOUR LOCAL CREDIT UNION
March 11th, 2012 by olddog
World Central Banks will Dump Their U S Dollar Reserves!
Greece Now in Default, Portugal, Hungary & Spain are NEXT!
World Central Banks will Dump Their U.S. Dollar Reserves!
And…The Petrodollar will be Eliminated!
Petrodollars are U.S. Dollar deposits made in western banks for oil transactions.
Almost Every Country in the World Must Buy U.S. dollars to purchase Oil.
The U.S. Dollar to Oil peg, artificially keeps the Dollar Alive.
(1973 -1979)-The U.S. "Persuade" oil producing nations to sell their oil in Petrodollars ONLY. Plus, the treaty mandated nations who accepted payment in Petrodollars to "invest" their profits in U.S. treasury notes, bond and bills. In return, the U.S. would protect them from Russia and any other nation that could cause harm to their oil fields.
A Sweet Deal for the U.S., that`s coming to an END!
Oil producing nations are not happy, the current Fed Fund Rate is near Zero; treasuries are paying near Zero. Plus, the U.S. Dollar is being Massed produced at an alarming rate, it`s now seen as a liability, not an asset.
When the Oil to U.S. dollar peg is broken, the artificial demand for dollars will end. The U.S. Dollar will End!
On January 14th, senior diplomats of both Iran and Russia announced they have Replaced dollars in their Oil trade with India, Japan and China. Demand for the U.S. Dollars is diminishing daily!
President Obama is Only adding to the Imminent Collapse of Our Money, on November 28th, during the annual summit between the U.S. & Europe, President Obama announced:
"The U.S. is ready to do our part to help Europe solve its problems"
On November 30th, officials revealed the joint venture between the Swiss National Bank, European Central Bank, Bank of Canada, Bank of England, Bank of Japan and the U.S. Federal Reserve. The Plan is to Dump Trillions of U.S. Dollars in the Hands of Weak European Banks.
The March 9th Greek default, leaves Greek banks "holding the Billion dollar bag".
President Obama and the Federal Reserve will Bailout European Banks with Tax Payer Dollars!
All participating Central Banks will Dump their U.S. Dollar Reserves, in an effort to keep banks like Barclays, Deutsche Bank and others afloat. One key factor in this joint venture, the Only Currency being dumped in the Open Market, will be the U.S. Dollar.
Trillions of U.S. Dollars held and kept out of circulation by Central Banks, will Now Flood the Currency Markets.
Greece has 14.5 Billion in outstanding debt, due on March 20th. The Greek government has no money to pay it, the outstanding debt will be auctioned off on March 9, 2012.
The final blow could come from the IMF. On January 18th, the IMF announced it`s prepared to "Infuse" $600 Billion Dollars in the Open Market for the European Crisis. The IMF dumped 18 Billion dollars, immediately after the Greek default was announced, that`s on top of the 10 billion infused weeks earlier.
The U.S. Dollar Dumping Scheme will take place through the "U.S. Dollar Swap Line", an Over The Counter (OTC) Currency Market. The U.S. Dollar Swap Line was specially designed after the 2008 financial scare, the sole purpose of this market is for "Emergency Infusion" of Liquidity.
The International Swap & Derivatives Association (ISDA), said Friday March 9th the Greek default will trigger a "Credit Event".
Guess What Happens to the Value of Your Savings, when Central Banks Dump their U.S. Dollar Reserves?
Do you remember the 2008 "credit default" bailout?
Guess who`s "On the Hook" for the Money, the Obama Administration will give European Banks?
Yes, Americans will get hit two ways:
1.) Higher Taxes,…someone has to pay it!
2.) Higher Costs of Living… Food & Energy are traded Against U.S. Dollars; adding Trillions of Dollars in the open market will devalue the U.S. Dollar, instantly!
IF You`re NOT Concerned… You Should Be!
The Greek "Chapter XVIII" will be held on March 19, 2012!
It gets worse!..
The S&P recently Downgraded 15 Major Banks, such as: Bank of America, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Wells Fargo, and JP Morgan Chase. The Non-U.S. based Banks were: Barclays, HSBC, UBS, RaboBank and others. Even Australia`s "Big Four" banks have been hit with downgrades.
If that wasn`t Bad Enough, on January 13th, the S&P Downgraded 9 European Countries, not banks.
Countries are officially downgraded, this has Never been done before!
All Major European Countries and All Major Banks, in the U.S. & Europe are in Trouble!
The Central Banks of Canada, Switzerland, England and Japan have joined forces to Bailout Banks in Europe; the Federal Reserve and the IMF will Bailout Countries in Europe.
Do you "Smell" A Major Financial Crisis?
The Obama Administration, the Treasury and Federal Reserve, sure do!
Federal officials are "urging" U.S. banks to recapitalize Money Market Accounts- officials say they`re in "Systemic Risk".
For Many Years, U.S. Banks were taking American`s money overseas, they paid U.S. depositors 1%–1.25% on money market accounts, while depositing those funds in European Banks at an average yield of 4.75% – 5.75%. Good returns with Low Risk… so they thought!
Again, If you`re not concerned, You Should Be!
About 50% of all money market funds-$1.6 Trillion are in European Banks.
How Real is the Collapse of the European Financial System?
The head of the Financial Services Authority (FSA) told the UK`s biggest lenders to "draw up contingency plans for the collapse of the single currency".
Andrew Bailey, a senior executive at the FSA, said: "We must not ignore the prospect of the disorderly departure of some countries from the Eurozone".
When will the Financial Collapse Begin?
We could be days away! Greece was the first "Domino" to fall; the financial Cancer will spread quickly!
Negotiations between the Greek government and private holders of Greek Debt, shutdown after investors refused a proposed 50% "voluntary" haircut.
On Friday March 9th, it was announced, some Greek bond holders will now take a 74% loss.
The Greek 1 year Bond yield 397%, before the default. The new Greek Bond that will mature 2042, is set to open at 17-23%. The EU rate (FED Fund rate equivalent) is set a 3.25%, a 23% Greek bond rate means, there`s High risk of more Greek losses.
How will A Financial Collapse in Europe affect your Money?
Remember, the Old Saying, "When the U.S. catches a cold, the world catches a Fever". The New statement is: "When the Banking System catches a cold… The World catches a Fever"
Today, All World Financial Markets, are One In The Same!
THINK ABOUT IT,.. the above mentioned Central Banks, the Federal Reserve and the IMF, would Not be joining forces and preparing for a financial Catastrophe,.. If they didn`t already Know One was Coming!
The World`s Financial System, lives on Borrowing & Lending of Money…
If the System Fails, The World Fails!
The question is…
What Have You Done to Protect Your Wealth?
Gold is a Safe Haven, Gold rose against All major currencies, immediately after Friday`s Greek Default. This is the First Major default of a Nation since, WWII.
For Years, you`ve heard that China has Stocked-piled Gold to Prepare for a Financial Crisis. They are now One of the World`s Largest Holders of Gold.
As U.S. & European Banks were being Downgraded by S&P, the Bank of China, China Construction Bank and other China Based Banks, were Upgraded!
Educate yourself, on the Process of Owning Gold, Before The Next Financial Crisis!
March 7th, 2012 by olddog
FACT: the US Govt does not give a flying flip about nuclear weapons in Iran. How do I know this? Because under President Eisenhower's "Atoms for Peace" program, the US Govt allowed ALL NUCLEAR SECRETS to be shared by all nations via the universities. And, many Iranians worked at the world famous South Carolina nuclear hydrogen bomb making facility called Savannah River Site…the Iranians know our entire facility and its processes, because we gave them the knowledge.
So…get over the disinformation on the news. The banksters are planning to take down the independent Iranian banking system, because they intend to be global conquerors ….and the sovereign city-state called "Washington, DC" is the military wing of that endeavor….YOU ARE INCLUDED AS ONE OF THE BAD GUYS IN THIS ONE ….now, go think about yourself for awhile.
R.E. Sutherland, M.Ed./sciences
Freelance Investigative Science Reporter
Rothschilds Want Iran’s Banks
By Pete Papaherakles
Could gaining control of the Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran (CBI) be one of the main reasons that Iran is being targeted by Western and Israeli powers? As tensions are building up for an unthinkable war with Iran, it is worth exploring Iran’s banking system compared to its U.S., British and Israeli counterparts.
Some researchers are pointing out that Iran is one of only three countries left in the world whose central bank is not under Rothschild control. Before 9-11 there were reportedly seven: Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, Libya, Cuba, North Korea and Iran. By 2003, however, Afghanistan and Iraq were swallowed up by the Rothschild octopus, and by 2011 Sudan and Libya were also gone. In Libya, a Rothschild bank was established in Benghazi while the country was still at war.
Islam forbids the charging of interest, a major problem for the Rothschild banking system. Until a few hundred years ago, charging interest was also forbidden in the Christian world and was even punishable by death. It was considered exploitation and enslavement.
Since the Rothschilds took over the Bank of England around 1815, they have been expanding their banking control over all the countries of the world. Their method has been to get a country’s corrupt politicians to accept massive loans, which they can never repay, and thus go into debt to the Rothschild banking powers. If a leader refuses to accept the loan, he is oftentimes either ousted or assassinated. And if that fails, invasions can follow, and a Rothschild usury-based bank is established.
The Rothschilds exert powerful influence over the world’s major news agencies. By repetition, the masses are duped into believing horror stories about evil villains.
The Rothschilds control the Bank of England, the Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank, the IMF, the World Bank and the Bank of International Settlements.
Also they own most of the gold in the world as well as the London Gold Exchange, which sets the price of gold every day. It is said the family owns over half the wealth of the planet—estimated by Credit Suisse to be $231 trillion—and is controlled by Evelyn Rothschild, the current head of the family.
Objective researchers contend that Iran is not being demonized because they are a nuclear threat, just as the Taliban, Iraq’s Saddam Hussein and Libya’s Muammar Qadaffi were not a threat.
What then is the real reason? Is it the trillions to be made in oil profits, or the trillions in war profits? Is it to bankrupt the U.S. economy, or is it to start World War III? Is it to destroy Israel’s enemies, or to destroy the Iranian central bank so that no one is left to defy Rothschild’s money racket?
It might be any one of those reasons or, worse—it might be all of them.
March 3rd, 2012 by olddog
No matter what you think, or what anyone say's, this man will bring all of the power of the BUSH Cartel right back to finish destroying the United States of America. If he manages to weasel his way to the nomination, pack up and get the hell out of America, because if he manages that, the dumb asses among us will be just as thrilled as the obama groupies were. The Bush family is the scum of the earth, with billions of our money in off-shore accounts, property in countries with no extradition, and the backing of the International Banking Cartel. WTF!
Bush has fanned the flames himself, possibly to whet his party’s appetite for a 2016 run. | AP Photo
By GLENN THRUSH and MAGGIE HABERMAN | 2/29/12 7:06 PM EST
Mitt Romney’s tortured triumph in Michigan put him back in the GOP driver’s seat — but that hasn’t quelled the desire among some Republicans to trade up.
Yes, Republicans are still pining for former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush despite his repeated and vehement refusal to be sucked into the 2012 Republican vortex.
And Democrats continue to cast a wary eye on a guy they see as more dangerous — and capable of connecting with middle-class and Latino voters — than Romney.
The Bush murmurs persist, even as a resilient Romney marches toward Super Tuesday with a commanding lead in cash, delegates and momentum over a sagging Rick Santorum.
“I have the perfect candidate — Jeb Bush. But he’s not running,” former George W. Bush chief of staff Andy Card told Charlie Rose on CBS on Wednesday, echoing the sentiments of many in his party.
“What Democrat would not worry about a popular leader from a critical state who sounds pretty moderate and can rescue the GOP from its anti-Latino death grip?” asked former Bill Clinton press secretary Mike McCurry, who said he’s yet to find a Democratic elder who thinks the GOP is truly “unhinged” enough to consider ditching Romney for Bush.
Bush — who has refused to endorse Romney in 2012 as he did in 2008 and whose son endorsed Jon Huntsman — has fanned the flames himself, possibly to whet his party’s appetite for a 2016 run. After keeping a low profile during the hotly contested Florida primary in January, he popped up last week at the height of the Romney-Santorum duel in Michigan to declare his problems with the GOP presidential field.
“I used to be a conservative and I watch these debates and I’m wondering, I don’t think I’ve changed but it’s a little troubling sometimes when people are appealing to people’s fears and emotion rather than trying to get them to look over the horizon for a broader perspective,” Bush told a gathering in Dallas last Thursday, according to FOX News.
“I think that changes when we get to the general election — I hope,” added Bush, who has personally urged Romney to moderate his rhetoric on illegal immigration for fear of completely alienating Hispanic voters in states like Florida, Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona.
That got the attention of conservatives including Ann Coulter, who slammed him of prepping for a campaign, and Obama campaign officials who found his timing curious.
Ana Navarro, a Republican strategist and a friend of Bush, said she saw the former governor last Sunday and he laughed off any idea that he’ll jump in the game.
But even Navarro couldn’t resist indulging in a little starry-eyed speculation of what might have been.
“Why is he a fearful figure? You know, anybody who knows Jeb Bush and who’s heard Jeb Bush understands there’s a certain inspirational quality to him,” she said in an interview.
“He is smart, he is scary smart, and he has got a national network of supporters that he could turn on with the flip of a switch. And nobody could hold Obama’s feet to the fire in the Latino community like Jeb Bush.”
That opinion has considerable bipartisan support. “Don’t buy the bulls—- about us not being worried about Jeb,” added a veteran Democratic operative. “He’s a tough matchup even if his last name is Bush.”
Bush has said repeatedly that he isn’t running and the people around him say he couldn’t pull it off at this late date even if he wanted to. (“If Jeb had any intention of competing for the Republican nomination, he would have been at it from day one,” Navarro said. “Jeb does not play games.”)
Karl Rove, another Bush fan, recently wrote a Wall Street Journal op-ed declaring the possibility of a brokered convention — a scenario that could theoretically result in a Bush candidacy — comparable to finding life on Pluto, although he didn’t rule out a contested convention where delegates shift their votes.
But Bush has said no to anyone who asked whether he’s interested, including his son George P. Bush.
Operatives in both parties say he’d be crazy to jump in now instead of waiting four years, when his Democratic opponent won’t have the benefits of incumbency.
But if 2012 has proven anything, it’s that logic isn’t always the most important thing. Republican operatives, speaking to POLITICO on condition of anonymity, talk about Bush in the glowing tones of a potential spouse who got away — and seems perfect in comparison to the person they stare at across their coffee every morning.
Likewise, Democrats have been gaming out the possibility of an Obama-Bush face-off, just as they have with other no-thanks Republicans, including Chris Christie and Mitch Daniels.
One third-party Democratic group was so concerned about Bush that it recently paid for a poll to gauge his performance in a head-to-head matchup against Obama, according to a Democrat briefed on the poll.
The survey revealed nothing that public polling hasn’t already covered — that Obama enjoys a substantial lead and that the Bush surname is still toxic.
That it was undertaken at all shows the extent of the concern over a possible Bush candidacy and, more important, a lingering uncertainty — even a touch of anxiety — in Democratic circles about Romney’s ability to make it over the finish line.
The Obama campaign loves watching Mitt Romney squirm in the spotlight — but they don’t want to see him so irretrievably damaged that it draws better candidates into the fray.
And while many inside the Obama campaign are itching to see the race resolved — so they can target Romney exclusively and hone their fighting skills — the prevailing sentiment is that the GOP infighting is a gift from the political gods.
“On some level, I’d love to get this thing going,” said a senior party official, quickly adding, “I know that sounds crazy, but it would be nice to lock Romney in.”
Obama’s brain trust was rooting for a Santorum victory in Michigan and were disappointed that efforts by unions and local Democrats to coax party members into cross-registering to vote for Santorum fell short.
But they were pleased with the way the Michigan primary went down — Romney’s two-Cadillacs-and-just-right-trees speech to an empty football stadium, the embrace of the polarizing immigration crusader Gov. Jan Brewer in Arizona, the $4.2 million burn to win his home state.
And they have watched gleefully as Obama’s approval rating in the state has ballooned to 16 points in the latest Public Policy Polling survey — in part because of Romney’s opposition to the auto bailout.
“In 2008, the protracted primary allowed us to build our organization across the country and lay out an affirmative vision,” said Obama 2012 communications director Ben LaBolt.
“That’s not what the Republicans have done — they haven’t invested in organization and they’re leapfrogging to the right of each other on issues from Medicare to immigration,” he added. “Their primary has been an echo chamber where they have debated who is the most committed to tea party orthodoxy rather than laying out a plan to create jobs and restore economic security for the middle class, the issues most Americans are focused on.”
Romney, for his part, cast Tuesday’s 3-point win in Michigan as a narrow but important benchmark, another brick in the road to inevitability.
Despite a recent spate of good polls and encouraging economic data, Obama remains vulnerable, especially if Republicans get past their intraparty food fight to focus on the president’s inability to bring unemployment below 8 percent and a widely held belief that he pushed through health reform in lieu of working on the economy.
But Democrats, including those who sense Obama’s weakness, watched Romney’s speech Tuesday night with a sense of relief that Bush wasn’t the man at the podium.
“I think anybody who’s legitimate would make it a race with Obama at this point,” said a former adviser to Hillary Clinton in 2008. “If they did get someone who was reasonably grown-up now and — poof — we got a race. … And Jeb’s not just anybody, he’s got damned good skills, he can raise money and even people who hated his brother concede he’s the smartest Bush.”
February 28th, 2012 by olddog
As long as the private banksters create money from nothing, i.e. legalized counterfeiting, and hide behind the shield of corporation personhood, LLC liability exemption and government guaranteed loans, expropriating from THE PEOPLE and again passing their liabilities on the taxpayers, the ordinary family will continue to be reduced to perpetual and permanent poverty.
Until the control of the issue of currency and credit is restored to government and recognized as its most conspicuous and sacred responsibility, all talk of sovereignty of Parliament and of democracy is idle and futile… Once a nation parts with control of its credit, it matters not who makes the nation’s laws… Usury once in control will wreck any nation.
William Lyon Mackenzie King
Federal Reserve is a Cache of Stolen Assets
The American Revolution, in no small part, was a repudiation of the central banking tyranny exported to the New World by the Bank of England. Few legacies have grown more despotic than the consequences of living under the rule of fractional reserve banking. Many good willed conservatives understand that the system is imploding. Some envision a second American Revolution that expels the remnant Tories that have hijacked our Federalism separation of powers form of government. Woefully, the prospects for a States Rights revolt are slim. However, the scenario of a domestic French Revolution style carnage is brewing with every escalation of the pompous arrogance worthy of a Jean-Joseph, marquis de Laborde or the manipulative usury of the House of Rothschild.
The eruption of populist outrage is long overdue. The lack of objective mainstream media coverage is expected. Their attempt to spin the natural disguise for a corrupt establishment in the hearts of sincere and persecuted citizens is typical. The elite’s message is that they will either control the movement, or at the very least, strip it from any positive synergism. Send in the clowns, like Michael Moore. Wall Street Capitalism: A Love Affair explains the hideous agenda of the clueless socialists that condemn all things Wall Street, while advancing the ultimate goals of the New World Order globalists.
Street theater no longer is enough. The peasants are rallying their pitchforks, as they storm the Bastille; however, they got their GPS coordinates wrong. The correct address is 33 Liberty Street, New York, NY. That is the location of the dominate Federal Reserve temple. When the public finally comes to grips with the real cause of the unsustainable debt, they will understand that the private central banking system bears the ultimate redress for their sins against America and all humanity.
A Privatised Money Supply, presents an informative analysis.
Assuming a reserve ratio of 1:10 [i.e. all commercial banks must have the reserve ratio on deposit at the private central bank, the mother of all banks] the table below shows how $100 of private central bank created money (GCM), i.e. cash, is used by the rest of the private banking system to create $900 of interest-bearing bank-created money (BCM) in the form of loans. The reserve ratio is the ratio of cash reserves (GCM) to deposits (mostly BCM). In our example the banking system consists of 50 banks, but the money creation process would be essentially the same for any number of banks from one to infinity.
Modern accounting uses double entry book keeping where liabilities and assets are kept exactly equal. A bank’s liabilities are its deposits. Its assets are its loans (including government bonds which are loans to government of money created from nothing by both the private central banksters and the private commercial banksters) and its cash reserves. Here is how the banking system creates money. In column 1 $100 of cash is deposited in Bank 1. Bank 1 creates a $90 loan in the form of a deposit as shown in column 2. This deposit is pure BCM and, because it must be paid back with interest, is an asset. With a reserve ratio of 1:10 the bank puts aside $10 in cash (column 3) to meet cash demands from the person who deposited the $100. The remaining $90 in cash covers the $90 loan. The borrower proceeds to write cheques on his $90 deposit and these cheques get deposited in Bank 2. For these cheques Bank 2 demands and gets cash from Bank 1 until eventually all $90 ends up in Bank 2. (Naturally in real life more than two banks are involved. Thus the transactions are not so simple and orderly as they must be here for explanatory purposes, but everything comes out in the wash to give exactly the same result.) However the original $100 deposit still stands to the credit of the depositor (a liability for Bank 1) even though $90 of it has moved on to Bank 2. And the $90 loan Bank 1 created when it first received the original $100 deposit also stands (an asset for Bank 1). Banks 2, 3, 4, etc. then repeat this process eventually creating $900 of BCM in the form of loans (as shown in column 2) and dispersing the original $100 as cash reserves throughout the banking system (as shown in column 3).
Note that $900 of the $1000 of deposits in column 1 is BCM, i.e. credit created by the banks in the form of loans. (Banks make loans by "depositing money" in your account which you must pay back with interest. Thus they are loan/deposits.) Only the original $100 cash deposit is GCM. One other point. As a loan/deposit gets spent, a deposit in some other bank grows in inverse proportion. Thus the banks have increased the money supply by $900 and not by $1800. That would be double counting. The important points, however, are as follows: this ingenious system is called fractional reserve banking; it creates debt for the sole purpose of enriching the banking class; it is a subtle form of theft; historically it was condemned as a form of usury.
Deposits (90% BCM)
Loan/Deposits (100% BCM)
Cash Reserves (100% GCM)
This method of theft operates as the normal course of business. What the banksters do with the money they obtain from debt created money is even more repulsive. All the financial speculative instruments of leveraged trading just compound the heist. So what do these outlaws do with all the money?
The end net result is that they buy, especially at rock bottom prices, all the real assets that the filthy money can purchase. When you think of Wall Street greed, go beyond the usual suspects and focus on the controllers of the assets that are under the hegemony of the central bank. Here lies the reason why the rebellion must remove the engine of enslavement from the landscape for any future financial system of commerce.
Think about who really owns the land, the buildings and the resources in our country. In order to really understand the scope and extent of the economy, the differential between actual Main Street enterprise, that feeds, clothes and shelters the population, is minuscule when compared to the financial assets, both liquid and real property, that is under the command and control of the central bank.
Most individuals do not own property encumbrance free. Most debt is owed to the banksters. The middle class is in a tailspin because the Fed has a zero interest rate policy that effectively diminished your return on capital of your savings to nothing. The same is not true for the banks. The fact that they have in excess of a 2 Trillion Dollars cash hoard on their balance sheets and refuse to lend out money to the general public, demonstrates that the inside money is waiting to pick up even more real assets, when the signal comes for the total collapse.
TARP, QE2 and the Twist are all ploys to enrich the selective banks that are part of the orthodox Fed fraternity. Technically all federal charted banks have an ownership interest in the Fed. Who among us are so naive to think that every bank is equal to the sacredly held corporate interlocking directorates that make and direct monetary policy?
Only when the middle class takes to the streets with a spontaneous civil disobedience commitment that dwarfs the Tea Party movement, will the central banking tyranny be eliminated. All the fraudulent debt that funded the asset acquisitions of crooks must be clawed back. As long as the banksters hide behind the shield of corporation personhood, LLC liability exemption and government guaranteed loans, the ordinary family will continue to be reduced to perpetual and permanent poverty.
What kind of revolution is coming to America? The lesson of the French élan of bloodletting to remove an aristocratic class is not pretty. However, a national discussion needs to concentrate on:
1) Methods of eliminating the Federal Reserve fraud and restoring an honest money system for commerce
2) Repudiation of the corporatist "Free Trade" global business model and a return to a merchant class free enterprise independent domestic economy
3) Confiscation of assets and wealth acquired through illegal systematic RICO style schemes that demand treble damages from their ill-gotten gain
Americans deserve property right protections from the criminal extortion and the cold-blooded offenses that the banksters used, to steal the national wealth. The expanding protest must result in a true restoration of a traditional upwardly mobile society, not an expanded nanny state. The suffocating debt and the profane system that spawned it must end. The term "Citizen" does not apply to elitist plutocrats. If Americans want to stave off a 21st century version, of the Committee of Public Safety, get behind the "Revolt against the Fed". Tear down the House of Rothschild. This is one time the concept of "Reparations" has standing in a legitimate court of law.
Just between you, me, and the outhouse, when you consider that there are very few honest judges left in America, and in particular I am referring to the Georgia judge who refused to indict Obama for contempt of court. Also, the fact that the Bankers now own our National and most State Governments, and our Military, I see very little possibility of anything less than an outright rebellion making any progress in stopping the Bankers. Now couple this with the fact that at least half of our citizens actually support fractional reserve banking. So, along with being at war with the governments of the United States, we would also be in a civil war. Conclusion: We who demand honest currency for a better life, will have to be willing to die to obtain it for our posterity. Our young brain washed soldiers have no problem with a willingness to die in intentionally provoked wars, what would it take for we who are aware to be willing to die?
February 25th, 2012 by olddog
Distribution via the Unanswered Questions Wire
Will The Real Economic Hit Men
Please Stand Up?
Meditations on 9/11 Truth
by Catherine Austin Fitts
(c) From The Wilderness Publications
See also… Solari Teleseminars
[ INTRODUCTION FROM FTW EDITOR MIKE RUPPERT: Many people have asked me what I thought about the recently popularized book Confessions of an Economic Hit Man and I have held my tongue because I just didn't have time to do the brilliant deconstruction of the book's "limited hangout" approach performed here by Catherine Austin Fitts. In this article the former Assistant Secretary of Housing and past managing director of Dillon Read brings us face to face with the horrors for which we all share a measure of responsibility. Those who would have us work through and affirm the current system don't want these horrors to be seen, because any recognition of them leads on to other realities that are darker still. Fitts also makes clear the point that I was making in Seattle which has been so widely misrepresented.
There are no real avenues left for 911 activism in the traditional sense of the word. The election is over. All three 9/11 suits (Hilton, Mariani and the Saudi case) have been dismissed or morphed as I said they would be. Congress has shown and will show no courage. The 9/11 Commission (totally compromised) has closed its doors. The Justice Department (part of the 9/11 plot) will do nothing. The courts are compromised and the mainstream media (also part of the crime) has moved on. NY Attorney General Elliot Spitzer has yet to do anything with the 9/11 material he has received, remaining quiet in order to protect his bid for the NY state house.
But there are new channels of real accountability that can change the world, if 911 activists can persuade activist communities to understand the realities of economic warfare and to begin to promote marketplace strategies. Real headway can be made if we withdraw our deposits, purchases, investments and attention from media, banks, companies and investors complicit in 911 and war profiteering and cover up. These marketplace strategies can dovetail with other innovative tactics, building financial constituencies to support the rule of law. What would Elliot Spitzer do if millions of New Yorkers threatened to withdraw all of their money from the large New York Federal Reserve banks unless he moved forward with an investigation? What would happen if hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers cancelled their subscriptions to the New York Times in protest over the lies of 911?
There is still a great deal to learn from 9/11 that can proactively help individuals to read the real map of the world and make a difference in their own lives. This involves a fundamental change of approach: the old, futile course of action asks citizens to go hat in hand to government and corporate interests to make them change (an impossibility), while the new approach says that if the citizens themselves change enough within, that change can shift markets while there is still time to make some difference in the outcome for individual lives. In other words, one approach tries to convince us that the right path is to get someone else (with no interest in doing so) to save us and the other says that we must accept the responsibility for saving ourselves and gather and exercise the real power we have and have not yet used.
Which makes more sense to you? – MCR]
Economic Hit Men
A "limited hangout" is a partial confession, a mea culpa, if you will, that leaves the essence of a crime or covert reality hidden. Because it includes some small part of the truth, the limited hangout is irresistibly attractive to dissidents and political critics whose thirst for such truth makes them jump at the dangled scraps. Once the system's watchdogs are busy chewing on the limited hangout, the guilty players can go about their illegal business for a new round of unaccountable, semi-secret mayhem.
If you want to see an excellent limited hang out at work, pick up a copy of the John Perkins' bestselling Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. In his limited hangout confession, Perkins describes his career from 1971 to 1981 as a highly paid professional who helped defraud Third World countries by helping syndicates make uneconomic loans as a means to facilitate the eventual takeover of those economies by elite and corporate interests.
Greg Palast, Anne Williamson and other first-rate investigative journalists have brilliantly documented instances of such economic warfare against sovereign governments and national economies – where nations are taken over with their own money, in much the same way as a corporate raider takes over a company through leveraged buy-out. I have documented a similar process in US communities and mortgage markets. In writing about this process, I use the concept of an "economic tapeworm" to explain the negative return on investment financial system that operates globally and relies on economic and military warfare to finance and subsidize itself.
The phenomenon that Perkins writes about is well known. But his personal "how to" account of an economic hit pertains to an apparently cold case, far in the financial past. While this story is very instructive for those who have not yet dealt with professional fraudsters or been targeted by economic warfare  (whether in the Third World or in the First World nations) it is even more instructive for its omissions – and for its timing as an apologia intended, we are led to believe, somehow to assuage guilt for harm done: it relates to events occurring twenty-five or thirty years ago, involving players who are, for the most part, dead or retired from the business of economic warfare and companies that have morphed into later incarnations.
In the process of providing a colorful account of a 1970s whodunit (complete with low tech strategies devoid of the dazzling technology toolkit that is now an essential part of the economic hit man's weaponry of economic warfare), Perkins delivers to readers the "big lie": he reveals the secret that there is no greater conspiracy. This is simply globalization run amok, he would have us believe. Somehow, this particular conspiracy theory seems charmingly credible as part of a "confession." Perkins admits to what is known and then uses the credibility created by his "limited hangout" to further obscure the reality of who's who in the real governance of global investment and risk management. We are to presume that the investment networks in and around the Harvard Corporation, the City of London, the Vatican and investment managers and bankers for the proceeds of transnational organized crime are simply good-hearted fellows who let things get out of hand.
Nowhere does Perkins introduce the notion that cartels in a "New World Order" (the phrase coined and promoted by George H. W. Bush) use covert manipulation of the global financial system to centralize and concentrate economic and political power. Assassinations by "jackals" aside, Perkins barely hints that for fifty years the US military-industrial complex has been developing and testing powerful black budget technology, satellite and other invisible weaponry and surveillance technology and insider-trading tools behind the veil of national security secrets. Indeed, it was the need for a means of financing black budget operations and weaponry outside the view and control of Congress and the appropriations process – rather than the mere pursuit of corporate profits – that provided the political air cover for Perkins to do what he did as his covert counterparts marketed drugs in American and Third World communities alike.
It's an old rule of economics. Sources and uses need to be in one integrated financial statement to understand an enterprise. In Perkins' world, we are never quite clear who got what cash and in what amounts when all was said and done. Which means someone gets to keep the money and remain socially acceptable – and we remain clueless as to who was really running things two decades ago.
Economic Warfare in the 21st Century
The power of Perkins' book as a limited hangout can be understood by observing the sales, support and kudos in mainstream media it has achieved while the leading books on 9/11 , arguably the most significant economic hit in US history, have had a much harder time garnering attention. The message seems to be that economic warfare is something that the corporate mainstream will acknowledge, but only so long as it is low tech, long ago, and far away.
Understanding and facing the economic warfare responsible for slowly poisoning us and our families and wiping out our retirement savings is a complex and very scary undertaking in comparison to Perkins' concerned confessions. Perhaps we prefer to disassociate from our present circumstances, live in a perpetual state of cognitive dissonance, and focus on the study of yesteryear.
Complex and scary as it may seem, the growing body of evidence makes a compelling case that officials of the US government, its contractors and the military abetted the 9/11 attacks. With the help and complicity of the US Congress and corporate media, they are engaged in the most profitable war and enforcement profiteering in history. This is a terrifying picture to contemplate.
Look how tough it has been for New Yorkers, the constituency most adversely affected by the 9/11 tragedy. A recent Zogby poll indicates that 49.3 percent of residents of New York City hold the opinion that officials "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act." Yet, despite this widespread conviction and the mounting evidence that sustains it, no serious support has developed for the November 2004 citizens' complaint requesting that Elliot Spitzer, the Attorney General of New York, finally open a criminal investigation into the tragedy.
Although fifteen NYC legislators have also called for such an inquiry, there has as yet been no effort locally to hold the New York Senate and Congressional delegations accountable for failing to hold the executive branch responsible for its failure to perform, or for its potential complicity. While the New York firemen booing Hillary Clinton off the stage at the 911 Concert was a start, the sentiment expressed has not translated into political action or market action. How many New Yorkers have cut off their subscriptions to, ads in or investments in the stock of the New York Times when the Times helped to facilitate the 9/11 cover-up by failing to ask probative questions or hold officials accountable?
The problem the average New Yorker has is the same that we all face – our complicity is deep. We have an entire economy and culture financially dependent upon too many things that harm people and the environment. This is not new. Only the possibility that the war machine is blowing up thousands of middle class Americans in American office buildings in broad daylight is new.
The fact that the Bushes and the Clintons are on the same team – and have been since their alleged Iran-Contra partnership in an airport operation in Mena, Arkansas involving the transshipment of cocaine destined for the streets of America – is not something that most Americans have yet incorporated into our political equation.
The fact that current financial and commodity markets "clear" not through the operation of changes in price generated by the legitimate free market expression of supply and demand but rather by blowing up American office buildings and the people and legal documents in them is not something that most Americans saving for retirement or financing a home have incorporated as risks in developing an investment strategy.
We cannot fathom that economic warfare is now conducted using high tech software weaponry to silently invade the privacy of our banking and purchasing relationships, our comings and goings, and the details of our work and home lives. Nor have we incorporated this realization into our decisions about who we share our lives with and what we say and do behind closed doors.
The illumination of the truth of 9/11, however, could change most Americans' paradigms and transactions in powerful ways. It could certainly fuel an increase in demand for precious metals, alternative energy and local self-sufficiency.
The Strong Dollar Policy
In the mid-1990s, the Clinton Administration, led by an economic team comprised of Robert Rubin, Lawrence Summers and Franklin Raines, instituted something called the "strong dollar policy." This policy was maintained by the Bush Administration, which held over in the first term many of the key players in policymaking positions, including George Tenet, Jerry Hawke (Comptroller of the Currency 1998 – 2004) and Charles Rossotti (45th Commissioner of the IRS).
The smoothness of the transition between administrations ostensibly led by political parties in opposition to each other belies the ruse and underscores the strategic nature of the centralization of economic and politic power under way.
While the game of trying to figure out what in the world the strong dollar policy really is has gotten increasingly Orwellian, the basics are pretty simple. We have kept the dollar's value high relative to other currencies – and far above what fundamental economics would warrant – by asking the consumer and taxpayer to shoulder extraordinary and rising levels of debt financed by increasing amounts of dirty money. This has enabled elites to move off shore and into private hands virtually all the real financial equity in the country. The US is not alone in experiencing "disappearing equity" – it is part of a global equity-centralizing and asset-control process.
The strong dollar policy was characterized by a series of financial and market manipulations:
Four Secretaries of the Treasury refused to produce audited financial statements and reported a total of $4 trillion in "undocumentable adjustments";
The Clinton and Bush Administrations rejected policies that would build American productivity and employment in the face of the plan to move employment abroad while permitting the growth of debt and immigration quotas at home;
The Clinton and Bush Administrations promoted federal credit policies that turned American homes into ATM machines and led to a mortgage market characterized by increasing levels of fraud;
The Clinton and Bush Administrations in concert with the central banks (most notably the Federal Reserve) and bullion banks (including JP Morgan-Chase, Citibank and Goldman Sachs) manipulated the gold and silver markets to suppress the price of precious metals while large inventories were moved out of governments and central bank accounts worldwide and into private hands;
US pension funds and 401k and IRA retirement savings accounts lost value by waves of accounting and other financial frauds at widely held corporations (such as Enron, Worldcom and Tyco);
US Congress and regulatory agencies like the Securities and Exchange Commission adopted corporate controls, ostensibly to protect investors from further acts of corporate fraud, that operate as a subtle form of capital control, limiting the ability of entrepreneurs on Main Street to raise capital in financial markets;
Military force was used to ensure that global investors would continue to purchase US Treasury and mortgage agency securities and the US dollar would prevail as the currency of international choice;
The federal budget, federal credit, and federal contracting were operated to favor corporate profit making at the cost of small business and labor productivity;
US Treasury and Federal Reserve market intervention was used to ensure low cost of capital for favored global corporations; and,
The types and amounts of outstanding financial derivatives exploded, far beyond the ability of most public and private leaders to understand or explain.
No one has made a count of the deaths that resulted worldwide from these various financial manipulations. The death toll from the pincer movement of military warfare and economic warfare is far greater than is generally understood.
9/11: Strong Dollar Policy Steroids?
While floating the global dollar economy on a sea of debt and easy money worked well for the economic hit men and women through the end of the 1990s, by the summer of 2001 the game seemed to have run its course. Defense appropriations had stalled that summer. Members of the media were asking questions about $3.3 trillion missing from HUD and DOD. Shortly before 9/11, Donald Rumsfeld admitted that DOD could not account for trillions of taxpayer dollars. On September 9, 2001, From the Wilderness issued an economic alert warning that the global financial system ran the risk of meltdown.
With the events of 9/11, however, the US government was able to garner support for the extraordinary financial market interventions necessary to continue the strong dollar policy and for keeping the lid on the various financial frauds and manipulations. America and the global financial system have stayed afloat for another three years.
The answer to the question Cui Bono? ("Who benefits?") from the strong dollar policy suggests that allegations that members of the Bush Administration fully expected, welcomed and even facilitated 9/11 should be taken seriously. Trillions of dollars have been moved out of the US economy under the umbrella of the strong dollar policy – much of it in what appear to be criminal ways. The 9/11 tragedy conveniently necessitated a sudden, centralized control over government and theretofore private activities in the name of protecting national security interests and addressing the threat of terrorism. 9/11 diverted attention from and shut the door behind that money movement. It ushered in a wave of legislation rushed through Congress that would make it much more difficult for the American people to do anything about it. The events of 9/11 have acted as a "lock-down" on a financial coup d'état at the core of the "strong dollar policy."
In the Machiavellian tradition, it turns out that the "strong dollar policy" is a policy that intentionally destroys the value of the dollar.
Justifying the End of Markets and Democracy
Traditionally, the faith of the US working class in democracy has been one of the most powerful supports for democracy worldwide. It is not enough to bankrupt the American middle class and the American government. The current effort to move to more centrally controlled governance also requires removing this faith that underpins support for global democracy. Part and parcel of doing so is establishing popular support for the notion that the economic supports for democracy – sound money, open and transparent markets and government, and access to equity – are somehow bad.
An example of this is Marjorie Kelly's The Divine Right of Capital, which neglects to integrate the covert revenue streams into the equation and instead attempts to explain problems and resolutions in terms of overt cash flows only. According to Kelly, the editor of Business Ethics magazine, free markets, not organized crime and black budgets, are the problem. Hence, the problem is that shareholders want to make money, not that insiders rip off small investors of their savings and retirement investments using criminal means, protected, not obstructed, by governmental intervention. Kelly's bio mentions her speaking engagements at Harvard, without concern for Harvard's leadership in Enron, Harken, the rape of Russia, HUD corruption and other criminal frauds.
In the latest escalation of the Orwellian nightmare, we have entire networks of good-hearted progressives and socially responsible investors promoting a framework of "problems-solutions" that provides the perfect intellectual camouflage for their opponents' control over national and international resources. Now that the so-called "New World Order" has stolen all of the money, those who are most appalled at this state of affairs unwittingly promote policies that will prevent the ordinary person from communicating with integrity or creating and accumulating wealth. Even worse, they crave the credibility conferred by the foundation, church and university investment syndicates most richly rewarded by economic and military warfare. Their behavior and the policies they promote — if allowed to triumph –will ensure our descent into a 21st century war economy.
Lest these words give offense, I would encourage you to read one of the most important and brilliant economic articles of 2004, "Shilling for a New World Order" by Anne Williamson.Understanding Mr. Shiller and the folks who finance and promote his effort tells us much about who profits from fascism. Shiller provides the philosophical prerequisites for ending democracy and markets for good and ensuring that no one can rise other than through serving the war economy.
Getting to the truth of 9/11 offers an opportunity to ask and answer the unanswered questions of who is running our world, and to illuminate how the covert cash flows really work. Only with such a powerful understanding can we appreciate the intellectual poison in Shiller's proposals and find real solutions effective in decentralizing our financial systems. I am reminded of a wonderful and very intelligent staff member of the CIA who told me in 1997, "your problem is that you have not answered the question, where does evil come from?" Indeed, this is the unanswered question of our day; one that cannot be answered without a much richer and clear picture than we now have of the economic warfare raging throughout our world and the economic hit men and women leading it.
There is Hope – Two Stories
In November 2004 I was at a precious metals investment conference and had the opportunity to ask one of the speakers, the former head of a US intelligence agency, why the Air Force "stood down four times on 9/11." His answer surprised me. One of his major points during the speech had been the importance of cooperation among all parts of military, intelligence and enforcement on events like 9/11. He answered in a tone of anger saying something like, "I wouldn't know, dear. I ran the (intelligence agency), not the Air Force. You would have to ask the Air Force."
Throughout the years of the strong dollar policy, precious metals investors have held out hope that the price of gold and silver will rise based on economic fundamentals. However, when supply and demand forces can be artificially balanced through covert operations and black budget market manipulations financed by warfare and organized crime, the price can stay managed forever – as long as there are sufficient energy resources to do so. This is a much darker and more subtle form of confiscation than was previously thought possible. I saw and heard a dawning realization in that audience that precious metal investors were being "had."
As global investors come to understand the truth of 9/11, a lot of resources can shift in very decentralizing ways. I presume that the speaker's fear before such an audience indicated that he understood this too. He appreciates that the economic hit men's control of global markets is much more vulnerable to the viral spread of truth than it seems. Indeed, the following week, the speaker made a public statement that the Internet needed increased controls.
It would seem the truth of 911 is quite powerful.
Two weeks ago I visited a friend who has absolutely no interest in politics. He is well into his seventies. He understands the extent and seriousness of the corruption. Given his age, he has concluded that the only thing he can do to help is live an upright life and pray. His response to the truth of 9/11 is to withdraw from current events and contribute spiritually. He mentioned that a group of his friends had suggested that a recent event had been determined by covert means in complete contradiction to accounts put forth by the mainstream media. He spoke about our current leadership with sadness. It was clear from his manner that he no longer takes them seriously. They have lost what the Chinese call "the mandate of heaven." They are thugs – to be avoided in public and laughed at in private.
While this may sound like a small thing, I saw something I have seen many times since the Presidential election. Many Americans are quietly and invisibly withdrawing our mandate from the current leadership – not from America as a country, or from the notion of a democratic American government or from the American people. We understand that our enemy is not these things. This silent withdrawal in the hearts and minds of millions and the use of spiritual warfare to effectively counter those behind economic and military warfare has the power to shift power to more legitimate leadership.
Enough hearts and minds on Main Street are silently withdrawing our support to begin real cultural and economic change. Imagine if the truth of 9/11 could illuminate the real economic hit men and women of our day and age and – unleashed from the paralysis of not understanding the covert flows around us and who we can trust – help us transform our situation in a wealth creating way?
As Percy Bysshe Shelley once said, "Ye are many. They are few."
1 See Jamey Hecht, "Failure and Crime Are Not the Same: 9/11's Limited Hangouts,"
2 See Catherine Austin Fitts, "The Myth of the Rule of Law," http://www.solari.com/gideon/q301.pdf; "The Negative Return on Investment Economy,"http://www.solariactionnetwork.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=3771#3771 and "The American Tapeworm,"http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0304/S00228.htm.
3 For a description of an "economic hit" of which my company was a target, see the "Litigation," available online athttp://www.solari.com/gideon.
4 For a list of recommended books on 9/11, including The New Pearl Harbor and 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions by David Ray Griffin, Crossing the Rubicon by Mike Ruppert, The Complete 9/11 Timeline by Paul Thompson, Inside Job by Jim Marrs and others, see http://www.911truth.org/.
5 Catherine Austin Fitts, "9/11 Profiteering,"http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0403/S00244.htm.
6 Kelly Patricia O'Meara, "Strong Dollar Hides Weak Policy,"http://www.gata.org/StrongDollar.htm.
7 Kelly Patricia O'Meara, "Missing Money Articles,"http://www.solari.com/learn/articles_missingmoney.htm; "Treasury Checks and Unbalances,"http://www.insightmag.com/news/2004/04/27/National/ Treasury.Checks.And.Unbalances-658744.shtml
8 Catherine Austin Fitts, "The Story of Edgewood Technology Services,"http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0207/S00101.htm.
9 Mike Ruppert, "Global Economic Collapse Likely,"http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/11_09_01_Derivatives.html
Catherine Austin Fitts is the President of Solari, Inc. http://www.solari.com/. Ms. Fitts is the former Assistant Secretary of Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner during the first Bush Administration, a former managing director and member of the board of directors of Dillon Read & Co. Inc. and President of The Hamilton Securities Group, Inc. She writes a column for Scoop Mapping The Real Deal. And is one of the co-founders ofhttp://www.unansweredquestions.org/
© Copyright 2005, From The Wilderness Publications, http://www.fromthewilderness.com/. All Rights Reserved. This story may NOT be posted on any Internet web site without express written permission. Contact email@example.com. May be circulated, distributed or transmitted for non-profit purposes only.
STANDARD DISCLAIMER FROM UQ.ORG: UnansweredQuestions.org does not necessarily endorse the views expressed in the above article. We present this in the interests of research -for the relevant information we believe it contains. We hope that the reader finds in it inspiration to work with us further, in helping to build bridges between our various investigative communities, towards a greater, common understanding of the unanswered questions which now lie before us.
By Dana Gabriel
“The never ending war on drugs and war on terrorism are being used to justify the huge police state security apparatus being assembled. This includes the militarization of the northern border and plans for a North American security perimeter. In the name of national security, there has been a steady erosion of civil liberties and privacy rights in both the U.S. and Canada. Our freedoms are under assault. The amount of information being collected and shared on all aspects of our daily lives has expanded and is being stored in massive databases. Sweeping new surveillance powers targeting terrorists and other criminals are being increasingly turned against those who are critical of government policy. There is a concerted effort to demonize political opponents, activists, protesters and other peaceful groups. We are witnessing the criminalization of dissent where those who oppose the government’s agenda are being labeled as terrorists and a threat to security.”
February 20th, 2012 by olddog
This is the lady who taught me to never begin a debate with your intellectual superiors, unless you enjoy being humiliated. Fortunately, for me, this lady has taken me under her wing and taught me things I could never have learned without her. I have a free autographed copy of her first book and a pre-publication word document of her second. You would not believe how intuitive she was in presenting the subject as a novel, instead of a treatise. These are two books that make a difficult subject a delightful learning experience. I am proud to consider myself her grasshopper, which only people over forty will understand. This is a subject that every American will benefit from learning.
Without central banking, America would be the shining star of the world, and the Rothschild’s, & Rockefellers, would just be grumpy old men. Can you imagine an honest federal government? If there are two people in America with the knowledge to turn it around, it is Marilyn Barnewall and Walter Burien, of CAFR1.com. They both deserve your support, which begins by learning what they know so well. Google their names and learn all you can.
State sovereignty begins with State Banking, and keeping our profits begins with Walter’s Tax Retirement Fund.
with Anthony Wile
The Daily Bell is pleased to present this interview with Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall (left).
Introduction: Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall served as president of The MacGruder Agency, Inc., a bank financial consulting firm, from 1979 through 1993. She was known as the "guru" of North American Private Banking (so-called by Town and Country and Trust and Estates magazines) and a 1989 issue of Forbes magazine called her the "Dean of American Private Banking." Today, Ms. Barnewall is retired and has devoted her energies to writing books, articles and legislation focused on state banking and, generally, the devolution of American banking. Some of her ideas are similar to those of "public-banking" advocate Ellen Brown.
Daily Bell: Tell us more about your background and how you got into this field.
Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall: I became a banker quite by accident in 1972. I worked at Denver's largest bank and I started the first private bank in the United States. I started the MacGruder Agency when I left the bank in 1979, and was a consultant implementing credit-driven private banks until 1993.
I have also written a number of books. The first book I wrote, which I think is still one of the only books on private banking, is called Profitable Private Banking: The Complete Blueprint, which was published by the American Bankers Association and sold for $5,000 a copy. I went back to writing and have written hundreds of articles for Internet publications since.
Daily Bell: What is "credit-driven private banking"?
Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall: There are two types of private banking, and it is different than what you might think. Traditionally, private banking is and always has been the management of other people's money or assets. The one I created was a credit-driven form of private banking.
Basically, credit-driven private banking is done in a way that strengthens and broadens the middle class. During my time as a bank advisor, I basically created a concept of banking that enabled lenders to make business purpose loans based on personal assets and cash flow. So a business-purpose loan, a commercial loan, depends for repayment on the purpose of the loan. If the purpose of the loan is to make cars, then the source of repayment comes from the sale of those cars, the dealers or the public. In other words, individuals can't do that because they aren't in the business of selling cars or building condominiums. It's recognizing all the potential available.
Daily Bell: Tell us about the work you have been doing in relation to state banks and the resolution for the State of Colorado.
Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall: I recently wrote the legislation for the State of Colorado for state banks. The movement to create state banks is a growing one. I started writing about state banks a little over two years ago. Many people are very confused about what a state bank is. Basically, it is two things: it is an administrator and it is a correspondent bank. That's it. It is not the bank that sits on Main Street. A state bank also takes in tax revenues; all of the fees that are taken in by the state are held in the state bank instead of being sent to Washington or a money center bank. In a state bank, the money is held within the state.
All the banks in, say, North Dakota, are privately owned by investors and they are chartered by the state bank of North Dakota. Now, national banks also still do business in the state of North Dakota. Wells Fargo can be there, Bank of America can be there, but there are about seven state chartered banks that are privately owned by private investors. The other part of state banking is the correspondent bank relationship. Right now, when an independent bank has a loan that is too large for it to make, it goes to a money center bank or a bigger bank to partner in that loan with them. So those are the two things that a state bank does.
People tend to hear "state bank" and think it's a socialized system of banking with the state owning the bank that sits on Main Street but it isn't. It's very much the opposite of that and a very conservative approach to banking.
Daily Bell: There are numerous additional states that are investigating the possibility of state banks.
Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall: Correct. The problem we have is too much centralized power in Washington, DC and a lot of states have figured that out. Right now, you have Washington, Oregon, California, Hawaii, Montana, Colorado, Illinois, Florida, Virginia, Maryland, Massachusetts and a few others that are actively investigating the possibility of their own state bank. Let's go back to North Dakota, and look at the reasons why they did and the results they had and why other states are looking at state banks now.
North Dakota formed their state bank in 1919, 94 years ago. They have a tremendous history and a population of about 650,000 people. The North Dakota state bank, during the last 10 years, has paid the state treasurer more than $325 million from bank profits. In 2010, the worst economy in recent history, North Dakota had its largest budget surplus in the state's history. North Dakota tops the list of state economies year after year.
Now, state economies should be the number one concern of the people. State unemployment statistics are another issue and anyone who believes the stats that are being handed out right now are accurate is crazy. In Mesa County, where I live, the unemployment rate is 19.3%. In North Dakota, the unemployment rate is 3.3%. In 2009 and 2011 there were tax reductions in North Dakota. There are tremendous financial advantages to being a state bank and having a state bank and that is why all these states are looking into it.
Daily Bell: How does that differ from what Ellen Brown says?
Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall: Ellen Brown is very positive about North Dakota and the state bank concept. Where Ellen and I differ is fractional-reserve banking. If you look at what Ellen has written about state banks, she talks in terms of the large increases in loans outstanding for the state bank. With fractional-reserve, when a bank makes a loan of a million dollars, they send 10% or $100,000 to the Federal Reserve and they can get a credit of up to $900,000 in new loans. That is what has created "debt capitalism," and they want to bring the whole debt capitalism concept to the state level. I am adamant that if a state bank is implemented, the charter that is passed by the people prevents that debt capitalism from happening.
Daily Bell: Define 'debt capitalism.' Did you coin this term?
Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall: I started using this term a few years ago, but debt capitalism is where the emphasis for bank growth is placed on debt. Now, when I was a banker back in the '70s, we loaned our customers deposit-based loans. I think most people think that is still happening but that is not true with the fractional-reserve system that is in place today. In the past, we would loan up to 70% of our deposit base and we would be audited two or three times a year to make sure the quality of loans were good. In order for us to grow as a bank, or for any bank to grow in those days, the bank had to place emphasis on the growth of deposits. As you know, the only way you can grow deposits it to grow business, and that meant the bank had to be supportive of business growth within the community. If you do not have new jobs and new businesses, you are not going to have new business at the bank.
Today, a bank makes loans, gives 10% to the Federal Reserve and gets a credit to be able to loan 90% of the loan they just made to the public. So they are totally dependant on loans for growth, which has resulted in this entire debt mentality. In the old days it was always based on community business growth; new companies depositing and new employees depositing. Under the debt capitalism concept, which is not capitalism at all, in my view, everything is dependent on debt. It is how they create money out of thin air, and it depreciates the currency at the same time.
Daily Bell: If you have a state bank, do you have to have state currency?
Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall: The answer is no. Obviously, you do not. North Dakota has had a state bank for 94 years and they use Federal Reserve notes because right now, that is the law. They also have a relationship with the Federal Reserve, which is the law, and the FBIC, which is the law. But if the federal system failed tomorrow, the bank of North Dakota would be able to clear checks for all of its member banks and all of their customers. They would be able to do all of the things that the Federal Reserve System does. With the other 49 states, if the federal system fails, the banking system fails.See, if the federal system fails tomorrow, North Dakota could create its own system in a heartbeat because it has a distribution system in place with its state bank. The other 49 states do not have a distribution system.
And as far as declaring sovereignty, there are a few things that have to be in place before you can declare sovereignty. You have to have a defined territory; of course, a state has that. You have to have population and a state has that. But the other thing you have to have is control over your own financial system and if you do not have a state bank, you don't have that.
Daily Bell: Good foresight on North Dakota's part!
Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall: I have to tell you, I do not consider the Federal Reserve System in this country to be a legitimate central bank. I am hoping some of these states get state banks implemented before Congress passes some legislation to prevent it. At the moment, states have sufficient sovereignty to say, 'Hey we're going to have our own state bank.' The Federal Reserve is a private corporation; it is not part of the government and it has no authority over the independent states of the United States.
There are several states that have legislatively declared the right to be sovereign, like Alabama, Nebraska, Rhode Island, Wyoming, Washington, Indiana, Kentucky, Georgia, Kansas, Missouri, Mississippi and Maryland. So this goes to my question: Does declaring themselves to be sovereign make them sovereign? No, because they don't have a state bank system in place they don't have control by international law, control of their own system. All I am saying is that state banks are critical to the sovereignty process or to the creation of a new currency.
So when North Dakota implemented their state bank six years after the Federal Reserve was implemented in 1913, Eastern bankers said 'That's a socialist system!' OK, look at it today and tell me which system is socialist. North Dakota just had a national meeting for all state treasurers around the United States in September, and the state treasurer of every state spent a full day becoming informed about the Bank of North Dakota.
Daily Bell: Give us some idea about the process each state will go through to have a state bank.
Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall: It's a very interesting political process, and it won't be pretty. What I have found out about the resolution I wrote for Colorado is that nothing is going to happen until after this election because the big banks will fund their opponents. They will put lots of money into negative advertising.
State banks, if they're going to happen in this country, are going to come about because of a public initiative, meaning people getting petitions signed, getting involved, learning more and so on. A state bank will turn an economy around within a year if it is properly managed and properly run. But it is a political hot potato so politicians who cannot afford to have the negative publicity during an election year are passing approvals to study state banks rather than actual legislation. Is that crazy or what?
Daily Bell: You sound frustated about the process. Why did you leave the banking business?
Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall: There were endless changes that were not for the good. Basically, the Community Reinvestment Act that was passed in 1977 said bankers had to make mortgage loans to people who could not afford to repay them. if you didn't make the loans that the government said you should make, you would be penalized; you could be fined or they could deny you the right to expand or open a new branch. That bothered me.
Following this legislation came the low interest rates that Greenspan was putting in place. Suddenly the private bankers did not have time to make business purpose loans because suddenly everybody wanted to refinance their mortgage. That puzzled me greatly, I just watched what was going on and couldn't believe it. I thought, no government would do this kind of thing to its people if it wanted a healthy economy. It shocked me.
I wrote the first article about Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac back in 2003, called "Freddie Mac's Ethical Woes." You can see it at World Net Daily along with many other articles of mine. In July 2003, I wrote an article about Freddie Mac's problems. At that time, Freddie Mac was under investigation by the US Attorney's Office, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight.
All these changes encouraged me to begin writing my first book, which ended up becoming two fiction books. When the Swan's Neck Broke was the first one. I wrote the book in a fictional format to try to explain fractional reserve banking to the American people and explain the destructive nature of the central banking system. It discusses what was happening internationally and talked about all the corruption that was involved. It also goes into education and what has happened to the education system and why it's so dumbed down.
Swan's Neck Broke came out in 2008 and last year, in 2011, Flight of the Black Swan came out, which was a follow-up to the first one based on how do we recuperate, how do we take down all this corruption? I ended up realizing that what we have to do is a series of citizen grand juries, to identify the corruption and get rid of it. You will have to read the book to find out how that ends. It turned out really well.
Further to my books, I have continued to write several articles on how the Congress literally has gone through the various pieces of legislation that made it possible for this takeover of the American government. It's disgusting. (See If We Don't Learn from History, Part 1 of 2 and Part 2 of 2).
Daily Bell: How would you restructure the banking system in America?
Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall: I would decentralize it, and I think that is the only way to do it. That is why I feel so strongly about state banks. State banks create decentralization of what is too much centralized power within the financial services industry in the United States.
Daily Bell: Would you further regulate Wall Street?
Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall: Well, one of the first things I would do is eliminate the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. I would put Glass-Steagall back in place. There has always been a need for a strong, big wall in between commercial banking and stockbrokers. I do not care how much JP Morgan calls itself a bank – it's a stockbroker; it is not a bank. I understand they like calling themselves investment bankers because it gets them respect or whatever they think, but commercial banks and stockbrokers, are two different things. There is a natural conflict of interest built-in between the two, from which we were protected by the Glass-Steagall Act. We the consumers and we the commercial banking industry were protected from the moral hazard that results from that conflict of interest until they did away with the Glass-Steagall Act. That is the first thing we need to re-implement.
Whenever government wants more power it ignores the regulations that are in place, and then everything goes to hell. I do not believe in a lot of regulation but I do believe you have to have the proper structure in place to minimize the conflicts of interest involving greed and corruption. But regulations are not worth the paper they are written on if they are not enforced and adhered to. We have to make sure that the financial services industry is structured in a way that does not encourage fraud, corruption and greed.
Daily Bell: Where do we go from here? What needs to be done?
Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall: I'll tell you what I think. In America, if we do not get state banks in place we are well over the cliff of economic disaster. I think the European Union is history. I believe Greece is going to default. The Federal Reserve System has totally devalued the American dollar and we can expect a depreciation of the dollar in the not too distant future. In my opinion, and no one has said this before, but I believe the state bank concept would work as well to solve the problems in Germany and France as it does in North Dakota. There's too much centralized banking power.
Daily Bell: Is there a power elite that wants to create one-world government?
Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall: Absolutely. I think that has been the objective since the beginning. I believe that in order to get one-world government, they first had to have in place a world economy. Once they have all the world economic systems coordinated, it is child's play to flip into world government. I believe that has been the purpose. I also believe that economic failure internationally has been a planned failure and I believe the reason behind that planned failure is to create world government. The evolvement into technocrats and electronic money is horribly dangerous.
Daily Bell: What do you think of Austrian economists?
Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall: I agree with a lot of what von Mises says but I disagree somewhat on the gold/silver standard because I believe we need commodities as a whole to back our currency. In other words, I believe gold, silver, natural gas, coal, timber, fishing, etc., all of the natural resources of any state, should be able to back a state currency, for example. In my opinion, all wealth comes from the earth.
Daily Bell: Is the Internet making a difference in terms of getting out your message?
Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall: I have to say it is. You have to do a combination of public speaking and publishing to keep the message going. It's a very concerted effort.
Daily Bell: Do you have any other books in the works right now?
Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall: Yes. I am currently working on a manuscript about one of the most intricate stories in the world right now. It will take some time to complete but it is about Ambassador Leo Emil Wanta who has been an intelligence operative since his teens and who reported directly to Ronald Reagan. This will be my final book of the trilogy, Swan Song for a Shadow Government, and should be finished in about a year. It will have a lot of biographical data and be more fact than fiction.
Daily Bell: Any other thoughts you would like to share?
Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall: One of the biggest things I have come to realize is that people's lack of knowledge, not just in the United States but people all over the world, as to how their own financial systems works is the reason that the powers-that-be have been able to perpetrate this rape of our financial resources, which is what it has been. It's a financial resource rape.
I also want to say that the reason I wrote my two books in fictional format, in an international, intrigue, intelligence, operative kind of book, is because it was the only way I could think of to get the attention of the American public. It's not a good situation. People need to learn more and do more.
My latest article about state banks can be seen here, "State Banks," with more at my blog, "State Banks: Resolution and Explanation."
Daily Bell: Thank you for your time, and your insights.
Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall: Thank you. The Daily Bell is very respected among the financial people I speak with. Most of them read it and I am very pleased to have this opportunity to speak about state banks.
Good for Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall for stating the problem. There is a power elite intent on creating world government. Because of the Internet, they're moving very quickly now, trying to put in place a full spectrum of functioning, global facilities. These include the UN (the legislative arm), the IMF (the central bank),SDRs (world currency), the International Criminal Court (ICC), NATO (world army),Interpol (world police), etc.
It's pretty amazing that people don't see global governance being erected around them, especially Westerners, and can still say that those who speak of it are "conspiracy theorists." There is a conspiracy, all right, but it's being implemented by a handful of impossibly wealthy individuals who have been pursuing this goal for at least a century, if not more.
These individuals control central banks around the world (having installed them, apparently) and use their control of hundreds of trillions to generate what they call a New World Order. The way it's been set up is clever. The US dollar itself has been the lynchpin. The Saudi royal family, thoroughly intimidated, recognizes only dollars for oil. This means that other nations have to hold dollars in order to buy oil. Thus, the US central bank can print almost unlimited dollars, "exporting" its inflation and using the proceeds for whatever purposes the power elite chooses. Obviously, they choose to purchase a lot of military equipment. There's a reason that the US spends more on its military than all the rest of the world combined. It's the power elite's enforcement arm.
It's a kind of closed circle in which the rest of the world pays for its own enslavement. The tributes flowing to America are re-invested into military equipment. In turn, those at the top of the American power pyramid − the shadow government − continue to restrict discoveries of oil to ensure that oil is mostly produced by Third World countries that are easily controllable. There's plenty of oil in the world, in our view, but if the dollar-reserve system is going to work, the supply of oil (and its discoveries) needs to be restricted.
There are other aspects to this plan, as well. What has never really been emphasized, it would seem, even in the alternative media, is the extent to which the Anglosphere power elites have used fundamentalist Islam to set up further world tensions. Wahhabism is the Saudi Arabian version of fundamentalist Sunni Islam. It is consistently exported throughout the Middle East by the Saudis but it never seems to occur to Western observers that the Saudis do NOTHING (important) without the approval of Western elites. If these elites didn't want Wahhabism available, it wouldn't be.
We've also written articles, along with some other observers of the world scene, showing that the Iranian revolution and subsequent fundamentalist Shia resurgence was likely Western-backed. And finally, we've shown that the many wars that the US and NATO are now engaged in prosecuting in the Middle East are overthrowing secular regimes and putting in place Islamic ones, courtesy of the Western-linked Muslim Brotherhood.
Step by step, methodically, Western elites are building up a "clash of civilizations" that will obviously further expand the phony "war on terror" that has already done so much damage to people's freedoms. The clash of civilizations has another advantage in that controlled governments the world over are implementing Draconian passport and visa limitations using the justification of war to do so.
Take a step back and watch the pincer movement closing. On the one hand, you have the rising drumbeat of war and on the other you have additional economic dislocation. Taken together, the elites are creating a worldwide crisis that will apparently be used to further activate world government.
How can people respond? Well, in our humble view, people should do what they can to live independently, even to the point of having independent food sources and access to other resources (including perhaps gold and silver money) that are not directly linked to state facilities. We have regularly offered the solution that people should strive to live in small communities and have a say over the larger bureaucracy that is all too often running their lives.
Ms. Barnewall believes that state banks (call them regional banks) are an important part of the solution, and generally the idea of devolution is a sensible one, in our view. Of course, we've taken it further than Ms. Barnewall (or Ellen Brown) in the sense that we advocate a fully laissez faire society in which various kinds of money and banking can compete with other forms of compensation and capital-raising techniques.
We are not even so sure that banking itself is a necessary or at least important part of free-market societies, in that historically speaking, people have raised capital in numerous ways. The current "cult of banking" is a direct outgrowth, in our view, of the power elite's desire to have distribution facilities to offer-out fiat/paper currency. Absent the current distribution system, the financial landscape would be much changed.
But we have tried to be consistent throughout the years we've been offering the Daily Bell, and long ago we began to state that solutions such as the ones offered by Brown and Barnewall might be better, at least in the short-term, than what we have today. In the longer term, we hope that Western societies find their way back to REAL free markets, free banking and generally monetary freedom. It existed, partially anyway, in the US only several hundred years ago. There's no reason why it can't or won't exist again. People will look back on the current environment as a kind of bad dream − an interregnum, not a reign.
We are not sure, however, that the kinds of free-societies that we (along with many others) advocate will come about because people simply will them into existence. More and more, we are convinced that the current trends will have to play themselves out at least to some degree. For this reason, we do not advocate using the current system to CURE the current system, as more and more are arguing.
In our view, people should try to DROP OUT of the current system to the best of their abilities. If enough people do this, the current system will simply lose credibility and eventually cease to exit. There is not much to recommend it at this point, after all, unless you are a fan of continuing wars, inflation, depression, unemployment, corporatism and expanding global government.
What we call the Internet Reformation is increasingly bringing this state of affairs to the attention of Western citizens, and as this knowledge grows, changes are taking place. We tend to feel this is as unstoppable as any other trend and that the end result of the current sociopolitical, economic and military environment will be one that includes devolution as well as centralization and expansion.
Ms. Barnewall, in our view, is doing her part for devolution and smaller society with her advocacy of state rather than federal banking, and also with her books and articles on these issues. There's much we disagree with, philosophically about the idea of public banking, even at a state level, and, of course, we are not convinced that the state can ever manage ANYTHING effectively because at root, when you speak of the state you are speaking of an entity that will mandate obedience using force.
But within a real-world locale, anything that punctures the ever-bigger goals of the power elite is probably a healthy occurance. Ms. Barnewall obviously appreciates the REAL problem and is not afraid of stating it. She receives our admiration for her guts and we certainly wish her well, generally, in her endeavors. These days, smaller is surely better in so many ways.
February 19th, 2012 by olddog
February 18, 2012
By John F. Di Leo
Received from Marilyn Barnewall
Acting without any legal authority, President Obama has overridden the federal charter of the Export-Import Bank, and turned it into a competitor for domestic loan business, in utter defiance of the law. Hardly anyone has noticed or seems to care. Speaking at a Boeing assembly plant in Everett, Washington Friday, President Barack Obama announced a bold new plan to help American exporters: he would broaden the services of the Ex-Im Bank to help grow our exports.
Now, that sounds good on the face of it. The Ex-Im Bank is chartered as an export-funding source with a very narrow, specific charter. It exists in an odd area of commerce that requires some background.
When a US manufacturer wants to sell to a foreign country, the local banking regulations and currency controls of that destination government sometimes make it difficult or impossible for the buyer to pay a US vendor promptly. Local interest rates may be too high; the local banks may be untrustworthy or otherwise unable to cooperate smoothly with a US bank; the destination country may simply have rules that only allow payments occasionally, so the timing of the shipment may cause the customer to be unable to pay for a year or two, or ever.
In view of this problem, many foreign countries have their own export finance banks — government-chartered agencies that produce short term financing on good risks — only on good risks — so that the peculiarities of the (usually third world) destination country don't kill a good transaction. Sometimes they're paid immediately, sometimes in six months, or a year or two… the idea is that the government is better off if its manufacturers are not scared out of exporting to such countries by banking issues. And again, barring unforeseen revolutions or currency collapses, these deals should only be about good investments.
Since so many other countries provide such a service for their manufacturers, the US government created the Ex-Im Bank in the 1930s to provide the same service for ours. The larger the project, the more important such financing becomes. Without such a credit agency, US manufacturers would lose sale after sale to foreign competitors whose governments could offer this financing tool as part of the deal. The Ex-Im Bank is therefore a tool for leveling the playing field in export sales. It lends to good credit risks in problematic countries, that's all… and helps keep the US export sector strong as a result.
To ensure that the Ex-Im Bank doesn't step on the toes of private US banks, it operates under several constraints. It must not compete with other US lenders; if a private bank wants to make the loan, the Ex-Im Bank must step aside (and happily does!). It must not provide this taxpayer-supported service on foreign products; since the whole point is to support US manufacturers, it sets minimum percentage requirements for US content on the goods being sold. And since its whole point is to support exports, it can only make loans attached to export shipments, not just any old loan for any old US company. It's not there to compete with the private sector!
Well, if there's one thing we've learned from watching the Obama Administration in action for three years, if there's anything they despise, it's pesky laundry lists of rules that limit executive desires.
Poof! goes the charter…
There is a case to be made for tweaking the activity of the Ex-Im Bank. It sometimes runs up against its capital limitations, so to ask Congress to increase its funding ability could be a worthwhile discussion, with valid points on both sides. And as our economy grows ever more global, the content percentage requirements could perhaps be more flexible. The Ex-Im Bank has, for example, already largely eliminated the need for US-flagged vessels being used on export shipments, a rule that became archaic when the last of the major US-flag container-ships fell under foreign ownership. So yes, times change, and the Ex-Im Bank has to an extent changed with them.
But these aren't the kinds of changes that the Obama Administration is ordering.
He has announced that he will break with 80 years of history and a clear bank charter to direct the Ex-Im Bank to provide loans for domestic (USA-to-USA) sales if a foreign government might offer export financing to the manufacturer's foreign competitors. They all do! By definition, export financing agencies abroad provide this service on their international sales; it's not normally restricted by industry or product. The American banking industry can provide sufficient financing for a domestic company to compete with a more costly foreign import (for which you have transportation, duties, and other import costs as well, presumably making the importation undesirable).
He has also announced that he will order the Ex-Im Bank to begin making short-term financing loans of six to twelve months — not necessarily connected to any export sales! — to small domestic firms who want to increase their exporting activity. That's so open-ended, it can mean anything and include any company. Not that there's anything wrong with loans to small businesses; it's just that this is not the job of the Ex-Im Bank. Short-term loans to domestic businesses are for normal domestic banks to offer; that's what the business department of every bank in the country is for!
He did throw in the mention that he supports reauthorizing the Ex-Im Bank when its funding authority comes up in May, just to include something legitimate in this basket of excesses, but the big story is his overreach in tearing up a charter from 1934 and dismissing it as irrelevant. Will he even be called on it? Will anyone even notice this particular overreach, after three years of losing count of such things?
Misrule by Mismanagement
This isn't the first time that this president has attempted to politicize the Ex-Im Bank and meddle with its rules. The administration quietly issued an edict in 2009 that the Ex-Im Bank was to give greater support to green projects, and to deny outright projects that involve fossil fuels, no matter how deserving the project or how compliant with the bank's charter. This exploded into a political debacle in the run-up to the 2010 election, when ex-Senator-to-be Russ Feingold of Wisconsin had to intervene and plead with the administration to remove the political hold intended to kill a $600 million sale for suburban Milwaukee's Bucyrus International. The resulting embarrassment — discovering that the Democratic Party would rather kill thousands of American union jobs than participate in a coal mine project in India — likely contributed to the November victory of now-Senator Ron Johnson.
But even that was just an internal guidance, improper, but arguably not a violation of the Ex-Im Bank's charter.
This 2012 initiative is different. This 2012 initiative turns the concept of export finance on its head. It directly orders a bank to disregard its ban on domestic loans, and sell domestically. The initiative orders the Ex-Im Bank to disregard its requirement to loan only on export shipments, and instead to loan operating cash to put companies in a better position to export (a goal with no substance whatever). It orders them to break their cardinal rule against competing with private domestic banks. And by definition, it likely means that these expanded offerings will crowd out the very kind of loans — to foreign purchasers of American export goods – that the Ex-Im Bank was created to provide.
This administration is making a habit of directing government agencies to change their very jobs without congressional authority. The military isn't there to fight wars, but perhaps to help with disaster assistance. The Department of Education is to issue guidelines on children's diets. NASA is to stop flying into outer space, and instead is to propagandize about the scientific contributions of Islam through the ages. The Department of Energy is to thwart energy independence by denying permits that would produce domestic energy.
And now the Export-Import Bank is to loan money to domestic customers engaging in domestic transactions.
This administration is abusing government, by using agencies for purposes other than their constitutional or statutory functions. This government by executive fiat grows ever more random, ever more disconnected from the reality of the legislation that chartered these departments and agencies as they wander ever farther afield.
John F. Di Leo is a Chicago-based Customs broker and international trade compliance lecturer. His columns are regularly found in IllinoisReview.com.
February 4th, 2012 by olddog
Ready for a "Real" change?
Every citizen has a responsibility to help America cast off the tyranny of our federal government and the International Banking Cartel that controls it. Otherwise U.N. Agenda 21 will bury freedom so deep we will never breathe the air of freedom again. This is a warning, not just a suggestion! Recently a scumbag judge in George gave us a real knife in the back, and no doubt destroyed the resolve of hundreds of thousands of Americas who now are convinced we can do nothing to defeat the enemy within, but I beg to differ with that and Walter Burien has the proof. If you will go to CAFR1.com and do a little reading you will see that we can recover enormous power over the PTB by taking control of the investment income of the local, State, and Federal governments. Granted Walt is a genius and you may not understand everything but if you take the time to present it to your local governments you can make a big difference in the economic structure of your community, and believe me this will catch on fire and sweep the Nation if you will just give it a try. The alternative is to lose everything you have to the tyrants in charge.
Submitted by CAFR1 on Fri, 02/03/2012 – 01:57
Daily Paul Liberty Forum
Two Counties in the US are looking at and will be launching the TRF funding principle that generates the revenue required to satisfy the general purpose operating budgets within that venue. The names of the counties will be kept confidential until just before launch.
With the designated purpose of generating the revenue needed to meet general purpose operating budgets, the TRF in its operation systematically allows for elimination of taxation on the County level as well as for all cities, townships, and school districts in the county. One revenue source (taxation) is replaced with another (return from the TRF)as they develop and grow and thus taxation is not needed.
When the TRF launches CAFR1 will use software that will access numerous data banks to compile all of the financial managers that now will become members of the TRFA (Tax Retirement Fund Association). The data bank will have each managers fund performance record going back 20 years.
Any local government (Miami, FL for example) who wishes to implement the TRF fund management principle, with a keystroke at this end the top fund managers in the Miami area are identified, the fund management team is compiled, and their collective fund management performance record is seen predicating their assignment.
The team will now do the audit of the local venues; implement the TRF program under specific standardized guidelines of consolidation and growth to phase out X tax, and then X tax until all taxation is eliminated from that venue. Personal, sales, property, and corporate.
The software will also monitor each TRF fund's performance to identify and maximize compliance with TRF objectives and set timelines for compliance with the objectives in each specific venue at the stroke of the keyboard.
The data processing company that gets the TRF data management contract could develop that contract into their #1 client especially being that their is a potential for 136,000 local government's in the US and then many more in Canada for their participation with the TRFA. Additionally included in the monitoring is the performance of up to 150,000 fund managers that may be involved from the US and Canada from the get-go.
I note that they, government and everyone else "will" inevitably implement TRF operations being that it satisfies that age-old aspect of the greed and opportunity principle for all three power groups in a "true" mutually beneficial symbiotic relationship;
The Public = no taxation and they build their wealth as the "First Line Beneficiaries" of the investment return of the TRF through the elimination of taxation. The public now with greater prosperity can feed that beast by their own commerce activity and benefits each and every time they do;
Government gets their same truck loads of cash rolling in from the returns on the TRF funds and in time more cash rolling in than what they now are getting from taxation being eliminated out of the picture;
The financial cartels / industrial complex will have more "stable" equity for capital reinvestment under management then they do now or ever ever dreamed about..
A win-win for all involved and a prosperous and "stable" economy to boot for the next 1000-years. You see satisfying that ever driving force of the greed and oppertunity principle for one-and-all makes it work and makes it happen as far as time goes, "in the blink of an eye".
For the last 5000 years government's intent going back to the days of the Pharaohs has viewed the population as being a productivity resource to be drained and managed. That has never been a good thing nor will it ever be a good thing.
Under the TRF management principle the most important aspect is "it changes government's intent towards the population". The population is no longer viewed as being a productivity resource to be drained and managed, government's intent now transitions into wanting to see the population as wealthy and as prosperous as possible.
You see the more wealthy and prosperous the population is, the more goods, products, and services the population is purchasing and thus more truckloads of cash rolling into the government's coffers from the investment return being generated from the TRFs. Again, a win-win for all involved.
I wonder what Mr. Paul would say to the above? :<) Big ventures require strong, sincere, and persevering minds / spirits to get the job done.
To view a basic video presentation per the above please watch the documentary The Only Game in Town – 2012 The Only Game the public, government, and the financial / corporate sector should be playing with that being "ending taxation.. We are talking all taxation, personal and corporate. An economy based on cash and investment only.. taxation cut out of the equation for all time to come.
Truly yours and wishing for a good future for "one-and-all",
Walter J. Burien, Jr. – CAFR1.com
Saint Johns, AZ
Tel. (928) 458-5854
02 03 12 CAFR1 NATIONAL POST
Please share the following link with all that you know:
Sent FYI and Truly Yours from,
Walter Burien – CAFR1.com
P. O. Box 2112
Saint Johns, AZ 85936
Tel. (928) 458-5854
Per understanding CAFRs, people have been intentionally kept in the dark so long they forget the basics:
1. A "Budget Report" is a selective funding of x accounts from x resources (set up to be primarily funded with taxation and done so "for the year")
2. An "Annual Financial Report" is the showing of "all" income: Investment; taxation; and Enterprise, plus the "accumulated wealth over decades. Budgets are for the year, an AFR is for it all since creation of the entity.
There is a big difference between the two. A correct analogy would be: The budget to operate your house vs. your statement of net worth.
The public has been played with the biggest shell game of selective presentation there is allowing for massive fortunes to be made by the inside players over the last several decades..
Every investment fund large and small is a power base. Where that money is invested determines what company; real-estate venture, etc., is made or broken. Thus in line with that, never a mention of the 184,000 AFRs of the corresponding local governments..nor the many thousands of specialty investment funds they contain. I note gov pension funds facilitate the same. Paying employee benefits from the return on the funds is an after thought for the government players.
The head communists back in the 30's and 40's said they could take over America without firming a shot. The undercurrents of that statement were that they could depend on the greed and opportunity of the players to accomplish that goal and it did. US Collective government since 2000 brings in more gross income than the entire gross income of the population of the United States.
Taxation is rammed down the public's throat (1/3rd of the gross income) and Investment / Enterprise income (2/3rd of the gross income) the "silence is golden" rule is strictly enforced with the full symbiotic cooperation of the syndicated media; controlled education; and both political parties as applies over the last century.