Marilyn Barnewall on James Martinez radio show

LEE E. WANTA

Image via Wikipedia

(Note:  James Martinez introduced Marilyn Barnewall to his radio audience and proceeded to let her talk without interruption for an hour about Ambassador Leo/Lee Wanta.  Following are her comments):

Hopefully, if all goes well today and we continue with the second hour on Thursday, we’ll be able to explain why what you said on your blog about today’s show is true, James:  The Leo Wanta Story is the most important news story of 2011.  Actually, it’s been the most important news story since July 7, 1993, when Lee Wanta was arrested – but we all understand that the mainstream media doesn’t pay attention to real news.  It takes the Internet and talk radio to deal with important issues that no one wants to talk about.

The story starts with a man with two different names – Lee Emil Wanta (birth certificate) and Leo Emil Wanta (baptism certificate) who has been an intelligence operative since he was in his teens, and who as an adult intel operative reported directly to the President of the United States, Ronald Reagan.  He is the unknown hero Americans can thank for bringing down the Iron Curtain – and the Independent Institute estimates that 40 years of the Cold War cost American taxpayers $6 trillion.

The Wanta Saga leads us into the uncharted territory of government corruption when this American hero was arrested and imprisoned for a non-existent unpaid, estimated civil tax scam in Wisconsin.  Lee Wanta’s story involves other names with which we are familiar – like Vince Foster and Hillary Clinton and Mark Rich who was the last person former President Bill Clinton pardoned before leaving office.

The thing for which Ambassador Lee Wanta is best known is that of being the richest man in the world.  Many have called him the $27.5 trillion man.  I hope we’ll have time to explain how this one American patriot earned all of that money and how he intended – and still intends – to use it to benefit the people of the nation he so loves.

There is no end to the story – not yet.  The reason there isn’t an end yet is because not enough people know about what really happened – and that’s why I’m here today, speaking on behalf of Ambassador Lee/Leo Wanta.  When I talked with Lee this morning, he mentioned that the dollar is taking a bath in the international markets.  We also talked about how, if the Federal Reserve, the President and the Secretary of the Treasury would just give him access to his own money, he could stop the fall of the American economy.

Where would you like to start, James?

(Response:  You start anywhere you want, Marilyn.  The microphone is yours for the next hour.)

AMBASSADOR LEE WANTA 101

LEE WANTA MEETS RONALD REAGAN AND BECOMES INVOLVED WITH HIS ADMINISTRATION

In 1980, while he was still President Elect, Ronald Reagan was trying to get a number of people he could trust to help him – not the easiest thing to do in Washington DC.  So Lee met the future AG William French Smith and Bill Casey whom he already knew through Bill Colby.  They began discussing how the East European environment could be better controlled.  Over a period of 40 years, the Cold War had cost American taxpayers about $6 trillion and after Jimmy Carter’s disastrous presidency, Ronald Reagan needed to get our financial house in order.

Bill Casey decided Lee Wanta should work with him and the group expanded to include military and other intelligence sources and they had a number of meetings.  They agreed that if they had $150 billion, they could destabilize the Soviet economy.  Lee was made Trustor of President Reagan’s Presidential Task Force and, in that capacity, was officially responsible for the $150 billion grant President Reagan approved.  He was ALSO responsible for returning it to the U.S. Treasury  – and he did.  Within six months.

It’s important to keep in mind that the original investment made by the U.S. government – the $150 billion – was repaid.  The reason it’s important is to answer any question about who owns the money earned after Lee Wanta returned the $150 billion.  Is it the government’s money?  Or, is it Lee Wanta’s money?  To answer that question, use the example of a simple car loan.  When you borrow money to buy a car, when the loan is repaid, who owns the car?  You?  Or the bank?

NEW REPUBLIC AND VIENNA – GETTING RUBLES

Lee went to Vienna and established a company called New Republic USA Financial Group and began meeting with people representing nations that did business with the Soviet bloc:  Iran and Iraq, for example, sold oil to the Soviets.  Nations that were part of the Soviet bloc or who those traded with them were paid in rubles and the ruble couldn’t be traded outside of the U.S.S.R.  It had to be used within the Soviet bloc – and that was the weakness Lee identified.  Lee set up an arrangement with Brinks in Holland and began to obtain rubles with dollars in a variety of ways that included importing American goods at low cost prices and selling them for rubles.  They had nothing in Russia… there was little food, little anything.  Currency swapping was another way.  At the time, it wasn’t legal in the U.S., but it was legal in Europe so what Lee did was lawful.

PROMIS

Lee and his New Republic group used Promis Software, which belongs to a company called Inslaw, in Washington, DC.  Promis is interlinked to all of the major monetary centers and was used to set up bank accounts for Lee all around the world.

RUBLES FOR FROM 18 TO 28 CENTS EACH

New Republic was able to get boatloads of rubles in the USSR and, on average, it cost them from 18 to 28 cents on the dollar.  At the time, the Soviets valued the ruble at $1.20.  USSR pension funds, for example, were in the same kind of danger our pension funds are in today.  All of them were glad to trade dollars for rubles with New Republic.  Lee got rubles from the embassies, foreign funds, KGB funds, Soviet pension funds, postal funds, military GRU funds, Soviet central bank funds – they were picking up Soviet currency from everywhere.  When New Republic got the currency under its control, Brinks of Holland wrapped and verified it.

SINGAPORE DEVELOPMENT BANK

New Republic would send 70 billion in rubles to the Development Bank of Singapore, for example.  The Soviet’s valued their currency at $1.20 per ruble, Lee’s $70 billion – for which he had paid only about $14 billion – was worth US $84 billion.           The Russians argued about the $1.20 amount, so Lee finally agreed to accept only $1.08 – but, remember, he had only paid from 18 to 28 cents per ruble.  The Soviets thought they were getting a great deal because rather than having to pay the Settlement Bank $1.20 a ruble, they only paid New Republic (or Lee Wanta)  $1.08.  The Russians thought they had really put one over on him… and I’m sure he laughed all the way to the bank.  The guy is a financial genius.

REAGAN SIGNS 12333

It’s important to know that President Reagan signed Executive Order 12333 on December 4, 1981.  It enabled US intelligence operatives who had been briefed to operate on behalf of the United States to establish corporations that were wholly-owned by the intelligence operative. They could enter into contracts with intelligence and other elements of the US government.  Leo Wanta conducted extensive intelligence operations in accordance with three separate Executive Orders implemented by President Ronald Reagan, whom he briefed and from whom he took orders directly, in a personal capacity.  President Reagan called Lee Wanta his “favorite junkyard dog” – and that’s what he meant by it.

SELL RUBLES FOR 32 CENTS TO COUNTRIES OWING USSR MONEY

Lee and his partner also talked with Germany, Poland, Pakistan, Hungary, India, China, and other countries that owed money to the Soviets.  They offered to swap rubles with these countries at 32 cents apiece.  That allowed the debtor countries to repay their USSR debt for 32 cents on the ruble (which the USSR still valued at US $1.20 each).   It’s important because that’s what triggered the destabilization of the ruble… Lee Wanta re-set the value of the ruble to 32 cents.  In other words, the money loaned by the Soviets to these other countries was pegged at $1.20 per ruble but re-entered the Soviet system at 32 cent per ruble when the debt was paid.  The currency fell as a result of this strategy.

2000 METRIC TONNES OF GOLD

When the currency fell, Moscow needed cash.  Lee, through New Republic, agreed to purchase 2,000 metric tonnes of gold from the USSR central bank – at $1.08 per ruble – but with rubles that had cost him only 18 to 28 cents each.  I would again point out that the $150 billion that came from the Treasury Department to fund Lee’s operation was paid in full by this time and Lee and his company, New Republic, was making huge profits.  The money used to buy the 2,000 metric tons of Russian gold belonged to Lee Wanta.

HOW LEE MADE $27.5 TRILLION – BANK GUARANTEES

Lee bought prime bank guarantees at 7.5 annual interest that had ten year plus one-day maturity – New Republic was buying them at a 66 TO 68 percent discount par value per hundred million dollars and could either loan them or sell them or transfer them at 88 to 92 percent which meant they were making twenty million dollars par value per hundred million invested and they were doing this over and over again, every hour on the hour.   It generated a tremendous amount of money… and that’s how Lee Wanta created $27.5 trillion.

THE MONEY IS LEE WANTA’S

I said earlier that Lee was the Trustor for the Presidential Task Force and the guardian of the original $150 billion President Reagan used to implement this plan.  He repaid the $150 billion within six months.  Under Executive Order 12333 (and a couple of others), the money he invested and earned after the $150 billion was repaid to the government was his, not the government’s.

INSPECTOR GENERAL DOD LETTERS

I think it’s important to remember that before Lee Wanta’s world got turned upside-down, Senator Chuck Grassley and by Congressman Roth wrote letters to the Reagan Transition Team, recommending Lee Wanta become the Inspector General of the Department of Defense.  He was given an award for saving President Reagan from an assassination attempt.  Those things – and many others – are a matter of record at the Reagan Library.

WHEN DID THINGS CHANGE FOR LEE WANTA?

Lee was in Vienna, Austria – where he has been a legal resident since June of 1988 – and was working with the Chinese against the USSR.  He went to Singapore to meet with his Chinese counterpart, Kok Howe Kwong.  Howe’s Dad was very highly placed in the Chinese government and was a recognized former Chinese Warlord.  Howe’s father told Lee that if he would put up $25 million, Howe’s father would put up $25 million for his son and Lee and Howe could purchase and own Aneko Credit PTE, Ltd., a Singapore bank.

About that time, former President George H.W. Bush visited Singapore and was unaware this intelligence operative named Leo Wanta was now co-owner of a foreign bank in Singapore in which Bush senior was a depositor.  Lee says Bush stared at him when he saw him at Aneko Credit Point Ltd – Lee’s and How’s bank.  President Reagan didn’t trust George Bush and whenever Bush would ask Lee a question about what they were doing, Lee says he referred him “back to the President” or to William Smith French or William Casey.  Lee had been told to keep quiet and just get his job done and that’s what he did.

As the story has been told to me – and I have no documentation on this other than Lee’s word and all I can say is I’ve never caught him in a lie – when Bush senior found out that Lee and Howe owned the bank, he demanded a pay off from them – whether for himself, personally, or for the U.S. Treasury, I have no idea – and this gets back to the importance of who did the money belong to and when.  Lee’s partner, Howe, evidently blew up all over the President at such a suggestion.  Two weeks later Howe died in Singapore General Hospital of rat poison.  General Vernon Walters confirmed to Lee Wanta that a hit had also been put out on him for that same night.  It was only by the grace of God he missed the trap that had been set for him.  When that happened, Lee says Dan Quayle arranged for him to leave Singapore and get into Canada.  He lived in a secure situation in Toronto for awhile.

WHERE DOES THE AMBASSADOR TITLE COME FROM?

During the Reagan years, Leo Emil Wanta was appointed Ambassador of Somalia to Switzerland and to Canada.  SDR DIPLOMATIC PASSPORTS 04362 AND 12535

WHEN WAS HE ARRESTED – AND FOR WHAT?

Lee was sent to Switzerland to meet Vince Foster at the Ambassador Hotel in Geneva and was asked by FBI Director William Sessions to arrest Marc Rich who was also going to be in Geneva at the Hotel de la Paix.  This is the same Marc Rich pardoned on the last day of Bill Clinton’s presidency.  The FBI issued a warrant for Rich’s arrest – that arrest warrant is still around, by the way.  The next day, Lee was arrested in Lausanne before his scheduled Geneva meeting with Vince Foster and two weeks later Foster, according to the official reports, committed suicide.

I DON’T KNOW MANY AMERICANS WHO BELIEVE VINCE FOSTER COMMITTED SUICIDE, BUT THAT’S THE OFFICIAL STORY.  HE WAS FOUND IN THE BUSHES IN MARCY PARK IN WASHINGTON, D.C.

(REMEMBER WHEN I SAID) Lee had earned all of that money and invested it in prime bank guarantees he purchased?  He was getting 7.5 percent interest.  Bear in mind, the timing of his arrest coincides with the narrowing time available before those ten-year prime bank guarantees were to mature.  Gee, you don’t think maybe someone knew about all those accounts and had an American intelligence agent arrested and thrown in a dungeon to gain access to trillions of dollars that belonged to him, do you?

SO LEE WANTA WAS SUPPOSED TO MEET WITH VINCE FOSTER BUT WAS ARRESTED IN SWITZERLAND.  TWO WEEKS LATER, FOSTER WAS DEAD.  WANTA WAS SUPPOSED TO ARREST MARK RICH THE NIGHT BEFORE HE, HIMSELF, WAS ARRESTED AND RICH WAS TIPPED OFF BY A MOSSAD AGENT AND DIDN’T SHOW – AND TWO DAYS AFTER WANTA WAS ARRESTED WILLIAM SESSIONS WHO I SSUED THE WARRANT FOR MARC RICH’S ARREST WAS FIRED AS DIRECTOR OF THE FBI – AND A FEW YEARS LATER MARC RICH WAS PARDONED BY BILL CLINTON JUST BEFORE HE LEFT OFFICE.

Lee was arrested by the Swiss Sûreté in Lausanne right after having breakfast with several members of his group and some Swiss bankers.  He was supposed to meet with Vince Foster at the Ambassador Hotel in Geneva that day.  The reservations for Foster’s stay were made by Foster on his American Express card.  The morning of his arrest, he and his group were supposed to take the short train ride from Lausanne to Geneva. Lee had just paid the breakfast bill when he changed his mind about the train.  He was carrying heavy files and another member of the group had too much luggage, so he decided they’d travel by cab. It was almost at that exact moment he was arrested and his nightmare began.  Lee Wanta was thrown in a Swiss dungeon for 134 days.  He watched another inmate die because the man ate some cheese that had been given to Lee – who is lactose intolerant and couldn’t eat it.  That was one of numerous attempts on his life while he was behind bars.  A crude attempt on his life was made in a washroom at the Kettle Moraine Department of Corrections when a Deputy Sheriff changed into prisoners’ clothes, and attempted to murder Lee in the washroom.  When he failed, he re-changed his clothes, went to his car, and drove home.  He was never investigated.

Yitzhak Rabin intervened on Lee’s behalf, sending him a coded message.  The Swiss, who violated Lee’s Diplomatic Immunity as the Somali Ambassador to Switzerland when they arrested him, were scared off by Rabin’s coded message, put Lee in chains and immediately flew him to New York with armed guards.   They didn’t give him Rabin’s message until he was at the airport.  Rabin was later assassinated.

THEY WANTED LEE WANTA OUT OF THE WAY.

They wanted Lee out of the way because they wanted him to pay the funds he had earned to powerful individuals rather than putting funds in the U.S. Treasury by paying taxes on the money.

WHY DID THE SWISS ARREST LEE WANTA?

Well, that’s the question of the year.  Lee was the Somali Ambassador to Switzerland and also to Canada.  The morning he was arrested he had just had breakfast with a group of people at the Hotel Au Lac in Lausanne.

WHY WAS HE MEETING VINCE FOSTER IN GENEVA?

Lee was in the process of giving Foster $250 million for the Children’s Defense Fund.  Hillary Clinton was heavily involved with that group.  Lee was authorized by Laura D’Andrea Tyson at the White House to make this payment.  Several other journalists have stated that Mrs. Clinton used the Children’s Defense Fund as her own personal piggy bank, but I have no personal knowledge of that.  Instead, Marc Rich was informed by an Israeli Mossad agent about the warrant that had been issued for him and he didn’t get on the ferry boat as planned.

No form of arrest or detention of an Ambassador to Switzerland should have been possible. Lee had been appointed to serve as Ambassador of a small, disorganized, third-world nation that was periodically in the headlines because of its social violence. Somalia had the need to build an infrastructure and President Reagan had set aside money to do just that – but he wanted one of “his guys” on the ground in Mogadishu to control how funds were spent – and that’s why Lee was there.

WHY WAS HE ARRESTED?  ON WHAT CHARGE?

He was arrested for not paying an estimated civil (not criminal) income tax assessment in the State of Wisconsin.  Have you ever heard of an American being arrested anywhere on European soil for non-payment of income taxes in the United States?  It was even more ridiculous because Lee hadn’t lived in America since 1984 when he and his wife separated – they were legally separated in 1985 and he was no longer responsible for taxes on her earned income.  In June of 1988, he became a legal resident of Vienna, Austria. He’d earned no income in Wisconsin so it was impossible that he owed taxes there.  But guess what?  He got a tax notice in May of 1992 – and it irritated him and he paid it:  $14,129.  He got another tax notice in June of 1992 – and he paid it again.  He had family in Wisconsin and didn’t want any trouble.  A copy of his cancelled check paid to the Wisconsin Department of Revenue makes it clear that he paid a tax he didn’t owe – not just once, but twice.  The second payment was made the next month, in June 1992, by a Malaysian Bank wire transfer – I have a copy of it.

Nevertheless, Leo Wanta spent 134 days in what he calls a dungeon in Switzerland before being renditioned – I call it kidnapping — to New York – for failure to pay an estimated civil income tax assessment in Wisconsin that he didn’t owe but had paid — twice.

Upon his arrival in New York, at his hearing Judge Allyce Ross became aware of the contents of Lee Wanta’s briefcase – to make a long story short, Lee had 17 or 18 U.S. Treasury instruments each worth $1 billion in that briefcase.  As soon as Judge Ross asked Lee to give evidence, the Assistant U.S. Attorney jumped up and told her the government was withdrawing all of the counts that had been brought against Ambassador Wanta.  The Feds didn’t want anything Lee had to say to become part of the public record.  The funds in his briefcase disappeared, by the way.

SO THE COURT FREED HIM – RE-ARRESTED

He walked out of the courtroom a free man and was arrested on the steps of the courthouse by some New York City detectives.  He was taken to the Brooklyn House of Detention – no warrant presented to him.  He sat in the Brooklyn prison from October until mid-December and was then flown to Wisconsin to face the charges against him.  They put him in chains, if you can believe it!  They strip searched him in the snow!  They did everything they could to demoralize the man – but they just don’t know Lee Wanta.

Someone wanted access to the vast sums of cash Lee had amassed and someone with a great deal of power decided to get Ambassador Wanta out of the way to gain access to it.  I guess they thought jail was a good alternative – they couldn’t just suicide him because they didn’t know where all of the money was, yet.

KANGAROO COURT IN WISCONSIN

It would take hours to tell you about the Kangaroo Court trial in Wisconsin.  I’ve heard different stories about it.  The Department of Corrections records indicate he was tried and convicted within three days of his return to Wisconsin, but the official trial didn’t take place until 1995.  I’ve read the transcripts and they made me ill to think such a travesty of justice could happen in this country.  They wouldn’t let Lee retain his own lawyer – he was forced to use the services of a state-employed public defender.  Lee’s story was so complicated, the public defender at one point asked Lee to please fire him.  Lee said he couldn’t because he hadn’t retained him in the first place.  Lee had billions of dollars sitting in European banks at the time and could afford the best lawyers in America – I’ve got copies of his bank statements at the time.  The public defender – who worked for the State of Wisconsin – didn’t submit Lee’s written evidence in time to get it into the Court’s Discovery process, so it wasn’t allowed into evidence, either.  At the end of it all, Leo Wanta was sentenced by a judge named Torphy to 22 years in prison for not paying an income tax he didn’t owe and which had been paid – 22 years for $14,129 that wasn’t owed to anyone.  The tax charge, by the way, was originally a civil charge.  The State evidently changed it to a criminal charge because Lee kept refusing to confess to not paying taxes he had, indeed, paid.

LETTER WI  DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE – ANGELA DUNLAP

In a letter dated 18th February 1999 addressed to Attorney Jan Morton Heger, a California attorney who had served Lee Wanta in past dealings, Angela Dunlap, Wisconsin State Revenue Agent, said the Department of Revenue had no record of a delinquent tax account issued to Lee E. Wanta, Social Security Number [correctly stated but redacted here for security reasons] Federal Identification Number DPP#04362’.  I have a copy of that letter.

The $14,129 check made out to the Wisconsin Department of Revenue cleared the bank in 1992, when Lee paid the tax the first time.  The trial wasn’t held until 1995 and Lee spent almost two years in Kettle Moraine Prison in Wisconsin awaiting trial.  After Lee was convicted in 1995, Wisconsin suddenly found his payment and credited it to his account – but they didn’t do anything about reversing his conviction or the 22 year sentence… and the $14,129 keeps popping up every year as an unpaid tax.

NORTH FORK PRISON – SAYRE, OK

In 1998, they suddenly sent him to North Fork Prison in Sayre, OK.  I’ve talked with his case manager from North Fork – she and I have become good friends – and she says it’s the only time she saw someone single-celled with a security assignment for no apparent reason.  North Fork is a privately owned, medium-security prison and Wisconsin pays for two inmates per cell whether there are two inmates in the cell, or not.  Lee was in a cell by himself the entire three years he was there.  He was released on parole in August 2001.

SO THE REAL REASON THEY ARRESTED HIM IN SWITZERLAND, THEN AGAIN IN NEW YORK, THEN GAVE HIM A DOG AND PONY SHOW OF A TRIAL IN WISCONSIN AND THEN HID HIM OUT IN AN OKLAHOMA PRISON WAS TO GET HIM OUT OF THE WAY SO THEY COULD STEAL HIS MONEY.  “THEY” BEGAN TELLING BANKS AROUND THE WORLD THAT LEO WANTA WAS DEAD.

Lee was in either the Dane County Jail or Kettle Morraine Prison in Wisconsin from 1993 until 1998, and was then hidden in North Fork Prison in Sayre, OK from 1998 until August 2001.

After he was released in 2001, Lee filed a case in the Federal District Court in ALEXANDRIA, VA.  A Decision and Order was handed down in 2003  [Civil Action Number 02-1363-A].  Federal District Court Judge Gerald Bruce Lee directed Ambassador Leo/Lee E. Wanta to pursue liquidation of his international corporations, recover his financial assets, bring the funds back into this country, and pay all required taxes in accordance with the law.

Specifically, Judge Lee said:  ‘Plaintiff’s sole remedy in this matter is to proceed with the liquidation of the corporations and report these transactions to the Internal Revenue Service in accordance with the Internal Revenue Code and then challenge the assessment of any taxes in a refund proceeding.’

The $27.5 trillion he earned after he repaid the $150 billion to the Treasury are Lee’s personal funds.  Judge Lee’s Decision is evidence of that.  He said “liquidate YOUR corporations” not “liquidate the GOVERNMENT’S corporations.”

$23 TRILLION DISAPPEARED

As Lee began using Promis Software to find his funds around the world – and it took time – he found $23 trillion had been stolen.  Had it not been and had the government let Lee repatriate the funds by paying 35 percent to bring those back into the U.S., it would have put over $9 trillion from the $27.5 trillion into the U.S. Treasury.  That was what Lee had planned.  Instead, a rather good-sized group of high ranking government criminals decided to stick with their plans involving Lee Wanta’s arrest and continued stealing the money.

BANK OF CHINA WIRE TRANSFERS $4.5 TRILLION

After the decision by Judge Lee telling Lee Wanta to liquidate his assets and repatriate the funds, in May 2006, the People’s Bank of China – which is the Central Bank of China – sent $4.5 trillion of Lee’s money using a CHIPS transfer to the Bank of America in Richmond, VA, after he liquidated several of his companies. The money disappeared into a dark hole at the Treasury Department (via the Federal Reserve System).  The money was transferred.  The money was received.  The money disappeared.

GOVERNMENT KNEW MONEY WAS BEING SENT BY THE CENTRAL BANK OF CHINA

Secretary of the Treasury (at the time) Snow and Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan travelled to Beijing to verify Lee Wanta’s signature.  The transfer was handled with very careful planning and the People’s Bank of China handled the transfer as such transfers are supposed to be handled.

HOW DID THE $27.5 TRILLION GET WHACKED DOWN TO ONLY $4.5 TRILLION?

Lee was forced to take $4.5 trillion – or nothing.  He immediately donated, with restrictions he, himself, put in place, the remaining $23 trillion to the people of America.  The powers that be were very upset with him for doing this and the economic war began then and there.  A unilateral Presidential gag order was placed on him after he was captured – kidnapped, I call it – and put in jail.  Someone has the $23 trillion, according to the Lee’s bank records which were seized.

WHERE IS THE MONEY NOW?  HAS HE PAID THE TAXES ON IT?

He can’t pay the taxes until he gets the $4.5 trillion and the money is sitting there in Trust Accounts that belong to Lee but which require the approval of the President, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Federal Reserve Chairman.  In the past two years, I’d say they’ve told Lee he is going to be paid several times.  From what I’ve been told, the money is there.  It’s been there from the day the Chinese wired transferred it to Lee Wanta’s AmeriTrust Company accounts at the Bank of America in Richmond.  When he pays the taxes, it will put $1.575 trillion in the Treasury Department’s coffers.

WHAT DOES LEE WANTA PLAN TO DO WITH THE REMAINING $2 TRILLION?

He wants to use $1 trillion to build a nationwide high-speed rail system.  He wants to help rebuild the economy of his country and high-speed rail will provide two million new jobs with full benefits.  He wants to build housing for families of veterans who must travel to visit a son or daughter or father or brother who has been seriously injured in the conflicts of the Middle East.

ACCORDING TO PRESIDENT OBAMA AND VICE PRESIDENT OBAMA, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PLANS TO BUILD A HIGH-SPEED RAIL SYSTEM.

I laugh when I heard Obama and Biden talk about high-speed rail.  I’ve written several articles on this subject. First, the projects Obama and Biden are talking about aren’t high-speed rail.  Neither one of them know how to spell high-speed rail, let alone define it.  What they’re talking about is rapid transit.  Joe Biden has ridden the Acela Amtrak line from Delaware to Washington, D.C., and considers Amtrak an expert in “high-speed rail.”  Amtrak has zero experience with high-speed rail.  The Acela trains Biden is used to taking average 70 mph – but can go as fast as 150 mph.  Bullet trains – high-speed rail – travel at 220 mph, not 150 top speed.

AMTRAK

Second, Amtrak’s expertise has caused a $13 billion in debt and will have to be bailed out by taxpayers again – and if government has anything to do with high-speed rail, the same thing will happen.

CALIFORNIA’S HIGH-SPEED RAIL

Third, Obama promised California high-speed rail.  If the federal government has any money for high-speed rail, why was Governor Schwarzenneger in Shanghai last September begging the Chinese for financial aid to build high-speed rail in California?  He not only asked for financial aid, he asked the Chinese to help build the system.  It’s a boondoggle… a good way to cause the states to go deeper in debt and be more dependent on the federal government – but the federal government is bankrupt.  Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin rejected the high-speed rail program in his state.  So has Governor John Kasich of Ohio.  The Governor of Florida is re-looking at what the government promised to do there – and Governor Christie of New Jersey put a stop to the high-speed rail tunnel being built between New York and New Jersey.  Everyone is beginning to figure out what I’ve been saying for well over a year:  It’s a boondoggle.

TO BE SUCCESSFUL, HIGH SPEED RAIL MUST:

What I know is this:  To be successful, high-speed rail must be built as a national system by a private investor or a private investment group.  Lee Wanta has offered to do that for the people of this country.  He’s an engineer and has experience with high-speed rail.  HSR must be separate from rapid transit systems which must be developed by individual States.  They States must develop and those systems and tie them in with high-speed rail.  Cities and counties must own and build local train systems that tie into rapid transit and deliver people close to home or the office.  It’s the only way a rail transportation system will work. It’s the only way to cut through all of the bureaucratic mess at the state level, then at the local levels.  A good rail program is needed and Lee Wanta can provide it.  All he needs to do it and provide 2 million new jobs is access to his money.  It’s his money and the government is unlawfully withholding it from him.

WE STARTED THE SHOW BY TALKING ABOUT WHO LEO OR LEE EMIL WANTA IS.  MAYBE YOU COULD END IT BY TALKING ABOUT WHAT KIND OF PERSON IS HE IS.  WHAT’S HE LIKE?  YOU SEEM TO KNOW HIM PRETTY WELL.

We’ve been good friends for some time now… but Lee has a lot of friends who support him.  He’s  a thoughtful, gentle person… a gentleman, a humble man and he can make me laugh harder than anyone.  He has a quick wit and a great sense of humor.  He loves his country like no one I’ve ever known.  He takes his Oath of Office very seriously – even after all of the abuse that’s been heaped on his head.  He’s the smartest man I know and is one of the few people in the world with whom I can discuss banking who knows more about it than I do.  He’s a Patriot.  What better can be said about him?  Well, maybe one thing.  He was Ronald Reagan’s favorite “junkyard” dog.  He still holds President Reagan in very high regard.

HOW CAN LISTENERS HELP?

The same way I try to help.  Let other people know about what’s happened to this man.  He has paid a horrible price for serving his country with honor.  If it can happen to Lee Wanta, it can happen to anyone.  If government bureaucrats and elected officials can steal his private property, they can steal yours, too.  Maybe that’s part of the reason there are so many foreclosures on personal residences, right now.  They think they can get away with anything and everything.  And they do – because we allow it.  Probably the best thing to do is write your Congressman.  Write your Senator.  Write your Governor and tell them Lee Wanta wants to build high-speed rail in your state, not just in Chicago, Milwaukee, Florida and California.  Ask them to support Lee Wanta’s efforts to gain access to his funds so he can build a national high-speed rail system and provide two million jobs for unemployed Americans.

I’VE WRITTEN A LETTER AND IT CAN BE FOUND AT A BLOG I CREATED FOR LEE WANTA.  I THOUGHT IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL IF PEOPLE HAD THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE AND KNEW WHAT TO SAY WHEN WRITING A LETTER TO ELECTED OFFICIALS ABOUT THIS ISSUE.

 OLDDOGS COMMENT

LEE WANTA FOR PRESIDENT!

Will JPMorgan Now Make and Take ‘Delivery’ of Its Own Silver Shorts?

http://seekingalpha.com/article/259549-will-jpmorgan-now-make-and-take-delivery-of-its-own-silver-shorts

Seeking Alpha

By Avery Goodman

There is nothing inherently wrong and certainly nothing “illegal” about J.P. Morgan Chase (JPM) gaining a vault license for storing and taking delivery of gold/silver/platinum/palladium from the futures markets known as NYMEX/COMEX. However, the speed, timing and manner in which the exchanges just granted it troubles us.

The process of being approved as a licensed vault or weigh-master/assayer for the NYMEX/COMEX futures exchange usually involves a careful security inspection of the vaults, a full report of that inspection, and a completely transparent package submitted to the U.S. Commodity Futures Exchange Commission (CFTC) for approval. This process will ordinarily consume considerably more than 45 days. Apparently, such correct and careful practices apply only to banks and independent storage facilities that are not J.P. Morgan Chase.

Some vault operators are more equal than others. JPM appears immune from processes that everyone else must suffer through. On March 15, 2011, the Commodity Exchange (COMEX) and the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) advised the CFTC that they had approved J.P. Morgan’s application to become a licensed vault facility, using a “self-certification” process. The newly licensed vault, located at 1 Chase Manhattan Plaza, NY, NY, is ready to roll as both “weighmaster” and depository, for delivery of gold, silver, platinum and palladium contracts, as of March 17, 2011, two days later.

As a smaller player, the NYSE-Liffe exchange uses COMEX licensed depositories for delivery and storage of its metals. The new JPM vault, therefore, will also qualify to accept delivery of metal coming from the maturity of NYSE-Liffe gold and silver futures contracts, including the smaller 1,000 ounce silver contract.

Departures from usual practices, and special treatment in favor of some over others are events that lawyers describe as having “the appearance of impropriety”, if nothing more. J.P. Morgan is a huge player in the London precious metals market, especially in derivatives. It has always been a very important player at NYMEX/COMEX, especially if you include its Bear Stearns division. The bank is heavily involved in infamous “unallocated storage” schemes in London. A more complete description of London-style storage can be found in my previous article.

JPM is one of six big bank owners of the London Precious Metals Clearing Limited (LPMCL) which clears, “delivers” and sets standards for “storing” precious metals allegedly “sold” at the London Bullion Market Association (LBMA) and the London Platinum and Palladium Market (LPPM). Unallocated storage is the norm at LPMCL member banks, including J.P. Morgan Chase.

Allocated storage, however, is the norm for precious metals vaults licensed by NYMEX and COMEX. The two futures exchanges have approved a small group of vault operators, who provide allocated storage to clearing members and their customers. This has given greater legitimacy to the NY exchange traded precious metals venue than the LBMA now has. It is true that NYMEX/COMEX warehouse supplies are wholly insufficient to cover the number of short contracts the exchange allows its clearing members to write. However, at least the numbers are transparent and published. That is more than can be said for the storage facilities that participate in the secretive LPMCL in London.

Allocated storage, under the common law, is known as a “bailment.” When precious metal is allocated, the vault is the “bailee” and the owner is the “bailor”. The bailee is keeping the property safe for the bailor and, in return, it charges a fee for its services, but the property belongs to the bailor at all times. The property cannot be legally leased, loaned, borrowed or used in any way without overt consent by the bailor. Whereas unallocated metal is an asset that is seized by a vault’s creditors in bankruptcy, allocated metal is immune from this.

A bailment cannot be legally seized or encumbered by the bailee’s creditors. Some of the NYMEX/COMEX vaults require a written bailment contract, setting out all rights and responsibilities of the customer and vault. Others operate in the old fashioned way (though the handshake is now often electronic) and, in such cases, the agreement between bailor and bailee is governed by traditional common law standards with no need to sign anything.

There are two storage categories in the NYMEX/COMEX scheme, known as “registered” and “eligible”. Regardless of the category, all bars are allocated by title, and are always of a size, weight and composition that would satisfy “good delivery” if the owner decided to deliver it. An exception to the idea of “global” allocation may occur if “registered” metalis kept in the name of a clearing member, but the bars actually belong to a customer.

This might happen when and if the clearing broker uses the bars as a form of “collateral” to back up performance bonds in a customer account. In such a case, the “bailment” (and allocated storage) would exist between the vault and the clearing member. I use the word “collateral” loosely because true collateral would remain titled to the debtor. In the NYMEX/COMEX scheme, registered bars are always titled in the name of a clearing member of the exchange, whereas eligible bars can be titled in the name of a customer or a clearing member.

In order to be delivered, eligible bars must be transferred into the registered category. This involves nothing more than an electronic entry, “wrapping” the correct number of units into what is called a warehouse “warrant.” Each warrant constitutes a “good delivery” unit of metal sufficient to satisfy one short contract obligation. “Good delivery” means that each bar must be of a standard weight sufficient to meet the rules of the exchange and must be numbered and weighed. Each storage facility must always keep a “chain of title” history record for each bar.

Delivery at NYMEX/COMEX is first made to any licensed vault facility. Once the unit of metal arrives, title is transferred to the new owner. The new owner can do whatever he wants with his property. He can remove it from the bailment and take it into his own personal possession. He can transfer to a different vault. Or, he can keep the metal at the initial point of delivery. In many cases, the last option is chosen, so, often the bar never leaves the delivery vault until it is eventually resold and, usually, not even then. Bars can be delivered, and title transferred, without ever having left the vault.

Until now, JP Morgan did not have a NYMEX/COMEX vault license. They had to send silver, for example, to HSBC, Brinks, Scotia Mocatta and/or the Delaware Depository in order to “deliver” it on COMEX. Those vaults have been NYMEX/COMEX licensed for a very long time. But now J.P. Morgan has its own vault license, and the manner in which it seems to have obtained it, is troubling. The bank can now, potentially, deliver short obligations to itself. Yes, you read that correctly. The bank itself, if it still holds short silver positions, and/or the hedge funds/related financial institutions who may have taken over the positions, can now deliver the alleged metal to J.P. Morgan’s own vault.

The American legal standard requires us to maintain a presumption of innocence until guilt is proven. That doesn’t mean Americans are stupid. Only a fool would ignore the testimony given at the CFTC hearing held on March 25, 2010, or the fact that J.P. Morgan Chase is being sued, in two different class actions, accused of being a racketeering and corrupt influenced organization (RICO). Both lawsuits claim that the bank is using allegedly immense silver short positions in various venues, including COMEX, to manipulate prices.

If a short seller must deliver a commodity, and the commodity is not readily available, there is no better way to buy extra time than to be able to deliver into its own vault. Most of the metal will never leave the vault, and most delivered metal that will leave the vault won’t leave right away. Indeed, paperwork tasks of transferring title can consume a few days. Thus, a late delivery may not be noticed if it is to the short seller’s own vault if the vault operation staff chooses to remain silent.

Why was JPM awarded a vault license almost overnight, avoiding the lengthy vetting process others must undergo? Why did it happen in the middle of a major COMEX silver delivery month, during a massive worldwide silver short squeeze, at a time when physical silver is in severe shortage? We do not know the answers to these questions. The exchange rules should prohibit proprietary trading divisions, hedge funds and other closely associated or controlled financial institutions, from delivering to vaults owned or controlled by their own family of companies. Yet, no such rules exist.

Does the licensing of a NYMEX/COMEX JPM vault reflect short-seller panic? Paper money can be printed, of course, ad infinitum and endless reams of it can be borrowed from the Fed. The issue is how much paper money is needed to pry sufficient physical silver loose from the hands of its owners. We believe that an equilibrium level of about $52 per troy ounce would be sufficient. Assuming that the holdings of the various ETFs are not the scam that some have claimed, there is a huge potential supply right there.

Large delivery requirements can be met by cashing in on “baskets” of ETF shares for silver. There is also a huge supply of hoarded bars outside of ETFs, waiting for the right price to set them free. If supply problems continue, the price must rise further until sufficient selling occurs. Most owners of ETF shares, as well as holders of real physical silver, are not momentum chasers. They buy low and sell high in a traditional manner. Momentum chasers are irrelevant because they generally have only paper, and no real metal to deliver.

Remember, your bars can be transferred from one licensed facility to another very quickly. If any storage facility imposes a significant delay, that should be publicized, and met with resolute opposition. Neither silver nor other metals must be stored at licensed vault. They certainly need not be left at the first point of delivery. If you intend to use silver, for example, in commerce (such as a jeweler or industrial user might) or if you expect to keep it off the market for 20 years or so as a retirement fund, it is economically more efficient to physically remove the metal.

If anyone has any positive or negative experiences with the newly licensed J.P. Morgan vault, we would be very interested in learning about them.

Disclosure: I have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. I hold long positions in precious metals.

More articles by Avery Goodman »

• Russia Doesn’t Want Any More Dollars – What This Means for Investors Today
• Why Is JPMorgan So Eagerly Acquiring Bars of Physical Platinum? Apr 13, 2011
• Did UBS Mislead Small Investors About ‘Stored’ Silver? Mar 25, 2011

Why Is JPMorgan So Eagerly Acquiring Bars of Physical Platinum?

http://seekingalpha.com/article/263252-why-is-jpmorgan-so-eagerly-acquiring-bars-of-physical-platinum

Seeking Alpha

 By Avery Goodman

JPMorgan Chase (JPM) is the biggest derivatives issuer of all U.S. banks, but it is busy below the radar, loading up its vaults with 50 troy ounce platinum bars. JPMorgan has been a large net physical platinum buyer in 2011, and it was also a big buyer in 2010.
In 2010 the bank “stopped” a total of 975 platinum contracts, while delivering only 463, resulting in a net accumulation of 512 contracts, representing 25,600 troy ounces of platinum. In 2011, the delivery pace increased substantially. In January, 2011, JPM took delivery of 333 contracts, representing approximately 16,650 troy ounces of platinum.That month, a sum total of only 527 contracts were delivered to all clearing members, leaving JPM with 63% of all the delivered platinum at NYMEX. Then, in March, JPM took delivery of 12 more contract, even though it was a nonstandard “off-month” for platinum futures contracts. The off-month adventure added another 600 troy ounces to its kitty.

As of April 8, 2011, about 680 total platinum contracts were delivered at NYMEX. Of those, 307 contracts, 15,350 troy ounces, or over $27 million worth of platinum went to JPM. There are still over 100 April contracts left to be delivered, so it is likely that JPM’s gross intake will likely rise further this month. Set against these stoppages[i], are a mere 101 deliveries, so net 2011 intake has been 551 contracts, 27,550 troy ounces, more than $49 million worth of the precious white metal – even though the year has barely begun! [ii] So far, combining this year and last, noting that the April NYMEX delivery month is not yet over, JPM has accumulated approximately $76 million worth of physical platinum bars. That does not count any bars that may have been delivered to it at the secretive London Platinum and Palladium Market Association (LPPM).

The platinum “market” is bigger than that, but most of it is actually made up of a combination of derivatives and unallocated storage schemes. In other words, $76 million in physical platinum is a huge amount for anyone, except, perhaps, a big international auto/truck manufacturer to buy in about 12 months. This raises a few questions. Who exactly, within the JPM-Universe, is accumulating physical platinum through NYMEX deliveries? Is it the bank itself? Or, is it one or more of its customers?According to the bank, it closed its proprietary trading division back in October 2010.

Rumor has it, however, that most of the positions and the executives were simply transferred to closely related hedge funds. But, in any event, accumulation of physical platinum started last year when JPM’s proprietary trading division was very actively operating. So, chances are that the accumulation of platinum bars is a bank decision, not one from its customers.

Why is JPMorgan Chase taking physical delivery of platinum? Why not simply open OTC or futures exchange “long” positions and “roll” them over and over again to the next delivery period, never taking physical delivery, as so many large speculative players do? JPMorgan Chase is, to some extent, repudiating the very concept of derivatives by doing this, even though it remains one of the premiere gambling “houses” in the world’s most important “casinos” (a/k/a futures and OTC derivatives “exchanges”).

A very interesting schism now exists between JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs (GS). Goldman Sachs has been busy advising clients to dump platinum. On Monday, April 11, 2011, Goldman advised clients to close a profitable long commodity position that including both crude oil and platinum. While they are saying that, JPM is taking delivery. But taking delivery implies an intention to hold a position for a very long time.It is possible for both JPM (in the long run) and GS (in the short run) to be right. Generally speaking, however, we ignore the public pronouncements and recommendations of big investment houses. They are usually so filled with conflicts of interest as to be worthless. In this case, we don’t know what J.P. Morgan has been advising its clients to do. We do know what it is doing.

We have seen over the past few years that advice often runs opposite to what bank executives are doing with their own portfolios. Advice can be motivated by factors other than the best interest of public clients. For this reason, we are careful NOT to listen to what they say, but, rather, we pay careful attention to what they do. JPMorgan Chase is buying platinum…a lot of it. They are buying it in the form of physical bars, rather than derivatives. This buying will continue to diminish the supply of a very rare metal, putting intense long term upward pressure on prices. That is because only a finite amount of platinum is mined every year. Total mine supply is about 6.1 milion ounces per year, which is about 14.7 times less than the amount of gold taken from the ground each year. Derivatives, in contrast, can be manufactured at will, in whatever quantity is needed to manipulate markets into believing that more supply exists than really does. It seems to me that JPM would not be taking physical delivery unless it believed that the age in which derivatives dominated the precious metals markets is close to being over.

On the other hand, it is impossible to say how big the JPM OTC and/or exchange traded platinum long position in derivatives might be. Maybe, it is huge, many times bigger than deliveries it is taking. England’s London’s Platinum and Palladium Market (LPPM) is a notoriously opaque organization, with a penchant for secrecy, much like the London Bullion Market Association (LBMA). They’ll never tell. NYMEX is not quite so secrective, but the CFTC refuses to disclose the positions of big banks, even when they are large enough to profoundly affect the direction of markets in the short run. JPM’s derivatives positions are unknown. But, one thing is clear. When you take delivery of physical precious metals, you pay in full. The metal it is acquiring is going to become a part of its Tier 1 asset base. It is not a leveraged investment. If other banks follow in its footsteps, and at least one, Deutsche Bank (DB), seems to be doing just that, platinum may join gold as a “financial asset” rather than a mere commodity.

Regardless of JPMorgan Chase and/or Goldman Sachs, platinum’s fundamentals are remarkably bullish. Even assuming the worst in terms of auto sales, and a total cessation of all “QE” counterfeiting operations by the Federal Reserve, by our calculations, the platinum market should still be in mild deficit by late 2011, and in severe deficit by 2012-2013. If Japan manages to get its auto parts factories online again and/or the Federal Reserve announces QE-3 or continues with QE-Lite, platinum will go into deficit faster and more severely. Actually, in the medium term, the Japanese quakes and tsunami are positives for platinum even though they are negatives for its sister metal palladium. Platinum’s use as an anti-pollution catalyst is now almost exclusively restricted to diesel engines. Perhaps, car sales will be lower in the next few months. But, a lot of heavy trucks and earth moving equipment are going to be used to rebuild. We are going to see an increase in Japanese heavy truck manufacturing. That means more diesel engines, if we turn a blind eye to the tragedy, and look only at platinum prices, it is clear that it will have a positive effect.

In making these calculations, we have not yet even considered the so-called “indiginization” program in Zimbabwe. The eventual decline in Zimbabwean production makes soaring platinum prices a virtual certainty within a year or two, even without consideration of Japan and the Fed.Zimbabwe is the only place left where new deposits of platinum can be mined at a reasonable cost. The corrupt government of Robert Mugabe, however, is making it unprofitable for miners to operate there. If that situation does not resolve very quickly, it will remove expected additional supplies over the next few years, creating a more severe shortage, sooner than previously predicted.

We expect the price of platinum to climb very high over the next few years, in real terms. This will happen regardless of whether the dollar and/or the stock market rises or collapses, in the face of inflation or deflation, and without regard to Japan, the Fed or Zimbabwe. The traders at JPMorgan Chase, apparently, agree with us. You can learn more about the fundamentals of the platinum market here. Up until now, platinum has been the wall-flower of the precious metals world, and has trailed the performance of other precious metals. While gold and silver are hitting record highs, platinum is not close to its highs of 2008, let alone the inflation adjusted high of 1980, or the much higher inflation adjusted high it made back in the early part of the 20th century.

As you can see in the 100 year chart, below [iii], the price of both platinum and palladium was higher, in inflation-adjusted terms, in 1920, than it was at the end of the “Great Stagflation” in 1980. This is not true of gold or silver, which both reached their historical highs in 1980. So, how far can the price of platinum travel? We should remember that rhodium, another metal heavily used in catalytic auto exhaust systems, climbed to as high as $12,000 per troy ounce in 2008. That was before the advent of quantitative easing and during a period in which the debasement of the U.S. dollar was tightly controlled, compared with now.

Frankly speaking, precious metals are one of the few liquid investments worth buying right now. The long term fundamentals underlying platinum are the strongest of the four main precious metals. The “market view” seciton of the 2010 Anglo-American Platinum (AAUKF.PK) annual report tells us that platinum demand in Europe, Japan, North America, China, and the rest of the world (including Brazil, Russia, Korea, etc.) rose by 36% (to 1.4 million ounces), 31% (to 500,000 ounces), 30% (to 470,000 ounces), 50% (to 260,000 ounces), and 21% (447,000 ounces), respectively. During 2010, admittedly, there were a number of incentives for car purchases being given by various governments. However, the price of oil will continue to rise in the long run, and a higher percentage of cars, outside of Europe, are going to be built with inherently more fuel efficient diesel fueled engines, as opposed to gasoline. Platinum is the primary catalyst for diesel and it cannot be replaced by palladium. So, long term, the future demand increase is going to be much bigger than 2010, regardless of incentives or the lack thereof.

Anglo-American is also one of the biggest palladium miners in the world. It says that the demand for platinum’s sister metal, palladium, also rose substantially. However, it rose more slowly in almost every market. This difference seems to fly in the face of common sense, given palladium’s spectacular price performance in 2010, until we recognize that rapidly increasing palladium prices have more to do with constricted supplies than increases in demand.

An unusual condition currently exists in the palladium market, as a result of a strategic decision by Russia to reduce the amount of palladium being sold from state stockpiles. This does NOT mean that the stockpiles are empty. We have carefully calculated the production and sale of palladium, over the last 100 years, and are certain that the Russian state palladium stockpile currently totals, at minimum,15-20 million troy ounces. With greatly increased gasoline engine production in China, Russia, and in the rest of the developing world, the stockpile will eventually wind down, but it will take at least 10 years and, maybe, up to 20, for that to fully happen. In the meantime, strong increases in demand are a more stable source of increasing prices. That is why we favor platinum over palladium.

If the Fed continues QE, stocks will rise in nominal terms, but QE will spur more producer price inflation in a time when it is difficult to pass costs on to consumers. This will lead to very bad earnings reports, and the stock market will fall in real terms. Yet, with or without a new round of counterfeiting, all precious metals prices will inevitably rise. In fact, the more stocks fall, the higher metals prices will rise, because investment will be shifted into precious metals and the supply is extremely limited. Should the Fed eventually choose more counterfeiting, as is likely with incompetents like Ben Bernanke and Janet Yellen in charge, all precious metals prices will rise. Platinum will rise higher because the fundamentals are stronger.

We could spend a lot of time speculating on the reasons behind the platinum purchases by JPM. Is it to offset elevated levels of demand by customers, who want to convert unallocated to allocated storage in London? Maybe, and we hope so, but, if it that were the case, it would be centering physical platinum buying in London, rather than in New York. Also, platinum futures prices would already be in backwardation, like silver prices. But, perhaps, the bank is expecting the situation in platinum to evolve into the same type of crisis, and wants to be ready when heavy physical demand begins, That being said, we believe the most likely reason for JPM’s platinum buying spree is simply that its analysts have decided platinum is an excellent long term investment. They probably want to get in the door now, before price pressure on the physical commodity rise too far.

As noted in the previous article, positions in platinum can be taken using several different investment vehicles. First, you can buy platinum coins and small bars at a local shop. Second, you can buy shares of the platinum trust ETF (PPLT). Third, you can purchase futures positions at NYMEX. Buying on the futures market is often the cheapest and most efficient method of obtaining large quantities of precious metals[iv].Finally, you can also buy shares of stocks in platinum miners such as Impala Platinum (IMPUF.PK), Aquarius Platinum (S. Africa), Anglo-American (AAUKF.PK), The problem with the mining stocks, as opposed to bullion, is that the miners are susceptible to errors by management, including excessive compensation, but, also errors such as building mines in countries like Zimbabwe, causing the loss of shareholder capital.

If you choose to accumulate platinum at the futures markets, you may want to do the same as JPMorgan. The bank, it appears, is very bullish on platinum and is now accumulating the physical metal by taking delivery from the exchange. If you have enough money, keeping in mind that each contract requires the purchase of a minimum of 50 troy ounces of one of the most precious of precious metals, you should do the same.

It should be remembered that this article emphasizes fundamentals rather than technical analysis. These markets, especially the precious metals markets, are beset by corruption and manipulation. They are also burdened with an alleged regulator, known as the CFTC, which has been awarded exclusive jurisdiction to enforce the commodities laws, and chooses not to do its job, except if that involves attacking a small inconsequential player. We are talking about the long term, which is less subject to corrupt activities. Short-term platinum prices could go up or down, all depending on the capricious decisions of a small handful of executives at various banks and hedge funds.

[i] Stopping means taking delivery in the parlance of the futures markets.

[ii] It is worth noting that, in addition to JPM, As of April 2011, another big international financial organization, Deutshe Bank, has also started to buy up physical platinum. According to NYMEX statistics, in January 2011, it was a seller, delivering 132 contracts worth about $11.7 million. But, by April 8, 2011, the German bank was a buyer, having taken delivery of 194 platinum contracts, or a total of 9,700 troy ounces, worth about $17 million. As always, the statistics do not make it clear whether the bank is buying for its own account or that of a customer.

[iii] Which we have “borrowed” from the U.S. Geological Service.

[iv] Check your broker’s fees before choosing who to deal with, because some futures brokers are now attempting to charge much higher fees, given how popular delivery from the futures market is becoming.
Disclosure: Long platinum.

$50 SILVER–THE PRICE POINT OF LIBERTY

Activist Post

 http://www.activistpost.com/2011/04/50-silver-price-point-of-liberty.html

By Jack Mullen

$50 dollar silver is the first sign of blue sky after a devastating storm. It’s the morning-after sunshine bringing people out of hiding and together again for the process of rebuilding with the promise of a new start.

For more than 100 years the United States has been at the center of a war being waged around the clock by a cult-of-evil clawing and biting like a rabid dog at the heart of civilization. It has been an epic struggle of an outnumbered, outgunned regiment of courageous defenders of human individuality, dignity, and liberty against a tyranny intent on the enslavement of humanity.  It has been a bloody war, a costly war, and even now the battles continue.  But the tide is turning, finally, toward the side of good.

This war has been in stealth with the cult-of-evil creating a fictional world created to smother humanity. For years this war has involved the creation of a pretended reality that renders lies for all standards of measure of a free society.  This fictional reality has reached proportions of a bubble, not unlike the tulip bubble of 1637 — I would call this bubble, a bubble-of-pretension. Recently, like all bubbles, the bubble-of-pretension has begun to grow exponentially; hiding reality behind a manufactured one, including a manufactured history of the world.  This process is not sustainable and will soon face the limits of nature (the true reality).

For the most part, the criminal class has had success hiding reality from a conned, drugged, and dumbed-down public, especially in the early stages of the bubble-of-pretension. But I think we have reached a bifurcation point; the point when the matrix of pretension, consuming enormous and ever-growing quantities of energy to maintain the escalating lies, starts to falter. Cracks appear and the engine of deception coughs and gasps for more.  It’s the moment when Caligula realizes men with swords cannot defeat the sea, or when a parliament of thieves cannot, another ounce of gold, steal.

That point is here today, and I think the signs are clear:  gold is approaching $1500 and, more importantly, silver is about to smash through the most protected price in history — $50 per ounce.

I think it bears repeating, $50 silver is the most protected price in recorded history; it is a price that’s cost trillions upon trillions of dollars, and millions of lives and untold millions in misery to defend. $50 silver has been defended with all the energy and manpower the cult-of-evil can muster. The war is not over, but momentum is on the side of humanity toward breaking through a key barrier. After $50 there’s no more resistance — silver will break free and rise quickly to crush the banking system — the energy and life blood of the enemy.  Beyond $50 silver,  the dollar and the banking system will collapse exponentially.  How will JP Morgan buy off silver holders with stock worth less than the price of silver? George Soros and the BRIC nations are already aware that dollar hegemony is cracking and $50 silver is the stake in the heart of the beast.

For those of us who understand how much wasted and destroyed wealth has been employed suppressing the price of silver, while the purchasing power of the fiat currency in which it is priced steady declines, $50 silver is monumental. This is the day the bubble-in-pretension bursts and humanity can escape the clutches of the private banking cartel and their Federal Reserve.

$50 dollar silver is easily $160 dollars short of its inflation adjusted value since, the mid-nineteen seventies when silver last rose against tyranny.  The difference between $210 (an estimate of silver’s inflation adjusted price) and $50 seems very little, but that $160 has cost the loss of the world’s reserve currency, the fleecing of two-plus generations of Americans and peoples worldwide.

Hiding the worthlessness of fiat money through metals price suppression has in a way been responsible for WWI, WWII , the massive loss of lives in Russia, China, and Germany to psychopathic dictators. That $160 was responsible for the Vietnam war, the death of Kennedy, the Iraq I and Iraq II wars, the War on Drugs and the Afghan and now Libyan wars.  We could go on and say that $160 has cost the lives of all those Americans in the World Trade Centers during 9-11 and the incredible loss of lives to our criminal monopoly controlled health and food industries.  We might even get verbose and mention the deaths caused by fluoride poison in the drinking water and the weight gain and cancers caused by our ‘diet’ supplements such as Aspartame.

We will protect your privacy…guaranteed!

While silver sits below $50 the world has suffered trillions and trillions of wealth stolen for false flag wars and then more wealth destroyed in those wars.  Trillions of dollars that could have been used to pry off the yoke of psychopaths creating monopolies which have destroyed a free market that is the engine of quality human life.  The pharmaceutical industry sells lies of health, the medical services industry sells lies of treatment, the food industry sells lies of nutrition, the military-industrial complex sells lies of safety and protection, the prison-police industries sell lies of safety and peace,  law and justice sells lies of righteousness, In short, these monopolies lie in the pursuit of total domination and the suppression of reality.

But the price of lies and monopoly is the inevitable depletion of the available resources — be it manpower, money, or the human spirit.   As the peak of pretension is reached, and the bubble-of-pretension begins to burst, those of us who are awake must make plans to take charge of the collapse and work to be sure the evil puffed up in the bubble is burst into oblivion.

We don’t need a majority of the humans that have been deceived to wake up and join the cause. We only need those of us that are awake to step in and organize the collapse.

It is in the United States where most of the wealth stolen for pacification has been deployed, because the United States is the only nation on earth with a large armed populace. Not only large and armed, but with a history of documentation and research showing why guns in the hands of people (not guns in the hands of military or militia or police or PERSONS or CITIZENS ) is the ONLY way for men, women, and children to protect themselves against the onslaught of a cunning and relentless tyranny. It is in America that a small group of awakened humans can take back their freedom and again provide a secure home for liberty.

Toward Liberty

•        Oppose gun control at all costs — no freedom or liberty can be protected without the threat of weapons as a last resort.

•        Withdraw your support for the banking system by removing your money and buying physical silver and gold for later use as currency.

•        Use cash or barter for all transactions to reduce the flow of money through banks, further weakening the already failing banks.

•        Infiltrate your local governments by running for office.

•        Use the power of local press to remove corruption by writing letters to the editor.

•        Take back our schools — homeschool your children.  It should only take a generation or two of homeschooled children to move back into the mainstream world as leaders and members of government.

•        Do not depend on the United States federal government for any help — the states are the answer.

•        If your state does not support the right to own guns, move. Vote with your feet, do not any longer support evil with your tax dollars. Look for states with nullification  laws in the works; these states need our support.

•        Take action against intrusion on your liberties, bring lawsuits against fraudulent banking, TSA assault, criminal foreclosures, and file claims against sources of health degradation — we need a call to action for class action lawsuits.

More Ways to Stop the Evil

•        Media: buy radio stations (many are cheap, then use them to get the message out), take back our newspapers and television stations from the elite mega corporations. Write blogs.

•        Talk to your children every day about what is happening to them, and what has to happen before it will change.

•        Be on the alert for lies — critique movies for the hidden messages of the enslavers.

•        Get off the power grid with solar and wind generators.  The power grid is a great controller — if you misbehave, or if you need to be taught a lesson, out go the lights.

•        Lastly take charge of your health and your families health. The medical-pharmaceutical-insurance industry in the United States is not about health, they are not outcome based. The ‘pharma-med-insurance’ model of business is theft through monopoly, and wealth through growth of services. Cures are not a way to health, the key to health is disease prevention. Be proactive — eat organic whole foods with non-GMO contents, grow your own foods, eat less. Supplement the loss of nutrition in foods with high quality natural supplements.  Read about nutrition and healthy lifestyles and then shrug off your M.D., stop taking pharmaceutical poisons, decline unnecessary tests. Stand up to the system that is fleecing your health.  And definitely filter your water and buy radiation detection equipment  (and complain when the media lies about radiation).

With $50 silver signaling the beginning of the end of the banking system, it becomes imperative that we prepare for the final confrontation. It is here that we sink or swim.  Time to practice swimming!

Jack Mullen has been a businessman for more than 25 years, owning 3 radio stations, several technology based companies and a resource development company.

Related Articles:

What You Need to Know About Buying Silver Today

Silver Is Getting Too Popular…Right?

8 Reasons Why Silver Is the Investment of the Decade

Has Gold and Silver Topped Out?—No Way

Gold near record, silver tops $37 on safe-haven bid

Bretton Woods II The Final Enslavement of Mankind

April 19, 2011 posted by Veterans Today

Totalitarian Collectivism

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

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

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

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

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

Gordon Brown, former U.K. Prime Minister.

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

Economist Jeffrey Sachs, director of The Earth Institute.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE SECRET SHADOW GOVERNMENT

THE SECRET SHADOW GOVERNMENT

 

A STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS

By Richard Boylan Ph.D.

The secret “shadow” government is the large organizational network which operates alongside the officially elected and appointed government of the United States of America. Just as with the official government, the secret government has functional branches. Just as with the official government, the Shadow Government has functional branches. However, unlike the official government, the purpose of the non-executive branches of the Shadow Government is simply to distribute various functions, but not to achieve a system of checks and balances, as was supposed to happen constitutionally between the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the U.S. Government. That is because the Shadow Government is a creature of a powerful elite, who need not fear being dominated by an instrument of their own creation.

In the Shadow Government five branches may be identified. These branches are: the Executive Branch, the Intelligence Branch, the War Department, the Weapons Industry Branch, and the Financial Department. The reporting lines of the Intelligence Branch and the War Department to the Executive Branch are straightforward and obvious. Intelligence exists to provide the Executive Branch with sufficient necessary information to make adequately informed policy decisions. The War Department exists to provide coercive force to carry out Executive policy decisions which could meet with public resistance. The Special Operations units within the Intelligence Branch and War Department exist to carry out policy directives requiring covert action and official deniability. The Weapons Industry Branch reports to the Executive Branch most often indirectly, through the War Department and/or the Intelligence Branch (for Black Budget weapons systems).

The Financial Department theoretically reports to the Executive Branch for fiscal policy implementation, but de facto also reports directly to the international power brokers who have created the Shadow Government. The Financial Department serves at times directly as their instrument of fiscal policy implementation.

An analysis of the overall purposes of these five branches suggests that the overall purpose of the Shadow Government is to exercise covert control by:

1. Collecting comprehensive institutional and personal information

2. By establishing national and international policy independently of the established Government

3. By developing high-tech arms and equipment, and, with these, establishing small, specialized, highly mobile, elite military units to effect these covert policies, when need arises, without having to rely on the official (and “unreliable”) Armed Services, (whose subservience to the Shadow Government is reasonably suspect)

4. By developing an armed capability to repel any threat to the status quo, (including the uncertain ontological, social, and economic impacts of any revelation of the reality of UFO and extraterrestrial presence) through the development of a Star Wars/BMDO ground and space-based surveillance and SDI weapons network

5. By denying information compromising to the Shadow Government from all those outside “need-to-know” policy-making levels

6. By exercising control on the money supply, availability of credit, and the worth of money, through policy decisions made outside of the official Government

 EXECUTIVE BRANCH

Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) includes George Bush, Bill Clinton, all modern CIA Directors, most modern Joint Chiefs of Staff, most modern Cabinet and top Executive Branch appointed officeholders, etc.

Tri lateral Commission

David Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger, John D. Rockefeller, Alan Greenspan, Zbignew Brzezinski, Anthony Lake, John Glenn, David Packard, David Gergen, Diane Feinstein, Jimmy Carter, Adm. William Crowe, etc.

The Bilderberg Group

Prince Hans-Adam of Liechtenstein, Prince Bernhard of Netherlands, Bill Clinton, Lloyd Bentsen, etc.

 National Security Council

(NCS), the military and intelligence policy-making and control group for national and international security, which reports directly to the President, its secret 5412 Committee (which directs black [covert] operations), and its PI-40 Subcommittee (aka MJ-12: which exercises policy direction and control of the UFO Cover-Up).

 Joint Chiefs of Staff

(JCS)’s Special Operations compartment, the operations directorate which implements the orders of the

NSC’s 5412 Committee, utilizing the U.S. Special Forces Command.

National Program Office

(NPO), which operates the Continuity of Government Project (COG), an ongoing secret project to maintain command, control, communication and intelligence executive centers during an extreme National Emergency by operating clandestine, secure, underground cities staffed by surrogates for above ground national leaders.

Federal Emergency Management Agency

FEMA’s black projects compartment, which operates federal preventive-detention camps [often located on military bases or Federal Bureau of Land Management lands], secure underground shelters for the elite during cataclysms, etc.

INTELLIGENCE BRANCH

National Security Agency

(NSA), monitors and screens all telephone, telegraph, computer modem, radio, television, cellular, microwave, and satellite communications, and electromagnetic fields “of interest” around the world, and orchestrates information-control and cover-up activities related to UFO secrecy and surveillance of extra-terrestrial operations, Fort Meade, MD.

National Reconnaissance Office

(NRO), controls and collects information from global spy satellites, monitors UFO traffic entering and leaving Earth’s atmosphere, coordinates firing of energy beam weapons from orbiting Star Wars satellites at selected human ground and airborne targets and selectively at extra-terrestrial craft, Pentagon basement and Dulles Airport area, VA. (NRO) (aka MJ-TF), the military intelligence operations arm of the PI-40 Subcommittee, conducts surveillance interdiction capture and confiscation of UFOs and their extra-terrestrial occupants.

Organization for intelligence and “International Security

Purposes; surveillance and interaction” with close encounter experiences, including occasional physically and sexually assaultive mind control kidnappings disguised as “Alien abductions” for psychological warfare and dis-informational purposes, headquarters unknown, probably compartmented and dispersed among various elite Delta Force Special Operations units, such as the USAF Blue Light at Hurlburt Field, Mary Esther, FL and Beale Air Force Base, Marysville, CA.

Central Intelligence Agency

(CIA), commands, often controls, and sometimes coordinates, the gathering of secret overseas information gathered by spies (HUMINT), electronic surveillance (SIGINT), and other means; carries out covert unconstitutional paramilitary counterinsurgency operations and preemptive political pacification projects in violation of international law, as well as counter-intelligence sting operations against foreign agents; engages in domestic surveillance, and manipulation of the U.S. political process, “in the National interest” in direct violation of its congressional charter; operates proprietary “false front” companies for profit; conducts a major share of international trans-shipment of illegal drugs, using National Security cover and immunity; and cooperates with NSA’s UFO cover-up operations, Langley, VA, and worldwide branches.

Federal Bureau of Investigation,

Counter Intelligence Division. The branch which investigates, and neutralizes foreign Intelligence agents operating within the U.S., and cooperates with the National Reconnaissance Organization in the surveillance of those involved in close encounters with UFOs and extra-terrestrials.

Department of Energy Intelligence

(DOE-INTEL), which conducts internal security checks and external security threat countermeasures, often through its contract civilian instrumentality, the Wackenhut Corporation. NSA’s Central Security Service and CIA’s Special Security Office, which respectively spies on the spies, and conducts special operations which cannot be entrusted to line intelligence officers, Ft. Meade, MD and Langley, VA.

U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command

(INSCOM) whose assignments include psychological and psychotronic warfare (PSYOPS), parapsychological intelligence (PSYINT), and electromagnetic intelligence (ELMINT), Ft. Meade, MD.

 U.S. Navy Office of Naval Intelligence

(ONI), which gathers intelligence affecting naval operations, and has a compartmented unit involved in UFO and USO [Unidentified Submerged Objects] information gathering.

 U.S. Air Force Office of Special Investigations

(AFOSI), which gathers intelligence affecting aerospace operations, and has a compartmented unit involved in investigating UFO sightings, extra-terrestrial contact reports, as well as IAC [Identified Alien Craft] surveillance, and coordination with NRO interdiction operations, Bolling Air Force Base, MD.

Defense Intelligence Agency

(DIA), which coordinates the intelligence data gathered from the various Armed Services intelligence branches (Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, Coast Guard and Special Forces), and provides counter-threat measures, (which include providing security at ultra-classified installations by the deployment of U.S. “Thought Police”, who conduct surveillance, by remote viewing and other para-psychological measures, against penetrations and scanning by foreign or civilian remote viewers [clairvoyants/out-of-body seers], Pentagon, VA, Fort Meade, MD, and the entire astral plane.

NASA

Gathers intelligence data relating to space flights, sabotage threats, astronaut and reconnaissance satellite encounters with UFOs and ETs, and coordinates the transfer of alien technology to U.S. and allies’ aerospace operations.

Air Force Special Security Service

Which is an NSA/USAF joint intelligence operations unit dealing with possible threats to aerospace operations from foreign powers, terrestrial or otherwise.

Defense Industry Security Command

(DISCO), which conducts intelligence operations within and on behalf of the civilian defense contractor corporations engaged in classified research, development, and production.

Defense Investigative Service

(DIS), which conducts investigations into people and situations deemed a possible threat to any operation of the Department of Defense.

Naval Investigative Service

(NIS), which conducts investigations against threats to Naval operations.

Air Force Electronic Security Command

Which conducts surveillance and interdiction of threats to the security of Air Force electronic transmissions and telemetry, and to the integrity of electronic countermeasure (ECM) warfare equipment.

Drug Enforcement Agency

(DEA)  Conducts surveillance and interdiction of drug smuggling operations, unless exempted under “National Security” waivers.

Federal Police Agency

Coordinates intelligence relating to threats against federal property and personnel.

Defense Electronic Security Command

Coordinates intelligence surveillance and countermeasures against threats to the integrity of military electronic equipment and electronic battlefield operations), Fort Worth, TX.

 Project Deep Water

The ongoing effects of the compromised personnel, sources and methods resulting from the secret importation of Hitler’s own Nazi Intelligence chief, Gen. Reinhard Gehlen, to redesign the US’s Intelligence apparatus.

 Project Paperclip

The ongoing results of the secret importation of Nazi weapons and aerospace/UFO scientists into U.S. secret military research and development bases.

 WAR DEPARTMENT

CIA’s Directorate for Science and Technology which gathers information with promise for scientific and technological developments which present a superiority advantage for, or a threat against, the National Security, [also contains the “Weird Desk”, which centrally processes intelligence about UFOs and ETs and their interaction with Earth], current Deputy Director of Central Intelligence for Science and Technology is Ron Pandolfi.

 Strategic Defense Initiative Office (SDIO)

Ballistic Missile Defense Organization. (BMDO)

Coordinates research, development and deployment of Star Wars electromagnetic pulse, killer laser, particle beam, plasmoid, and other advanced technology aerospace weapons.

 Department of Energy

(DOE) which, besides its cover story of researching cleaner-burning coal and gasoline and more solar power, is principally involved in research and development of: more specialized nuclear weapons; compact, self-sustaining, fusion powered, particle and wave weapons, including electromagnetic pulse, gravitational/anti-gravitational, laser, particle beam and plasmoid applied weapons research; high energy invisibility “cloaking” technology, etc.

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories

Are involved in nuclear warhead “refinements”, development of new transuranic elements for weapons and energy applications, development of anti-matter weapons (the Teller Bomb:10 000 times the force of a hydrogen bomb) laser/maser technology applications and reportedly Sandia National Laboratories-West (SNL-W) successful teleportation experiments, among other projects, at this Russian nicknamed “City of Death”), Livermore, CA. Idaho National Engineering Laboratories(INEL), which houses numerous underground facilities in an immense desert installations complex larger than Rhode Island, has security provided by its own secret Navy Base, is involved in nuclear, high energy electromagnetic, and other research, and includes Argonne National Laboratory, West), Arco, ID Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) Phillips Air Force LaboratoryWhich are sequestered on Kirtland Air Force Base/Sandia Military Reservation, and conduct the translation of theoretical and experimental nuclear and Star Wars weapons research done at Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories into practical, working weapons), Albuquerque, NM. Tonopah Test Range, SNL’s DOE weapons testing facility for operationally testing Star Wars weapons in realistic target situations, and is adjacent to classified stealth and cloaked aerospace craft and United StatesUFO bases at the Groom Lake [USAF/DOE/CIA] Base [Area 51] and Papoose Lake Base [S-4]), Nevada Test Site/Nellis AFB Range, Tonopah, NV. Haystack (Buttes) USAF Laboratory, Edwards AFB, CAA 30 levels deep, extreme security facility reportedly engaged in alien technology retro-engineering.

Los Alamos National Laboratories

The premiere research lab for nuclear, subatomic particle, high magnetic field, exometallurgical, exobiological and other exotic technologies research, Los Alamos County, NM.

Area 51/Groom Lake

(USAF/DOE/CIA) Base) and S-4 (Papoose Lake Base) Ultra-secure “non-existent” deployment bases where extremely classified aerospace vehicles are tested and operationally flown, including the Aurora hypersonic spyplane, the Black Manta [TR-3A] stealth fighter follow-on to the F-117A, the Pumpkinseed hyper-speed unmanned aerospace reconnaissance vehicle, and several variants of anti-gravitational craft (U.S.-UFOs).

U.S. Special Forces

CommandHurlburt Field, Mary Esther, Fl, along with its Western U.S. Headquarters, Special Forces Command, Beale AFB, Marysville, CA, coordinating: U.S. Army Delta Forces (Green Berets) •  U.S. Navy SEALs (Black Berets), Coronado, CA. •  USAF Blue Light (Red Berets) Strike Force

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency

(DARPA), which coordinates the application of latest scientific findings to the development of new generations of weapons. The Jason Group Elite weapons application scientists, developing cutting-edge science weapons for DARPA, and operating under the cover of the Mitre Corporation. Aquarius Group UFO technology application scientists, reportedly working under the guidance of the Dolphin Society, an elite group of scientists privy to extremely classified science and technology findings. Defense Science

Board Which serves as the Defense Department’s intermediary between weapons needs and the physical sciences. Defense Nuclear Currently concentrating on fusion powered high energy particle beam X-ray laser and EM Agency forcefield weapons development and deployment.

 U.S. Space Command

Space War Headquarters for operating “the next war, which will be fought and won in space”, Falcon AFB, CO.

 North American Aerospace Defense Command

(NORAD), operating the nuclear survivable space surveillance and war command center deep inside Cheyenne Mountain, Colorado Springs, CO. Air Force Office of Space Systems Which coordinates the development of future technology for operating and fighting in space.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

(NASA), which operates covert space defense, ET research, and space weapons compartments, in addition to manned Shuttle and unmanned scientific satellite launches. NASA’s Ames Research Center Which conducts the SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) Project, Exobiology (alien life forms) Division, and “Human Factors” (PSY-Warfare) Division), Sunnyvale, CA.

 Project Cold Empire SDI weapons research – Classified

Project Snowbird

Pseudo-UFO’s used as misinformation.Project Aquarius UFO research – Classified

Project MILSTAR

Development and deployment of WW III [space war] command, control, communication and intelligence satellites.

Project Tacit Rainbow

Stealth drones/pseudo-UFO’s.

Project Timberwind

Nuclear powered space vehicles.

Project Code EVA

Space walk based technology.

Project Cobra

Mist SDI energy -beam (plasmoid?) weapon research.

Project Cold Witness

SDI weapons – Classified

WEAPONS INDUSTRY BRANCH

Stanford Research Institute, Inc.

An Intelligence contractor involved in psychotronic, para-psychological and PSY-WAR research.

AT&T

Sandia Labs, Bell Labs, etc. Star Wars weapons research and NSA telephone/satellite communications interception facilitation.

RAND Corporation

CIA-front involved in Intelligence projects, weapons development, and underground bases development.

Edgerton, Germhausen & Greer Corporation

NSA/DOE contractor involved in Star Wars weapons development, fusion applications, and security for Area 51 and nuclear installations, etc.

Wackenhut Corporation

(NSA/CIA/DOE cut-out contractor) involved in contract security operations for Top Secret Ultra and Black Budget surface and underground military reservations, such as Area S-4 (U.S. UFO base), NV and Sandia National Labs (Star Wars weapons base) NM) and reportedly “dirty jobs” for CIA andDefense Intelligence agencies.

Bechtel Corporation

CIA’s main contractor for covert projects and experimental underground bases.

United Nuclear Corporation

Military nuclear applications.

Walsh Construction Company

Seems to undertake CIA projects contracts.

Aerojet (Genstar Corp.)

Makes DSP-1 Star Wars battle satellites for the NRO.

Reynolds Electronics Engineering

Seems to undertake CIA and DoD projects.

Lear Aircraft Company

Black budget technology.

Northrop Corporation

Makes U.S. anti-gravity craft, back-engineered from alien technology, near Lancaster, CA.

 Hughes Aircraft Classified projects compartment.

 Lockheed-Martin Corporation

Black Budget aerospace projects.

McDonnell-Douglas Corporation

Black Budget aerospace projects.

BDM Corporation

CIA contractor, involved in UFO back-engineering and psychotronic projects, etc.

 General Electric Corporation

Electronic warfare and weapons systems.

PSI-TECH Corporation

Involved in military/Intelligence applications of research into psychotronics, parapsychology, remote viewing, and contacting extra-terrestrial consciousness. Science Applications

International Corp.

(SAIC) – “black projects” contractor, reportedly including psychic warfare.

FINANCIAL DEPARTMENT

 Federal Reserve System

Cartel of private banks overseen by elite super-wealthy financiers, such as the Rockefellers, Mellons, DuPonts, Rothschilds, etc., which dictates to the Government the flow of money, worth of money, and the interests rates.

 CIA

Self-financing the operation and/or control of much of the international drug trade in heroin, cocaine and marijuana, as well as “front” business enterprises, as a source of cash for off-the-books covert operations, and the purchase of exotic munitions and strategic bribe funds.

Department of Justice

Self-financing the use of confiscated money and valuables from “targets of investigation” to finance “special projects”. Special Forces self-financing The self-use of confiscated money from covert military operations to fund other clandestine operations.

 OLDDOGS COMMENTS

 Considering what you have just read in this article, please tell me just what in the hell do American’s have to be so damn proud of?

 Learn from the mistakes of others.

Trust me…!

You won’t live long enough to make them all yourself. 
 I’ve tried! 

 When America wakes the hell up and throws the bastards out that designed and profited from all of this shameful activity, I will once again raise my eyes to

Old Glory.

The Real Housewives of Wall Street

 Why is the Federal Reserve forking over $220

million in bailout money to the wives of two

Morgan Stanley bigwigs?

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-real-housewives-of-wall-street-look-whos-cashing-in-on-the-bailout-20110411?page=1

 This article appears in the April 28, 2011 issue of Rolling Stone. The issue will be available on newsstands and in the online archive April 15.

 By MATT TAIBBI

America has two national budgets, one official, one unofficial. The official budget is public record and hotly debated: Money comes in as taxes and goes out as jet fighters, DEA agents, wheat subsidies and Medicare, plus pensions and bennies for that great untamed socialist menace called a unionized public-sector workforce that Republicans are always complaining about. According to popular legend, we’re broke and in so much debt that 40 years from now our granddaughters will still be hooking on weekends to pay the medical bills of this year’s retirees from the IRS, the SEC and the Department of Energy.

Why Isn’t Wall Street in Jail?

Most Americans know about that budget. What they don’t know is that there is another budget of roughly equal heft, traditionally maintained in complete secrecy. After the financial crash of 2008, it grew to monstrous dimensions, as the government attempted to unfreeze the credit markets by handing out trillions to banks and hedge funds. And thanks to a whole galaxy of obscure, acronym-laden bailout programs, it eventually rivaled the “official” budget in size — a huge roaring river of cash flowing out of the Federal Reserve to destinations neither chosen by the president nor reviewed by Congress, but instead handed out by fiat by unelected Fed officials using a seemingly nonsensical and apparently unknowable methodology.

This article appears in the April 28, 2011 issue of Rolling Stone. The issue will be available on newsstands and in the online archive April 15.

Now, following an act of Congress that has forced the Fed to open its books from the bailout era, this unofficial budget is for the first time becoming at least partially a matter of public record. Staffers in the Senate and the House, whose queries about Fed spending have been rebuffed for nearly a century, are now poring over 21,000 transactions and discovering a host of outrages and lunacies in the “other” budget. It is as though someone sat down and made a list of every individual on earth who actually did not need emergency financial assistance from the United States government, and then handed them the keys to the public treasure. The Fed sent billions in bailout aid to banks in places like Mexico, Bahrain and Bavaria, billions more to a spate of Japanese car companies, more than $2 trillion in loanseach to Citigroup and Morgan Stanley, and billions more to a string of lesser millionaires and billionaires with Cayman Islands addresses. “Our jaws are literally dropping as we’re reading this,” says Warren Gunnels, an aide to Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont. “Every one of these transactions is outrageous.”

Wall Street’s Big Win

But if you want to get a true sense of what the “shadow budget” is all about, all you have to do is look closely at the taxpayer money handed over to a single company that goes by a seemingly innocuous name: Waterfall TALF Opportunity. At first glance, Waterfall’s haul doesn’t seem all that huge — just nine loans totaling some $220 million, made through a Fed bailout program. That doesn’t seem like a whole lot, considering that Goldman Sachs alone received roughly $800 billion in loans from the Fed. But upon closer inspection, Waterfall TALF Opportunity boasts a couple of interesting names among its chief investors: Christy Mack and Susan Karches.

Christy is the wife of John Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley. Susan is the widow of Peter Karches, a close friend of the Macks who served as president of Morgan Stanley’s investment-banking division. Neither woman appears to have any serious history in business, apart from a few philanthropic experiences. Yet the Federal Reserve handed them both low-interest loans of nearly a quarter of a billion dollars through a complicated bailout program that virtually guaranteed them millions in risk-free income.

RS Politics Daily: Political news and commentary from Rolling Stone writers and editors

The technical name of the program that Mack and Karches took advantage of is TALF, short for Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility. But the federal aid they received actually falls under a broader category of bailout initiatives, designed and perfected by Federal Reserve chief Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, called “giving already stinking rich people gobs of money for no fucking reason at all.” If you want to learn how the shadow budget works, follow along. This is what welfare for the rich looks like.

PAGE 2

In August 2009, John Mack, at the time still the CEO of Morgan Stanley, made an interesting life decision. Despite the fact that he was earning the comparatively low salary of just $800,000, and had refused to give himself a bonus in the midst of the financial crisis, Mack decided to buy himself a gorgeous piece of property — a 107-year-old limestone carriage house on the Upper East Side of New York, complete with an indoor 12-car garage, that had just been sold by the prestigious Mellon family for $13.5 million. Either Mack had plenty of cash on hand to close the deal, or he got some help from his wife, Christy, who apparently bought the house with him.

The Macks make for an interesting couple. John, a Lebanese-American nicknamed “Mack the Knife” for his legendary passion for firing people, has one of the most recognizable faces on Wall Street, physically resembling a crumpled, half-burned baked potato with a pair of overturned furry horseshoes for eyebrows. Christy is thin, blond and rich — a sort of still-awake Sunny von Bulow with hobbies. Her major philanthropic passion is endowments for alternative medicine, and she has attained the level of master at Reiki, the Japanese practice of “palm healing.” The only other notable fact on her public résumé is that her sister was married to Charlie Rose.

It’s hard to imagine a pair of people you would less want to hand a giant welfare check to — yet that’s exactly what the Fed did. Just two months before the Macks bought their fancy carriage house in Manhattan, Christy and her pal Susan launched their investment initiative called Waterfall TALF. Neither seems to have any experience whatsoever in finance, beyond Susan’s penchant for dabbling in thoroughbred racehorses. But with an upfront investment of $15 million, they quickly received $220 million in cash from the Fed, most of which they used to purchase student loans and commercial mortgages. The loans were set up so that Christy and Susan would keep 100 percent of any gains on the deals, while the Fed and the Treasury (read: the taxpayer) would eat 90 percent of the losses. Given out as part of a bailout program ostensibly designed to help ordinary people by kick-starting consumer lending, the deals were a classic heads-I-win, tails-you-lose investment.

So how did the government come to address a financial crisis caused by the collapse of a residential-mortgage bubble by giving the wives of a couple of Morgan Stanley bigwigs free money to make essentially risk-free investments in student loans and commercial real estate? The answer is: by degrees. The history of the bailout era reads like one of those awful stories about what happens when a long-dormant criminal compulsion goes unchecked. The Peeping Tom next door stares through a few bathroom windows, doesn’t get caught, and decides to break in and steal a pair of panties. Next thing you know, he’s upgraded to homemade dungeons, tri-state serial rampages and throwing cheerleaders into a panel truck.

It was the same with the bailouts. They started out small, with the government throwing a few hundred billion in public money to prop up genuinely insolvent firms like Bear Stearns and AIG. Then came TARP and a few other programs that were designed to stave off bank failures and dispose of the toxic mortgage-backed securities that were a root cause of the financial crisis. But before long, the Fed began buying up every distressed investment on Wall Street, even those that were in no danger of widespread defaults: commercial real estate loans, credit- card loans, auto loans, student loans, even loans backed by the Small Business Administration. What started off as a targeted effort to stop the bleeding in a few specific trouble spots became a gigantic feeding frenzy. It was “free money for shit,” says Barry Ritholtz, author of Bailout Nation. “It turned into ‘Give us your crap that you can’t get rid of otherwise.’ ”

The impetus for this sudden manic expansion of the bailouts was a masterful bluff by Wall Street executives. Once the money started flowing from the Federal Reserve, the executives began moaning to their buddies at the Fed, claiming that they were suddenly afraid of investing in anything — student loans, car notes, you name it — unless their profits were guaranteed by the state. “You ever watch soccer, where the guy rolls six times to get a yellow card?” says William Black, a former federal bank regulator who teaches economics and law at the University of Missouri. “That’s what this is. If you have power and connections, they will give you a freebie deal — if you’re good at whining.”

This is where TALF fits into the bailout picture. Created just after Barack Obama’s election in November 2008, the program’s ostensible justification was to spur more consumer lending, which had dried up in the midst of the financial crisis. But instead of lending directly to car buyers and credit-card holders and students — that would have been socialism! — the Fed handed out a trillion dollars to banks and hedge funds, almost interest-free. In other words, the government lent taxpayer money to the same assholes who caused the crisis, so that they could then lend that money back out on the market virtually risk-free, at an enormous profit.

Cue your Billy Mays voice, because wait, there’s more! A key aspect of TALF is that the Fed doles out the money through what are known as non-recourse loans. Essentially, this means that if you don’t pay the Fed back, it’s no big deal. The mechanism works like this: Hedge Fund Goon borrows, say, $100 million from the Fed to buy crappy loans, which are then transferred to the Fed as collateral. If Hedge Fund Goon decides not to repay that $100 million, the Fed simply keeps its pile of crappy securities and calls everything even.

This is the deal of a lifetime. Think about it: You borrow millions, buy a bunch of crap securities and stash them on the Fed’s books. If the securities lose money, you leave them on the Fed’s lap and the public eats the loss. But if they make money, you take them back, cash them in and repay the funds you borrowed from the Fed. “Remember that crazy guy in the commercials who ran around covered in dollar bills shouting, ‘The government is giving out free money!’ ” says Black. “As crazy as he was, this is making it real.”

PAGE 3

This whole setup — in which millionaires and billionaires gambled on mountains of dangerous securities, with taxpayers providing the stake and assuming almost all of the risk — is the reason that it’s insanely premature for Wall Street to claim that the bailouts have actually made money for the government. We simply can’t make that determination until the final bill comes in on all the dicey securities we financed during the bailout feeding frenzy.

In the case of Waterfall TALF Opportunity, here’s what we know: The company was founded in June 2009 with $14.87 million of investment capital, money that likely came from Christy Mack and Susan Karches. The two Wall Street wives then used the $220 million they got from the Fed to buy up a bunch of securities, including a large pool of commercial mortgages managed by Credit Suisse, a company John Mack once headed. Those securities were valued at $253.6 million, though the Fed refuses to explain how it arrived at that estimate. And here’s the kicker: Of the $220 million the two wives got from the Fed, roughly $150 million had not been paid back as of last fall — meaning that you and I are still on the hook for most of whatever the Wall Street spouses bought on their government-funded shopping spree.

The public has no way of knowing how much Christy Mack and Susan Karches earned on these transactions, because the Fed has repeatedly declined to provide any information about how it priced the individual securities bought as part of programs like TALF. In the Waterfall deal, for instance, we know the Fed pledged some $14 million against a block of securities called “Credit Suisse Commercial Mortgage Trust Series 2007-C2” — but that data is meaningless without knowing how many units were bought. It’s like saying the Fed gave Waterfall $14 million to buy cars. Did Waterfall pay $5,000 per car, or $500,000? We have no idea. “There’s no way of validating or invalidating the Fed’s process in TALF without this pricing information,” says Gary Aguirre, a former SEC official who was fired years ago after he tried to interview John Mack in an insider-trading case.

In early April, in an attempt to learn exactly how much Mack and Karches made on the TALF deals, Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa wrote a letter to Waterfall asking 21 detailed questions about the transactions. In addition, Sen. Sanders has personally asked Fed chief Bernanke to provide more complete information on the TALF loans given not only to Christy Mack but to gazillionaires like former Miami Dolphins owner H. Wayne Huizenga and hedge-fund shark John Paulson. But Bernanke bluntly refused to provide the information — and the Fed has similarly stonewalled other oversight agencies, including the General Accounting Office and TARP’s special inspector general.

Christy Mack and Susan Karches did not respond to requests for comments for this story. But even without more information about the loans they got from the Fed, we know that TALF wasn’t the only risk-free money being handed over to Wall Street. During the financial crisis, the Fed routinely made billions of dollars in “emergency” loans to big banks at near-zero interest. Many of the banks then turned around and used the money to buy Treasury bonds at higher interest rates — essentially loaning the money back to the government at an inflated rate. “People talk about how these were loans that were paid back,” says a congressional aide who has studied the transactions. “But when the state is lending money at zero percent and the banks are turning around and lending that money back to the state at three percent, how is that different from just handing rich people money?”

Those kinds of deals were the essence of the bailout — and the vast mountains of near-zero government cash turned companies facing bankruptcy into monstrous profit machines. In 2008 and 2009, while Christy Mack was busy getting her little TALF loans for $220 million, her husband’s bank hauled in $2 trillion in emergency Fed loans. During the same period, Goldman borrowed nearly $800 billion. Shortly afterward, the two banks reported a combined annual profit of $14.5 billion.

As crazy as it is to lend to banks at near zero percent and borrow back from them at three percent, one could at least argue that the policy may have aided American companies by providing banks more cash to lend. But how do you explain the host of other bailout transactions now being examined by Congress? Like the Fed’s massive purchases of securities in foreign automakers, including BMW, Volkswagen, Honda, Mitsubishi and Nissan? Or the nearly $5 billion in cheap credit the Fed extended to Toyota and Mitsubishi? Sure, those companies have factories and dealerships in the U.S. — but does it really make sense to give them free cash at the same time taxpayers were being asked to bail out Chrysler and GM? Seems a little crazy to fund the competition of the very automakers you’re trying to rescue.

And then there are the bailout deals that make no sense at all. Republicans go mad over spending on health care and school for Mexican illegals. So why aren’t they flipping out over the $9.6 billion in loans the Fed made to the Central Bank of Mexico? How do we explain the $2.2 billion in loans that went to the Korea Development Bank, the biggest state bank of South Korea, whose sole purpose is to promote development in South Korea? And at a time when America is borrowing from the Middle East at interest rates of three percent, why did the Fed extend $35 billion in loans to the Arab Banking Corporation of Bahrain at interest rates as low as one quarter of one point?

Even more disturbing, the major stakeholder in the Bahrain bank is none other than the Central Bank of Libya, which owns 59 percent of the operation. In fact, the Bahrain bank just received a special exemption from the U.S. Treasury to prevent its assets from being frozen in accord with economic sanctions. That’s right: Muammar Qaddafi received more than 70 loans from the Federal Reserve, along with the Real Housewives of Wall Street.

Perhaps the most irritating facet of all of these transactions is the fact that hundreds of millions of Fed dollars were given out to hedge funds and other investors with addresses in the Cayman Islands. Many of those addresses belong to companies with American affiliations — including prominent Wall Street names like Pimco, Blackstone and . . . Christy Mack. Yes, even Waterfall TALF Opportunity is an offshore company. It’s one thing for the federal government to look the other way when Wall Street hotshots evade U.S. taxes by registering their investment companies in the Cayman Islands. But subsidizing tax evasion? Giving it a federal bailout? What the fuck?

As America girds itself for another round of lunatic political infighting over which barely-respirating social program or urgently necessary federal agency must have their budgets permanently sacrificed to the cause of billionaires being able to keep their third boats in the water, it’s important to point out just how scarce money isn’t in certain corners of the public-spending universe. In the coming months, when you watch Republican congressional stooges play out the desperate comedy of solving America’s deficit problems by making fewer photocopies of proposed bills, or by taking an ax to budgetary shrubberies like NPR or the SEC, remember Christy Mack and her fancy new carriage house. There is no belt-tightening on the other side of the tracks. Just a free lunch that never ends.

OLDDOGS COMMENTS

 AMERICANS!

WAKE THE HELL UP!

A Declaration of War is Given

by Walter Burien

HTTP://CAFR1.com

OLDDOGS COMMENTS

This article was (is) posted on http://dumpdc.wordpress.com/ and the editors comments are those of the sites owner, Russell Longcore. Please visit DumpDC and watch the videos not included here.

 

---

(Editor’s Note: The fact that Washington and most states refuse to even acknowledge the existence of the CAFR funds should tell you something…they don’t consider this YOUR MONEY. In my opinion, the only time the assets will come into play is AFTER the dollar collapses. Then, the value of those assets will only be pennies on the dollar. So, if Washington and the states COULD solve their financial problems by using the assets in their possession…and they don’t or won’t…what reason could you think up to explain their unwillingness?)

I have listened to many of the different media heads and ABC, CNN, CBS, NBC, PBS programs closely for the last three weeks as the so called “budget debates” takes place. The one issue that is as basic as it gets when it comes down to any budget discussion there has not been one mention of. In the absence of not a mention in all respects of that issue it makes the “budget discussions” a 100% complete charade.

Each and every one of us whether being in poverty or a billionaire when we discus our annual or monthly budget for home or business will discuss with our significant other or business partners two basic issues:

#1. Our normal operating expenses; planed expenses for any project we are working on or intend to implement; and any standing balances we plan on keeping as time passes.

#2. What our standing investments are that we have; account balances of all liquid cash; and our income we expect to get from all sources with all sources being our investment, salary, sales, and other sources.

In the “budget debates or discussions” we have been watching the issues presented that are saturating the air waves through the talking heads; news; and media programs almost exclusively, if not without exception, have only talked about; discussed; or presented the topic of #1 above.

In the real world of our personal and business lives this type of behavior and conduct excluding mention and serious discussions of #2 would never happen under any circumstances. On a business level in discussions with partners it would be considered fraud and an actionable offense for criminal malfeasance and removal of the partners responsible for such an omission. On a personal level the same would break up a marriage or close friendship.

Here we have the intentional participation of the syndicated media and the entire political body doing exactly the same with the omission of #2 and doing so: knowingly; willingly; and intentionally whether eagerly in planned participation (the majority) or out of fear of reprisal (the minority). I will add one meritorious exception of a house speaker Bruce Hana from the State of Oregon here:

Folks, the media and political charade taking place, it is all a masterful selective presentation designed to maintain the well entrenched void in public comprehension of the absolute basics of #2 and thus the obscene wealth and power derived staying intact and at the disposal of the inside players. Massive wealth that in this serious omission the public has been spoon feed all but mention of over the last six or seven decades as it grew and captured it all by investment whereby it gives the definition of actionable fraud of no equal by said intentional orchestrated omission.

If a complete accounting was presented to the public of #2 above held by both local and federal government, the world would then be established as being a much different place then we have been led to believe it is. The parallels that this revelation when and if shown and comprehended by all would equal I do not need to go into here, we all know what the true picture would present upon conclusion of disclosure being cognitively presented.

The War that is needed here with a barrage assault from all fronts on the media and political body is for immediate; clear; and in-depth; and open discussions to take place per #2 above. I emphasize that only liquid investment assets be addressed and NOT hard physical assets. All physical assets are to be held and ONLY liquid investment assets and the massive annual returns derived from there are to be looked at for reallocation for other use to resolve any “budget shortfall”.

My conservative estimate of standing domestic and “international” liquid investment holdings held by both federal and local governments collectively at this time is between 90 to 110 trillion dollars.

The immediate war and assault by email; letter; phone call; and protest rally barrage I request against the media and political body is that the issues of #2 be equally included in all discussions and presentations. The following are specific categories that are applicable to the discussions per any political local or federal body and are general categories that may exclude other holding accounts that may be needed for inclusion in the discussions when identified.

For the public to be played as total idiots with the exclusion of the massive wealth held in the #2 arena it is unacceptable under any terms of the rules of engagement of a country supposedly ruled by We The People:

1. What are the standing collective investment asset balances held both domestically and ” internationally” by general purpose government and enterprise authorities. Included should be the firms and management funds where held globally.

2. Identifying what specialty investment funds are held that are not included under the categories of general purpose government or enterprise authorities but are still held or overseen by the same.

3. Being that government keeps records of their standing investment assets and true gross income from all sources as depicted in their own Annual Financial Reports of which the names given to the same are: Comprehensive Annual Financial Report; Annual Financial Statement; or Annual Financial Report, that the clear mention of the same be made with the comment made that ” All residents of that City; County; State; or School District should carefully review their local government’s report of the same”. For federal it is called: Consolidated Financial Statements or Financial Report of the United States Government.

For local governments a Google search using quotes around the name of the report and then the name of the local government on the search line will bring up many. I note that there was an intentional void created in your thinking not to hear about these reports being that if you looked; learned; and comprehended what is shown therein the job of treating you as a complete idiot with the spiel you are intentionally spoon fed from the media and political bodies would not be such an easy job to do. And yes it is a job on their part DUE TO THE MONEY INVOLVED and the power / control it breeds within the back halls and behind the closed doors of government AND the media.

I make no light statement as to the importance of this request of War and assault as stated. Many may have a hard effort in comprehending what they are looking at in these reports BUT there are many that have the background in finance or business that will catch and comprehend what is shown. The ramifications of comprehending by even a small majority of We The People shall have the impact to turn the tide of events towards a direct and continued benefit for We The People and our futures.

I make special note of remedy upon the public learning and comprehending the scope of the wealth involved and held within government being my suggested application of the TRF for the inevitable elimination of all taxation:TaxRetirement.com A four point initiative linked on the front page shows the basics for turning that tide.

Circulate this request to all that you know and ask them to join the War. Compose your own letters and emails to the media and political players making it clear that further omission in the discussions of the basic issues of the liquid wealth as stated above you consider intentional fraud by omission in combination with their “selective presentation” crying broke and bankrupt utilizing the psychological tactic of fear mongering misdirection to extort more wealth from the people and that continuing to do so in perpetuating such fraud by omission and selective presentation may and could have severe, unexpected; and dire consequences.

Simple mention of the above starts the ball rolling. A fever pitch of mention can create a landslide of affirmative action for correction in the true behalf of We The People.

The intentionally maintained void in public comprehension must and needs to be filled at this time. There is no alternative that is acceptable. A declaration of War is given.

Sent for your information and your action, truly yours,

Walter J. Burien, Jr. – CAFR1.com
P. O. Box 2112
Saint Johns, AZ 85936

IMF Plots Role as World’s Central Bank?

TheDaily Bell

04 11 11 by  Staff Report

IMF says worth exploring borrowing from markets … The International Monetary Fund said it was worth exploring ways that the global institution could borrow from financial markets at short notice to raise additional funding for its lending programs. In a paper that looks at progress by the Group of 20 major economies in reforming the global monetary system, the Fund said building confidence in the IMF’s ability to respond to crises may warrant looking at alternative ways of fund-raising, including turning to markets. – Reuters

Dominant Social Theme: The world’s economy is a disaster. The IMF is the logical choice to lead the way to a brighter banking future in a consolidated, centralized, world economy. It says so itself.

Free-Market Analysis: Can you hear the whispers coming out of the shadows? Over the past months, we have covered the IMF’s increasing efforts to position itself as the world’s future central bank and one-world currency issuer. We can see from the above article in Reuters – a chief mouthpiece of the power elite along with the Economist magazine – that the campaign is in no sense winding down. Now the IMF casually, oh-so-casually, floats the idea that it might tap global markets for funding.

Various speculations immediately come to mind. The first is that IMF executives are expecting something big, probably the default of Spain. The idea would be that the EU, which has been struggling with gnats such as Portugal, Greece and Ireland, simply could not handle a default the size of Spain. The IMF has been faithfully at the side of the EU, madly indemnifying Southern PIGS as they fall; but even the IMF could not handle such a bankruptcy, or so we speculate.

Of course, Spanish officials have recently issued a series of statements indicating that Spain is solvent and will remain so, which in our view means a default is almost certainly on the way. Over the weekend, EU officials claimed, as well, that the EU had turned the proverbial corner and that recessionary trends were giving away to recovery. Again, from our point of view, this almost certainly means that the EU is slumping into dire straits, maybe a depression.

Yes, the IMF may be looking ahead. It receives funds via its 150-plus member countries, but these funds will not be enough if Spain collapses, especially given the other demands the IMF is facing. A special levy could be undertaken, but a more innovative approach would be to tap the larger financial markets.

This would have several pleasant side effects. (Never let a crisis go to waste.) First it would further establish the IMF as an independent body rather than a lending facility. The IMF is actually subsumed under the UN, and subsidiary bodies such as the IMF and the WHO do not traditionally offer independent securities. To do so places the subsidiary in a new light; suddenly it is seen as an independent actor on the world stage, an entity that can raise its own funds and therefore determine its own course of action.

That’s one benefit. The other of course is that such independence generally puts the IMF on the road to further independent courses of action; if the IMF has ambitions of becoming the world’s central bank (and it has bluntly affirmed it) then intermediate steps are a necessity. Issuing its own securities is a good way to acclimate the larger populace to the idea that someday the IMF can issue its own currency. (In fact, in a sense it already does via its SDRs.)

Important stuff in our view. But like so many things, the IMF’s musings received a lot less play than, say, who has been excommunicated from The American Idol TV program (a story much in the news). This is unfortunate. The IMF matters. (We wish it didn’t.) The IMF in fact is continually involved these days in a concerted and deadly serious campaign to refashion itself. One may find American Idol a most important TV event, but surely the creation of a new monetary system is worth paying attention to as well?

It began with a series of leaks in 2010 picked up by the media about how SDRs could become the world’s new currency. Brazil and Chinese central bankers even went on the record as saying SDRs could furnish a global currency, among alternatives. Then came the jaw-dropping statement by American Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner,  that the US too would be in favor of a “basket of currencies” that could constitute a new world money. Free-market thinkers were flabbergasted of course. Why would the US trade in its reserve dollar currency – a currency so strong that the US can print virtually all it wants without creating price inflation – for a basket of currencies it didn’t control?

As always when such cognitive dissonance arises, the mainstream media eventually shuts up. There are no answers after all. It makes no sense, unless one grants that there are larger forces at play here; if one does that, then one is a “conspiracy theorist” and therefore the mainstream media will do almost ANYTHING to avoid connecting the dots.

But here at the DB we are not so reticent. We will state boldly that that the current aim of the Anglosphere elites (that control the IMF, World Bank, etc.) is to create one-world government with all its appropriate paraphernalia including a Parliament (UN) military (NATO) police force (Interpol) court-system (ICC in the Hague) and of course the necessary economic instruments including a single currency. Within this context, Geithner’s advocacy of a global currency is not at all startling. He serves at the pleasure of the elites; he supports their platforms. In fact, the American government for decades has supported elite agendas and surely cannot be said to speak for the “people” anymore.

Yet all of these conversations are sotto voce. In fact, they might not be audible at all were it not for the alternative media and the Internet. The Internet provides us amplitude that the elites find unnecessary. In fact, in the 20th century elite procedures worked very well. Delicately-made statements were offered up by the appropriate individuals, a paper trail was established; a series of meetings took place; decisions were made by “wise ones” and eventually the New York Times published the foregone conclusion in a two or three part series. On Sunday there might even be a crossword puzzle dedicated to reinforcing the meme. What fun! Who could object?

But the ‘Net, with its compulsive repurposing, has changed the context and the elite’s formula of sociopolitical manipulation. What was once unseen is now clarified. What was previously all-but-inaudible now shouts from the ‘Net’s electronic newsprint. The elite stubbornly refuses to change though. No, the same procedures used in the 20th century are still in play in the 21st. The same false-flags are trotted out; the same absurdities are made manifest by pliable governments. The trouble is that the Internet, in putting such manipulations in context, inevitably reveals their ridiculousness. The charade is tissue thin and ripped asunder by anyone who studies it for an hour or two.

Sometimes it takes not a bit of study. Reuters in the article excerpted above virtually lays it out for us. The G20 meets in Washington [this] week before semi-annual meetings of the IMF and World Bank where “changes to the global monetary system will be discussed by finance ministers.” How much clearer can it be? Here’s some more from Reuters on the just-issued IMF report and upcoming economic meetings:

Among issues being explored to update the global monetary system is whether or not to include the Chinese renminbi in a basket of currencies that make up the IMF’s special drawing rights – an international reserve asset of the IMF. The basket is currently made up of the dollar, euro, pound sterling and the yen. Created in 1969, it does not reflect the rising importance of China.

One of the biggest obstacles to the SDR playing a bigger role in the global financial system was technical challenges and a “great deal of consensus-building and policy coordination,” the IMF report said. The report said most of the ideas being considered to remake the global monetary system would require more collaboration among countries. In addition, some proposals would take time to implement, the report said, suggesting it could be a while before a new monetary system is rolled out.

Did you catch that last sentence, dear reader? They’re not even trying to hide it. “It could be a while before a new monetary system is rolled out.” Who, we wonder, is doing the rolling and why? Has there been a global upswell for a new monetary system? Are people protesting on the streets for a worldwide currency. Are the color revolutions taking place around the world because “the youth” wants the IMF to take over management of a new global money.

There is a dominant social theme at work here – a fear-based promotion presented by the power elite. The meme is that the old money system doesn’t work and is driving the world to ruin; thus a new, more consolidated system is necessary. The trouble is twofold, however. First, the old system was virtually created to produce the results the world is now grappling with. Second, the same people who brought you the current ruin are now suggesting the replacement system.

A final thought occurs to us. The IMF recently came out with a report (it is hard to keep track of them) explaining how SDRs could become a world currency. One of the main stumbling blocks apparently was the lack of an SDR Treasury where SDRs – bancors, ultimately – could be stored at a rate of interest by those who held them.

At the time, several months ago (as the report was issued at Davos) the IMF claimed that such a system could only evolve over time. Yet now we see that the IMF is suddenly in crisis mode and its brain trust is suggesting for various reasons that what might have been considered as a decade-long evolution be speeded up. Perhaps by tomorrow the IMF will announce that it suddenly created an SDR-fixed income product. And later this week, they suddenly hold their first auction. Goldman Sachs shall purchase a good deal of it; European banks will buy the rest.

Conclusion: One is struck by how fast events are moving. The power elite is hardly bothering to pretend anymore. One paper suggests decades; another paper indicates that instruments might have to be collated tomorrow. Yesterdays’ blueprint is applied today; but we can see the articulation beneath the surface and the connections to the Man Behind the Curtain. The great and invisible Oz is neither of these things anymore, but merely visible and obvious. What we tend to see is desperate men running as fast as they can before time runs out.

Morality and Freedom Again

The Daily Bell

http://www.thedailybell.com/2036/Tibor-Machan-Morality-and-Freedom-Again.html

by  Dr. Tibor Machan

Quite a few people, among them some who are pretty bright and thoughtful, hold that people have moral responsibilities, that these aren’t mere preferences, and that a society that fails to accommodate this is flawed. For some who take morality seriously these responsibilities concern conduct that people ought to carry out for various ends or goals, such as fulfilling God’s will, helping others, promoting the public interest, creating beauty, advancing world peace, eliminating poverty, and so forth and so on.

Not that everyone accepts that people have any such responsibilities. Some influential thinkers are amoralists – they deny that there is any such thing as morality or ethics, that all talk about these matters is either outright bogus or merely a disguised way to discuss aspects of human psychology or sociology. In the social sciences most professionals and academics have held this view and still do, hoping that what they can do is show that a concern for how people ought to or should act is really about mental health or social adjustment, both manageable without recourse to talk about moral or ethical responsibilities, duties or human virtues. Hard core physical scientists, too, tend to deny morality and focus, instead, on the physical sources of desirable or undesirable conduct.

Almost needless to say, the denial of morality doesn’t easily square with much of public discourse. In politics and diplomacy, for example, nearly all parties openly blame their adversaries and praise their allies. Wall street is a favorite target of moral condemnation, as is Congress or the rich or Republicans or Democrats or so called market fundamentalists or socialists.  No end of moralizing occurs in the editorials and columns published in newspapers, magazines, even in scientific ones such as Science News, Science, Scientific American, Nature, or Discover (at least whenever those who ask for reducing funding for science come under scrutiny).

But let me not dwell on moral skepticism here.  Instead I want to explore the ideas of those who readily admit that people have moral responsibilities or duties.  Some of these folks make the case that such moral responsibilities or duties are part and parcel of human life itself and when one is born, one already has these (although they are to be fulfilled only once one reaches maturity).  My most favorite statement of this view comes from the French “father of sociology,” Auguste Comte, although others, such as the Harvard University professor of government Michael J. Sandel or Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor, could be cited.  Here is Comte classic statement:

“Everything we have belongs then to Humanity…Positivism never admits anything but duties, of all to all. For its social point of view cannot tolerate the notion of right[s], constantly based on individualism.  We are born loaded with obligations of every kind, to our predecessors, to our successors, to our contemporaries.  Later they only grow or accumulate before we can return any service.” From The Catechism of Positive Religion (Clifton, NJ: Augustus M. Kelley Publ., 1973), pp. 212-30.

For now I do not wish to dispute the moral position Comte and many others hold, namely, that people ought to serve others.  It does pose some dilemmas, of course, such as the one apparently pointed out by the poet W. H. Auden who reportedly exclaimed:  “We are here on earth to do good for others. What the others are here for, I don’t know.” Instead I wish to point to an inconsistency about one use to which the position that we are obligated to society or others (or whomever) is put, namely, to support coercive measures that make fulfilling such an alleged obligation legally mandatory.  This is that moral choice must be made freely, without anyone making another do the morally right thing.  It is impossible to do the  morally right thing at the point of a gun.  Coerced morality is a contradiction in terms.  Only when one does what is right or wrong voluntarily, of one’s own free will or initiative, does it amount to something morally significant.

However much someone believes that we should all serve God, society, the arts, the poor or any other possible beneficiary of our conduct, the last thing this could possibly justify is using coercive force against those who are supposed to comply with the edict.

What may mislead some to overlook this is the term “obligation.”  It suggests something legally enforceable but that is not so when it pertains to ethics or morality, only when it applies to law.  One may be obligated to respect other people’s rights and this may be legally required, made part of the law.  But if one has a moral obligation to help one’s unfortunate fellows, promote the arts, conserve resources, or guard against the destruction of ancient ruins – all of that and anything similar has to be undertaken voluntarily, not at gunpoint.  That’s the nature of moral or ethical obligations and responsibilities.

 

 

Congress Delivered Articles of Impeachment for tyrant Obama

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

Bruce Fein
April 8, 2011

I.
THE IMPEACHMENT POWER

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

II.
THE “DECLARE WAR” CLAUSE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

30. Then Congressman Abraham Lincoln sermonized:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Founding Fathers were, as in most things, profoundly right.

That’s why I want to be very clear: if the President takes us to war with Iran without Congressional approval, I will call for his impeachment.

I do not say this lightly or to be provocative. I am dead serious. I have chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee. I still teach constitutional law. I’ve consulted with some of our leading constitutional scholars. The Constitution is clear. And so am I.

I’m saying this now to put the administration on notice and hopefully to deter the President from taking unilateral action in the last year of his administration.

If war is warranted with a nation of 70 million people, it warrants coming to Congress and the American people first.

45. In a speech on the Senate Floor in 1998, then Senator Joseph Biden maintained: “…the only logical conclusion is that the framers [of the United States Constitution] intended to grant to Congress the power to initiate all hostilities, even limited wars.”

46. On December 20, 2007, then Senator Barack Obama informed the Boston Globe, based upon his extensive knowledge of the United States Constitution: “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”

III.
USURPATION OF THE WAR POWER OVER LIBYA

47. President Barack Obama’s military attacks against Libya constitute acts of war.

48. Congressman J. Randy Forbes (VA-4) had the following exchange with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates during a March 31, 2011 House Armed Services Committee Hearing on the legality of the present military operation in Libya:

Congressman Forbes: Mr. Secretary, if tomorrow a foreign nation intentionally, for whatever reason, launched a Tomahawk missile into New York City, would that be considered an act of war against the United States?

Secretary Gates: Probably so.

Congressman Forbes: Then I would assume the same laws would apply if we launched a Tomahawk missile at another nation—is that also true?

Secretary Gates: You’re getting into constitutional law here and I am no expert on it.

Congressman Forbes: Mr. Secretary, you’re the Secretary of Defense. You ought to be an expert on what’s an act of war or not. If it’s an act of war to launch a Tomahawk missile on New York City would it not also be an act of war to launch a Tomahawk missile by us at another nation?

Secretary Gates: Presumably.

49. Since the passage of United Nations Security Council resolution 1973 on March 19, 2011, the United States has detonated over 200 tomahawk land attack cruise missiles and 455 precision-guided bombs on Libyan soil.

50. Libya posed no actual or imminent threat to the United States when President Obama unleashed Operation Odyssey Dawn.

51. On March 27, 2011, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated that Libya never posed an “actual or imminent threat to the United States.” He further stated that Libya has never constituted a “vital interest” to the United States.

52. United Nations Security Council resolution 1973 directs an indefinite United States military quagmire in Libya, authorizing “all necessary measures” to protect Libyan civilians, which clearly contemplates removal by force of the murderous regime of Col. Muammar Qadhafi.

53. In a Letter From the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate sent March 21, 2011, President Barack Obama informed Members of Congress that “U.S. forces have targeted the Qadhafi regime’s air defense systems, command and control structures, and other capabilities of Qadhafi’s armed forces used to attack civilians and civilian populated areas. We will seek a rapid, but responsible, transition of operations to coalition, regional, or international organizations that are postured to continue activities as may be necessary to realize the objectives of U.N. Security Council Resolutions 1970 and 1973.”

54. In his March 21, 2011 letter, President Barack Obama further informed Members of Congress that he opted to take unilateral military action “…in support of international efforts to protect civilians and prevent a humanitarian disaster.”

55. President Barack Obama has usurped congressional authority to decide on war or peace with Libya, and has declared he will persist in additional usurpations of the congressional power to commence war whenever he decrees it would advance his idea of the national interest. On March 28, 2011, he declared to Congress and the American people: “I have made it clear that I will never hesitate to use our military swiftly, decisively, and unilaterally when necessary to defend our people, our homeland, our allies, and our core interests” (emphasis added).

56. President Obama’s humanitarian justification for war in Libya establishes a threshold that would justify his initiation of warfare in scores of nations around the globe, including Iran, North Korea, Syria, Sudan, Myanmar, China, Belarus, Zimbabwe, Cuba, and Russia.

57. In Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928), Justice Louis D. Brandeis wrote on behalf of a majority of the United States Supreme Court:

Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding.

58. President Barack Obama has signed an order, euphemistically named a “Presidential Finding,” authorizing covert U.S. government support for rebel forces seeking to oust Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, further entangling the United States in the Libyan conflict, despite earlier promises of restraint. Truth is invariably the first casualty of war.

59. In response to questions by Members of Congress during a classified briefing on March 30, 2011, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton indicated that the President needs no Congressional authorization for his attack on the Libyan nation, and will ignore any Congressional attempt by resolution or otherwise to constrain or halt United States participation in the Libyan war.

60. On March 30, 2011, by persistent silence or otherwise, Secretary Clinton rebuffed congressional inquiries into President Obama’s view of the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution of 1973. She failed to cite a single judicial decision in support of President Obama’s recent actions, relying instead on the undisclosed legal opinions of White House attorneys.

61. President Barack Obama, in flagrant violation of his constitutional oath to execute his office as President of the United States and preserve and protect the United States Constitution, has usurped the exclusive authority of Congress to authorize the initiation of war, in that on March 19, 2011 President Obama initiated an offensive military attack against the Republic of Libya without congressional authorization. In so doing, President Obama has arrested the rule of law, and saluted a vandalizing of the Constitution that will occasion ruination of the Republic, the crippling of individual liberty, and a Leviathan government unless the President is impeached by the House of Representatives and removed from office by the Senate.

In all of this, President Barack Obama has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

OLDDOGS COMMENT

THROW THE BASTARD OUT, AND MIZ CLINTON WITH HIM!

This nation is OCCUPIED by FOREIGN INTERESTS and we have a major battle taking place –  part of it is to hide/mask their OCCUPATION as long as they can and the other is the FINAL ACT of Destruction for all things American.  I do hope that readers are quietly preparing for what is to come on this land we like to call ours but in reality it is owned by foreign interests and controlled by them as well.  Some of our people may like to holler out HELL NO IT ISN’T but the reality is that it IS and to deny that is to deny reality.  There are a good number of us who are aware and have learned the art of Guerilla Warfare because that is what is going to take place.  Hit & Run – quietly – swiftly – and to have a small group that we can trust and depend upon.  I use movies to illustrate things every so often and in this instance, I use those Mel Gibson films – The Patriot – Braveheart – for how to go after the ENEMY.   While it is true we may well die (our flesh and bone) in the act of fighting but if you have truly *prepared* (for your eternal body/spirit) then the loss of the flesh and bone is no big deal and it may bring another to make a decision on their eternal life.  We are in a SPIRITUAL WAR  – and there is only one way to fight that –  SPIRITUALLY!!

Jackie Juntti
WGEN    idzrus@earthlink.net

United States vs. United States vs. united States of America

United States vs. United States vs. united States of America

Nothing herein is to be construed to contain legal advice of any nature.  The following contents are solely the beliefs and opinions of the author and are based on his understanding of the presentments herein and intended strictly for educational purposes.  Any use of the following information by the reader is at the reader’s peril.  Before acting on this or any other information, the reader should investigate, thoroughly understand, and give careful consideration to the consequences of whatever action he may decide to take.

 

---

Few Americans realize that there are three definitions for the “United States.” Most have been misled to believe that the term “United States” has a single meaning and is a generic term referring to the country as a whole.  Not always so.  The legal standing of each individual American to any one of the three varies depending upon his lack of status or his status in law.  If you are a citizen of the District of Columbia (the Democracy) you have privileges granted by Congress – – OR, if you are a Citizen of the Union (the Republic) you are endowed with Rights – – some of which are unalienable.  All licenses are privileges whereas Rights are gifts from God.

Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Edition at page 1703 defines the term as follows:

“UNITED STATES. This term has several meanings.  ¹It may merely be the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations.  ²It may designate territory over which sovereignty of United States extends; or, ³it may be the collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution.” Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt,  324  U.S. 652, 671 & 672

The first “¹United States” is as a sovereign among the nations of the World under International Law  (a nation amongst nations).  It consists of ¹the Union States and ²the federal zone (District of Columbia, U.S. territories and possessions, forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings.), and is represented collectively in the international arena by the U.S. Consuls abroad as one and the same entity.  The flag that properly represents it in the world arena is “Old Glory.”

The second “²United  States” in Hooven, supra, was created by the Constitution in Art. 1, § 8, Cls. 17 and 18.  This “²United States” received further authority under Art. 4, § 3, Cl. 2,  “…to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to this United States…” but it gave no authority to Congress to extend its municipal authority into the Union States. The latter gave Congress power to extend its jurisdiction (law making powers) beyond the limits of the District of Columbia over which Congress was to exercise “…exclusive Legislation…” to include the former territories such as the Northwest Territory, Alaska, Hawaii, and the Philippine Islands, and currently, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands, and other territories, possessions, areas and enclaves.  Its flag is the Stars and Stripes with the yellow fringe representing a plenary Martial Law jurisdiction.

This geographical area known as the “²United States” (D.C.) has it’s own citizens (see United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 549) who are generally referred to as United States citizens. The yellow-fringed flag signifying this jurisdiction is not for decorative purposes as some might suppose.  It signifies the jurisdiction of the District, also known as CORPORATE U.S. FEDERAL, that has been extended into the Union states by the 14th Amendment.  This is the flag of the Democracy.  It should be obvious to everyone who observes this flag next to his Senator or Representative from Washington, D.C., that he represents the District’s interest in the area of his constituency and not the other way around.  When the function of the Circuit Courts of the United States of America was changed to appellate status by another lower layer of courts, these courts were labeled United States District Courts – – the courts of the District.  Where are the courts of the United States of America sitting today?

The third “³united States” (of America) described in Hooven, supra, is the 50 Union States united by and under the Constitution.  This “³united States” (of America) is known as the Republic.. Its flag is “Old Glory.” In the Constitutional Courts, the civil authority of the Constitution is signified by the Stars and Stripes hung vertically behind the bench just as it hangs behind the Speaker’s Chair in the House of Representatives.  Why, one might logically ask, is that not found in our courtrooms today?  The Republic has Citizens of it’s own called State Nationals.  Those are the Sovereign Citizens who qualify as such by being Members of the Posterity referred to in the Preamble and can only be the Natural Born or Naturalized White Inhabitants of each state whose forefathers delegated by solemn agreement certain powers to the Congress of the “United States” (D.C.), which powers are limited to those delegated in Art. 1, § 8, Cls. 1 – 16 and Art. 4, § 3, Cl. 2, though today unlawfully expanded far beyond Constitutional limits by usurpation on the one hand and by the deception of offering benefits by contract which State Nationals unwittingly and unknowingly enter on the other.

When legislating for the third “³united States” (of America), all powers not enumerated in Art. 1, § 8, Cls. 1 – 16, are reserved for those sovereign Citizens and states of the Republic by the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution of these united States of America (In Union) respectively.  The Founding Citizens of the Republic gave very limited powers to the Congress of the United States to legislate for the geographical area known above as the “³Union states”, described in the Hooven case, supra.  These legislative powers are limited to being exclusive within the area of Congress’s jurisdiction as is that power possessed by any one of the legislatures of the 50 Union states when legislating for their respective geographical areas.  However, when legislating for the 50 Union states collectively as a nation, Congress is bound by the chains of the Constitution and must remain inside the jurisdictional boundaries of Art. 1, § 8, Cls. 1 – 16   “…and out of the jurisdiction of any particular State” [18 U.S.C. § 7(1), (3), (5), & (7), see particularly § 7(3) – – see p. 5 infra.].

Constitutional Law

Territories, power of United States over, as plenary [full, entire, complete, absolute]

In exercising its Constitutional power to make all needful regulations respecting the territory belonging to the ²United States, Congress is not subject to the same constitutional limitations as when it is legislating for the ³states of the Union. Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, supra;  Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244.

Constitutional guaranties as extended to territories.

“In general, the guarantees of the Constitution, save as they are limitations upon the exercise of excessive legislative power, when exerted for or over the insular possessions of the United States, extend to them only as Congress, in the exercise of it’s legislative power over territories belonging to the United States, has made those guarantees applicable.”  Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, supra.  I.e., the Court states that the rights of those within Congress’s sphere of exclusive jurisdiction are mere “privileges” extended them at the whim of Congress. Those who live in the District of Columbia, its enclaves, territories, or possessions, and those who live in the ceded areas of the several states (called “federal areas or enclaves”) are known as ²United States citizens.  They are true federal citizens.  From the standpoint of Constitutional law, Congress has 100% control over the lives of all ²United States citizens residing in any one of the several states, or elsewhere, and their rights are always subject to Congress’s exclusive legislative authority.  Such rights are called “civil rights.”  This type of Government is a “Legislative Democracy,” the object of which, since passage of the 14th amendment, has been to rob Natural Born Citizens of their birthright and bring all Americans into the Democracy under the legislative authority of Congress as a single group under authoritarian rule – – contrary to the intent of the Organic Constitution – – and to allow the chartering of private corporations excluded by it.  Prior to passage of the 14th amendment, corporations could only be chartered by the respective national or state legislatures to operate within their respective jurisdictions and were only intended to satisfy a public purpose such as banking, railroading, etc., and private corporations were not allowed to function as broadly as they are today.

In contrast, White people living in the Union states (the Republic) are not under Congress’s legislative authority and are known as State Nationals.  They are Citizens of the ³united States of America. The reason that the federal government prefers that everyone submit to its authority “voluntarily” under the 14th amendment through participation in Social Security and other contracts and licenses is that the IRS can lawfully tax only federal ²United States citizens, its employees [26 U.S.C. § 6331(a)], and those others who willingly contract with it, and not ³State Nationals who choose not to.  Its authority does not lawfully extend to the latter unless they “voluntarily” place themselves under the “private commercial law” of CORPORATE U.S. FEDERAL by contracting with it by such simple and subtle means as “voluntarily” using Federal Reserve Notes and associated commercial paper instruments.  Such contracts are governed by the law of the Uniform Commercial Code and, when one binds himself/herself thereunder by contract, one’s Constitutional protections are lost.

Included in this latter group are those Whites who elect to be 14th amendment citizens by “voluntarily” entering into unilateral contracts with the federal government by contracting for Social Security Old Age Insurance, obtaining licenses, privileges, charters, etc., and by “voluntarily” making W-4 and 1040 contracts annually.  This is what is meant by their claim that the federal income tax is “voluntary.”  In this way, those who “volunteer” themselves into federal contracts place themselves under the authority of Congress’s powers to regulate commerce under Art. 1, § 8, Cl. 3, subjecting themselves to the federal income tax.  Thus, through this medium and the use of trusts, the corporate branches of federal and state governments have thereby obtained total control over our lives and legal title to all of our property leaving us with only the equitable interest so long as we perform the terms of our contracts.  A serious breach of the contract means the loss of our equity; i.e., the government will take our property.  An example is the state vehicle trusts controlled by the Secretaries of State whereby one who registers his/her automobile becomes a beneficiary of the state vehicle trust evidenced by the beneficiary’s Certificate of Title (Certificate of Beneficial Interest).  In this way the state, with Secretary of State acting as Trustee, has legal title to your property leaving the Certificate Holder with the equitable interest evidenced by the Certificate of Title he/she holds to the extent that no lien exists.

The 1st clause of the 14th amendment created a subject matter enclave jurisdiction to “artificially” create citizens not circumscribed by the Organic Law (Negroes, private corporations, licensees, etc.) and placed them directly under the municipal authority of Congress so that wherever they might “reside” in any one of the several states, territories, or possessions, they are within the scope of Congress’s legislative authority as their existence is a federal state created privilege.  Since the nations’ bankruptcy in 1933 (Congressional Record, March 17, 1993, Vol. #33, p. H-1303) and the subsequent overthrow of the Constitution – – though government employees at the highest levels will not “openly and officially” admit it – – its position is that all Natural Born Citizens are also “subjects,” with jurisdiction acquired by our “voluntary” contractual participation in Worldwide Social Insurance – – what we commonly call “Social Security.”

Accordingly, all races are considered joined together as 14th amendment (D.C.) citizen/ “subjects” since being “enrolled” into Commerce by their “birth certificate,” and by subsequently confirming their consent when “applying for” such Unilateral Contracts as the Drivers’ and Marriage Licenses, Social Security Application, Selective Service and Voters’ Registration, Bank Accounts, Credit Applications, W-4 and 1040 Income Tax Contracts, etc.

For those who would choose to follow Satan, God provided flaws in the Constitution – – Article I, § 8, Cls. 3, 17, & 18 and Article I, § 10, Cl. 1- – for the International Banksters to discover and use to humble White Christian Americans who would turn their back on their God to worship the strange gods of greed, power, prestige, sex, the sports world, etc. – – their idols of materialism – – all violations of the First Commandment.

When a Natural Born Citizen with a SS# refuses to sign a 1040 contract the federal courts will rule that he has “a known legal duty” which compels him to contract with government without ever requiring the government to produce the laws that make him liable for the tax and require the affirmative act of filing.  Such quasi-coerced and compelled “commercial agreements” – – though entered out of fear  – – need only be entered voluntarily and intentionally to have validity.  The fact that he did not enter the contract knowingly is immaterial. When push comes to shove, the time worn cliche’: Ignorance of the law is no excuse, only works for those wielding the power in a courtroom setting.  It has taken a pitiful few concerned State Nationals 66 years to figure out why our Constitutional protections have been legislated away since 1913 by a Congress initially ordained with no such powers.

Under the Common Law, violations require an injured party (a Corpus Delicti), and contracts must be entered knowingly, willingly, and with full knowledge of informed consent (intentionally). Having done so unknowingly or unwillingly could not have resulted in any forfeiture of unalienable Rights.  However, when there is reasonable suspicion that one may be compelled to operate under the Uniform Commercial Code, one must exercise a Reservation of Rights (UCC 1-207) to remain within the envelope of Constitutional protections where there exists a potential loss of property (labor) or liberty (being held in captivity) as has been the case resulting from alleged Internal Revenue Code violations by State Nationals. Such an insidious plot perpetrated against State Nationals could only have been conceived by and hatched in the mind of Satan.  Where is the law that makes one liable,… or the law that requires one to “file”?  Neither exists.  These laws do not need to exist as the issue is one of specific performance.  You “volunteered”.  If you did not exercise a Reservation of Rights above your signature, the issue becomes: Did you or did you not specifically perform the terms of the contract you previously “voluntarily” agreed to perform when you became a member of the federal corporation?.

How did this system of Commercial Law develop?  It developed as a result of the introduction and use of Federal Reserve Notes (Commercial Paper).  In pursuance of our use of this “Commercial Paper,” the courts in our country are proceeding under the old Negotiable Instruments Law that has been codified into the Uniform Commercial Code and subsequently adopted by all of the states by 1968 with the possible exception of Louisiana.  A Federal Reserve Note dollar is a fictional instrument, a “colorable” dollar, and not the lawful dollar described in § 9 of the Coinage Act of 1792 (371-1/4 grains of .999 silver).  Common Law and Equity use gold and silver; Admiralty uses gold only.  All systems of Law described in the Constitution are based on substance.

No system of law that uses paper can be genuine – – therefore it is a “colorable” system of law.  So, the Banksters, the Bar Association members, and their lackeys, the Politicians, invented this new “colorable” jurisdiction to support this colorable law called “statutory law” which operates not according to “Public

Law” but according to “Public Policy.” For many years Patriots thought that because this statutory jurisdiction followed Admiralty rules it was an Admiralty jurisdiction.  Not so!   The only reason the Banksters did not enforce the Bankruptcy of 1933 by 1938 and foreclose on this nation is that they did not have control of the guns.  But their goals have been achieved by means so subtle, so devious, and so diabolical as to defy detection by ordinary people whose intellectual level is based only on what was taught them in government funded schools.  So you see why it is today that gun control is our government’s paramount objective through the deception of anti-terrorism legislation?

Our courts have for too long ignored the meaning of the 9th and 10th Amendments and the concept of “unalienable Rights” so eruditely stated by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence for the benefit of the People of this Nation and their Posterity.  The Natural and Unalienable Rights of State Nationals run much deeper than those so-called “civil rights” regulated by Congress through the 14th amendment [Proof of this among others is the duplicate due process clause provided therein for their U.S. citizen / “subjects”].  It remains up to us to require Congress to legislate the same level of Rights for U.S. Citizens as the Constitution provides to State Nationals.  If we expect to claim our Rights, it is our individual responsibility to see that the Bill of Rights is enforced and that those violating our Rights are tried for TREASON. Either we abide by the Rule of Law or we shall be subjected to the Rule of Tyrants.  It does not take the mental acuity of a rocket scientist to figure out where we are today.  Truly, we are engaged in a spiritual battle.  The situation that presently exists in the 50 Union states is the very reason the 2nd Amendment was written – – so that the contract called the Constitution could be enforced by the People (i.e., by the state ³Citizens also known as State Nationals).

Why all the confusion over the simple term “United States”?

Obviously, its about money and control – – to extend the taxing powers beyond their constitutionally authorized limits.  Everybody should know that. “The District of Columbia is not a state within meaning of the Constitution” [U.S. vs. Virginia (1805)] like the 50 Union states; yet, it is referred to in all the ²United States Codes as a “State,” meaning the corporate and statutory venue of the Union.  The District of Columbia is a corporation which is also known as the “^{1 & 2}United States.” It must have it’s own definition for “state” since it^{1 & 2} and the territorial States were not formed as Union states³ by and under the Constitution.  It is the primary entity owning Guam, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands etc., which are the federal States.  Nevertheless, the federal courts are unconstitutionally enforcing the jurisdiction of the CORPORATE U.S. FEDERAL² entity upon the entire geographical area of  the Union states³ as if they were under Congress’s exclusive legislative authority (see 18 U.S.C. § 3231 and 18 U.S.C. § 7 (3) with particularity.  Also note other pertinent parts of 18 U.S.C.  §§ (1), (5) & (7) The law is clear on this point, but the courts won’t enforce it.

18 U.S.C. § 7.   Special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States defined

“The term ‘special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States’, as used in this title, includes:

“(1) The high seas, any other waters within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States and out of the jurisdiction of any particular State, and any vessel belonging in whole or in part to the United States, or of any State, Territory, District, or possession thereof,

when such vessel is within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States and out of the jurisdiction of any particular State.

“(3) Any lands reserved or acquired for the use of the United States, and under the exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction thereof, or any place purchased or otherwise acquired by the United

States by consent of the legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of a fort, magazine, arsenal, dockyard, or other needful building.

“(5) Any aircraft….while such aircraft  is in flight over the high seas, or over any waters with the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States and out of the jurisdiction of any particular state.

“(7) Any place outside the jurisdiction of any nation with respect to an offense by or against a national of the United States.”

Here are the facts concerning the term “United States” when used in the federal tax code (Title 26) which has its own peculiar definitions (called terms and words of art) written by the craftiest of legal minds, and paid for with our very own tax dollars to defraud us, the American People, of our labor property, the basis of all other property we might own or ever hope to own:

1.   “United States” does not mean the fifty states of the Union except in two extremely limited areas that deal with excise taxes on articles and goods.

2.   “United States” means “federal areas” within the fifty states of the Union that are ceded to the “United States” and under the municipal authority of the Congress seated in Washington, D.C., but it does not include the entire geographical areas of the several states of the Union.

3.   “United States” means the possessions of the District of Columbia which are its States – – Guam, Puerto Rico, America Samoa, and the Virgin Islands.  It does not mean the 50 Union States.

4.   The numbers 2 and 3 above are called “States” but are not to be confused with the states of the Union, such as Ohio, Indiana, and Kentucky.  The “Internal Revenue Code” is purposely written to mislead and is purposefully misconstrued by the courts in the interest of promoting “Public Policy.”

5.   “United States” are:  Congress assembled at home (the seat of government), the District of Columbia and its territories (termed States in the IRS Code) and its possessions (ceded areas, military posts, navy yards, etc.) called federal enclaves.

6.  “United States citizen” does not mean a Natural Born Citizen who is a State National.   State Nationals who live in the Common Law venue and jurisdiction of one of the 50 Union states are not “subject to” the income tax laws unless they either work for the federal government [see 26 U.S.C. §6331(a)] and thus are compelled to pay a kickback for the contractual privilege received, or they are those who produce alcohol or tobacco under Title 27, the Stamp Tax Act.  The District of Columbia is referred to as a “State” in the income tax laws and social security law, as well as in all other codes of the “United States” to purposefully leave the law open to interpretation so the courts can “mold” it in the interest of “Public Policy” under the Colorable Law of the Uniform Commercial Code.

Federal Law Distinguishes

How our government Servants of the Public Trust comply with the law while promulgating the fraud… Do they know the difference?  You bet they do and the following law proves it.  From the Code of Civil Procedure in those few instances where a law may apply to an “unenfranchised” State National ignorant of the law:

28 United States Code:

Section 1746.   Unsworn  declarations  under  penalty  of  perjury

“Wherever, under any law of the United States, or under any rule, regulation, order, or requirement made pursuant to law, any matter is required or permitted to be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the sworn declaration….in writing of such person which is subscribed by him, as true under penalty of perjury, and dated in substantially the following form:

(1) If executed without the United States:  ‘I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date).

(Signature)’

(2) If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths:  ‘I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date).

(Signature)’” [emphasis mine]

The writers of the Code of Civil Procedure in (1) above are referring to the Common Law venue and jurisdiction (that of the Republic) and only in those instances when that jurisdiction lawfully applies, and in (2) above, the statutory venue and jurisdiction of the District of Columbia (that of the Democracy) – – not just whether one is inside or outside of the country – – but whether one is legally situated inside or outside the Republic, though your ignorance in this instance will never be challenged.  Note that in most instances neither of the above would apply to State Nationals who operate without boon, benefit, franchise, charter, or license because of the very limited jurisdiction the United States can lawfully exercise over them without their “voluntary” acquiescence.  Please also note that when government employees and agents sign documents, they are only required to swear that the information is true, correct and not “complete” as is required of those United States citizen / “subjects” and enfranchised State Nationals who “voluntarily” acquiesce to W-4 contracts and submit 1040 contracts annually because of their contractual relationships with the District.  That should incline one to inquire just who considers whom the master and whom the servant in such a relationship.  A word to the wise…

Copyrighted at Common Law (Rev. May 2004)

Bob Jungles  (Reproduction with credit permissible)

When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth,
he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.

Cultivating the New World Order

The Daily Bell

Cultivating the New World Order

by  Anthony Wile
The conservative libertarian writer Paul Craig Roberts has posted an article, “The New Colonialism: Washington’s Pursuit of World Hegemony” that has received much attention from the alternative-news blogosphere. In this article, I want to comment on the story from a larger point of view. Robert’s perspectives are probably the last piece of the puzzle that we’ve been working on putting together here at DB. With his courageous input, we now have a clearer vision now of how the New World Order is coming together and how it will function. That sounds like a large statement, but in this article I will try to explain it and justify my presentation.

It is important to understand such things. If one does not understand the world, one is doomed to make numerous mistakes in investing and even in life itself. There is the old saying, referring specifically to software: “garbage in, garbage out.” If one’s INPUTS are wrong, then one’s conclusions may be too. In this fraught day and age one should work steadily at refining one’s inputs to make sure that the best and most foolproof conclusions are reached in all areas of existence. It’s actually a survival issue.

So let us begin. We need to start with the idea that there is an Anglo-American power elite trying to establish a world government. We cannot necessarily explain WHY anyone would want to do such a thing. But apparently someone does. Actually more than a “someone” – a handful of impossibly wealth banking families, located mainly in the one-square-mile City of London.

These families – and one family in particular – apparently have control of a worldwide central banking apparatus. With the ability to print money-from-nothing around the world, the Rothschilds have amassed a fortune that may be in excess of US$300 trillion. (Nobody really knows.) In the 1800s, such an impossible amount of money gave rise to the concept of “money power.” This was an implacable force that controlled the destinies of countries and even continents. Money power caused wars to take place and elevated certain men to high places while casting down others.

In the 20th century, as the power elite gained more control over the mainstream media the term money power went out of fashion. There was a time in the late 20th century when one couldn’t even question the functioning of central banks or discuss the fundamentals of currency and money. These concepts were simply not available for contemplation and anyone who tried to analyze them within the context of a larger philosophical or free-market economic framework was running the risk of becoming professionally – if not personally – marginalized.

Times have changed. Ben Bernanke is going to start to give press conferences to emphasize the transparency of the Federal Reserve. You can bet he wouldn’t be doing so if he didn’t have to. The Fed has taken an enormous beating over the past few years and Bernanke has done what he can to counteract negative publicity. But how do you justify printing money from nothing? Or worse still creating a trillion dollars at a time at the touch of a button and then giving it to your cronies so that their badly run financial businesses don’t go broke. You can’t. A press conference or two won’t help.

Ben Bernanke has been forced into such PR stunts because of the Internet itself, a truth telling device that has allowed millions in America and Europe to understand their worlds better, and in more detail. As people have found out about the huge Ponzi scheme called central banking, indignation has built. We would tend to believe that the anger has not yet crested. The elite seems to believe that if economic circumstances get better people will go back to being the way they were, disinterested in finance and uninterested generally about what is evidently and obviously an ever-advancing one-world government.

The problem with this is that if Western economies become too healthy, the rush to world government will be stymied. It seems a delicate balancing act. There must be SOME chaos and confusion (including food and water insecurity) or people will not see the need for a global currency, a global political system, a global court, etc. But there cannot be too MUCH or events may spin out of control and then all the money in the world will not be able to control unrest.

Is there a plan, then, for a global currency? It would seem so. We’ve charted its evolution in numerous articles. The International Monetary Fund has presented several White Papers on how such currency could be built out of its SDR program. Additionally the IMF believes it would make a good central bank.

Influential, billionaire financier George Soros agrees with some of this. He too has stated that he believes that SDRs would make a good global currency. Additionally George Soros is planning a “new” Bretton Woods conference in which he hopes to gain approval from countries and top bankers to move toward a one-world currency. French President Nicolas Sarkozy has the same idea and wants to set up his own Bretton Woods conference to discuss a new worldwide currency. It could be SDRs or it could be something else. But it will be global.

The new, global currency is to be accompanied apparently by the emergent, global political infrastructure that is being implemented piece by piece. This includes the UN, the International Criminal Court at the Hague (suddenly one of three such Courts of Justice) and of course the World Health Organization (WHO). The UN is increasingly involved in military activities around the world and in “keeping the peace.” For larger actions, NATO itself is called upon and in fact is currently conducting live military campaigns in Afghanistan and Libya.

There is apparently a universal energy policy as well that features a variety of facilities to diminish “carbon-based global warming” and to encourage alternative forms of energy such as solar and wind. Meanwhile, all over the world, nation-states have suddenly formed regional cooperatives and have plans to issue regional money printed (created out of thin air) by regional central banks. This is taking place in Africa, South American and Asia. In some cases (Africa) the money is already in use. An “African Union” similar to the EU is planned. And so is a South American one and presumably sooner or later one in Asia.

Roberts contribution to all this is to put the current unrest in the Middle East and North Africa into perspective. What we are observing in Libya is the rebirth of colonialism, he writes. But it is different than the colonialism of several hundred years ago. This time, European nation states are not competing with each other. “The new colonialism operates under the cover of the world community, which means NATO and those countries that cooperate with it. … Today NATO provides European troops on behalf of American hegemony. Washington pursues world hegemony under the guises of selective ‘humanitarian intervention’ and ‘bringing freedom and democracy to oppressed peoples.'”

From Roberts’ point of view, the Libyan war is a perfect example of this hegemony. Not, perhaps, anticipating the regime change in Tunisia and Egypt, Washington responded with a more muscular approach to Libya’s unrest, encouraging and even cultivating it, he explains. “Khalifa Hifter, a suspected Libyan CIA asset for the last 20 years, has gone back to Libya to head the rebel army,” he points out. Washington will be more in control of events this time.

Why Libya? Gaddafi, he writes, became a target because he wouldn’t play along with this new imperialism. He declined to be part of the new US Africa Command, seeing it rightly as an update of the old colonial strategy – divide and conquer. It was President George W. Bush who created the US Africa Command (AFRICOM) back in 2007. And AFRICOM’s mission is a “unified approach” to creating stability and security in the region. It integrates African efforts “with those of other U.S. government departments and agencies, as … other international partners.” Nearly 50 countries are now involved in AFRICOM, though not Libya, Sudan, Eritrea, Zimbabwe, and Ivory Coast.

What of these five countries? Sudan has just been split in two and the Ivory Coast has recently been involved in fierce fighting over a disputed election. The man who has been declared the winner of the Ivory Coast elections has close ties to Western socio-political machinery including the UN and the IMF. It is probably safe to say that if he assumes office, the Ivory Coast will soon become part of AFRICOM as well.

Perhaps Roberts most controversial point is his analysis of AFRICOM’s key strategic objective, which is the defeat of the “Al-Qaeda network.” Ten years after “the war on terror” began, an “omnipotent al-Qaeda now ranges across Algeria, Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal and Tunisia in Africa, across the Middle East, Afghanistan, Pakistan, the UK and is such a threat within the United States itself as to require a $56 billion ‘Homeland Security’ annual budget. He then calls the al-Qaeda threat, “a hoax as likely as not,” and points out that it has become “Washington’s best excuse for intervening in the domestic affairs of other countries and for subverting American civil liberties.”

Washington is not deterred by the disastrous wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and continues to exhibit the ambition of empire. It can pursue this goal because the US mainstream media in particular is not doing its job. American citizens are not informed of the truth about their country’s military disasters, nor the scope of the empire with over 700 military bases around the world (and probably more if you count CIA and FBI outposts).

For Roberts such a sprawling empire is insupportable. The US is broke, basically bankrupt, and its internal composition is changing as it doesn’t have the necessary civil infrastructure to sustain its borders. Whole swathes of the Southwest are being repopulated by Hispanic ethnicities and soon parts of the US may fall back into the hands of Mexico. Demographically if not militarily, it is “game over” for these regions, he writes.

All this is a startling blunt analysis by Roberts, a former high-ranking official of the Reagan administration, though some of it is not quite accurate from my point of view. I have already pointed out for instance that the current Middle Eastern wars and regime changes are partially aimed at sustaining the convertibility of the dollar for oil. But in the longer term there seems no doubt that the Anglo-American monetary elite wants to evolve from a dollar system into a larger and more formal world currency.

Roberts’ statement about Washington being caught off-guard by regime change in Tunisia and Egypt doesn’t ring quite true to me either. We’ve covered both of these “color revolutions” and pointed out significant Anglosphere elite involvement starting with the support of the American-sponsored youth organization AYM which trained many of the young protestors (along with the CIA apparently) in tactics of peaceful insurgency that sparked the mass protest that proved so effective.

Of course, if one grants Washington’s involvement in Tunisia and Egypt, then Roberts’ argument becomes even stronger. It is, in fact, the final piece of the “one world” puzzle. The pattern seems to me unmistakable and even irrefutable. There is in the world today a one-world political order led by the UN, an emergent court system located in the Hague, regional political and currency regions that should serve as stepping-stones to a single political and economic union, worldwide and, finally, a series of actions in the Middle East and Africa intended to replace uncooperative regimes with ones receptive to globalization.

Again, if you put the Middle Eastern military actions into this context, they fit right into the Anglosphere’s program for building a New World Order. Every part of the globe is being prepared for a fuller initiation of this powerful, all encompassing sociopolitical, economic and military structure. To continue to proclaim as most in the Western mainstream media do regularly that such talk constitutes “conspiracy theory” is increasingly a hard argument to sustain.

This is the gift then that Roberts has given us, a way of fitting current military actions into the larger trend of emergent global government. Regardless of any rhetoric to the contrary, what is evolving is so evident and obvious that further arguing about it should be considered a waste of breath.

Certainly, these conflicts are not just about oil – or even the sustaining of the dollar reserve and its oil convertibility (though that’s part of it as I have previously pointed out). But in the larger sense, Washington’s serial wars – especially the one in Afghanistan – are surely wars of CONQUEST, designed to remove the final tribal impediments to world government. If the war goes badly (as in Afghanistan) the fall back is to build a series of isolated fortresses and settle in for an indefinite occupation. But the militarization proceeds apace and is neither coincidental nor random.

I thank Paul Craig Roberts for giving me the additional insights necessary to arrive at such conclusions. Those stopping by to glance at this article may yet deny them or believe they are simply paranoid remarks of someone opposed to the greater centralization of world government. But it is my view the current expansion now taking place inevitably implies a loss of freedom and individual initiative – and a more totalitarian environment as well. Big government is necessarily more inflexible, insistent and generally imperious than small government.

If one wishes to live in the real world in all its complexities and hidden agendas, then such trends need to be confronted and analyzed. If we do not see the world as it is, then we cannot take necessary action to deal with inevitable consequences. The ancient Greeks had a wonderful saying: “Know thyself.” In this complex time one should try to “know” the world as as it is actually becoming.

The ambitions of the Anglo-American elite are truly mad in my view; and their plans likely are neither feasible nor practical even perhaps in the short term. But they are apparently bound to carry them forward and this means there will surely be a sustained period of confusion and even chaos, not just in certain far-flung areas of the world but throughout the West too. These events will affect people’s personal wealth as well as the safety of their families. It is important to see the world for what it is. Paul Craig Roberts does, and he is right to do so.