Group items tagged

Time to get your money out of the bank and into gold or silver, kept somewhere other than in a bank safety deposit box. 

Only 100?  Just kidding :)  Congrats to Congressmen Allen West and Darrell Issa for yeoman work.   excerpt: "There is a growing groundswell within American Republican and Tea Party ranks that impeachment proceedings should be initiated against President Obama on a whole list of violations of the Constitution and the War Powers Act Congressmen Allen West of Florida (R-Florida) and Darrell Issa (R- California) have consistently and loudly criticized the president for overstepping the political mark and bypassing Congress's approval on a whole range of dubious policies and issues:and the recent Obama attack on the Supreme Court of Justice and the Russian " Open Mic " gaffe on National Security, leads to one question: Is Barack Obama making his own case for impeachment? Obama did not become the Democratic nominee for President without the help of several leaders of the Democratic Party who knew that he was not eligible for office Listed below are the One Hundred Articles of Impeachment. 1. Appointment of a "shadow government" of some 35+ individuals termed "czars" who are not confirmed by the Senate and respond only to the president, yet have overarching regulatory powers - a clear violation of the separation of powers concept. Obama bypassed the Senate with many of his appointments of over 35 "czars." 2. No congressional support for Libyan action (violation of the War Powers Act ). Obama lied to the American people when he said that there were no US troops on the ground in Libya and then later said they were only "logistical troops." Obama violated the War Powers Act of 1973 by conducting a war against Libya without Congressional authorization. 3. Betraying of allies ( Israel and Great Britain. Obama has placed the security of our most trusted ally in the Middle East, Israel, in danger while increasing funding to the Palestinian Authority (Fatah, just another Islamic terrorist group) whilst they have enjoined a reconciliation pact with l

The article is dated April 12, 2004, before Allen West was defeated in his bid for re-election to the House. West is far from a reliable source of information, which shows in the 100 purported reasons for impeachment, which reads like a military-industrial complex wish list. For example, with "allies" like Israel, who needs enemies? West has repeatedly made serious charges that, when pressed by the media for proof, he offered neither evidence nor withdrawal of his charges. West is also a confessed war criminal who admittedly used torture in Iraq to obtain erroneous information from an innocent detainee. Because of the incident, he was removed from his command, charged, and scheduled for court martial under articles 128 and 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. A trial was held but he was rescued from that situation before the decision was rendered by a letter signed by 95 members of Congress. As a result, the felony counts were dropped and he was recharged under Article 15 (minor infractions), fined $5,000, and allowed to resign his commission. Notwithstanding his shameful dereliction of duty, West ran for the House in 2010 as a Tea Party Republican and won, with a campaign that painted himself as a war hero. That is not to say that all of the reasons given for impeachment are invalid. I agree with some of them. I would support Obama's impeachment were there enough votes in the Senate to convict. But even in the House, all of the wind fell out of the impeachment drive's sails when Obama was re-elected.

Seems that the the transnational banksters who owe allegiance to no nation or people are poised to take over India, despite a dismal track record thus far in providing banking services for rural areas and farmers. India is prone to famines with millions of casualties. Under British rule, the Great Famine of 1876-78 killed some 5.5 million people whilst Lord Lytton supervised the export of some 6.4 million hundredweight of Indian wheat to England. One might imagine that India will fare little better under international bankster neocolonialism. 

Must read stuff.  Very lengthy Bankster expose, this time involving Bankster connections to Obama, the political establishment, and the corruption of the DOJ, SEC and other regulatory agencies.  Very lengthy.  Includes stories about the misfortunes of those few honest individuals who tried to do the right thing in a sea of thieves, liars and crooks. excerpt: Nobody goes to jail. This is the mantra of the financial-crisis era, one that saw virtually every major bank and financial company on Wall Street embroiled in obscene criminal scandals that impoverished millions and collectively destroyed hundreds of billions, in fact, trillions of dollars of the world's wealth - and nobody went to jail. Nobody, that is, except Bernie Madoff, a flamboyant and pathological celebrity con artist, whose victims happened to be other rich and famous people. This article appears in the March 3, 2011 issue of Rolling Stone. The issue is available now on newsstands and will appear in the online archive February 18. The rest of them, all of them, got off. Not a single executive who ran the companies that cooked up and cashed in on the phony financial boom - an industrywide scam that involved the mass sale of mismarked, fraudulent mortgage-backed securities - has ever been convicted. Their names by now are familiar to even the most casual Middle American news consumer: companies like AIG, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America and Morgan Stanley. Most of these firms were directly involved in elaborate fraud and theft. Lehman Brothers hid billions in loans from its investors. Bank of America lied about billions in bonuses. Goldman Sachs failed to tell clients how it put together the born-to-lose toxic mortgage deals it was selling. What's more, many of these companies had corporate chieftains whose actions cost investors billions - from AIG derivatives chief Joe Cassano, who assured investors they would not lose even "one dollar" just months before hi

Marbux sent me this link to series of videos explaining the LiBOR bankster crisis.  The awesome Bill Black is featured in two of the video interviews.  Others include Matt Taibi of the Rolling Stone Magazine.  Matt's work on bankster criminals is legendary.  This is incredible stuff.  Very heated.  Clearly we are at the heart of the largest criminal fraud ever perpetrated, and it involves the worlds largest banksters.  Including the Queen of England (Bank of England).  $800 Trillion in fraud.  Incredible. Yes, the Libor Scandal Affects You By Jack Hough July 06, 2012 "Smart Money" - -A liger is a cross between a lion and a tiger. Libor, on the other hand, is a daily approximation of what banks charge each other for loans. It turns out only one of these things is real. Awkwardly, it's not the one used to set prices on an estimated $800 trillion in global financial instruments, or $116,000 worth for each person on earth, ranging from complex derivatives to student loans. That's a problem for holders of bank stocks - which includes just about anyone who owns a mutual fund or 401(k). Barclays (BCS) agreed last week to pay $453 million to settle allegations that it manipulated Libor, which stands for London interbank offered rate. As The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday, it's likely only the first: More than a dozen banks on three continents are under investigation. Libor is compiled by asking 18 banks what they think they would pay if they needed money. Some banks may have submitted artificially low responses during the global financial crisis to give the appearance of high creditworthiness. Others may have tinkered with the reading to profit from trades, or avoid losses. The Barclays settlement is affordable, at less than 7% of the company's projected profits this year, but the size of legal claims it and other banks face is difficult to imagine. Trial lawyers will do their best to work out the sums, of course. Libor may have been subject

Stick to the Constitution and your principles become a matter of individual liberty.  Put your personal principles ahead of the Constitution, and big government socialist and establishment trough feeders will paint your wagon with the tyranny of conservative social, Christian, and national security "values". So goes my response to the Red State article: "Principle as Political Liability - even as Reagan understood it".  The article was written at the height of Obama's assault on Santorum.  Pretty cheeky stuff, even for Obama.  With Romney, Obama went all out with a class warfare assault.  Even went so far as to marshal an army of brown and purple shirt anarchist occupying and protesting the very same Banksters who funded Obama in 2008, and have been taking huge bailouts and kickbacks at the taxpayers expense ever since.  Today Santorum is the threat, so Obama has switched to religious warfare and the supposed threat of conservative Christian values to socialist civil liberties.  Awful stuff.  Especially when Obama is busy trying to convince independents that not only is he a Christian, but Christ himself would support the peculiar social marxism - bankster crony corrupt corporatism combination that defines Obammunism. The point i tried to make is that of a recent discovery having a great impact on my own political, economic and philosophical identification; my conversion from that of a long time Reagan conservative to that of a Reagan libertarian.   My "discovery" was that the Constitution champions only one "value" - that of individual liberty and the necessary cornerstones needed for limited governance based on ordered liberty.  The threat any principled position based on conservative values holds is that conservatives will try to burn those values into Federal law, policy and regulatory practice.  

Just days prior to the Obama Foreclosure Settlement Act, Bloomberg filed this stunning report demonstrating that, if left alone, the markets have a way of working things out.  Looks to me like Obama and the big Banksters have found a way to stop the wave of successful short sales.  The door is now open for the big Banksters to go full tilt boogey on Foreclosures.  Even without legal documentation or fix of illegal document mills.  It's foreclosure time in America! From Bloomberg: Banks, accelerating efforts to move troubled mortgages off their books, are offering as much as $35,000 or more in cash to delinquent homeowners to sell their properties for less than they owe. Lenders have routinely delayed or blocked such transactions, known as short sales, in which they accept less from a buyer than the seller's outstanding loan. Now banks have decided the deals are faster and less costly than foreclosures, which have slowed in response to regulatory probes of abusive practices. Banks are nudging potential sellers by pre-approving deals, streamlining the closing process, forgoing their right to pursue unpaid debt and in some cases providing large cash incentives, said Bill Fricke, senior credit officer for Moody's Investors Service in New York. Losses for lenders are about 15 percent lower on the sales than on foreclosures, which can take years to complete while taxes and legal, maintenance and other costs accumulate, according to Moody's. The deals accounted for 33 percent of financially distressed transactions in November, up from 24 percent a year earlier, said CoreLogic Inc., a Santa Ana, California-based real estate information company.

I'm almost too afraid to look, but the Federal Reserve must be stopped.  Let's see, the Treasury takes in $2 Trillion per year in taxes;  the ruling establishment has tripled the spending, pegging at $3.6 Trillion per year; meaning we have to finance a deficit of $1.6 Trillion per year; and we're facing interest payments on the national debt of $5 Trillion per year with unfunded "social" obligation at $100 Trillion.  Now we find out the Federal Reserve Bankster Cartel passed out over $7 Trillion in goodies to member banksters before they secretly passed out $16.2 Trillion to the Cartel to cover the 2008 financial collapse losses. Time to dust off Executive Order 11110, issued by President John F Kennedy five months prior to the coup d'état, giving the Treasury Department the explicit authority to issue silver certificates backed by Treasury silver bullion, if needed.  Basically Order 11110 stripped the Federal Reserve Bankster Cartel of it's power to loan money to the US Government at interest.  The Federal Reserve Notes in use would be competing with newly minted US Silver Certificates.   It would be easy enough to pay off the Bankster Cartel interest with official Federal Reserve Notes since there is so much paper out there.  But i would prefer the RiCO statue be invoked, assets seized, and charges of treason levied via the outrageous violations of the 1792 Coinage Act and conspiracy to destroy the dollar.   Many Americans, myself included, have long wondered why We the People would charge ourselves "interest" on money we borrow from our future selves?  Who does that?  But when we discover that the Federal Reserve is about as 'Federal" as Federal Express, the narrative wuickly leads to questions of how did it happen that we turned governance and stewardship of the national currency over to a private cartel of banksters?   Is the Federal Reserve Bankster Act of 1913 constitutional? Hardly.  Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution la

Harry Binswanger defends laissez-faire capitalism, using Ayn Rand Objectivism.

The major problem with Ayn Rand Objectivism is that it's an "ism." The Utopian ideal it is based on has never existed in reality and likely never will; its principles have never been tested. Moreover, I will argue that Binswanger is incorrect in arguing that the anti-capitalist phenomenon in America began with creation of the Federal Reserve; it dates much farther back. The economic basis for the Revolutionary War was largely the Crown-granted monopolies granted to the first great British "companies" (corporations), which had the effect of forcing North American colonists to pay monopoly rents for common goods and kept American ship owners from importing those goods from elsewhere to sell at a lower price. The Founding Fathers were strongly against privately-owned corporations and government-granted monopolies, with only two exceptions, copyrights for literary works and patents for inventions. The Constitution's prohibition against government-granted monopolies is implicit in its allowance for only two narrowly-defined types. The Founding Fathers' writings explicitly discussed the difference between "natural" monopolies and those created by government or anti-competitive conduct. During the early years of the nation corporations were permitted by the States, but only for public purposes, usually for public works such as bridges or roads for which there was a need to amass capital. These early American corporations were usually chartered only for the time required to complete the public work and to recover the invesment and a small profit, e.g., from tolls for using a bridge or road. Many of the early state constitutions explicitly limited the lifetime of corporations. However, such early opposition to corporations gradually eroded; corporate purposes were expanded, corporations were granted perpetual life, and the corporate form of doing business became much more widespread. Here, it is important to recognize that corporations are market artificialities c

Everything you know about FDR, The New Deal and the Great Depression Banking Crisis is wrong!!!! "From David Stockman's Contra Corner. Remarks to the Committee For The Republic, Washington DC, February 2014 (Part 4 in a 6-Part Series) Go to Part 1. The Great Depression thus did not represent the failure of capitalism or some inherent suicidal tendency of the free market to plunge into cyclical depression-absent the constant ministrations of the state through monetary, fiscal, tax and regulatory interventions.  Instead, the Great Depression was a unique historical occurrence-the delayed consequence of the monumental folly of the Great War, abetted by the financial deformations spawned by modern central banking. But ironically, the "failure of capitalism" explanation of the Great Depression is exactly what enabled the Warfare State to thrive and dominate the rest of the 20th century because it gave birth to what have become its twin handmaidens--Keynesian economics and monetary central planning. Together, these two doctrines eroded and eventually destroyed the great policy barrier--that is, the old-time religion of balanced budgets- that had kept America a relatively peaceful Republic until 1914. To be sure, under Mellon's tutelage, Harding, Coolidge and Hoover strove mightily, and on paper successfully, to restore the pre-1914 status quo ante on the fiscal front.  But it was a pyrrhic victory-since Mellon's surpluses rested on an artificially booming, bubbling economy that was destined to hit the wall. The Hoover Recovery of 1932 Worse still, Hoover's bitter-end fidelity to fiscal orthodoxy, as embodied in his infamous balanced budget of June 1932, got blamed for prolonging the depression.  Yet, as I have demonstrated in the chapter of my book called "New Deal Myths of Recovery", the Great Depression was already over by early summer 1932."

Good summary of where we're at in the ObamaCare - Massive Debt debate. excerpt: "The DemoDebt showdown on September 30 and the implementation deadline for the next major phase of Obama's UNaffordable Care Act on October 1 are combining to create the "perfect storm," a formula for extended economic stagnation and, consequently, the greatest domestic threat to American Liberty and free enterprise since Franklin Roosevelt's despotic administration. To summarize, in 2010, under Democrat majorities in the House and Senate, Barack Hussein Obama obtained one of the Left's most coveted political prizes - a plan to nationalize health care. This had long been the "crown jewel" of socialist governments, having also been proposed by Hillary Clinton during her husband's regime. The stated rationale for the so-called "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act," now ubiquitously called "ObamaCare" (but perhaps more aptly called ObamaCareless"), was to "control health care costs" and "provide insurance coverage for the uninsured," approximately 15% of Americans with no medical coverage - which is not to say no medical care. Of course, the real rationale for ObamaCare is the implementation of a scheme that will ultimately give the central government authoritarian regulatory control over more than 20% of the U.S. economy. Obama and his NeoCom cadres of statists on the Left have effectively hijacked the once-noble Democrat Party and converted it into their own socialist party tool in their ongoing effort to pull the plug on our Constitution. Ultimately, the objective of ObamaCare is to implement a massive single-payer system, in effect, placing the management and rationing of health care services under the thumb of a bloated and inefficient central government, with the objective of using that "achievement" as a major political stepping stone to implement a much broader socialist agenda in the coming years. Our nation is about to take a great

"Who owns the Bank of England? A brief history of World Banksters By Dark Politricks First a few historical comments by people who helped create two of the worlds most famous central banks, the Bank of England and the Federal Reserve. "I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men." - Woodrow Wilson, after signing the Federal Reserve into existence The Bank of England was created in 1694 by a Scotsman William Paterson who famously said: The bank hath benefit of interest on all moneys which it creates out of nothing. - William Paterson The history of the Bank of England and how it was taken over by one powerful family hundreds of years ago. Up until 1946 when it was nationalised the Bank of England was a private run bank that lent money it created out of nothing to the English government and was paid back with interest. A very famous story relates to the Bank of England and the infamous Rothschilds, that all powerful banking family. This story was re-told recently in a BBC documentary about the creation of money and the Bank of England. It revolves around the Battle of Waterloo in which Nathan Rothschild used his inside knowledge of the outcome and his faster horses and couriers to play the market by getting the result of the battle before anyone else knew the outcome. He quickly sold his English bonds and gave all the traders who looked to him for guidance the impression that the French had won at Waterloo. The other traders all rus

So according to Bloomberg, JPMorgan's commercial bank was the recipient of 99 percent of JPMorgan's $79 trillion (face value of derivatives) in bad bets. So adding JPMorgan's $78 trillion or so to the $75 trillion in bad bets Bank of America unloaded on its FDIC insured subsidiary, we arrive at $153 trillion in bad bets moved by two investment banks alone under the FDIC umbrella. Meanwhile, FDIC has authority under Dodd-Frank to liquidate these insolvent banks but doesn't, despite several successful lawsuits to recover the value of toxic derivatives that they sold to smaller banks that failed (which implies that FDIC could tell JPMorgan and BoA's investment banksters that they've got to pay off the toxic assets they transferred to their commercial banks, rather than diluting the insurance for normal depositors. Problem: the two big investment banks don't have sufficient assets to absorb those losses, so the too-politically-connected-to-fail factor kicks in. Note that I have not done any legal research in regard to these issues and am basing these observations on what has been stated about legal requirements in various media articles.

"Safe levels?" There is not even a theoretical basis for a "safe level" of exposure to radiation and toxic substances that mutate cells or initiate cancer. 

One of the biggest dangers to the NSA program that I see just over the horizon is that the E.U. has regulatory powers over Google and the other cloud companies involved in the scandal. If the European Commission decides that these companies can not be trusted to protect user's data, it has more than enough legal authority to whop some serious hurt on the companies. 

"During 2015 the attack on bullion prices has intensified, driving the prices lower than they have been for years. During the first quarter of this year there was a huge upward spike in the quantity of precious metal derivatives. If these were long positions hedging the banks' Comex shorts, why did the price of gold and silver decline? More evidence of manipulation comes from the continuing fall in the prices of gold and silver as set in paper future markets, although demand for the physical metals continues to rise even to the point that the US Mint has run out of silver coins to sell. Uncertainties arising from the Greek No vote increase systemic uncertainty. The normal response would be rising, not falling, bullion prices. The circumstantial evidence is that the unregulated OTC derivatives in gold and silver are not really hedges to short positions in Comex but are themselves structured as an additional attack on precious metal prices. If this supposition is correct, it indicates that seven years of bailing out the big banks that control the Federal Reserve and US Treasury at the expense of the US economy has threatened the US dollar to the extent that the dollar must be protected at all cost, including US regulatory tolerance of illegal activity to suppress gold and silver prices."

Forbes argues that we should immediately reverse three Bush mistakes: suspend mark-to-market accounting rules, restore the uptick rule, and enforce the prohibition against naked short selling. He argues that these three changes in regulatory rules, enacted by Bush in 2007, are the primary reason for the financial meltdown. Particularly interesting is the argument that if these three rules had been in effect during the 1991-92 recession, there would have been a massive wave of bank failures rivaling that of the Great Depression.

in many ways the last round of regulatory reform helped cause the disaster in AIG. How could AIG's destruction have been caused by banking regulation? Most people wil probably be surprised by the very idea. After all, they've been told that what really happened to AIG involved unregulated credit default swaps, insurance contracts on bonds that AIG sold across the world. They suspect AIG might have been caused by too little regulation. In fact, much of AIG's problem was caused by credit default swaps and regulation. After Hank Greenberg was ousted from AIG, the company began to get heavily involved in the credit default swap market. That market was growing in large part because of banking regulation.

Whenever a government regulatory agency proves itself to be incredibly incompetent or corrupt, the respectable media swoop in to declare that the "free market" has failed and the agency in question obviously needs more money and power. Whether it's the Department of Education's failure to produce kids who can read, the FBI's accusations against innocent people in high-profile cases, or the FDA cracking down on tomatoes, the answer is always the same: proponents of bigger government argue that yes, mistakes were made, but the solution of course is to shovel more taxpayer money into the agencies in question. In the private sector, when a firm fails, it ceases operations. The opposite happens in government.