Category: Money Matters


Is this our “punishment” for using a fiat currency central banking system? Printing pieces of green pictured paper out of the thin air, telling all of us its worth something. Then you have to ask, how did a small state get into such a massive debt? All bank bought politicians and their friends, no matter where are honest aren’t they!!!!!?!!!!! Trust me I’m the BANK, We gave you that paper and now we’ll take it back.    OH, I long for a billion dollar federal reserve note.

What would you do if the fed wanted to take your savings/checking funds electronically out of your account? Right now you already pay over 50% of your income in taxes already (one way or another).

Cyprus Confiscates Bank Account Money in Guise of Tax.   Is USA next?

Posted at: http://www.veteranstoday.com/

by Johnny Punish

As you may have heard by now, Cyprus just decided to tax bank accounts. Right now, there are riots in the streets. People are freaking out. The government has closed the banks until Wednesday; a bank “holiday” and the Euro zone is about to catch fire. Is the USA next?

Look, this is nutzo!

YouTube – Veterans Today –

YouTube – Veterans Today –

When I started to read about the special tax Cyprus was planning to impose on bank deposits as a condition for a European Union bailout of its financial system, I went straight to a dictionary:

“Tax: A fee levied by a government on income, a product or an activity….The purpose of taxation is to finance government expenditure.”

In this situation, depositors aren’t being asked to cough up additional money to meet a tax liability. To the contrary, a portion of Cypriot deposits will be confiscated — electronically, no less — by the government because that’s what euro zone finance ministers, the European Central Bank and International Monetary Fund demanded as a precondition for a 10 billion euro bailout.

The alternative? Allow Cyprus’ two biggest banks to collapse, which could cause an implosion of the entire financial chaos and a swift exit from the euro zone.

The proposed plan, which must be approved by the Cyprus Parliament, would impose a tax of 6.75 percent on deposits of less than 100,000 euros and 9.9 percent above that level.

This amounts to a seizure of private property. No wonder the Cypriots are outraged. Euro-zone depositors are supposed to be insured for up to 100,000 euros. Message: Deposit insurance isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on.

And that’s just one reason this not-really-a-tax sets a bad precedent. The decision to seize private property means that all assets in the euro zone are at risk, subject to the whims of politicians as they try to prevent their dream of a united Europe from shattering.

  1. What does this all mean?
  2. Will the USA ever follow this new paradigm business model?
  3. When did the banks stop serving its depositors?
  4. Should we all move to gold and run from these banksters?

So many questions….

YouTube – Veterans Today –


ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Johnny Punish is a

Why do we have a FDA

Not only was the FDA created in 1913 but, strange how the federal reserve with their money for nothing scam was also created and their strong-arm to collect income tax the irs also. Talk about complete control all in one foul swoop. Now our currency is worth 3 cents from the original of 100 cents in 1913 and if you don’t hand over a good chunk of your income, so the gov can pay interest on the borrowed money from the privately owned banking cartel know as the fed,  see how much you think you own. The irs will come and take everything you thought you owned. How did we ever let ourselves get into this mess?

Had to update this when I came across this. Any guess why the FDA won’t approve cannabis?

Does this not make you proud of the US military leaders and our elected officaials that lead this country on a path to destruction.? The banks are deeply involved with this crime against the youth of the US and the world. Profit at any cost is thier motto. Not unlike big pharma and the legal perscription drug trade that keeps a large percentage of the population on a controlled substance. Keep everyone on drugs and they will never know the truth.

 

Excerpted from Cruel Harvest: US Intervention in the Afghan Drug Trade (Pluto Press, 2013), by Julien Mercille.

As Obama proclaims that the US adventure in Afghanistan will draw to a close over the next couple years, we may look at the balance sheet with respect to one of the occupation’s alleged justifications: the fight against Afghan heroin. The outcome has been a total failure. In fact, whereas Afghanistan is sometimes referred to as the “graveyard of empires” because throughout history, big powers have attempted, unsuccessfully, to invade and control it, the country can already be labeled as the “garden of empire” because the US/NATO occupation has resulted in a drastic increase in drug production.

Opium production in Afghanistan skyrocketed from 185 tons to 8,200 tons between 2001 and 2007 (today it is down to 3,700 tons). Most commentary glosses over Washington’s large share of responsibility for this dramatic expansion while magnifying the Taliban’s role, which available data indicates is relatively minor. Also, identifying drugs as a main cause behind the growth of the insurgency absolves the United States and NATO of their own role in fomenting it: the very presence of foreign troops in the country as well as their destructive attacks on civilians are significant factors behind increases in popular support for, or tolerance of, the Taliban. In fact, as a recent UNODC report notes, reducing drug production would have only a “minimal impact on the insurgency’s strategic threat,” because the Taliban receive “significant funding from private donors all over the world,” a contribution that “dwarfs” drug money.

A UNODC report entitled Addiction, Crime and Insurgency: The Transnational Threat of Afghan Opium provides a good example of the conventional view of the Taliban’s role in drug trafficking. It claims that they draw some $125 million annually from narcotics, resulting in the “perfect storm” of drugs and terrorism heading toward Central Asia and endangering its energy resources. UNODC maintains that when they were in power in the second half of the 1990s, the Taliban earned about $75–100 million per year from drugs, but since 2005 this figure has risen to $125 million. Although this is presented as a significant increase, the Taliban play a lesser role in the opium economy than the report would have us believe as they capture only a small share of its total value. Moreover, drug money is likely a secondary source of funding for them: UNODC itself estimates that only 10 percent to 15 percent of Taliban funding is drawn from drugs and 85 percent comes from “non-opium sources” such as private donations.

 

The total revenue generated by opiates within Afghanistan is about $3 billion per year. According to UNODC data, the Taliban get only about 5 percent of this sum. Farmers selling their opium harvest to traffickers get 20 percent. And the remaining 75 percent? Al-Qaeda? No: the report specifies that it “does not appear to have a direct role in the Afghan opiates trade,” although it may participate in “low-level drugs and/or arms smuggling” along the Pakistani border. Instead, the remaining 75 percent is captured by traffickers, government officials, the police, and local and regional power brokers – in short, many of the groups now supported or tolerated by the United States and NATO are important actors in the drug trade.

Therefore, claims that “Taliban insurgents are earning astonishingly large profits off the opium trade” are misleading. Nevertheless, UNODC insists on the Taliban-drugs connection but pays less attention to individuals and groups supported or tolerated by Washington. The agency seems to be acting as an enabler of coalition policies in Afghanistan: when asked what percentage of total drug income in Afghanistan is captured by government officials, the UNODC official who supervised the above report quickly replied: “We don’t do that, I don’t know.”

Mainstream commentary blames the size of the narcotics industry and much of what goes wrong in Afghanistan partly on corruption. But to focus on bad apples in the Afghan government and police misses the systemic responsibility of the United States and NATO for the dramatic expansion of opiates production since 2001 and for their support of numerous corrupt individuals in power. The United States attacked Afghanistan in association with Northern Alliance warlords and drug lords and showered them with weapons, millions of dollars, and diplomatic support.

The empowerment and enrichment of those individuals enabled them to tax and protect opium traffickers, leading to the quick resumption of narcotics production after the hiatus of the 2000–2001 Taliban ban, as many observers have documented. Ahmed Rashid has written that the whole Afghan Interior Ministry “became a major protector of drug traffickers, and Karzai refused to clean it out. As warlord militias were demobilized and disarmed by the UN, commanders found new positions in the Interior Ministry and continued to provide protection to drug traffickers.” The United States was not interested in cleaning Afghanistan of drug traffickers either. Thus, to blame “corruption” and “criminals” for the current state of affairs is to ignore the direct and predictable effects of US policies, which have followed a historical pattern of toleration and protection of strongmen involved in narcotics.

In 2004, Afghan forces found an enormous cache of heroin in a truck near Kandahar, but both Wali Karzai, the president’s brother, and an aide to President Karzai called the commander of the group that had made the discovery to tell him to release the drugs and the truck. Two years later, American and Afghan counternarcotics forces seized more than 110 pounds of heroin near Kabul, which US investigators said were linked to Wali Karzai. But Wali Karzai was only the tip of the iceberg, as a former CIA officer asserted that virtually “every significant Afghan figure has had brushes with the drug trade.” In private, American officials acknowledge ties with drug-linked Afghan figures. A Wikileaks cable recounting US officials’ meetings with Wali Karzai in September 2009 and February 2010 stated that while “we must deal with AWK [Ahmed Wali Karzai] as the head of the Provincial Council, he is widely understood to be corrupt and a narcotics trafficker.” But in public, the ties are denied. As Senator John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said: “We should not condemn Ahmed Wali Karzai or damage our critical relations with his brother, President Karzai, on the basis of newspaper articles or rumors.”

Of the annual $65 billion global market for opiates, only 5 to 10 percent ($3 to $5 billion) is estimated to be laundered by informal banking systems, while two-thirds ($40 to $45 billion) is available for laundering through the formal banking system. A recent UNODC report estimated that about $220 billion of drug money is laundered annually through the financial system. However, only about 0.2 percent of all laundered criminal money is seized and frozen, as governments have other priorities than regulating the banking industry, which benefits from this extra liquidity.

US COUNTERNARCOTICS POLICY

Until about 2005, American policy in Afghanistan was, by and large, not concerned with drugs. General Tommy Franks, who led the initial attack, declared in 2002 that US troops would stay clear of drug interdiction and that resolving narcotics problems was up to Afghans and civilians. When Donald Rumsfeld was asked in 2003 what the United States was doing about narcotics in Helmand, he replied: “You ask what we’re going to do and the answer is, I don’t really know.” A US military spokesman at Bagram base, Sergeant Major Harrison Sarles, stated: “We’re not a drug task force. That’s not part of our mission.” Moreover, the DEA had only two agents in Afghanistan in 2003 and didn’t open an office in the country until 2004.

Several reasons explain the early opposition to counternarcotics on the part of the White House and the military. First, Afghanistan was attacked to show that Washington should not be challenged, and destroying poppy crops and heroin labs contributes nothing in this respect. Therefore, there is no reason why any effort should have been directed toward that task. In late 2005, Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry, then commander of US forces in Afghanistan, made it clear that “drugs are bad, but his orders were that drugs were not a priority of the U.S. military in Afghanistan.” Furthermore, Washington’s most important target at that time was Iraq, whose oil resources and strategic location in the Persian Gulf region ensured that it would take priority.

Second, many of the United States’ local Afghan allies were involved in trafficking, from which they drew money and power. Destroying drug labs and poppy fields would have been, in effect, a direct blow to American operations and proxy fighters on the ground. As Western diplomats conceded at the time, “without money from drugs, our friendly warlords can’t pay their militias. It’s as simple as that.” According to James Risen, this explains why the Pentagon and the White House refused to bomb the 25 or so drug facilities that the CIA had identified on its maps in 2001. Similarly, in 2005, the Pentagon denied all but 3 of 26 DEA requests for airlifts. Barnett Rubin summarized the US attitude well when he wrote in 2004 that when “he visits Afghanistan, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld meets military commanders whom Afghans know as the godfathers of drug trafficking. The message has been clear: Help fight the Taliban and no one will interfere with your trafficking.” As a result, US military officials closed their eyes to the trade. An Army Green Beret said he was “specifically ordered to ignore heroin and opium when he and his unit discovered them on patrol.” A US Senate report mentioned that “congressional committees received reports that U.S. forces were refusing to disrupt drug sales and shipments and rebuffing requests from the Drug Enforcement Administration for reinforcements to go after major drug kingpins.”

Third, the Department of Defense thought that eradicating crops would upset farmers and hurt attempts at winning Afghan hearts and minds. Indeed, since 2001, the Taliban have sought to capitalize on resentment caused by eradication schemes. For example, in Helmand “they appear to have offered protection to the farmers targeted by eradication” and in Kandahar “they were even reported to have offered financial assistance to farmers whose fields were being eradicated, in exchange for support in fighting against the government.” Thus, it is far from certain that eliminating drugs would weaken the insurgency. In fact, the opposite is more likely, as it would only add to the opposition already generated by NATO operations in the country, as noted by a well-informed analyst: “As the conflict progressed, victims of abuses by both Afghan and foreign troops and of the side-effects of US reliance on air power began to represent another important source of recruits for the Taliban.”

From 2004, counternarcotics started slowly moving up the US agenda. In 2005, Washington developed its first counternarcotics strategy for Afghanistan, composed of five pillars: elimination/eradication, interdiction, justice reform, public information, and alternative livelihoods (although the pillars were not weighted equally: alternative development was relatively neglected, while eradication/elimination was the priority). The Afghan government incorporated this strategy into its own 2006 National Drug Control Strategy, which was later updated and integrated into its National Development Strategy in 2008. Around 2005, counternarcotics operations were still relatively isolated from the broader counterinsurgency strategy. Nevertheless, the Pentagon started to consider the possibility of getting involved in counterdrug missions and issued new guidelines authorizing the military to “move antidrug agents by helicopters and cargo planes and assist in planning missions and uncovering targets,” among other things. A number of counternarcotics units were set up, such as Task Force 333 (a covert squad of special agents) and the Central Poppy Eradication Force, an Afghan team trained by the American private contractor Dyncorp at a cost of $50 million and supervised by the United States through the Afghan Ministry of the Interior, where Washington’s main contact was Lieutenant General Mohammad Daoud. It didn’t seem to be a problem that Daoud was “an ex-warlord from the north who was reputed to have major connections with the drug trade.”

Since 2007, the United States has intensified its counternarcotics efforts and sought to integrate them more closely with the counterinsurgency campaign. In particular, in late 2008, the Pentagon changed its rules of engagement to permit US troops to target traffickers allied with insurgents and terrorists, and soldiers were allowed to accompany and protect counternarcotics operations run by Americans and Afghans. This shift was also adopted by NATO, whose members were allowed to participate in interdiction missions.

Since 2009, the Obama administration’s strategy has deemphasized eradication by ending support for the Afghan central eradication force while focusing on interdiction and the destruction of heroin labs, based on the reasoning that this “would more precisely target the drug-insurgency nexus.” A focus on rural development has also been announced because, as Richard Holbrooke declared, eradication is a “waste of money,” it alienates farmers, and it “might destroy some acreage, but it didn’t reduce the amount of money the Taliban got by one dollar. It just helped the Taliban.” The number of permanent DEA agents in Afghanistan has increased from 13 to over 80 in 2011 and the Pentagon has established a Combined Joint Interagency Task Force-Nexus in Kandahar to provide coordination support and intelligence for DEA interdiction missions and ISAF counterinsurgency operations that target insurgents with links to the drug trade.

Overall, an interesting question is to explain the emergence, intensification and militarization of US counternarcotics operations in Afghanistan. Although such a discussion remains somewhat speculative, what follows discusses possible reasons that may account for the evolution of the anti-drug strategy over time. Some have pointed to the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld as secretary of defense in 2006. Rumsfeld had always been strongly opposed to military involvement in drug control and thus his departure is thought to have contributed to a “sea change” in the Department of Defense’s attitude, which then became more engaged in counternarcotics. However, the significance of staff changes should be downplayed when explaining the broad outlines of policy. It is not as if Rumsfeld had prevented single-handedly an army of drug warriors in the US government from carrying out counternarcotics operations in Afghanistan. As seen above, there were clear strategic reasons for the lack of military involvement in counternarcotics in the years immediately after 2001.

Congressional pressures have also been identified as a reason. This political pressure, the argument goes, eventually led the Pentagon and CIA to accept publicly that the insurgency was funded by drugs and to approve the 2005 counternarcotics strategy. Indeed, in 2004–05, a host of critical pieces in the media urged more action in light of the large 2004 opium harvest. For example, Henry Hyde, Illinois Republican, stated that there was “a clear need at this stage for military action against the opium storage dumps and heroin laboratories” and that if the military did not get involved, the United States would need to send “troops from places like Turkey to take on this challenge.” The Democrats also pitched in, as when John Kerry criticized Bush for failing to eliminate narcotics in Afghanistan.

Such explanations might be correct in terms of immediate causes, in that congressional pressures and debates contributed to putting the issue on policymakers’ agenda and generating media coverage. However, they beg the question of why the narcotics issue became a more prominent debate within government circles in the first place? Some have pointed to the explosion of poppy cultivation in Afghanistan and the political pressures it has generated in the United States to do something about the problem. For example, Ahmed Rashid noted how the greater emphasis on drugs in US policy from 2005 onwards was prompted in part by the fact that it had become too obvious that Afghan poppy cultivation was getting out of control. The United States could less easily afford to be seen as doing nothing, for public relations purposes. The 2004 massive opium harvest embarrassed Washington and London enough for them to begin addressing narcotics more seriously: farmland under poppy cultivation had just increased by 64 percent and for the first time poppies were cultivated in all 34 of Afghanistan’s provinces. Similarly, opium production rose to 6,100 tons in 2006 and to 8,200 tons in 2007, the highest amount ever recorded, and Afghanistan now accounted for 93 percent of global heroin production. The skyrocketing of drug production in 2006 and 2007, publicized in UNODC reports, could not be ignored indefinitely.

There is probably some truth to this interpretation. Even if drug control is not a US objective, the discourse that has been created around the issue has acquired a force of its own. Therefore, when poppy cultivation spread in Afghanistan to a point that it became difficult to ignore, Washington was forced to make some gesture seemingly addressing the problem, otherwise, its image as a government allegedly concerned with drug harms could have been tarnished.

Finally, another possible reason is that from 2004–05, it became useful politically to talk about a war on drugs to make the resurgent Taliban look evil by associating them with narcotics. Indeed, the intensification of counternarcotics rhetoric and operations “took place against the backdrop of an upsurge in armed opposition” to the US-backed Afghan government. That is to say, whereas in the years immediately after 2001, the drug trade was largely controlled by US allies (warlords), from the time the Taliban reemerged as a significant force partly financed by drugs, narcotics became an issue that could be used to cast a negative light on them. Indeed, it is interesting that since 2004, the intensification of drug war rhetoric has grown in parallel with the rise of the insurgency.

In sum, while from 2001 to 2005, drugs were simply not part of the US agenda in Afghanistan, since 2005, there has been more talk about drug control, and more counter-narcotics operations have taken place. However, this does not mean that the United States is moving closer to conducting a real war on drugs. It is not the intensification of militaristic counterdrug missions per se that makes a drug war real, but the implementation of strategies known to reduce drug problems. On that count, Washington has failed. Further, the United States has continued to support allies involved in trafficking, and Obama stated explicitly that his drug war is instrumental in fighting the insurgency and not about eliminating drugs per se. Indeed, in 2009, his administration presented its new approach to narcotics and elaborated a target list of 50 “major drug traffickers who help finance the insurgency” to be killed or captured by the military. Therefore, if traffickers help the Taliban, they will be attacked – but if they support government forces, they apparently will be left alone. This suggests that the drug war is used to target enemies.

Julien Mercille is lecturer at University College Dublin, Ireland.

Posted at: http://theinternetpost.net/2013/02/25/afghanistan-garden-of-empire-americas-multibillion-dollar-opium-harvest/

Banker Wars

All Wars Are Bankers’ Wars

This is one of the better short film explanation for wars and the situation we’re now in. As other countries wake up to the fact that there is a fleesing going on the worse our economy will become. As the dollar continues to decline and the American people catch on. There will be more false flaf operations to instill fear to maintain control and disarm the people. This can not countinue much longer and the bankers will be their target. Another revolution is on the horizon. How long? You never know.

 

 

It’s Not a “Fiscal Cliff” … It’s the Descent Into Lawlessness

 

It’s Not a Tax or Spending Problem … It’s a Devolution Into Lawlessness

The “fiscal cliff” is a myth.

Instead, what we are facing is a descent into lawlessness.

Wikipedia notes:

In many situations, austerity programs are imposed on countries that were previously under dictatorial regimes, leading to criticism that populations are forced to repay the debts of their oppressors.

Indeed, the IMF has already performed a complete audit of the whole US financial system, something which they have only previously done to broke third world nations.

Economist Marc Faber calls the U.S. a “failed state“. Indeed, we no longer have a free market economy … we have fascism, communist style socialism, kleptocracy, oligarchy or banana republic style corruption.

Let’s look at some specific examples of our descent into lawlessness.

Lawless Looting and Redistribution of Wealth

The central banks’ central bank – the Bank for International Settlements- warned in 2008 that bailouts of the big banks would create sovereign debt crises … which could bankrupt nations.

That is exactly what has happened.

The big banks went bust, and so did the debtors. But the government chose to save the big banks instead of the little guy, thus allowing the banks to continue to try to wring every penny of debt out of debtors.

Treasury Secretary Paulson shoved bailouts down Congress’ throat by threatening martial law if the bailouts weren’t passed. And the bailouts are now perpetual.

Moreover:

The bailout money is just going to line the pockets of the wealthy, instead of helping to stabilize the economy or even the companies receiving the bailouts:

  • A lot of the bailout money is going to the failing companies’ shareholders
  • Indeed, a leading progressive economist says that the true purpose of the bank rescue plans is “a massive redistribution of wealth to the bank shareholders and their top executives”
  • The Treasury Department encouraged banks to use the bailout money to buy their competitors, and pushed through an amendment to the tax laws which rewards mergers in the banking industry (this has caused a lot of companies to bite off more than they can chew, destabilizing the acquiring companies)

And as the New York Times notes, “Tens of billions of [bailout] dollars have merely passed through A.I.G. to its derivatives trading partners”.

***

In other words, through a little game-playing by the Fed, taxpayer money is going straight into the pockets of investors in AIG’s credit default swaps and is not even really stabilizing AIG.

Moreover, a large percentage of the bailouts went to foreign banks (and see this). And so did a huge portion of the money from quantitative easing. Indeed, the Fed bailed out Gaddafi’s Bank of Libya, hedge fund billionaires, and big companies, but turned its back on the little guy.

A study of 124 banking crises by the International Monetary Fund found that propping up banks which are only pretending to be solvent often leads to austerity:

Existing empirical research has shown that providing assistance to banks and their borrowers can be counterproductive, resulting in increased losses to banks, which often abuse forbearance to take unproductive risks at government expense. The typical result of forbearance is a deeper hole in the net worth of banks, crippling tax burdens to finance bank bailouts, and even more severe credit supply contraction and economic decline than would have occurred in the absence of forbearance.

Cross-country analysis to date also shows that accommodative policy measures (such as substantial liquidity support, explicit government guarantee on financial institutions’ liabilities and forbearance from prudential regulations) tend to be fiscally costly and that these particular policies do not necessarily accelerate the speed of economic recovery.

***

All too often, central banks privilege stability over cost in the heat of the containment phase: if so, they may too liberally extend loans to an illiquid bank which is almost certain to prove insolvent anyway. Also, closure of a nonviable bank is often delayed for too long, even when there are clear signs of insolvency (Lindgren, 2003). Since bank closures face many obstacles, there is a tendency to rely instead on blanket government guarantees which, if the government’s fiscal and political position makes them credible, can work albeit at the cost of placing the burden on the budget, typically squeezing future provision of needed public services.

In other words, the “stimulus” to the banks blows up the budget, “squeezing” public services through austerity.

Numerous top economists say that the bank bailouts are the largest robbery and redistribution of wealth in history.

Why was this illegal? Well, the top white collar fraud expert in the country says that the Bush and Obama administrations broke the law by failing to break up insolvent banks … instead of propping them up by bailing them out.

And the Special Inspector General of the Tarp bailout program said that the Treasury Secretary lied to Congress regarding some fundamental aspects of Tarp – like pretending that the banks were healthy, when they were totally insolvent. The Secretary also falsely told Congress that the bailouts would be used to dispose of toxic assets … but then used the money for something else entirely. Making false statements to a federal official is illegal, pursuant to 18 United States Code Section 1001.

So breaking the rules to bail out the big, insolvent banks, is destroying our prosperity.

Lawless Justice System

A strong rule of law is essential for a prosperous and stable economy, yet the government made it official policy not to prosecute fraud, even though main business model adopted by the biggest financial crime in world history, the largest insider trading scandal of all time, illegal raiding of customer accounts and blatant financing of drug cartels and terrorists have all gotten away scot-free without any jail time.

There are two systems of justice in America … one for the big banks and other fatcats, and one for everyone else.

While Iceland prosecuted its top criminal bankers, and thus quickly got through its financial problems and now has a vibrant economy, the American government has done everything it can to cover up fraud, and has been actively encouraging criminal fraud and attacking those trying to blow the whistle.

The rule of law is now as weak in the U.S. and UK as many countries which we would consider “rogue nations”. See this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this.

This is a sudden change. As famed Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto notes:

In a few short decades the West undercut 150 years of legal reforms that made the global economy possible.

Moreover, U.S. government personnel are on the take. They have become so corrupt that regulators are literally sleeping with industry prostitutes … while they pimp out the American people.

The corruption of government officials is staggering, and the system of government-sponsored rating agencies had at its core a model of bribery.

We’ve gone from a nation of laws to a nation of powerful men making one-sided laws to protect their own interestsin secret. Government folks are using laws to crush dissent. It’s gotten so bad that even U.S. Supreme Court justices are saying that we are descending into tyranny.

It’s not a “fiscal cliff” … it’s an attempt to rape America … just like Greece and Ireland have been plundered.

Economics professor Randall Wray writes:

Thieves … took over the whole economy and the political system lock, stock, and barrel. They didn’t just blow up finance, they oversaw the swiftest transfer of wealth to the very top the world has ever seen. They screwed workers out of their jobs, they screwed homeowners out of their houses, they screwed retirees out of their pensions, and they screwed municipalities out of their revenues and assets.

Financiers are forcing schools, parks, pools, fire departments, senior citizen centers, and libraries to shut down. They are forcing national governments to auction off their cultural heritage to the highest bidder. Everything must go in firesales at prices rigged by twenty-something traders at the biggest and most corrupt institutions the world has ever known.

Economics professor Michael Hudson agrees … saying that the banks are trying to roll back all modern laws and make us all serfs.

Professor Hudson explained in 2008:

You have to realize that what they’re trying to do is to roll back the Enlightenment, roll back the moral philosophy and social values of classical political economy and its culmination in Progressive Era legislation, as well as the New Deal institutions. They’re not trying to make the economy more equal, and they’re not trying to share power. Their greed is (as Aristotle noted) infinite. So what you find to be a violation of traditional values is a re-assertion of pre-industrial, feudal values. The economy is being set back on the road to debt peonage. The Road to Serfdom is not government sponsorship of economic progress and rising living standards, it’s the dismantling of government, the dissolution of regulatory agencies, to create a new feudal-type elite.

Indeed:

Foreign Policy magazine ran an article entitled “The Next Big Thing: Neomedievalism“, arguing that the power of nations is declining, and being replaced by corporations, wealthy individuals, the sovereign wealth funds of monarchs, and city-regions.

Indeed, this isn’t the “Great Recession”, it’s the Great Bank Robbery. The big banks have pillaged and looted the rest of the world.

 

A lawless justice system is ruining the economy.

Lawless Central Bank

The non-partisan Government Accountability Office calls the Fed corrupt and riddled with conflicts of interest. Nobel the World Bank would view any country which had a banking structure like the Fed as being corrupt and untrustworthy. The former vice president at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas said said he worried that the failure of the government to provide more information about its rescue spending could signal corruption. “Nontransparency in government programs is always associated with corruption in other countries, so I don’t see why it wouldn’t be here,” he said.

Moreover, the Fed has broken the law by withholding information from Congress, letting unemployment rise in order to keep inflation low, and otherwise exceeding its authority under the Federal Reserve Act.

Our central bank’s lawless and unaccountable actions are hurting the economy.

Lawless Attack on Democracy

The ability of the people to participate in their government’s decision-making is vital for a nation’s prosperity. But we no longer have democracy or a republican form of government in America.

The big banks own Washington D.C. politicians, lock stock and barrel. See this, this, this and this. Two leading IMF officials, the former Vice President of the Dallas Federal Reserve, and the the head of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, Moody’s chief economist and many others have all said that the United States is controlled by an “oligarchy” or “oligopoly”, and the big banks and giant financial institutions are key players in that oligarchy.

Laws are being passed in secret, and not even Congress knows what’s going on.

In other words, not only the justice system, but the entire system of American representation has been corrupted, thus harming the economy.

Lawless Infringement of Freedom

Personal freedom and liberty – and freedom from the arbitrary exercise of government power – are strongly correlated with a healthy economy, but America is descending into tyranny.

Authoritarian actions by the government interfere with the free market, and thus harm prosperity.

U.S. News and World Report notes:

The Fraser Institute’s latest Economic Freedom of the World Annual Report is out, and the news is not good for the United States. Ranked among the five freest countries in the world from 1975 through 2002, the United States has since dropped to 18th place.

The Cato institute notes:

The United States has plummeted to 18th place in the ranked list, trailing such countries as Estonia, Taiwan, and Qatar.

***

Actually, the decline began under President George W. Bush. For 20 years the U.S. had consistently ranked as one of the world’s three freest economies, along with Hong Kong and Singapore. By the end of the Bush presidency, we were barely in the top ten.

And, as with so many disastrous legacies of the Bush era, Barack Obama took a bad thing and made it worse.

But the American government has shredded the constitution, by subjecting us to indefinite detention, taking away our due process rights, deploying drones above our heads, spying on all Americans, and otherwise attacking our freedoms.

Indeed, rights won in 1215 – in the Magna Carta – are being repealed.

Economic historian Niall Ferguson notes, draconian national security laws are one of the main things undermining the rule of law:

We must pose the familiar question about how far our civil liberties have been eroded by the national security state – a process that in fact dates back almost a hundred years to the outbreak of the First World War and the passage of the 1914 Defence of the Realm Act. Recent debates about the protracted detention of terrorist suspects are in no way new. Somehow it’s always a choice between habeas corpus and hundreds of corpses.

Of course, many of this decades’ national security measures have not been taken to keep us safe in the “post-9/11 world” … indeed, many of them started before 9/11.

And America has been in a continuous declared state of national emergency since 9/11, and we are in a literally never-ending state of perpetual war. See this, this, this and this.

In fact, government has blown terrorism fears way out of proportion for political purposes, and “national security” powers have been used in many ways to exempt big Wall Street players from the rule of law rather than to do anything to protect us.

So lawlessness infringement of our liberty is destroying our prosperity.

Lawless Initiation and Prosecution of War

It is well-documented that war destroys the economy.

Top U.S. government employees lied us into war, and used illegal torture, assassinations and other crimes of war in prosecuting the wars they unnecessarily started. They were – at a minimum – criminally negligent for failing to stop 9/11 (and see this).

In the name of fighting our enemies – the U.S. has directly been supporting Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups for the last decade. See this, this, this, this and this.

Our use of torture has also created many more terrorists than it has prevented.

Security experts – including both conservatives and liberals – agree that waging war in the Middle East weakens national security and increases terrorism. See this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this.

Indefinite detention, drone-strikes on innocent civilians, occupation of foreign countries, and most of America’s other tactics in the “war on terror” increase terrorism.

Terrorism feeds the cycle of war … and is thus harming our economy. (And because terrorism spooks people, they spend less, which further harms the economy).

So lawlessness in starting and prosecuting war is destroying our prosperity.

Postscript: We’re not facing a “fiscal cliff”. We’re facing a descent into lawlessness. Stopping the fraudulent schemes, endless bailouts and imperial adventures is the place to start.

Banksters at work

In case you missed this, on MSM even.

I can’t stress this enough. Don’t keep any more in a bank then necessary and if anyway possible, don’t use the corrupt banking system at all.  Some states are so broke they will steal your wealth.

 

BAD FED DEBT – YOU LOSE

 

How can the US have debt on pieces of paper that are absolutely worthless? It just doesn’t make good sense to pay back on a debt that was created out of thin air. Why can’t the government tell the banking cartel to kiss off, we’re not paying that debt and all the interest that comes with it. Those pieces of paper you hold is not money, money has to have value. We use currency, which has no value and no backing with anything of value. Basically our currency is faith based; we have faith that it has some value. That faith is dwindling fast, as more and more people catch on to the banking racket.

The US government borrows 2 million dollars a minute. I don’t care if they say they’re going to reduce the national debt; it grows back like a horrible weed as soon as you cut it. The U.S. government ran a budget deficit of $188 billion dollars for the month of March alone. Compensation that the federal government workforce earned last year came to a grand total of approximately 447 billion dollars. If the federal government began right at this moment to repay the U.S. national debt at a rate of one dollar per second, it would take over 440,000 years to pay off the national debt.

How on earth can the Federal Reserve throw around billions of dollars with no accountability or oversight? Do you know where your tax dollars went? How about private accounts in the Cayman Islands and elsewhere. Matt Taibbi exposes some of the folks that the Federal Reserve has been sending money to in a Rolling Stone exposé

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 loans each 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.”

 It seems to me they are getting ready for something. Possibly making sure all insider friends have enough currency to last while the rest of us burn when the collapse comes.

I don’t know about you but, this has pissed me off for a long time. Now it’s worse than ever. If we don’t abolish the FED you, me and everyone else will be surly doomed in the next few years, if not a whole lot sooner.  

Wish I could whipe that smerk off his face with a bat.

 

Read this article, than ask yourself; when was the last time the FED was a “highly respected central bank.” After Nixon and Kissinger approached Saudi Arabia to protect all their oil if they only traded in USD, then took away the US gold standard (1971) and started creating worthless currency out of thin air. Lost a lot of respect then from numerous other countries but, we had military power to force their participation in this scheme. Then, if Germany does see some gold is it real gold? Search “tungsten filled gold bars and see what ya come up with.  And, how about the F-EM-A  inspector who was first to inspect under the WTC and found the vault door ajar and the vault empty. Someone removed the gold before the controlled collapse and the inspector had to leave the US in fear for his life.
It would only be prudent business for Germany and all other countries to inspect their gold reserves. The fed telling any country they can’t see their stuuf is like the bank telling you that you can’t see your stuff in your safe deposit box.

This article was written by Sven Boll and Ann Seith, and was originally published at Spiegel Online

For decades, almost half of Germany’s gold has been stored deep below the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Now, with the euro crisis swirling, German politicians are asking their central bankers to take stock of the reserves. Some even say that the gold should be shipped home.

Bundesbank President Jens Weidmann wanted to personally convince Peter Gauweiler that the German gold was still where it should be. Early this summer, the head of Germany’s central bank took the obstinate politician from the conservative Christian Social Union (CSU), a party that is a member of the government coalition in Berlin, and a number of his colleagues into the Bundesbank’s inner sanctum: the gold vault.

There, 6,000 gold bars are stacked on industrial-strength shelves in a purpose-built building in Frankfurt. An additional 76,000 bars of bullion are stored in four safe boxes, in sealed containers.

But even this personal inspection wasn’t enough to reassure the visiting member of parliament – on the contrary: “The Bundesbank monitors its domestic gold in an exemplary fashion,” Gauweiler says, “and this makes it all the more incomprehensible that the bank doesn’t look after its reserves abroad.”

For quite some time now, Gauweiler has been pestering the government and the Bundesbank with questions concerning where and how the country’s reserves are stored, and how often they are checked. He has submitted requests and commissioned reports on the topic.

Last week, Gauweiler celebrated his greatest triumph to date in his gold campaign, which has been a source of some amusement for many fellow German politicians: A secret report by the Federal Audit Office had been made public – and it contained stern criticism of the German central bank in Frankfurt. The Bonn-based auditors urged a better inventory system, including quality checks.

This demand, which even the bank’s inspectors saw as nothing more than routine, alarmed the Berlin political establishment. Indeed, the partially blacked-out report read like the prologue to an espionage thriller in which the stunned central bankers could end up standing in front of empty vaults in the US.

‘Grotesque Debate’

For decades, German central bankers have contented themselves with written affirmations from their American colleagues that the gold still remains where it is said to be stored. According to the report, the bar list from New York stems from “1979/1980.” The report also noted that the Federal Reserve Bank of New York refuses to allow the gold’s owners to view their own reserves.

Not surprisingly, this prompted strong reactions in Berlin: The relevant Bundesbank board member Carl-Ludwig Thiele was summoned to Berlin to provide an explanation to the parliamentary budget committee. Heinz-Peter Haustein of the business-friendly Free Democratic Party (FDP) was even quoted by Germany’s mass-circulation Bild newspaper as saying that “all the gold has to be shipped back.”

The Bundesbank’s otherwise reserved Thiele said that he found at least “part of the debate” to be “rather grotesque.” His financial institution currently has more pressing problems. Bundesbank head Weidmann, for example, is desperately fighting the European Central Bank (ECB) decision to buy unlimited quantities of sovereign bonds from crisis-ridden countries as a way of lowering their borrowing costs. In addition, the Bundesbank has already pumped nearly €700 billion ($906 billion) into primarily southern European countries as part of the euro-zone central bank transfers known as Target II.

Germany’s gold reserves are currently worth some €144 billion and are not stored “with dubious business partners,” as Thiele stresses, but rather with “highly respected central bankers.”

Special Connection

There is in fact nothing unusual about how Germany deals with the precious metal. Many other central banks store a portion of their gold reserves abroad. The Netherlands, for example, places its trust in its colleagues in Ottawa, New York and London.

But the relationship Germans have with their gold is a special one. Germany hoards nearly 3,600 metric tons of the precious metal – only the US has more. Much of this gold treasure was amassed under the Bretton Woods international monetary system, in which the dollar served as the world’s key currency and was directly convertible to fixed quantities of gold.

Before the gold standard was terminated in 1971, the current account surpluses generated by Germany’s “economic miracle” were partially balanced out in gold. Thousands of US bars of gold alone were transferred to German ownership.

But since the euro is not backed by gold, such vast reserves are actually no longer necessary. Nevertheless, the Germans continue to resolutely defend them – and every attempt to use this treasure has been met with dismay.

There has been no lack of proposals: Former German President Roman Herzog wanted to sell the gold to form the basis for a capital-based nursing care insurance scheme. In 2002, FDP parliamentary floor leader Rainer Brüderle proposed a fund for natural disasters. Former Bundesbank head Ernst Welteke added to the debate by suggesting the foundation of a national educational fund. But none of these ideas were ever taken seriously.

Most recently, German Chancellor Angela Merkel of the conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU) shot down an idea by the euro partners to use the reserves as collateral for euro bonds.

READ FULL ARTICLE HERE:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/german-politicians-demand-to-see-gold-in-us-federal-reserve-a-864068.html

War on Drugs, Right

What more can I say: It’s has been and will be a failed money grabbing policy.

Study: War on Drugs Not Working At All

 

This will be a good thing, that some of the criminals that stole US tax payer income may get whats coming to them. But, being a legal firm there has to be something in it for them. In law suits the lawyers normally take 1/3 for their effort.

In connection with the federal lawsuit now impending in the United States District Court in Brooklyn, New York (Case No. 12-cv-04269-JBW-RML) – involving, among other things, a request that the District Court enjoin all mortgage foreclosures by the Banksters nationwide, unless and until the entire $43 trillion is repaid to a court-appointed receiver – Plaintiffs  now establish the location of the $43 trillion ($43,000,000,000,000.00) of laundered money in a racketeering enterprise participated in by the following individuals (without limitation):  Attorney General Holder acting in his individual capacity, Assistant Attorney General Tony West, the brother in law of Defendant California Attorney General Kamala Harris (both acting in their individual capacities), Jon Corzine (former New Jersey Governor), Robert Rubin (former Treasury Secretary and Bankster), Timothy Geitner, Treasury Secretary (acting in his individual capacity), Vikram Pandit (recently resigned and disgraced Chairman of the Board of Citigroup), Valerie Jarrett (a Senior White House Advisor), Anita Dunn (a former “communications director” for the Obama Administration), Robert Bauer (husband of Anita Dunn and Chief Legal Counsel for the Obama Re-election Campaign), as well as the “Banksters” themselves, and their affiliates and conduits.  The lawsuit alleges serial violations of the United States Patriot Act, the Policy of Embargo Against Iran and Countries Hostile to the Foreign Policy of the United States, and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (commonly known as the RICO statute) and other State and Federal laws.

Read more: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/major-banks-governmental-officials-and-their-comrade-capitalists-targets-of-spire-law-group-llps-racketeering-and-money-laundering-lawsuit-seeking-return-of-43-trillion-to-the-united-states-treasury-175828861.html

The Federal Reserve and the corporations that depend on their fiat currency run this country and control congress. It’s just the way it is but, should come to an end. And soon, before it destoys us all.

Petrodollar done

I did this on the petrodollar awhile back but, never posted it. I decided to now after seeing the Reality Check video.

PETRODOLLOR PRIMER

Given that the US dollar is no longer based on the proportion of gold reserves, so what is it based on? Why is the US involved in conflicts all over the world? Why are we on the verge of attacking Iran for the suspicion of maybe, sort of, having a nuclear weapons program? Which, Iran is years away from perfecting. Even if they were enriching materials for that purpose they have the right. So, why would the US start WW III over WMD that don’t exist? The answer; the bankers and corporate elite have to protect their interest at any cost. Even snuffing the lives of men, women and children, destroying economies and invading sovereign countries is not too high in their eyes. There will be hell to pay when the US wars of aggression come home to roost.

Now let’s go back in time to August of 1971 when then President Nixon proclaimed: “I have directed the Secretary of the Treasury to take the action necessary to defend the dollar against the speculators. I have directed Secretary Connolly to suspend temporarily the convertibility of the dollar into gold or other reserve assets, except in amounts and conditions determined to be in the interest of monetary stability and in the best interest of United States.” Before Nixon’s statement it was clear to the world and notably France that the US was printing more Vietnam War dollars than gold reserves would allow. Given this fact, nations began demanding payment in gold for their dollars per the Bretton Woods agreement of 1944. For the nations that delegated their gold to the US, this was absolute pilfering for self-interests. In one foul swoop dollars where transformed into fiat currency giving the Federal Reserve ability to print worthless dollars out of thin air devaluing each with every new one printed. This system would be fine as derived by Sec. of State Henry Kissinger, except when demand for dollars fall.

Reality Check

watch?v=K9VLp0FcJ6I

To make sure there was a demand for US dollars Kissinger and Nixon convinced King Faisal of Saudi Arabia that the US would protect Saudi Arabian oilfields from any and all invaders. Of course the US wanted something in return. Saudi Arabia and by annex OPEC, agreed to sell their oil in US dollars only. Every country that wanted to by oil from OPEC first had to exchange their money into worthless US dollars first, at a loss most of the time. Participating nations as part of the deal also had to invest profits in US treasuries and bonds. How sweet it was for the US corporations and the elitist bankers. The US economy grew by leaps and bounds. The printing presses rolled as nations exported their goods for fiat dollars, buying oil in return. The scam was grand. The Military Industrial Complex grew like an out of control wildfire with the never ending influx of green paper. No country could compete against the might of the US military, not even the great Soviet Union in 1991. If you didn’t want to play the game, then you were forced. Oh, the scam got even grander, the only and biggest super power was created. There would be Pax Per Poten (peace through power).  The Petrodollar was born.

The same year the Soviet Union collapsed the US invaded Iraq. Destroying their developing country and crippling their military. Imposing harsh sanctions, which starved innocent children and their families. Zionist pig Madeline Albright thought it was worth it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbIX1CP9qr4. In 2000 Iraq starting trading oil in euros causing the bankers to go into panic mode, they would not get away with that. Shortly after came the USrael false flag attack on the New York World Trade Center. The dreamed up threat of WMD in Iraq gave reason to invade the country and abruptly convert oil trade back into US petrodollars. But that is not the only country wanting to move away from the petrodollar. Egypt, Libya, Syria and others are looking to get out of the scam. Russia and China have started and want to trade more with their own currency. The list will grow as other countries wakeup to the largest scam in history. The petrodollar and its military might will fight tooth and nail to the end. The list of countries to convert and dominate is presently being aligned as the threat to petrodollars increase. Wesley Clark is an insider but, you get the picture here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brckLyM1_FE .

Any country trying to get out of the petrodollar monopoly will be invaded and controlled and the list is growing. But, now the Fed Reserve banksters are losing their footing on a slippery rock and are about to fall into the water and drown. Their arms are flailing, lungs gasping for breath and legs getting tired. Unlimited QE3 will be the concrete slippers. The US economy will be pulled under along with the petrodollar.  Now ask yourself, how do we have a national debt if the worthless currency isn’t even real? Do they really care about you? No!

 Saved this a few years ago and thought it would be of interest.

Article from http://www.libertynewsonline.com

 

 EXACTLY WHERE IS THAT US TREASURY?
 Marti Oakley
THERE IS NO US TREASURY! The US Treasury “home-office” is actually located in Puerto Rico and is not a US agency.

Looking in 27 CFR 250.11 again for the definition of “Secretary” as found in all the above. The defining term for “Secretary” is, “The Secretary of the Treasury of Puerto Rico.” That man is, not Timothy Geithner.

Who does timothy Geithner work for ?

“The Chief Financial Officer of the government, the Secretary serves as Chairman Pro Tempore of the President’s Economic Policy Council, Chairman of the Boards and Managing Trustee of the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds, and as U.S. Governor (note: they do not refer to him as the US secretary or as his position being that of a cabinet secretary to the president) of the International Monetary Fund, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the Inter-American Development Bank, the Asian Development Bank, and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.”

The identity of the Secretary is not found in title 26 U.S.C. The only reference to the identity of the Secretary of the Treasury is in 27 C.F.R. at section 250.11 (definitions) which specifically states: The defining term for secretary is: “Secretary means Secretary of the Treasury of Puerto Rico”.

Henry Paulson, Timothy Geithner, and every treasury secretary since 1913 are appointed but not as cabinet members. The Secretary of the Treasury is as a corporate “governor” of what is known as “The Fund” or “The Bank” and several other international organizations. The U.S. Secretary of the Treasury is not sworn in and speaks no oath of loyalty or defense of the United States. The obligation of this secretary (governor) is to the International Monetary Fund, and World Bank. All employees of the IMF governor are paid by the Fund directly, or out of funds supplied to the Governor of the Fund specifically for that purpose. The IMF governor is not paid by the US government as he/she is not employed by that government.

The so-called treasury secretary is actually a governor of the IMF/ World Bank. He is appointed to a term of five years during which time he must expatriate himself as a US citizen to be sworn in as the legal representative of the Fund, and acting liaison between the Fund and the federal government. His first and only fiduciary duty is to protect the Fund at all costs.

In 1920-21, the Treasury of the United States was abolished and supplanted with the Independent Treasury. Every dime you pay in taxes, every penny collected under any pretense for any reason by the Federal Government is deposited directly into the International Monetary Fund and for the US to receive any benefit from those deposits it must issue a letter of special drawing rights.

Every Social Security number is issued by the IMF. Every birth certificate is registered with the IMF. Every government check, funding, tax refund, SS payment, disability payment, anything and everything which bears the name US Treasury, is issued from the IMF, a corporation of which the US government is now a part of and retains a level of voting shares.

Of course, when a government becomes a voting share stockholder in any corporation, it RELINQUISHES its SOVEREIGN CHARACTER and takes on the character of the corporation. (See: Bank of the United States vs. Planters Bank of Georgia, 6 L.Ed 244).

With the creation of the Federal Reserve System in 1913, it set up the mechanism to economically overthrow the de jure monetary system and replace it with paper on a ‘float’. Section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act, which is codified at 12 USC 411, http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/12/411.html declares that ‘Federal Reserve Notes’ are ‘obligations of the United States.’
The ‘full faith and credit’ of the United States was thereby hypothecated and re-hypothecated to the lending institutions for the issuance and emission of bills of credit as legal tender. The paper circulation and transactions accounts could then be inflated by 60% and the purchasing power depreciated and reduced by an equivalent amount.

(Note: hy·poth·e·cate To pledge (property) as security or collateral for a debt without transfer of title or possession.)

Codified at (United States Code) 12 USC 411, a force majeure was implemented, meaning the use of force, to establish the Federal Reserve. Section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act makes clear that “Federal Reserve Notes” are obligations of the (50) united, but sovereign, States. The full faith and credit of the (50) united States was thereby hypothecated, meaning that our property or land was/is used to secure money borrowed in the name of the corporation operating as [THE UNITED STATES a.k.a. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA]

The hypothecation of the debt incurred by the corporate US government is backed up by the taking of land (the only collateral accepted by the World Bank/IMF). This is why Premises ID, Lands taken and deemed National Monuments, Scenic Lands, Preserves, Wildlife Habitats and all agricultural lands seized under any premise are imperative to the government. These lands have all been duly catalogued, gps located and listed with the World Bank/IMF as hypothecated collateral on the massive and unrepayable debt incurred over the last ten years. This information was also supplied to the United Nations.

By becoming a member in the IMF, the United States re-hypothecated its obligations and the full faith and credit to the International Organization, under pretense of the Gold Reserve Act and the Articles of Incorporation. Because the national debt has been intentionally increased for the last twenty years or more, we have as a nation reached a point of bankruptcy. Our national debt now exceeds our net worth. It is the Secretary of the Treasury, a.k.a. The governor of the IMF who facilitates the agreements and accepts the collateral of land against the United States on behalf of his employer, the World Bank/IMF.

Enter the revenue agents.

The Internal Revenue Service is not an agency of the United States government. It can NOT be found in Title 31, but it is also nowhere to be found in the entirety of Title 5 U.S.C.

Then cruise over and look at Code 27 of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 250.11 and therein you will find the definition of “Revenue agent.” That definition reads:

“Any duly authorized Commonwealth Internal Revenue Agent of the Department of the Treasury of Puerto Rico.” All those revenue agents? All are employed by the Department of the Treasury operating from its home base in Puerto Rico; and they don’t pay any taxes or revenues to the US. They operate as the enforcement arm of the International Monetary Fund.

The IRS operates as a collection agency working for foreign banks and operating out of Puerto Rico under color of law referred to as: the Federal Alcohol Administration (“FAA”). declared unconstitutional inside the 50 States by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of U.S. v. Constantine, 296 U.S. 287 (1935)

From: The Federal Zone Appendix

11. The Internal Revenue Code is essentially a “civil, regulatory statute” which was enacted in 1939 to tax and regulate employees of the Federal Government and “citizens of the United States” (i.e., of the District of Columbia), and to set forth rules and regulations for the production of revenue for the “United States”, as defined in the U.S. Constitution.

12. It is an unlawful abuse of procedure to use civil statutes as “evidence of the law” in a criminal matter, particularly when a United States Code has not been enacted into positive law (see, specifically, IRC 7851(a)(6)(A)).

13. Both civil and criminal matters “At Law” require that the complaining party be a victim of some recognizable damage. The “Law” cannot recognize a “crime” unless there is a victim who properly claims to have been damaged or injured.

After the passage of Public Law 90-269 on March 18, 1968, the United States declared it no longer guaranteed the uniform value of the coins and currency of the United States. This act ended the remaining reserve requirements on circulating notes and obligations. Approximately $1.3 BILLION in gold was ‘pledged’ against ‘gold certificates’ and held as reserves against the Federal Reserve’s circulating notes and obligations as of 1968, but this amount of pledging has now reached an incalculable level.

(c)copyright 2010 ppjg.wordpress.com

Not that I’m a fan of MSM but, sometimes they air something that’s close to the truth. If you haven’t read “Creature From Jekyll Island” then do so, anyone working for a bank should defiantly read it.

The economy is doomed, it’s just a matter of time. Hopefuly we get a year or two to better  prepare.

Economist Richard Duncan: Civilization May Not Survive ‘Death Spiral’