Thread: Rebuttal To Snopes - China Eminent Domain Collateral False

Dr. A. True Ott PhD Rebuttal To Snopes
By A. True Ott, PhD, ND
3-6-9

SNOPES - China Eminent Domain Collateral False

http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/domain.asp

A REBUTTAL TO DAVID AND BARBARA MIKKELSON (Snopes.com) BASED ON TRUTH AND LOGIC

The website Snopes.com is run by David and Barbara Mikkelson, a couple with a gift for debunking false stories and dis-information circulating around cyber-space. For the most part, they perform a valuable service and have earned a reputation as being an authoritive and conclusive final verdict on controversial subjects. Like all writers, however, they are only human. They can, and do, make mistakes.

With all due respect, David and Barbara, you have missed wide left of the target on this particular subject.

I do not know or listen to Mr. Hal Turner. It may well be that he has taken liberties and stretched otherwise true stories to their breaking points in the past. For your information, however, in this particular instance, Turner's recent story corroborates my own sources. While the specific term "eminent domain" may be perhaps a bit of a stretch -- the basic story-line is absolutely true.

In your research as posted in the link above, you obviously came across the Bloomberg article that stated "Chinese officials have expressed concern" that China's massive investments in America are "safe, as a pre-requisite for additional purchases of U.S. Securities." Clearly, you believe the Bloomberg story to be accurate, but then skewer Mr. Turner for basically saying the same thing. I submit this is not logical and smacks more of a witch hunt than ethical hoax-busting and truth searching.

According to authors Bill Geitz (The China Threat) and Peter Navarro (The Coming China Wars), the Chinese PLA have been investing large sums of money into America in the form of political donations (the Clintons received millions), private and public mortgage companies, and U.S. Government debentures for decades. The floodgate of Chinese profits from goods produced largely by their massive prison-labor work-force have been strategically re-invested into the debt-based economy of America. Now, according to Navarro, et.al. the entire U.S. Economy hinges on the whims and will of the Chinese military leadership.

China has basically bought America with cheap trinkets, just as the British purchased Manhattan from the local Indians centuries ago with baubles, bangles and beads.

The cruel, hard facts are that following the conclusion of the Beijing Olympics, China stopped purchasing U.S.-dollar based securities. They quit buying oil and gas futures, causing the price of gasoline to tumble. They quit purchasing Treasury Bills and Bonds -- and quit funding Fannie and Freddie mortgages. This sudden constriction of liquidity was the prime factor behind the market panic last fall, and resulted in Bush's "emergency stimulus" package then, and President Obama's "stimulus" package now.

The cruel, hard fact is that the only way that the Obama administration can stop the current economic bloodbath is to coax China into again investing their Home Depot and Walmart profits back into America's debt machine, (which are then leveraged at 10 times their face value in "The Feds" fractional reserve, debt-driven system). Just as the Bloomberg article correctly exposes, China is not willing to do this, unless and until WRITTEN GUARANTEES THAT THEIR INVESTMENTS ARE SECURE ARE SIGNED AND DULY EXECUTED.

David and Barbara, please tell us: What do you think these "guarantees" involve, and what makes you so blindly confident that Hillary did not grant them??

What the Bloomberg article fails to mention is that the Chinese PLA military leaders filed a lawsuit in the World Court at the Hague, Netherlands last summer. The suit petitioned the World Court to grant the PLA the right to USE CHINESE MILITARY POLICE (i.e. Chinese troops) ON U.S. SOIL in order to "repossess real estate assets secured by PLA's mortgage funding" in the United States upon default of the contracts. The Chinese leadership did not, and do not, trust local sheriff departments to perform the task and preserve their trillions of invested dollars/yen. The World Court opined that only the U.S. government could legally grant such a request.

Given her past acceptances of PLA influence peddling, there is no doubt whatsoever in my mind, that Hillary Clinton not only gave the PLA military leaders just such a signed document, but sealed it with a kiss as well.

Whether it is called "eminent domain" or "mortgage repo authorization" -- the desired effect is the same. Foreign, COMMUNIST troops have now been given the legal authority to operate as constables on American soil. Treason by any other name, is still an odorous offense.

David and Barbara, aka SNOPES --- just because CNN or Reuters doesn't report the story, it doesn't mean it isn't vitally important information for all Americans to understand and act upon.

Respectfully,

A. True Ott, PhD, ND

http://www.rense.com/general85/ottrebut.htm

Hi, I just wondered if by your use of the word "odorous" you meant a great stench or onerous meaning a great burden, either way it fits.

Whether it is called "eminent domain" or "mortgage repo authorization" -- the desired effect is the same. Foreign, COMMUNIST troops have now been given the legal authority to operate as constables on American soil. Treason by any other name, is still an odorous offense.

This seems to be a very dangerous path we have embarked upon.!!
[/u][/i]

SNOPES - China Eminent Domain Collateral False

Some of us didn't need Snopes to tell us this.

A rebuttal to Mr. Otts rebuttal.

At the beginning of this article Mr. Otts establishes that he has neither listened to Mr. Turners show and even that the term eminent domain is also probably not correct in the context of the story. Yet goes on to imply that it is the same as a loan guarantee.

I distrust any analysis that starts by splitting hairs over definition vs intention and wether the right words have been used by the opposing argument while the supporting argument is allowed to use whatever words they so desire as long as the intent behind the words is recognized.

-10 points in debate class Mr. Ott this is neither a logical nor truthful argument you have begun.

Mr. Otts salient points then go on to site references that have never actuall commented on the subject (navarro and geitz) except in the most peripheral of ways. But how could geitz and navarro comment on this when they wrote their books well before this economy and this eminent domain story.

Mr. Ott then goes on to state "the cruel hard facts" If these are facts then they need citation. One can just as easily say that the fall in commodities in mid 2008 was due to the world production catching up with demand for said commodities. This can be supported by US oil reserve figures going back up throughout 2008 and increased production of US oil through 2008. Please look at any number of oil and federal reserve counts to see this statistic (http://www.eia.doe.gov/steo, http://www.mees.com/Energy_Tables/crude-oil.htm)

Mr. ott then conveniently segues into "guarantees" sought by china. Again in a debate you must use the right words. Yet it astounds me that a phd will then shoot themselves in the foot (as he does) by implying that a "guarantee" is just as legally important as eminent domain (which the snope article sites actual laws proving that it is not), then goes on to say China sues the US in world court to enforce their right to get assets securing loans.....AND LOSES!!!! What was Mr. Ott trying to prove with this statement? (which is once again uncited.) I personally can find no reference to the lawsuit filed.

Finally Mr. Ott ends his supporting thesis without any effort to sum up the facts, instead he suggests (again without any citation) that Hillary Clinton has somehow circumvented US constitutional law, calls her a communist, and once more supports a statement he has never heard made by changing the words but not the intent of the statement. Finally he calls the validity of an information outlet that has supported their statement with facts and has a good reputation for doing so.

This rebuttal cries thus for a rebuttal!!!!

I can only state these facts about Mr. Ott.

-Any of his oringinal postings have no ability to reply to what he states or ask him for proof of facts he persents. I would be glad to have someone post a link to an Ott forum where he can be reached for comment on his comments.

-He claims a Phd degree. Where did he get his Phd? He has never answered this.

-Mr. Ott claims a one time affiliatin with the Mormon church. Inquiries into the mormon church have returned that Mr. Ott was never a member of the church. He did attend a church for a while but stopped coming. He never petitioned for membership and thus could not be excommunicated.

Why do forums and blogs continue to support ill concieved, un-supported thesis that are inflammatory and assaulting to good sense. I am neither a supporter of Mrs. Clinton, nor her husbands disasterous presidency, I hope that the US gets a growing economy back based upon the hard work and innovation that took us to the top for most of the previous century, but I cannot allow that people like Mr. Ott stand back and attempt to divert the effort just for fifteen minutes of fame. Shame on you Mr. Ott, not for you efforts, but for using what little god given talent you have to waste everyones valuable time.