Thread: Here's The Plan

All I know if that if we give in to this amnesty of 20+ million it does open the door to more upscale ideas that this government has had on the agenda for years. That is why it is so important that we not give in now for if we do we will all pay and that is not the least of it.

xanadu hit the nail on the head imho, we're being herded down the road towards the North American Union

On a side note, I'm reminded of this recent item from Edgar Steele's e-mail list


---
The following excerpts are from an issue of "The View," put out by Global Markets Investment Advisors, LLC, and entitled, "The Coming $ Collapse," written by John Wibbelsman.**

For the complete article, go to this URL:**http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials...n050206pv.html

One of the contributing factors in our call for a financial crash is a collapse in the U.S. dollar. Recent pronouncements by world policymakers suggest they are willing to let the dollar fall in an attempt to cure large global imbalances. By asking for a devaluation of the dollar, policymakers are unwittingly sowing the seeds of the forthcoming financial crash.

We now believe the medium-term and long-term direction for the dollar is down. Further dollar weakness from here will cause a continued loss of confidence in the dollar and ultimately dollar-based assets. The spillover effects of the dollar collapse will create upward pressure on interest rates that will cause the U.S. bond market to crash. The final spillover effect will be an extended crash of the U.S. stock market.

Last month's issue of The View detailed how the U.S. government is pressuring China to revalue their currency upwards, which in effect will weaken the U.S. dollar. This month, The View extends our currency analysis to include key pronouncements from world policymakers.
Collectively, policymakers now agree the dollar must fall . . .

U.S. Dollar Index is Near its Lows

. . . since 1973 when the dollar began to float freely against most major currencies, (w)hile there have been periods of U.S. dollar strength, the long-term direction has been down . . . the dollar is trading just about 6% above its long-term lows.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) wants the Dollar to Devalue

The IMF is an organization of 184 countries whose purpose is to work together to promote financial stability, trade, employment, economic growth and a reduction of poverty. Unfortunately, the track record of the IMF has been mixed and the organization has frequently recommended currency devaluation as a solution for struggling countries.

Now the IMF is calling for the U.S. to devalue the dollar . . . Here is what the IMF recently had to say about the state of the global monetary system in their just-released 2006 World Economic Outlook:

. . . an orderly resolution of global imbalances will require measures to facilitate . . . a realignment of exchange rates over the medium term, with the U.S. dollar needing to depreciate significantly from current levels, and currencies in surplus countries--including in parts of Asia and among oil producers-to appreciate."

World Policymakers want the Dollar to Devalue

Policymakers' worry over global imbalances has finally reached a crescendo. At a meeting ten days ago in Washington, D.C. the finance ministers and central bankers from seven large countries (the Group of Seven or G7) hammered out an agreement to "fix" the global imbalances.

Here is an excerpt from the G7 communiqué released after the meeting:

"In emerging Asia, particularly China, greater flexibility in exchange rates is critical to allow necessary appreciations . . ."

So one of the G7 solutions is to engineer an appreciation of the Chinese currency. Since the Chinese currency is pegged to the U.S. dollar, the G7 is essentially asking for to devalue the U.S. dollar. And who represents the United States at G7 meetings? The Secretary of the U.S. Treasury, John Snow and the Chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke.

When governments seek to devalue the purchasing power of a currency, every citizen suffers a loss. Historically, emerging countries like Thailand, Argentina and Mexico have struggled mightily after the devaluation of their currencies.
Now, the largest developed market in the world, the United States, is asking for its currency to decline.

Following the release of the communiqué last week, the U.S. dollar fell 2.3% against the euro currency and the Japanese yen. We believe this is only the tip of the iceberg. Years from now, when financial commentators look back, we believe the G7's April 21, 2006 communiqué will be regarded as historic. The request for non-dollar appreciations (U.S. dollar weakness) will be seen as unleashing a torrent of market forces that eventually cause the global monetary system to break apart . . .

Originally Posted by Newmexican

Crocket,

What do you think is supposed to happen when the government borrows and distributes $4 trillion in six years?

I have read all of your posts on this subject and feel a tingle going up my spine. Could you, would you, expound on this in a longer and individual post?

Okay, here's the deal. We used to have real money in this country. We had gold and silver coinage and we had federal notes from the Treasury that were backed by the nation's gold reserves. These dollars (the real ones) represented positive value - a specific quantity of gold or silver.

When the Federal Reserve Act passed, it allowed a private banking cartel (the Federal Reserve is not a branch of the government, as proven by former Texas Congressman Wright Patman) to create an unbacked legal tender called a federal reserve note (FRN). The original disclaimer on an FRN read as follows:

THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE, AND IS REDEEMABLE IN LAWFUL MONEY AT THE UNITED STATES TREASURY, OR AT ANY FEDERAL RESERVE BANK

I took this disclaimer off of a series 1934 $20 FRN from my own collection. Note that it admits that there was lawful money and that the FRN was not it.

The Federal Reserve was allowed to operate on a fractional reserve system, which is a system whereby it is allowed to issue unbacked debt notes equal in value to many times its own actual reserves. I believe that the original loan to reserve ration was 15:1. That means that for every $1 a Federal Reserve bank had in reserve, it could make $15 in loans with the IOUs taking the form of its fake dollars (FRNs). That's why no matter how the economy goes up and down, the average base interest rate has always averaged just over 6%. That's the rate that allows a bank to earn back its stake in a given loan in interest in a year. That's right, a 6% return on investment is the repayment of the actual stake in a bank loan. The principal is all gravy!

Once this fraudulent system was in place, it took just over a decade for the inflation caused by a flood of these cheap and devaluating fake dollars to wrack the economy. The apparent boom caused by this explosion of currnecy led to the Roaring Twenties and the massive run-up of the stock market. When that bubble burst in a series of collapses, we were left with the Great Depression. Rather than fix the obvious problem, which was allowing a private banking cartel to issue unbacked currency at fractional values, FDR entrenched the thieving bankers and changed our entire legal system from substantive due process to a version of the lex mercatorum in order to support the claims of the banks, which had fraudulently stolen most of the real wealth of the nation by passing off fake money.

Now, how exactly do these fake dollars allow the banks to steal money? Well, it works on multiple levels. For starters, the fact that these FRNs are constantly devaluating means that it's almost impossible to pay them back, even without the fractional reserve system. If you take out a loan for $100 with simple interest of 6%, then at the end of the year you must have $106 to redeem your loan. In other words, after only one year, that $100 you obtained represents only 94% of the cash value required to break even and pay off the loan. The remaining 6% has to come from somewhere else. But it's even worse. Since this was laoned based upon a fractional reserve system, the discrepancy between what you can earn through investment versus what the banks are earning through loans is so great as to constitute fraud. Remember, of the $100 that your IOUs (FRNs) represent, the bank only had $6.66 (1/15) actually invested. That's an interesting number, isn't it? So when you repay with interest at the end of the year, the bank has not earned the $6 you thought you were paying in interest on that $100, but rather has earned almost $100, or 1500%!

It doesn't take a mathematical genius to figure out that it would take only a few decades under such a fraudulent system for all pre-existing wealth to pass from the government and citizens to the banks. It actually took only a little over a decade. Because the federal government defaulted on its loans to the banks, the gold in Ft. Knox was quietly transferred to the banks to settle up partial payment on the fraudulently induced debt. Once the gold was transferred from the Treasury to the banks, there was no "lawful money" to redeem the fake money, and so the disclaimer on the FRNs was amended to remove mention of redeeming them in lawful money. Because the gold in the Treasury did not satisfy the debt, the precious metal coins were also claimed by the banks, and in the 1960s our coins were adulterated. Today we don't even have copper pennies! We have been given worthless slugs that carry a face value but have no intrinsic value whatsoever.

Okay, so because the money is no longer money and has no intrinsic value, the only thing that the dollar is predicated on is "credit." But the credit must have some quantifiable value. For the FRNs and government bonds, a large part of that value is the "full faith and credit" of the United States. But the actual value of the holdings of the federal government are not sufficient to cover the value of debt notes in circulation and reserve. So the damned banks came up with another more insidious scam, which is our current credit/debit system. You won't believe this one!

So I'll ask, what do you think happens when you take out a line of credit on a credit card? Where do you think the money comes from that pays a merchant when you make a credit card purchase? If you're like most people, here's what you assume happens:

You obtain a credit card with a credit line based on your credit rating that determines how much money you can be trusted to repay. You use the card to make purchases that are paid to the merchant by your credit card company and that you then repay to the card issuer with interest in order to compensate the credit card company for having covered the loan until you paid it off. Right? Wrong!

What actually happens is that you are monetizing your signature. The credit card company never pays anyone anything. It only acts as guarantor. Because there is no real money, you are pledging your own "full faith and credit" as a means of payment. So if a credit card company had assets of $1,000,000,000 the minute before you submitted your signature for a $10,000 line of credit, it has $1,000,010,000 the minute afterward. Your "faith and credit" has created another $10,000 in assets for the credit card company, which it then uses to issue credits to the merchants you buy products and services from using the credit card. Everything is IOUs because there is no real money, so the card company is issuing only IOU credits, not actual payment.

It gets worse. The federal government went broke in 1930. Its gold reserves were not enough to pay off its debts and its tax revenues were insufficient to service the interest. So the bankers, with the full support of FDR, ramrodded through a system that allowed FDR to monetize the citizens of the states, who had previously been indemnified against direct responsibility for the debts of the corporate government body, as an asset or security for additional federal debt. For the agreement to be binding under common law and international mercantile law, the sureties (the citizens) had to receive some benefit in exchange for becoming guarantors. So the government whipped up an eleborate benefit scheme called the Social Security Act. The word "security" as used in the act does not refer to being "cared for," but rather refers to the legal terminology for becoming an asset pledged against a debt.

As a bankrupt entity, the US can have no real money because it owns no hard assets. Those assets all belong to the banks now. Even real home titles are no longer issued. Where once people held allodial title to their freehold lands, they now receive only legal title. Where people once actually owned the equitable titles to their automobiles, they now receive only "certificate of title". So the entire government and all of its people who have been pledged to the debt (by obtaining a franchise number in the form of an SSN) have no actual wealth to spend. Instead, they are allowed to create credits and debits based on the eventual promise to repay. But the system employed by the baks GUARANTEES that they CAN NEVER repay. Here's why:

Let's say that the only "money" available is in the form of interest-carrying IOU's (which is in fact the case), and let's say that those are the only medium of exchange. Now, let's say that I'm the first guy to take out a loan, and I take $100 to build a lemonade stand. Part of the money goes for lumber to John's lumber yard. Part of it is spend for nails from Frank's hardware store. Another part is spent for plastic cups, sugar, and lemons from Julia's market. Now, let's say that my little lemonade stand is so successful that by the end of the year I have had enough business from John, Frank, and Julia that I have retrieved all $100 I spent with them. Time to repay the loan. How much money do I have? How much is the most that I can have? Unless someone else has gone into debt and put some more IOUs in circulation, the most I can possibly have in my pocket is $100 in IOUs, yet I owe %106 because of interest. Because I cannot possibly repay, given that not enough meny exists for me to repay, the issuer of the loan forecloses on my little lemonade stand, which is now the lender's lemonade stand. Ah, but the lender doesn't want to operate a lemonade stand, so he hires me to work the lemonade stand for a fraction of what I would have earned as the owner/operator and he earns all the profits while I scrape by. But at least I have a job, right?

Folks, that's what has happened in this country for the past 75 years. It's why the banks own everything, including the government. It's why we're having these discussions about illegal immigration and why the jerks who are supposed to represent us are ignoring our pleas and ramrodding through this amnesty plan. We have a new royal family that issues edicts from a boardroom, but that is smart enough to keep the peasants occupied with the notion that they are free to determine their own fate and govern themselves. But we are not free because we have no money and we have no property. Only those with substance are allowed to govern themselves, and we have been defrauded of all our substance and have even pledged ourselves, via the SSN, to the bankruptcy created by our treasonous leaders.

I know that this was a long post, but you asked.

Some conspiracy people say thats why JFK was taken out.He was trying to change to dollar to silver cirtificates wich is backed by silver cutting out the federal reserve.I'm sure they we not happy about it.

Originally Posted by Sapperwes

Some conspiracy people say thats why JFK was taken out.He was trying to change to dollar to silver cirtificates wich is backed by silver cutting out the federal reserve.I'm sure they we not happy about it.

Actually, what Kennedy created was another unbacked note called a "United States Note." The government was able to issue USNs as face value bonds rather than taking out additional debt with the banks. In other words, the federal government was issuing notes on its own faith and credit without the guarantor banks as intermediaries taking the lion's share. After Kennedy's assassination, the first official act of LBJ was to roll back the Executive Order that created the United States Note. That's why all USNs still in circulation are series 1963. I have a few of them in my collection as well.

HERE IS MY PREDICTION AND REMEMBER YOU HEARDIT HERE FIRST:

BEFORE ELECTION GAS PRICES WILL DROP AND THE REPUBLICAN PARTY WILL SAY THEY DID IT.

12 MILLION MEXICANS IS FIXING TO GET AMNESTY


WATCH AND REMEBER

Originally Posted by Tex

HERE IS MY PREDICTION AND REMEMBER YOU HEARDIT HERE FIRST:

BEFORE ELECTION GAS PRICES WILL DROP AND THE REPUBLICAN PARTY WILL SAY THEY DID IT.

12 MILLION MEXICANS IS FIXING TO GET AMNESTY


WATCH AND REMEBER

That's no surprise. Gas prices will in fact drop because the debt ceiling has not gone up since March and OPEC is pumping petroleum at record levels. That has nothing to do witf partisan politics. As a matter of fact, the only party that I can say with certainty has manipulated fuel prices recently is the Democratic Party under Clinton, when he drew down the strategic reserve to suppress gas prices prior to the 2000 election.

Oh, I think gas prices will have a lot to do with politics.

It depends on which party the oil companies favor. They will drop or not depending on what they want to accomplish.

Isn't it sad that a country still thinks in terms of party and that we allow politicians to cloak themselves in something called a 'party' rather than running on their own ability, integrity, etc.?

Originally Posted by nntrixie

Oh, I think gas prices will have a lot to do with politics.

It depends on which party the oil companies favor. They will drop or not depending on what they want to accomplish.

Isn't it sad that a country still thinks in terms of party and that we allow politicians to cloak themselves in something called a 'party' rather than running on their own ability, integrity, etc.?

Once someone explains to me how that's supposed to happen I will happily move it from my "wild conspiracy theory" file and into my "could happen" file. Petroleum prices are controlled by open commodity trading, which is almost impossible to "fix." The recent run-up has been a clear result of monetary policy (specifically, the absurdly high current US debt ceiling) which has devalued the dollar and increased the prices of dollar-denominated commodities proportionally.

For my part, I do not vote with any given party, but actually place my vote line by line. I voted for Ann Richards against George Bush in his gubernatorial bid. I vote Constitution Party and Libertarian Party whenever they have a viable candidate, and I voted for Ross Perot for President SPECIFICALLY for his border and trade platforms.

I will admit I know very little about the ins and outs of commodity trading or any other kind for that matter.

My opinions comes from watching impossible things being done in our country, and the world, for quite a few years. Things that we know have been manipulated - and many more we think have been manipulated.

So commodity trading controls the price?

Who is doing the commodity trading?
Just everyday Joes (not many) - or big corporations and investors?


Very few things happen in this country or the world in finances or politics that isn't carefully orchestrated and managed.