QUESTION: Why would a professed and staunch Libertarian such as Ron Paul officially run as a Republican Party candidate?
–=–
ANSWER 1 (planned obsolescence): Most libertarian voters are not registered Republicans, and therefore cannot vote for Ron Paul in any primary election or caucus, making Ron Paul’s campaign completely useless and obsolete due to lack of registered Libertarians as registered Republicans.
The series of presidential primary elections and caucuses held in each U.S. state and territory is part of the nominating process of United States presidential elections. This process was never included in the United States Constitution, and thus was created over time by the political parties. Some states only hold primary elections, some only hold caucuses, and others use a combination of both. These primaries and caucuses are staggered between January and June before the general election in November. The primary elections are run by state and local governments, while caucuses are private events that are directly run by the political parties themselves. A state’s primary election or caucus usually is an indirect election: instead of voters directly selecting a particular person running for President, it determines how many delegates each party’s national convention will receive from their respective state. These delegates then in turn select their party’s presidential nominee.
Each party (not the people) determines how many delegates are allocated to each state. Along with those delegates chosen during the primaries and caucuses, state delegations to both the Democratic and Republican conventions also include “unpledged” delegates, usually current and former elected officeholders and party leaders, who can vote for whomever they want.
ANSWER 2 (control of opposition): Because of this primary and political party structure and hierarchy, opposition to the pre-determined candidate (Willard Mitt Romney) is controlled and funneled out of the process before the primary even takes place, ensuring the bloodline candidate in both Democratic and Republican parties as the winning candidates, whom will progress to the General Election for president in November, where once again the “electoral college” of 538 people actually elect the president of the United States.
–=–
“The Presidential candidate with the greatest
number of royal genes has always been the victor,
without exception, since George Washington…”
–Harold Brooks-Baker,
publishing director of Burke’s Peerage
–=–
Note here that Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are indeed cousins of George Bush.
In 2004 George W. Bush ran as a “Republican” against “Democrat” John Forbes Kerry – his 16th cousin.
In 2008 Barack Obama ran against cousin John McCain.
Obama and McCain Are 22nd Cousins Descended From King Edward I of England!
McCain, it turns out, is a sixth cousin of First Lady Laura Bush.
Obama is eighth cousin, twice removed, of the 39th President, Jimmy Carter, through his seventh generation maternal grandfather, Moses Teague (1718-1799).
Obama is the tenth cousin of former presidents Gerald Ford (once removed), George H.W Bush (once removed) and George W. Bush (twice removed).
Romney is actually related to… Franklin D. Roosevelt is his eighth cousin, twice removed, and both Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover are his 10th cousins. Then there is his sixth cousin (four times removed) Franklin Pierce, and both 10th cousins Bush I and II. Three out of these six were even (gasp!) Democrats.
Note that Bush, Romney, and Obama are therefore cousins – the bloodline presidents, all presidents being cousins of George Washington and the Queen of England.
Rick Perry and Jon Huntsman are also cousins with Bush, Obama, and Romney.
Also note that George W. Bush is a 9th cousin once removed with Barbara Peirce, his mother because brothers Israel Reade and Ralph Reade married Mary Kendall and Mary Peirce, who were siblings of William Reade and Mabell Kendall in the min-16oo’s.
Through these same types of genealogically interbred relationships, George W. Bush is also twice a 10th cousin once removed and twice an 11th cousin once removed with his mother Barbara Peirce.
To be fair, Ron Paul is the one candidate (winning or losing) I cannot seem to find in this bloodline. I’m not done searching though…
More major research on this expanded genealogy coming very soon…
–=–
SOLUTION: There are two options…
1) Either all Libertarians must in the future register as Democrats or Republicans (a travesty and purposeful deceit of idealism and political subterfuge amounting to an unethical sabotage of another party) meaning that they will not be able to register as Libertarians for their own political party of Libertarian so as to participate in their own primary election process, or…
2) All libertarians must stay out of the Democratic and Republican private political parties and therefore never elect a Libertarian into one of these two “major” or mainstream political parties, which again completely controls (controlled opposition) and oppresses the possibility that a Libertarian will ever become president under the current domination of the two-party political system.
–=–
THE MYSTERY: Ron Paul is either completely aware of these facts, or completely ignorant.
–=–
THE ONLY CONCLUSION: In either situation (awareness or ignorance), and in consideration of these preceding facts, Ron Paul’s 2012 campaign as a representative of the private association called the Republican Party was without question a controlled opposition – in the fact that in no way could he possibly win this primary election. At no time has Ron Paul been registered as a candidate for president in the general election with any other party affiliation, including Libertarian. Therefore, Ron Paul was never a true candidate for president of the United States.
In short, at no time during the entire 2012 election process (controlled by the private political party structure) was there any chance whatsoever for Ron Paul to actually become president of the United States.
It is this researchers opinion that Ron Paul is and was fully aware of these facts, considering his over 24 year congressional career and past attempts to run under the Libertarian party, and in considering his necessary knowledge of the facts presented here to run for president – including his attempts at gaining delegates in the Republican party as opposed to acquiring voters in the general elections.
It is also the opinion of this researcher that most Libertarians, as well as the vast majority of all registered (contracted) citizens eligible to vote in the United States are also completely unaware of the true political process in this country (corporation).
Oh, the joys and heartaches of logic and reason…
–=–
“The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.”
–Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
–=–
.
–Clint Richardson (Realitybloger.wordpress.com)
–Sunday, September 23, 2012
One of the things that the “truth” movement does best is to perpetrate and over-propagate myths and legends.
While a myth is something that just isn’t the truth, a legend is based on a grain of truth that has been blown way out of proportion into being almost god-like in its power – able to create whole movements based on false facts.
Of course, the favorite “truther” myths and legends seem to circulate around the creation of and the continuing story of the Federal Reserve System. In a previous post, I broke down the legal structure of the Federal Reserve, including the Federal Reserve Act and the reality of what an “independent agency of government” actually is (The Postal Service, Social Security Administration, Federal Trade Commission, Federal Elections Commission, Securities And Exchange Commission, and the Federal Reserve System are all examples of “independent agencies of government”.) They are Federal government corporations, created by Congress, and given the limited power of “rule-making” while still bound by congressional “law” – and there is just no way to get around these facts. All this and the sources you need are right here:
But obviously, the legend still outlives the reality…
My favorite part of the Fed legend is the story of the men who gathered at Jekyll Island to supposedly “create” the Federal Reserve.
While it is certainly true that men congregated to create a bill that could then be eventually run through and passed by congress, the legend of that meeting is one of the more discrediting aspects of the movement. In fact, it unfortunately gives people the false impression that this meeting at Jekyll Island was some rare event in history – as if the rest of the time in government, bills and acts are created by the actual congressmen who spend days and weeks composing and signing them. This is far from the truth.
Was there a meeting on that island? Of course. This fact is not in question.
Did these men create the Federal Reserve? Of course not. They simply wrote a draft of a bill that would take some three years to finally be rewritten, amended, and passed by congress. Congress created the Federal Reserve, which was finalized by then President Woodrow Wilson’s signature. Government, in fact, created the Federal Reserve Board and banks in committee after the Federal Reserve Act was signed, just as it was instructed to do by the Act.
Did the bill pass by the vote of just a few house members on a late stormy night when most of congress was at home sleeping or celebrating the holidays? For this myth, I simply did a bit of simple, logical research….
–=–
“The House passed the bill 298-60 on the evening of Dec. 22, 1913″
“The Senate began debate the following day at 10am, and passed it 43-25 at 2:30pm.”
“Wilson signs currency bill,”–New York Times, pp. 1-2, Dec. 24, 1913.
Oh, yeah… the legend seems to forget the check and balance rule that when a bill passes the house, it must also pass the Senate and be signed by the President. So in reality, The Federal Reserve Act didn’t get “created” until that very stroke of the presidents pen. And since bills go from the House to the Senate, and since the Senate then passed the bill as well, and since the bill then went to conference for final amendment and approval, we can’t very well state with any historical accuracy that the Federal Reserve Act was created on a dark stormy night in the House after all of the congress had already left for the holidays, now can we? For the Senate met the next day at 10 am! We can’t just dismiss or not mention the rest of the legislative process for the fulfillment of our legend.
But we also can’t dismiss the journals of the House and Senate, which clearly show the number of votes cast as official record. In other words, when role call was announced, the following was the response of congressmen in attendance for the final vote on the conference report (amended version of the Federal Reserve Act Bill):
House: Bill passed the house on September 18th by a vote of 282-85 with only 3 democrats voting against it. Senate: The Senate passed the Federal Reserve bill, 54-34 on December 19th with full Democratic support. Conference Committees: agreed and on December 22nd and 23rd the two houses ratified the bill and the President signed the measure as follows…
Does this sound like congress was home for the holidays when the Federal Reserve was created? 76 members out of a total of 434 were listed as not present for the vote. This means that approximately 18% of House members were not present for the vote, which as it turns out is not at all uncommon. It also means that even if these 76 members were present to vote, and they all voted nay on the act, the total votes would have stood at 136 nays, and 298 yeas. This would still have been well over a 2/3’s majority vote in favor of the Federal Reserve Act by the House Members.
The New York Times then reported:
“WASHINGTON, Dec. 23.–President Wilson signed the Currency bill at 6:02 o’clock this evening, following the passage of the conference report by the Senate in the afternoon by a vote of 43 to 25, and the House’s approval of that report last night…”
So that you can understand how common this absenteeism is in legislatures across the United States, I’d very much like for you to watch this coverage of the Texas Legislature, perhaps my favorite tool to wake people up to the fraud that is government:
Note that since the legislature makes the rules, the legislature very seldom enforces their own rules.
The point here is that if one pours through the journals of the congress, one will continuously see the fact that congress is never full. Absenteeism is a normal aspect of the legislature.
Is this right or wrong?
I’m not here to tell you what is right or wrong, though I personally believe that no bill should be passed in congress without 100% attendance and vote. What I am here to do is present fact -vs- fiction. And the fact is that nothing out of the ordinary happened on that night (when only 18% of the Congress didn’t vote for the conference report on the Federal Reserve Act) and that it was indeed passed quite legally. Good or bad? That’s not the issue. It’s good for some, bad for others. I’m not here for that. Good and bad are not facts, they are opinions. My opinion, so as to be clear, is that the Federal Reserve Act was both good and bad, but that its management is very bad. But more importantly, my opinion of congress and the President, both past and present, is that they are acting in treason to the people of the united states of America under the Lieber Code (martial law) and that nothing they do is lawful in America in the first place. But, they are acting legally in the United States under their own laws, which is outside of the united states of America, in Washington D.C. They are the provisional government of the occupying military force called the United States. So my opinion is based on these facts, as a man who understands that he is under martial law and that since the Civil War, the government of the United States is illegitimate under duress.
Interestingly, because of this fact, the ludicrous pursuit of Obama’s birth certificate to prove “citizenship” is a fallacious waste of time. For under military rule, there is no law that requires any head of any corporation to be a natural born citizen of the united states of America in the government of the federal corporation called the “United States”. In fact, there is no law period! You see, there is no such thing as being naturally born in the “United States” corporation. The United States are a corporation, and there is nothing natural or human about it. The President is the CEO of the United States, not the united states of America.
And as it turns out, the myth of future martial law as a result of “civil unrest” is one of the few instances where the myth covers up an already existing fact that is much worse than the myth. In this occupied land, the “United States” military already has bases in all 50 States, which are federal territories of the United States, signifying the presence of martial law according to the laws of war in the Lieber Code. And so the fear of martial law covers up the actual ongoing military rule and occupation that already exists! Just one more quiver in the educational void of the truth movement. The Lieber Code directly influenced both the Hague Convention deliberations and the Geneva Conventions in the mid-twentieth century, and was originally put into effect as General Orders 100, on April 24, 1863, by Lincoln’s secretary of war, Edwin Stanton.
By the way, I feel perfectly justified in saying these things because of the FACT that I was once equally as naive as the rest of us; telling people to wake up even as I was completely asleep. A cursory glance at some of my first posts on this blog is proof enough of my own ignorance just a year ago, and of the arrogance that comes with being an nonfactual truther. So getting offended at my writing is pointless. I still have a lifetime of learning to overcome my own current ignorance, and I no longer fool myself into thinking that I know even a fraction of what is.
My intention is only to point out what isn’t, so as to make it easier for both you and myself to see what is. So bare with me…
For more on this, may I suggest my previous research here:
One last example as to the myths that get passed around without verification.
This quote is often put forward to be said by Woodrow Wilson after signing the Federal Reserve Act.
“I am a most miserable man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A fantastic industrial nation is controlled by its system of confidence. Our system of confidence is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men…”
But when we actually examine where this quote comes from, we can quite easily and logically deduct the fact that this quote could not have been said by Woodrow Wilson any time close to or after the date of the signing of the Federal Reserve Act in December of 1913!
Page 185 of “The New Freedom” by Woodrow Wilson (1913, Doubleday, Page & Co) has this quote.
For a description of this book, we read: “The New Freedom comprises the campaign speeches and promises of Woodrow Wilson in the 1912 presidential campaign.” Also note that this book was copyrighted and published earlier in the year 1913.
How is it then that this quote can possibly be attributed to President Wilson after signing the Federal Reserve Act in the last week of that year, on December 23rd, 1913?
Does nobody verify facts anymore?
It turns out that Wilson didn’t write or say the phrase, “I am a most miserable man. I have unwittingly ruined my country.”, at least that anyone can find.
In Chapter 8 of “The New Freedom”, we find written:
“A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is privately concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men who, even if their action be honest and intended for the public interest, are necessarily concentrated upon the great undertakings in which their own money is involved and who necessarily, by very reason of their own limitations, chill and check and destroy genuine economic freedom.”
And then in Chapter 9, we read:
“We have restricted credit, we have restricted opportunity, we have controlled development, and we have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated, governments in the civilized world–no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and the duress of small groups of dominant men.”
And as of yet, I can’t seem to find a reference for the “unhappy man ruining his country” quote.
But someone out there put it all together, shortening sentences and blending intent, to read as such:
“I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world. No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.”
And this quote is used in such movies as Freedom To Fascism, Zeitgeist, The Money Masters, etc…
On “The Money Masters” website, the quote for that movie is listed as:
“Despite these warnings, Woodrow Wilson signed the 1913 Federal Reserve Act. A few years later he wrote: ‘I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit…’ etc…”
For the movie, “America: Freedom To Fascism”, the quote was:
“I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is now controlled by its system of credit. We are no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.”
Among other misquotes, Mr. Russo also twisted this quote completely out of context when he read:
“We can’t be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans.” –Bill Clinton, March 11, 1993
What Clinton actually said (on March 1, 1993) was:
“We can’t be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americansto legitimately own handguns and rifles—it’s something I strongly support—we can’t be so fixated on that that we are unable to think about the reality of life that millions of Americans face on streets that are unsafe, under conditions that no other nation—no other nations—has permitted to exist.”
How can one then trust any other quotes or references in such “documentaries” if such blatant misquotes with unverifiable information are placed into them as “historical fact”, and then parroted by “truthers” to people who might actually verify the lie? It is my opinion that a documentary is supposed to document facts, not parade half-truths for the benefit of emotional response.
Again, if almost the entirety of Wilson’s quote was written in a book that was published well before the Federal Reserve Acts was signed, then how could it be Woodrow Wilson’s thoughts “after signing the Federal Reserve Act“, as so many have quoted without verification?
The “truth” is that it can’t.
And to assign some sense of heroism to the very man who signed the Federal Reserve Act, making it law, after he agreed to do so for campaign donations and support to become president in the first place, is a stain on the reliability of the good people who then quote these lies as truth. In fact, the only logical conclusion is that Wilson was stating these facts about the banking system to prepare and predicatively program people to except the fact that the Federal Reserve was going to be created to solve all of these problems that he wrote about in this book. What a twisted history and tangled web we “truthers” can weave…
–=–
Another aspect of this legend of the Federal Reserve story is the strange notion that the Federal Reserve System somehow operates outside of government control, that it owns its own assets, and that some rouge “bankers” or “elite” own some fictitious stock in the Federal Reserve that no one can see, touch, or verify. I’ve even seen lists going around listing certain men (international bankers) as shareholders of the bank. Despite the fact that the current Federal Reserve Act as annotated in U.S. CODE has been amended by Congress numerous times in every decade since its inception, and is now a completely different “creature” than it was at its creation, even the original Federal Reserve Act states quite clearly that these myths about the legend are simply not true…
Here is an excerpt from the original Federal Reserve Act:
SEC. 2… Under regulations to be prescribed by the organization committee, every national banking association in the United States is hereby required, and every eligible bank in the United States and every trust company within the District of Columbia, is hereby authorized to signify in writing, within sixty days after the passage of this Act, its acceptance of the terms and provisions hereof. When the organization committee shall have designated the cities in which Federal reserve banks are to be organized, and fixed the geographical limits of the Federal reserve districts, every national banking association within that district shall be required within thirty days after notice from the organization committee, to subscribe to the capital stock of such Federal reserve bank in a sum equal to six per centum of the paid-up capital stock and surplus of such bank….
Any national bank failing to signify its acceptance of the terms of this Act within the sixty days aforesaid, shall cease to act as a reserve agent, upon thirty days’ notice, to be given within the discretion of the said organization committee or of the Federal Reserve Board.
Should any national banking association in the United States now organized fail within one year after the passage of this Act to become a member bank or fail to comply with any of the provisions of this Act applicable thereto, all of the rights, privileges, and franchises of such association granted to it under the national-bank Act, or under the provision of this Act, shall be thereby forfeited….
No individual, copartnership, or corporation other than a member bank of its district shall be permitted to subscribe for or to hold at any time more than $20,000 par value of stock in any Federal reserve bank. Such stock shall be known as public stock and may be transferred on the books of the Federal reserve bank by the chairman of the board of directors of such bank….
SEC. 3. Each Federal reserve bank shall establish branch banks within the Federal reserve district in which it is located
and may do so in the district of any Federal reserve bank which may have been suspended.
* * * * * * * *
SEC. 5. The capital stock of each Federal reserve bank shall be divided into shares of $IOO each….
* * * * * * * *
SEC. 7. After all necessary expenses of a Federal reserve bank have been paid or provided for, the stockholders shall be entitled to receive an annual dividend of six per centum on the paid-in capital stock, which dividend shall be cumulative. After the aforesaid dividend claims have been fully met,all the net earnings shall be paid to the United States as a franchise tax, except that one-half of such net earnings shall be paid into a surplus fund until it shall amount to forty per centum of the paid-in capital stock of such bank.
The net earnings derived by the United States from Federal reserve banks shall, in the discretion of the Secretary, be used to supplement the gold reserve held against outstanding United States notes, or shall be applied to the reduction of the outstanding bonded indebtedness of the United Statesunder regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury….
So after reading this, does it sound to you like “bankers” took over the banking system of the United States?
No. In fact, Individual banks were REQUIRED to purchase stock to be a Federal Reserve Member to continue operating as a reserve bank of the United States. In other words, if any bank wished to continue to create funny money legally through the United States, they had to become members of the Central bank of the United States. So technically, government actually created a system to control bankers.
But what needs to be known is that government, over many, many decades, has slowly invested in the ownership stock of all of these banks and other corporations and collectively, governments have become the major share holder of these banks. Government is where the public wealth is – 100’s of millions of people’s wealth exacted and extorted daily – and the power to control that wealth as well as the regulation of the banking industry in one consolidated government was the collective goal.
Please get this through your head… I am not here trying to convince you that government isn’t controlled by outside influences, bankers, elites, or whatever the legend of today names these men as… I am simply telling you the facts: The Federal Reserve System is a government agency that is politically independent (not naturally or lawfully independent), no differently than the Post Office or the Social Security System or many other independent agencies of government, and that it is government that holds the wealth and stock ownership of most corporations and banks.
There are no ownership shareholders of the Federal Reserve because the Federal Reserve does not offer ownership stock. Wallmart and Monsanto offer “public” ownership stock, for which people and government has been purchasing for decades. But government corporations do not offer public (ownership) stock, which means that government is not owned.
Thus, the myth that “corporations own the government” can also be dismissed here. It is quite the opposite, actually. The word “own” is the legal holding of stock of a corporation. So while there is very much a symbiotic relationship between corporations (including banks) and government, the fact is that government owns shares in corporations, and not the other way around. The reality is that at any time government, with the swish of a pen or the dumping of its collective stock, can indeed shut down or make insignificant any corporation it chooses to. On the other hand, no corporation can do the same to government.
These are the facts. And while these facts do not preclude the idea that a bunch of evil bankers and corporate elitists control the government from beyond its borders, they do show quite clearly that while government may be controlled by these men, government is not “owned” by these men. The distinction here is perhaps the most important one I can think of, and yet it is the most overlooked by the creators of legends and myths. Is it any wonder that the masses, with the help of the government-owned media (through stock investment), calls us “conspiracy theorists”? If 99 out of 100 “truthers” are purposefully led into the mythological beliefs we are uncovering here, and then present those beliefs as fact (as I once did) without verifying these stories of false history, then how can the masses of people ever be persuaded to “wake up”? For waking up into just another dream-state is never going to accomplish anything – and belief in mythology and legends is not truth!
–=–
We also see in the Federal Reserve Act that earnings shall be used to supplement the gold reserve held against outstanding U.S. notes. What does this mean? After all, the myth states that there is no gold in Fort Knox, right?
As of 2009, the gold reserve held as collateral by the Treasury against outstanding United States notes was listed in the Federal Reserve Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, pages 453 and 490.
Please note that the Federal Reserve is required to publish its audit of its financial statements just as every other government agency is in the country – NO EXCEPTION – and this can be verified in the Federal Reserve act and in U.S. CODE here:
Section 11B. Annual Independent Audits of Federal Reserve Banks and Board
The Board shall order an annual independent audit of the financial statements of each Federal reserve bank and the Board.
[12 USC 248b. As added by act of Nov. 12, 1999 (113 Stat. 1475).]
But wait a minute, the Fed doesn’t get audited, does it? Isn’t that what the myth states, that the legend called the Federal Reserve doesn’t get audited because it is a rouge agency and out of control of the government?
It’s really simple and a generally accepted practice for governments and private corporations you see, to create their own financial statements and have them audited by an outside accounting firm. This was the case even when The Creature From Jekyll Island was written, and for many decades before. In fact, the Federal Reserve has been audited since it was created.
Also, the Government Accounting Office in its 2009 CAFR reports for the Federal Government shows the same exact information, listing $11,037,000,000 worth of gold at a fixed (contracted) price of $42.2222 per troy ounce being held as collateral for United States notes. This can also be found on page 61 of the Federal Government’s CAFR.
With a little math, we can calculate that as of 2009 fiscal year, the Federal Reserve was holding 261,498,900 troy ounces of gold as collateral for United States notes. And as the price of this pledged gold is fixed at a statutory value of $42.2222 per troy ounce, that legal value as listed is a bit over $11 billion dollars.
However, if we were to consider that U.S. gold as valued by the market price of $1654 per troy ounce today, August 30, 2012, that gold would be worth $432,519,180,600 dollars. $432.5 billion! Ironically, and perhaps purposefully, the “gold certificates” held by the Federal Reserve System – which are redeemable for the physical gold listed as payable by the Treasury – these gold certificates have been used in the markets as swaps, using the market value of the physical gold as collateral for other trades. In other words, while the physical gold is force-valued at $42.2222 per troy ounce by statute, the gold certificates representing that actual physical gold in contract can then be used in certificate swaps at the gold’s market value – at $1654 per troy ounce – because the certificates represent the gold itself, not the contracted price! The collateral is being used as collateral!
Thus, the myth that the Federal Reserve and the United States Treasury are somehow at odds with each other or in some strange form of competition is fairly ludicrous. We are talking about legal organized crime here. And no rational criminal would set up a system to impede the implementation of that criminal activity. In fact, it states very clearly here that “all the net earnings shall be paid to the United States as a franchise tax“.
Think about it… if “The net earnings derived by the United States from Federal reserve banks shall, in the discretion of the Secretary, be used to supplement the gold reserve held against outstanding United States notes“, and the “net earnings shall be paid to the United States as a franchise tax“, where is the competition?
This makes a causal loop where profits (earnings) of the bank get paid to the Federal government and then those payments get used to increase the physical gold held by the Federal government which creates more swappable gold certificates to collateralize the United States notes which will make even more profits (earnings) for the Federal Reserve which will be paid back again to the United States as a tax and can buy more gold and swap more certificates making more profits and so on and so forth– ad infinity.
Does this sound like a competition or non-cooperation to you?
As far as the Fort Knox myth:
“The gold stored in the Depository is in the form of standard mint bars of almost pure gold or coin gold bars resulting from the melting of gold coins. These bars are about the size of an ordinary building brick, but are somewhat smaller. The approximate dimensions are 7 x 3-5/8 x 1-3/4 inches. The fine gold bars contain approximately 400 troy ounces of gold, worth $16,888.00 (based on the statutory price of $42.22 per ounce). The avoirdupois weight of the bars is about 27-1/2 pounds. They are stored in the vault compartments without wrappings. When the bars are handled, great care is exercised to avoid abrasion of the soft metal…”
(Top) “A large amount of the United States’ gold reserves is stored in the vault of the Fort Knox Bullion Depository, one of the institutions under the supervision of the Director of the United States Mint. The remaining gold reserves are held in the Philadelphia Mint, the Denver Mint, the West Point Bullion Depository and the San Francisco Assay Office, also facilities of theUnited States Mint.”
Read this clearly… The gold of the United States is held in several depositories, Fort Knox being just one of them. It is listed at the same statutory price that is pledged to the Federal Reserve as collateral for United States notes. And there is absolutely no proof whatsoever that this gold is not being hoarded in Fort Knox or one of these other installations. Seriously, what purpose would it serve to lie about this? Why the pervasive myth?
Understanding the connections and financial reporting of that gold and how it is pledged as (collateral), and seeing these audited reports match up gives us a look into the reality of the situation.
And, as for the audits of the gold in Fort Knox, we read:
Appendix D: Continuing Audit of the United States Government-Owned Gold Summary
A continuing audit of the United States gold stock has been underway since 1975 at the direction of the Secretary of the Treasury. When it is completed in 1984, it will have covered all the gold for which Treasury is accountable and will have involved an estimated 26 man years of work. This audit, together with a special audit of the gold stock conducted by the General Accounting Office in 1974 and audits by examiners of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, has (as of September 30, 1981) covered more than 212.7 million fine troy ounces of gold. This represents over 80 percent of the total amount of United States-owned gold of 264.1 million fine troy ounces. No discrepancies have been found in Treasury records with regard to any gold in permanent storage.
Current Audit Program
On September 23, 1974, members of Congress were invited to inspect the United States gold stock stored in the Ft. Knox bullion depository. Following Congressional inspection, which involved removal of the seals and opening selected vault compartments, a special audit was conducted in September and October 1974. The General Accounting Office (GAO), in cooperation with auditors from the Bureau of the Mint, Bureau of Government Financial Operations (BGFO), United States Customs Service, and the Treasury Department’s Office of Audit conducted an audit of 21 percent of the gold bars stored at Ft. Knox. In the report of the audit, the GAO recommended that consideration be given to performing continuing audits of the gold in custody of the Mint. That recommendation is the basis for the current audit program. On June 3, 1975, Treasury Secretary Simon issued Treasury Department Order No. 234-1 authorizing and directing the Fiscal Assistant Secretary, with the cooperation and assistance of the Director of the Mint, to conduct a continuing audit of United States Government-owned gold for which the Department of the Treasury is accountable.
The Fiscal Assistant Secretary established a Committee for Continuing Audits of United States Government-owned Gold to provide guidelines and general direction to ad hoc gold audit committees. The Committee for Continuing Audits is headed by the Director, Audit Staff of the Treasury’s Bureau of Government Financial Operations (BGFO) and includes the Chief of Internal Audit of the Bureau of the Mint and the Assistant General Auditor of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York…
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE September 20. 1974
INSPECTION OF GOLD AT FORT KNOX
The inspection by Members of Congress on September 23, 1974 of U.S. gold stocks stored at the Fort Knox (Ky.) Bullion Depository marks a unique departure from the long standing and rigidly enforced policy of absolutely no visitors, Mrs. Mary Brooks, Director of the Mint announced today.
“On April 28, 1943, President Franklin D. Roosevelt inspected the Bullion Depository,” Mrs. Brooks said. “His visit was the one and only time a gold vault was opened for inspection for anyone other than authorized personnel.”
“The Congressional inspection adheres to the new open door policy of the government announced by President Ford. Treasury Secretary William E. Simon issued the invitation to Congressmen to inspect the gold at Fort Knox. By also inviting the press to witness the Congressional inspection, the Mint is clearing away the cobwebs and re-assuring the public that their gold is intact and safe. For the first time photographing is being permitted inside the Depository.”
After the Congressional inspection, the Bullion Depository will once again be closed to visitors.
On September 24, 1974, a special settlement (audit) is scheduled to begin and at its conclusion a report on the audit will be issued.
The audit will be performed by a committee of auditors from the U. S. General Accounting Office (GAO) and the Department of the Treasury. The auditors from the Treasury will be drawn from the Office of the Secretary, the Bureau of Government Financial Operations, the U. S. Customs Service, and the Bureau of the Mint. In addition, the committee will include technicians from the Bureau of the Mint who are trained in assaying and weighing gold bullion.
The monetary gold stock of the United States totals 276.0 million fine troy ounces valued at $11. 7 billion at the official rate of $42.2222 per fine troy ounce, and is stored in various federal depositories (table attached), the largest of which is at Fort Knox. Kentucky. 147. 4 million fine troy ounces, valued at $6.2 billion, is stored in 13 vault compartments at the Fort Knox Bullion Depository.
CONGRESSIONAL MEMBERS INSPECTING GOLD AT FORT KNOX SEPTEMBER 23. 1974
SENATE
Walter D. Huddleston. (D) Kentucky
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Clair W. Burgener. (R) California
John B. Conlan. (R) Arizona
Philip M. Crane. (R) Illinois
Walter E. Fauntroy. (D) District of Columbia
Angelo D. Roncallo. (R) New York
John H. Rousselot, (R) California
Gene Snyder. (R) Kentucky
Chalmers P. Wylie. (R) Ohio
“The United States Bullion Depository Fort Knox, Kentucky:
Amount of present gold holdings: 147.3 million ounces.
The only gold removed has been very small quantities used to test the purity of gold during regularly scheduled audits. Except for these samples, no gold has been transferred to or from the Depository for many years.
The gold is held as an asset of the United States at book value of $42.22 per ounce.
The Depository opened in 1937; the first gold was moved to the depository in January that year.
Highest gold holdings this century: 649.6 million ounces (December 31, 1941).
Size of a standard gold bar: 7 inches x 3 and 5/8 inches x 1 and 3/4 inches.
Weight of a standard gold bar: approximately 400 ounces or 27.5 pounds.
In the past, the Depository has stored the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, Lincoln’s Gettysburg address, three volumes of the Gutenberg Bible, and Lincoln’s second inaugural address.”
One of the most interesting legends – one that is alive and well today – is that of Ron Paul. Paul wanted to spend many 100’s of millions of taxpayer dollars to audit the gold reserves of the United States, and is one of the key promoters of this “no gold in Fort Knox” myth, with absolutely no proof that this is the case.
But his real claim to fame is his Audit the Fed bill and “End The Fed” book and movement. He has become infamous for using such mythical catch-phrases as “The Federal Reserve is about as Federal as Federal Express”, and “the Federal Reserve has never been audited”. But even worse than that, his followers and fans then parrot the same thing without ever verifying the factual nature of these statements, as shown above. Again, I should know, as I used to be one of the parrots!!!
Before Paul’s current false-hope bill to supposedly “Audit The Fed”, his 2007 bill actually contradicts his own speeches where he states that the “Federal Reserve is not Federal“.
H.R. 2755 in the 110th Congress is entitled: “Federal Reserve Board Abolition Act”, and is solely sponsored by Ron Paul.
In it’s introductory text it states the following:
A BILL
To abolish the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal reserve banks, to repeal the Federal Reserve Act, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
Further into the text, it states:
SEC. 2. FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD ABOLISHED
(a) In General- Effective at the end of the 1-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and each Federal reserve bank are hereby abolished.
(b) Repeal of Federal Reserve Act- Effective at the end of the 1-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, the Federal Reserve Act is hereby repealed…
(2) LIQUIDATION OF ASSETS-
(A) IN GENERAL- The Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall liquidate all assets of the Board and the Federal reserve banks in an orderly manner so as to achieve as expeditious a liquidation as may be practical while maximizing the return to the Treasury.
(B) TRANSFER TO TREASURY– After satisfying all claims against the Board and any Federal reserve bank which are accepted by the (Federal) Director of the Office of Management and Budgetand redeeming the stock of such banks, the net proceeds of the liquidation under subparagraph (A) shall be transferred to the Secretary of the Treasury and deposited in the General Fund of the Treasury.
Now, there are only three options here:
Either Ron Paul knows that the Federal Reserve System, the Board, and its banks are already the property of the Treasury of the Federal Government and can be shut down and reabsorbed into that government because of that fact…
Or he had temporary insanity and contradicted his own speeches and writings…
Or he is calling for the assumption by government of a completely separate and totally private corporation that was not created by, regulated by, or owned by the federal government.
If this third option were true, would this mean that Ron Paul could write a similar bill to abolish WalMart, Monsanto, or perhaps your own personal small business to be assumed and liquidated into the Federal Treasury?
Which of these scenarios is more reasonable, logical, and for that matter provable, just by reading this bill? Do you actually think that the Federal Reserve Corporation (or any other federal agency) can exist or act legally within the United States if the Federal Reserve Act is abolished?
Where would the Fed then get its authority to operate as the United States central bank, do you think? I mean, if indeed it is a completely separate rouge entity not controlled by government, it really wouldn’t need the Federal Reserve Act or Congress’ approval in the first place, right?
Note: Anyone who answers yes to that question better go back to paragraph one…
Notice too the fact that Paul lists the “stock” of banks to be “redeemed”. The perception that this stock of the Federal Reserve Bank is owned by some international bankers is again one of those prevalent myths that just wont go away. In fact, when we go to the horses mouth (the current amended Federal Reserve Act), we can see what the stock of the Federal Reserve is and who is forced to invest in it.
Section 5 of the Federal Reserve Act (codified in U.S. CODE 12 Section 287) states:
Section 5. Stock Issues; Increase and Decrease of Capital
1. Amount of Shares; Increase and Decrease of Capital; Surrender and Cancellation of Stock
The capital stock of each Federal reserve bank shall be divided into shares of $100 each. The outstanding capital stock shall be increased from time to time as member banks increase their capital stock and surplus or as additional banks become members, and may be decreased as member banks reduce their capital stock or surplus or cease to be members. Shares of the capital stock of Federal reserve banks owned by member banks shall not be transferred or hypothecated. When a member bank increases its capital stock or surplus, it shall thereupon subscribe for an additional amount of capital stock of the Federal reserve bank of its district equal to 6 per centum of the said increase, one-half of said subscription to be paid in the manner hereinbefore provided for original subscription, and one-half subject to call of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. A bank applying for stock in a Federal reserve bank at any time after the organization thereof MUST subscribe for an amount of the capital stock of the Federal reserve bank equal to 6 per centum of the paid-up capital stock and surplus of said applicant bank, paying therefor its par value plus one-half of 1 per centum a month from the period of the last dividend. When a member bank reduces its capital stock or surplus it shall surrender a proportionate amount of its holdings in the capital stock of said Federal Reserve bank. Any member bank which holds capital stock of a Federal Reserve bank in excess of the amount required on the basis of 6 per centum of its paid-up capital stock and surplus shall surrender such excess stock. When a member bank voluntarily liquidates it shall surrender all of its holdings of the capital stock of said Federal Reserve bank and be released from its stock subscription not previously called. In any such case the shares surrendered shall be canceled and the member bank shall receive in payment therefor, under regulations to be prescribed by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, a sum equal to its cash-paid subscriptions on the shares surrendered and one-half of 1 per centum a month from the period of the last dividend, not to exceed the book value thereof, less any liability of such member bank to the Federal Reserve bank.
[12 USC 287. As amended by act of Aug. 23, 1935 (49 Stat. 713).]
Does this really sound like a bunch of bankers have control of the Federal Reserve to you? Or does it sound like banks are begging to be members of the Federal Reserve System so that they can get all of the benefits of being members of that system so as to create money via the federal reserve system? Seriously, banks can’t fractionally create money without being members of the Federal Reserve. So no usurious United States bank is going to voluntarily leave the Fed.
Does it sound like banks have a choice as to whether they want to be stock-holders to you, that is, if they want to be members and get Fed benefits?
This legend of the Federal Reserve is out of control!
Perhaps the next time you hold up a sign or plaster a bumper sticker across your automobile that reads “End The Fed”, you’ll actually think about what it is you are demanding. Are you trying to close down a private corporation, or are you trying to demand that government end its own government-owned corporation through a vote of Congress? If you believe the former, then why not hold up signs to government saying end the Monsanto or end the Walmart?
–=–
Now, you may be curious about the title of this rant, “Today’s Creatures From Jekyll Island”.
So let’s talk about who exactly these “creatures” are today and how they’ve changed since yesterday.
Again, the concept that the drafting of these words that would eventually be utilized by congress to create the Federal Reserve Act and the Federal Reserve itself through congressional committee was a rare or singular occurrence in the history of legislative actions is the biggest myth that needs to be dispelled here.
Congressmen, in fact, very seldom write their own legislation. Though the misconception is that this is the job that we vote them into office for, nothing could be farther from the truth. As you saw above, half of the time they don’t even bother to show up for voting session!
These are corporate yes-men. They are propped up into office for one reason… they have no spine. They vote as they are supposed to along party lines, without reading the bills half the time, while putting on a patriotic show every once in a while so that the “truth” movement can pass the video along to other “truthers” and make themselves feel better about exposing the truth.
So who actually drafts most of the important bills in Congress?
I’d like you to meet ALEC.
The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is the ultimate ultra-lobbying group, consisting of a membership roster of 100’s of major corporations and the thousands of legislators that they wine and dine before they send them back to their state or federal legislatures with ALEC-composed bills in hand. In other words, ALEC ghost-writes the bills that are put on the congress floor, just as the Federal Reserve Act was ghost-written at Jekyll Island. And the congressmen then alter and amend those bills and send them to conference just like they did in 1913.
This is not at all uncommon. In fact, it is the norm.
Hundreds of what are called ALEC Model Legislation Bills are passed each year in congress, and an unknown number are passed on the local and State level. These bills are written by corporations, amended and earmarked by congress, and signed by whichever party president, governor, or county mayor is in office at the time. It isn’t just a rumor that congress doesn’t read the bills they sign. The truth is, they don’t need to. They are just there to sign the dotted lines and enjoy the perks of their ALEC membership, add a few earmarks onto the bills, and then enjoy the benefits they’ll receive in retirement for their cooperation and for being good little minions of the shell-game.
And so, these are the creatures that both inhabit government and professionally organize outside of it, in the open, while writing the nation’s legislation without needing the privacy of an island any more.
While there are certainly other similar groups out there, ALEC is certainly the most prevalent.
Warning: As with many mainstream sites and watchdog groups out there, I urge caution and verification. While much of the information on this site is good, the Center for Media and Democracy has some troubling aspects to it… like the fact that it promotes democracy instead of a republic!
Recently, Jan Irvin interviewed one of its representatives, exposing its less public side, here:
And finally, I did an interview on ALEC and private prisons with Joyce Riley on the Power Hour, one of my better interviews. Alec is one of the major supporters of and sponsor of the privatization of prisons and everything else in government. Interview here:
In the end, the creatures are all around us. The only difference seems to be the blatant openness in which they operate in today’s world. They are organized into non-profit groups, for the benefit of their for-profit corporations. They are members of countless private associations (including the political parties), and they follow the rules of these associations in the legislature while our politicians lend their allegiance to the parties, not the people. Virtually nothing in government is done in the traditional way that Americans still believe it is, and still the “truther” movement seems to always look to now century old history and quotations for an explanation of what is the reality of today – which is a completely different animal in both technological prowess and the amended law books that read nothing like the rules of yesteryear.
And today, virtually all relevant statutes that are being rubber-stamped and implemented out of our local, State, and federal governments are being written by these treasonous creatures, outside of government halls, by men who no longer need to meet in secrecy on some secluded island – because treason and crime are now commonplace, publicly accepted and anticipated, and legal!
And the people do nothing but change the channel…
.
–Clint Richardson (realitybloger.wordpress.com)
–Saturday, September 1st, 2012
There has been a lot of hype about the new sequel, “Why In The World Are The Spraying”.
Admittedly I have not seen it yet, though I intend to…
What I wanted to provide for you today actually has nothing to do with this movie. Instead, it is a research tip: one that I’ve found to be quite prolific in researching and finding what I look for to verify facts and find new ones in my own projects.
The tip:
Don’t Ask; Know…
For instance, asking a question like “do I have a family tree” will not get you very far, as many others out there might be asking (and answering) that same question. Instead of asking the internet a question for it to answer with other answers, you should tell the internet exactly what you are looking for. A question will bring back yes, no, maybe, and everything in between. If you ask a question, the answer will be based on an assumption of your not knowing the answer, and on your asking if anyone and everyone out there in the world does.
And so, I’m telling you that you must know the answer before you ask the question. You must presume that the subject matter you seek already exists, and is well documented and regulated, thus tricking the search engine into conducting a search pattern of someone seeking a subject they already have an answer for, and that you already know exists as matter of fact.
In the case of the question of “Why in the world are they spraying {chemtrails}“, this would be the worst possible question you could ask of the internet as a search. After all, you aren’t looking for other people asking the same question in a slightly different way than you, and looking for their answers or the speculation of others. No, you are (or should) be looking for nothing but facts.
So why would you then ask such a simplistic and un-confident question as this to a computer with trillions of nonfactual answers? Remember, we are looking for primary sources, not opinions and speculation.
Don’t you think that the computer will be just as un-confident as you are as to what you actually want to acquire?
Instead, no matter how ridiculous and unlikely an object may be (UFO’s, for example), and even if in your heart you can’t even imagine that this object or idea can even exist, you should conduct your search as if you already know it actually does exist – even if you don’t.
Let’s say I want to know why “they” are spraying “chemtrails”, and exactly who they are…
My first thought would be to look for documents, laws, government white papers, official essays, corporate/government permits, or agencies and corporations that spray or create what is being sprayed, and who regulate that industry (if indeed it does exist).
I wouldn’t ask “who is spraying“.
I would delete the why/who/what/where/when question, and in its place I would type the factual statement:
“current weather modification projects in the united states”
Now the internet knows that I already know “why” “they” are spraying, “what” they are spraying, and “who” is spraying. Thus, as a pretend informed searcher, the computer is only searching for when and where of something that already exists, instead of inquiring to the ether as to whether “they” are even spraying in the first place.
The University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR) serves as a hub for research, education, and public outreach for the atmospheric and related Earth sciences community.
The National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) provides research, observing and computing facilities, and a variety of services for the atmospheric and related Earth sciences community.
The UCAR Community Programs provide innovative services in support of the community’s education and research goals.
NCAR and the UCAR Community Programs are managed by UCAR, a nonprofit consortium of research universities, on behalf of the National Science Foundation and the university community.
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR)
UCAR provides services to and promotes partnerships in a collaborative community of researchers and educators who are dedicated to understanding the atmosphere—the air around us—and the complex processes that make up the Earth system, from the ocean floor to the Sun’s core. We manage the National Center for Atmospheric Research and UCAR Community Programs on behalf of the National Science Foundation and the university community. Our headquarters are in Boulder, Colorado.
Sweet! Now I can go from this page and find just about anything I want; from who, what, when, where, and why. I have now proven what seems ridiculous, by treating the theory as a reality, not as an unlikely or even a likely possibility. I pretended to know it already existed, and therefore I did not ask if it did exist or why.
Now that I have this website and all of the information and contacts that are presented therein, I could call these guys up and ask the questions or send them a professional email pretending to be a corporation interested in learning more about modifying the weather.
Here are their listed numbers on this same website page:
“Below is a list of NCAR scientists who have participated in recent or historic weather modification experiments or who have played a key role in preparing the new NAS report. Their specialties and contact information are included.”
Specialties: Cloud physics, rain enhancement, atmospheric electricity, radar meteorology, airborne instrumentation. Breed has served as project manager for NCAR’s rainfall enhancement studies in Mexico and the United Arab Emirates. He also participated in the National Hail Research Experiment in the 1970s and subsequent cloud physics projects relevant to weather modification.
Specialties: Weather modification of all sorts, including various types of cloud seeding and the study of the effects of smoke and pollution on clouds and rainfall. Bruintjes was a primary author of the NAS weather modification report. He headed NCAR’s cloud seeding experiment in Mexico in the 1990s and is leading a similar research project in the United Arab Emirates. He first studied hygroscopic cloud seeding in his native South Africa.
Specialties: Severe storms; cloud physics; history and current state of weather modification, including silver iodide cloud seeding, hygroscopic cloud seeding, experiments in hail suppression and rainfall enhancement; and the effects of smoke and pollution on clouds and rain. Foote was a project leader with the National Hail Research Experiment. He was an invited speaker for the NAS panel that compiled the report on weather modification, and recently cochaired a World Meteorological Society meeting of experts on hail suppression.
Specialties: Past and current uses of radar in a wide range of meteorological applications, including weather modification. Serafin is an expert on the role of radar in monitoring storms, detecting and forecasting new storm development, and studying the behavior of precipitation from growth to dissipation. Radar observations can improve our understanding of basic processes relevant to weather modification and may lead to new seeding ideas and hypotheses that can be tested. A former director of NCAR, Serafin offers a general knowledge of meteorology, forecasting, cloud physics, and satellite instrumentation. He served on the NAS weather modification committee that produced the report.
NCAR Mesoscale and Microscale Meteorology Division
Specialties: Hail, ice, and snow, including the natural formation of snow and other precipitation in clouds, artificial snowmaking, the structure of snowflakes, and hail suppression. Knight is an expert on nucleation, a process that is important for both artificial snow production at ski resorts and natural snow formation in the atmosphere. He played a prominent role in the National Hail Research Experiment.
Specialties: Clouds and cloud physics, especially the processes involved in the formation of precipitation in clouds; studies of cloud hydrometeors (droplets, raindrops, and ice particles); and the influences of aerosol particles on cloud microstructure and precipitation. Cooper also is an expert on research aircraft and their instrumentation. Currently on a term appointment at the National Science Foundation, Cooper has been the director of NCAR’s Advanced Study Program for seven years. Throughout his career, he has sought to understand how precipitation forms and the degree to which both natural and human-produced particles can influence precipitation amounts.
Just from these few descriptions I now have many very real search terms to pursue, like:
“Critical Issues in Weather Modification Research report, water-absorbing hygroscopic flares stimulate rain production in convective summertime clouds, hygroscopic flare seeding,history and techniques of weather modification, weather modification experts,cloud physics, rain enhancement, atmospheric electricity, radar meteorology, airborne instrumentation, NCAR’s rainfall enhancement studies in Mexico and the United Arab Emirates, National Hail Research Experiment 1970s, cloud physics projects relevant to weather modification, cloud seeding, NAS weather modification report, NCAR’s cloud seeding experiment in Mexico 1990s, NCAR’s cloud seeding experiment in United Arab Emirates, hygroscopic cloud seeding, silver iodide cloud seeding, hygroscopic cloud seeding, experiments in hail suppression and rainfall enhancement, National Hail Research Experiment, NAS panel for report on weather modification, World Meteorological Society meeting on hail suppression, uses of radar in meteorological applications, uses of radar in weather modification, role of radar in monitoring storms, detecting and forecasting new storm development, behavior of precipitation from growth to dissipation, former director of NCAR, NAS weather modification committee report, artificial snowmaking, structure of snowflakes, hail suppression, nucleation, natural snow formation in the atmosphere, cloud hydrometeors, influences of aerosol particles on cloud microstructure and precipitation, research aircraft for weather modification, National Science Foundation, NCAR’s Advanced Study Program, human-produced particles for precipitation, NCAR Mesoscale and Microscale Meteorology Division, NCAR Environmental and Societal Impacts Group…”
I would type each of these into a search engine exactly as presented above, as I can state clearly that they do indeed exist based on this organization and its report, and are being utilized by these people and organizations. The returns for my inquiries should be just as fruitful, since again I am not asking if they exist, but instead knowing they do and only searching for their whereabouts.
I could then cross-reference each of these phrases, topics, names, and corporations or organizations they might work for currently or previously and eventually have a complete working model of the entire “geo-engineering” industry. And I would now know that “chemtrail” is the worst word I could use in a search engine, as that is just slang for the masses and will lead mostly to speculative and inquiring websites.
And I could email or call the experts in this field of weather modification and study whenever I got stumped, and even request an interview.
I could then write an entire referenced book on “chemtrails” or make a movie about them with some simple images downloaded from the internet and be hailed as some kind of hero for exposing the “industry”, without ever really doing any in depth study of that industry, other than to compile the research presented here on this one internet page.
And all of this is possible because I didn’t ask a simple question, but rather told the search engine my answer.
There are no hero’s, folks. There are only people who do and people who don’t. Michael Murphy is a man who is doing, and I admire him for it.
But now you too know how to make just as good of a research project as anyone else out there… and maybe you should, even if it’s only for yourself. At the very least you can verify what you hear from the shock-jocks selling gold and survival supplies and food while telling you over and over and over that the world is ending – and making millions on the value of the gold they bought way before all of your panic purchases raised the price to the ridiculous level of today by raising false scarcity and supply and demand principles.
Just stop asking… and instead, know what you are looking for!
The answers are out there, but asking for them will do you about as much good as asking government for something. Just like government, search engines respond much better to demands rather than requests.
Happy researching!
.
–Clint Richardson (realitybloger.wordpress.com)
–Saturday, August 25, 2012
It is rare that an opportunity to showcase a truly good and wholesome charity presents itself; one that actually utilizes 100% of all donations for charitable purposes instead of administrative ones. And I was even more amazed to find just such an organization right in my own community; within one of the most materialistic and corrupt of counties in America.
For reasons I cannot comprehend, I have somehow been drawn through wonderfully ironic circumstances to this place in the high desert called Salt Lake City. And perhaps this chance to expose one of the few good organizations left in the world today was one of those reasons for my being here.
As my readers should have noticed by now, and indeed by the title of this website (Reality Blog), I do not sell any products or services (like survival supplies or storage food while reporting that the world that we know it will end soon). Likewise, I do not voluntarily support any organization by posting advertising or links of any kind on my blog or other websites, unless they are the subject of such writing. For your information, this is my own effort to remain free and clear of any influence, restraint, or conflict of interest in my ability to report what needs to be heard. I consider and offer my writings and films free to all without restrictions or profit. I believe this is the very definition of community service. It is freedom defined. It is humanity, in and of itself. It is an offering of oneself without expectation of anything in return. It is charity…
But unfortunately, considering the world we live in, my investigations are without exception about corruption and greed in the corporate/government arena that has become the new “organized crime” – the lawlessness of the law. And so it gives me great pleasure to present to you a positive and enlightened story about an organization called UMCOR – the only true official “charity” that I know of.
Like a beacon of hope through selfless action and as a model of what can be, UMCOR has become a part of my life… and indeed, it has given me a bit of hope in this modern darkness we call our civilized society. And so today I’d like to introduce you to this charitable organization so that perhaps you too might make it a part of your life. Today, I would only ask of you to take the time to watch this 16 minute presentation on UMCOR, to pass it on to others who might need a bit of hope in their own lives, and to consider becoming involved in it yourself.
The following is my contribution to UMCOR:
What is UMCOR?
Now, after viewing this, I’d like for you to imagine what this beautiful charity could really do around the world and in America to actually help people if it had the support of all of the people who give instead to organizations like the The American Red Cross or The United Way, simply because the media tells them that they should…
Since The United Methodist Committee On Relief’s administrative expenses are wholey funded by donations from the United Methodist Church, the CEO and Methodist Board of Directors and employees of UMCOR receive no salary from UMCOR donations. In other words, no donations from you (other than the once a year international Methodist Church offering) will ever go to pay the salaries or business expenses of UMCOR (unless you want them to), because the real workers are actually unpaid volunteers from around the world!!!
Imagine…
In 2004, President and CEO of the American Red Cross Marsha J. Evans was paid $651,957 in salary, plus expenses. The board of Directors of the Red Cross is a who’s who of corporate business men and women, who’s companies in turn benefit from the grants of the American Red Cross in it’s disaster relief programs by your donations, which seldom are sufficient in practice to help the people in need.
Ralph, Dickerson Jr – the former president and CEO of United Way – received a salary of $420,000. (Source: Chronicle of Philanthropy)
The New York Times reported:
“The United Way of New York City said yesterday that an internal investigation had determined that its former leader, Ralph Dickerson Jr., diverted $227,000 of charitable assets for personal use in 2002 and 2003… Mr. Dickerson is not currently facing charges from the findings.”
In 2008, United Way President and CEO Brian Gallagher earned $1,037,410 in salary. (Source: Better Business Bureau link below)
All of this comes from your donations… your donations to CEO’s salaries.
The Better Business Bureau also lists the following expenses for “The United Way”:
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009, UWW’s program expenses were:
Investor relations $39,010,000 Community Impact Leadership & Learning $20,794,000 Campaign and Public Relations $8,711,000 Brand Leadership $8,195,000 UW Store $2,880,000 Public Policy $1,056,000
Total Program Expenses – $80,646,000
How does this add up when compared to the United Way’s charitable and investment income?
The Following information is based on UWW’s audited financial statements (CAFR) – consolidated for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009:
Source of Funds Contributions $51,922,000 Membership support, net $29,202,000 Campaign efforts of Tri-State, net $13,569,000 Promotional materials sales $3,764,000 Conferences $1,816,000 Program Service Fees $1,072,000 Misc and other $671,000 Investment Income, net $342,000
Total Income – $102,358,000
(So $8 million in donations was spent on campaign expenses to earn $13 million in campaign donations, instead of feeding, clothing, and housing the poor and destitute.)
(Also, note that in order to have investment income, this requires The United Way to invest the contributions it receives, as opposed to using them to help people. So its expenses for “investor relations” was over $39,000,000 [almost 50% of listed expenses] while its return on investment was only $342,000? Is this a charity, really?)
Did any of this actually help someone in the world besides big business?
The report then goes on to add additional expenses of:
Fund raising expenses $1,003,000 Administrative expenses $8,827,000
For total expenses of – $90,476,000
It then states that:
Note: According to its 2009 audited financial statements (CAFR), UWW recorded Other Changes in Net Assets including loss from write off of investment in Trust, change in tax liability, and pension-related changes other than net periodic pension cost.
And of course, to add insult to injury, this corporation lists its “status” as:
This organization is tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. It is eligible to receive contributions deductible as charitable donations for federal income tax purposes.
Just what does the United Way do to help people besides raising money so that it can raise more money? Well, it does help some people so that it can make commercials which show that it helps people… granted.
Folks, the United Way has the potential to help people from all over the world… But it doesn’t. It has no time to do this because it is too busy investing, advertising, and fund-raising so that it can invest and advertise more. It is too busy attempting to infiltrate your paycheck as one of your “choices” of recommended charities to contribute to.
Is this what a charity is supposed to look like?
I don’t think so.
UMCOR, in this authors opinion, is the stand alone model of what a charity can and should be. It should be the stand alone model for even being granted a tax-exempt status in the first place. And it is the only charity that I choose to support because of these reasons.
I choose to volunteer my time to UMCOR, because I have nothing else to give. Anyone is welcome to give of themselves by just showing up to UMCOR and volunteering to work. If I could, I would also choose UMCOR to make monetary or supply donations to as well.
It is my hope that you might see things in the same way…
Thank you for watching.
.
–Clint Richardson (realitybloger.wordpress.com)
–Thursday, August 16th, 2012
What does this obtuse and open-ended catch-phrase actually mean?
Have you ever asked yourself that question?
–=–
It is fairly obvious and easy enough to say that the police are not actually there to “protect and serve” the people of the land in the conversational sense of the words, but indeed protect and serve only the interests and continuity of the corporations called States, Counties, and Cities.
But we must also define what “protecting” and “serving” actually mean in the legal language. Of course, because we are talking about the sales pitch of the municipal corporation (government) police departments, we must answer this question with the best legal definitions of these words, instead of relying on our mislead perceptions of this misleading moniker as portrayed by the media and entertainment industries.
To protect and serve… Who? What? Where? When? Why?
We will now use U.S. CODE and the Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856, to get a full description of this open ended statement, “To Protect And Serve“.
–=–
TO PROTECT
–=–
The observation that police are driving around in expensive taxpayer-funded vehicles while being paid by taxpayers to do so, issuing citations for speeding, crossing double yellow lines, making illegal U-turns, and other pointless victimless crimes, should be quite enough evidence that the police aren’t driving around looking for an opportunity to protect you from danger or to serve or help you, but are instead driving around looking for ways to earn money through exaction and force for the corporation (government) that they are employed by – so as to fulfill their monthly quotas.
But if this concept isn’t readily obvious to you – that police officers are there to extort money out of your pockets – then let’s examine together the legal definition of the word “protect”.
First, we must understand what a legal right is as opposed to a natural right.
This section of U.S. CODE does a very nice job of making that distinction…
42 USC § 1981 – Equal rights under the law
(a) Statement of equal rights
All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, andshall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.
(b) “Make and enforce contracts” defined
For purposes of this section, the term “make and enforce contracts” includes the making, performance, modification, and termination of contracts, and the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditionsof the contractual relationship.
Here we see the difference between a God-given natural right and a right that is bestowed by the government under color of civil law, which in fact is nothing more than a contracted privilege you agree to by signature and consent. When one understands what is stated here in U.S. CODE, one understands that political rights are the definition of tyranny and extortion.
In fact, the word exaction is specifically defined as extortion.
EXACTION, torts. A willful wrong done by an officer, or by one who, under color of his office, takes more fee or pay for his services than what the law allows. Between extortion and exaction there is this difference; that in the former case the officer extorts more than his due,when something is due to him; in the latter, he exacts what is not his due, when there is nothing due to him. Wishard; Co. Litt. 368.
“A willful wrong…“
This means that government claims under TITLE 42, Section 1981, that it is your right to be exacted (extorted) from by government or other corporations through the “contractual relationship”. And that it is your right to be wronged by men in uniform who willfully harm you while acting under the “color of law”
By signing a ticket or citation (a contract) and then by paying the fee imposed by that contract and agreed upon by you, the fine line of extortion and exaction is crossed, and exaction (nothing due) by contract under threat and duress is created and becomes extortion (what is now due). Add a few late fees and other charges by the courts (more than is due) and exaction is legally upon you via contract. So how does a police officer under the color of his office extort money from you in a way that “exacts what is not due” to him? He forces you to sign a contract which obligates you to pay his office a fine or fee. Thus, exaction (taking what is not due) becomes a legal function of legal contract law, and your “right” to be extorted from (stealing what is now due) as listed in U.S. CODE as an “equal right” (privilege) is justified by your signature on the ticket (contract).
Do you understand? Being extorted and exacted form is a right, benefit, and a privilege. Being taxed is a right, benefit, and privilege. And being subject to pains, penalties, and punishment is a right, benefit, and a privilege. These are the wonderful rights, benefits, and privileges of being a citizen (person) of the United States enjoying the “contractual relationship” between yourself and government.
You enjoy those rights now, ya hear…?
Ok. So what exactly does the word “protect” mean, considering that pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions (extortion) are the so-called rights enumerated and “protected” by police?
PROTECTION, government. That benefit or safety which the government affords to the citizens.
Yeah… so “to protect” can legally be defined as: to ensure the entering into and enforcement of the contractual relationship between government and the citizen by officer willfully wronging the citizens, for which a citizen may be forced into contract under duress and color of law so as to ensure commerce (exaction) for government through such contract, or be imprisoned for breach of that forced contract. And so, police officers (employees of government) are there for the “protection” of the authority and jurisdiction of government to tax, exact (extort), penalize, put into pain, and punish contracted “citizens” through its police “officers” and its “legal system”.
Great…
So what does government mean when it offers to protect your equal rights under the law?
equal protection: an overview
The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. SeeU.S. Const. amend. XIV. In other words, the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances. A violation would occur, for example, if a state prohibited an individual from entering into an employment contract because he or she was a member of a particular race. The equal protection clause is not intended to provide “equality” among individuals or classes but only “equal application” of the laws. The result, therefore, of a law is not relevant so long as there is no discrimination in its application. By denying states the ability to discriminate, the equal protection clause of the Constitution is crucial to the protection of civil rights.
And so once again, we can plainly see that civil rights were and are not created to make all men equal in the eyes of the law/government, but instead are instilled to make all men equally liable to the legal statutes and codes created by government. In short, civil rights make all Persons of the United States equally enslaved by diminishing natural rights into codified civil rights – turning unalienable God-given rights into State sanctioned and revocable privileges under contract and force.
–=–
TO SERVE
–=–
So what does it mean for the police to serve the people?
Probably not what you think…
SERVICE, practice. To execute a writ or process; as, to serve a writ of capias signifies to arrest a defendant under the process; Kirby, 48; 2 Aik. R. 338; 11 Mass. 181; to serve a summons, is to deliver a copy of it at the house of the party, or to deliver it to him personally, or to read it to him; notices and other papers are served by delivering the same at the house of the party, or to him in person.
Hmmm… So legally, “to serve” actually means to serve process, to arrest under that process, to serve a summons, or to deliver a notice. Ok, so “service” is not quite what we thought it was…
But remember, the police are protecting your right to be served by government, and your right to be exacted from and punished.
So what happens when a police officer (a corporate officer of a municipality, county, or State) serves me with a summons, process, or notice?
SUMMONS,practice. The name of a writ commanding the sheriff, or other authorized officer to notify a party to appear in court to answer a complaint made against him and in the said writ specified, on a day therein mentioned. 21 Vin. Ab. 42 2 Sell. Pr. 356; 3 Bl. Com. 279.
SUMMONERS. Petty officers who cite men to appear in any court (i.e. municipal police).
TO SUMMON,practice. The act by which a defendant is notified by a competent officer, that an action has been instituted against him, and that he is required to answer to it at a time and place named. This is done either by giving the defendant a copy of the summons, or leaving it at his house (i.e. mail); or by reading the summons to him.
Interesting. Just one problem though…
The problem with a police officer witnessing, writing (creating), and delivering at the same time a “ticket” for a code violation – which is a summons and notice to appear in court – is that the police officer is the creator of the complaint, as well as the authorized officer who is citing in the ticket (summons) a time to appear in court to answer an action. This ultimately means that a “ticket” is an illegal summons, as there is no action that has been created by a court of law, magistrate, or by an actual victim.
The “officer” may legally serve a summons written by a court, but does not have the legal authority to create a summons without the court… (Without means outside of its jurisdiction) A lawful summons must come from a judge or magistrate.
Of course, this is why the officer requires your driver’s or other license with a current address and personhood name. The license represents the contract agreed to, signed, and broken by you (i.e. vehicle code, etc.). Without the license and the consent presumed by it, no legal statute in code could be broken, and thus no citation could be created. That would mean no money could be exacted, oh my!
But can an officer make a complaint?
COMPLAINT, crim. law. The allegation made to a proper officer, that some person, whether known or unknown, has been guilty of a designated offense, with an offer to prove the fact, and a request that the offender may be punished.
COMPLAINANT. One who makes a complaint. A plaintiff in a suit in chancery is so called. 2. To have a legal effect, the complaint must be supported by such evidence as shows that an offense has been committed, and renders it certain or probable that it was committed by the person named or described in the complaint.
A better question would be: Can a police officer make a complaint to himself about you, and then punish you for the offense that he complained about to himself without a judge and jury? Can he complain to himself?
Isn’t that bypassing the whole concept of law and a fair trial?
The officer is supposed to be receiving a complaint, and serving a notice of that complaint. Can he do both lawfully? Isn’t there a checks and balances system for these types of lawless behaviors?
As we all know, the police officer generally has no complaint received for traffic and other citations, and is creating the complaint himself, and then creating a summons to appear in court to answer for that complaint/misdemeanor crime.
In fact, one might construe and even be able to prove that the police officer who issued the citation is indeed impersonating an officer of the court by issuing an unlawful summons to appear in that court. This, of course, is a serious felony crime – the impersonating of a court official. Thus, the magistrate would be required to answer to this fact when presiding over the trial. So the magistrate must admit to the fact that the police officer acted with or without his consent and jurisdiction to issue a summons to appear before this magistrate. If the answer is no, the summons holds no legal authority. If the answer is yes, then the magistrate is admitting on the record to cooperating in criminal coercion with intent to extort. Either way, I’m betting the case would be dismissed.
This is really no different than if a Girl Scout came up to you on the street and forced you at gunpoint under threat of arrest to buy her cookies, and by doing so, you must either pay a fine for her services or appear in court. This, in effect, is forced commerce through a forced contract (citation/ticket) under duress and threat of incarceration. The ticket is a get out of jail card. Sign the summons or go to jail…
So what is the definition of an “action”?
ACTION, in practice… Actions are divided into criminal and civil… 2. – 1. A criminal action is a prosecution in a court of justice in the name of the government, against one or more individuals accused of a crime… 2. A civil action is a legal demand of one’s right, or it is the form given by law for the recovery of that which is due… (lawful vs. legal)
“A legal demand of one’s right…“.
Think about what that means for a moment. And remember, your “rights” are taxation, pains, punishments, and extortion under the “contractual relationship”. Thus, these “rights” can be demanded of you.
What a messed up system we have…
Criminal actions require a victim harmed. Civil actions require a contract broken or unfulfilled.
So the legal rules, codes, and municipal corporation statutes, which require the consent and contract of the governed to have authority and jurisdiction, are all based on “civil action” – a legal (not lawful) demand to pay what is due to government – when government police officers bypass the court system altogether to create a demand to pay via an illegal summons. In other words, you must pay the fine or go to court.
But what is the cause of action? Who is the injured party? What contract has been broken?
That’s just it, there is no victim and therefore there is no criminal law broken (no victim, no crime). The action, therefore, is based solely on extortion under threat of arrest in the civil realm. This is an unlawful action, and is created or action without cause with an illegal summons to appear, which you may pay money for (extortion) to avoid making an appearance in court. All of this happens when the citation is signed, becoming a contract.
Ok. So what is a “demand”?
DEMAND, contracts. A claim; a legal obligation…
DEMAND, practice. A requisition or a request by one individual to another to do a particular thing. 2. Demands are either express or implied. In many cases, an express demand must be made before the commencement of an action… in other cases an implied demand is all that the law requires, and the bringing of an action is a sufficient demand in those cases… A demand is frequently necessary to secure to a man all his rights, both in actions arising on contracts and those which are founded on some tort. It is requisite also, when it is intended to bring the party into contempt for not performing an order which has been made a rule of court… 4. – 1. Whether a demand is requisite before the plaintiff can commence an action arising on contract, depends upon express or implied stipulations of the parties… 13. – 2. In cases where the taking of goods is lawful, but their subsequent detention becomes illegal, it is absolutely necessary, in order to secure sufficient evidence of a conversion on the trial, to give a formal notice of the owner’s right to the property and possession, and to make a formal demand in writing of the delivery of such possession to the owner. The refusal to comply with such a demand, unless justified by some right which the possessor may have in the thing detained, will in general afford sufficient evidence of a conversion… 14. – 3. When a nuisance has been erected or continued by a man on his own land, it is advisable, particularly in the case of a private nuisance, to give the party notice and request him to remove it, either before an entry is made for the purpose of abating it, or an action is commenced against the wrong doer and a demand is always indispensable in cases of a continuance of a nuisance originally created by another person… 15. – 4. When an order to pay money, or to do any other thing, has been made a rule of court, a demand for the payment of the money, or performance of the thing, must be made before an attachment will be issued for a contempt…
So technically, the police officer is making a demand before an action is created in a court of law. In other words, the officer is acting illegally as both the party that is harmed (legal codes broken) and the judge of a court who would otherwise issue a demand to answer and pay for an action. This paradox, where the demand for payment is created without a cause of action for payment having been created, is why the “ticket” is actually an illegal summons. No judge ordered you to appear before him, and the police officer is not a judge. Thus, your signature on the “ticket” becomes a private contract created through threat and duress between you and the corporate municipality for which that officer is an employee of – which automatically makes that contract null and void. For a contract must be entered into voluntarily. If you break that contract with consent (by ignoring it, not paying, or not appearing), then you are guilty of breach of contract, and more civil actions will be placed upon you, including liens on your home and personal property – the taking of property to pay the fine created illegally in the first place through coercion and duress.
This is the job description of police officers…
This is service at the barrel of a gun.
So can a ticket be an “order”?
ORDER, contracts. An indorsement (endorsement) or short writing put upon the back of a negotiable bill or note, for the purpose of passing the title to it, and making it payable to another person. 2. When a bill or note is payable to order, which is generally expressed by this formula, “to A B, or order,”or” to the order of A B,” in this case the payee, A B may either receive the money secured by such instrument, or by his order, which is generally done by a simple indorsement, (q. v.) pass the right to receive it to another. But a bill or note wanting these words, although not negotiable, does not lose the general qualities of such instruments… Vide Bill of Exchange; Indorsement. 3. An informal bill of exchange or a paper which requires one person to pay or deliver to another goods on account of the maker to a third party, is called an order.
The police officer is creating a bill of exchange (an order) requiring you to pay or deliver yourself (as surety) to the third party (the court/government). You are agreeing to this order with your signature.
PARTY, practice, contracts. When applied to practice, by party is understood either the plaintiff or defendant. In contracts, a party is one or more persons who engage to perform or receive the performance of some agreement. Vide Parties to contrads; Parties to ‘actions; Parties to a suit in equity.
PERFORMANCE. The act of doing something; the thing done is also called a performance; as, Paul is exonerated from the obligation of his contract by its performance… 2. When a contract has been made by parol, which, under the statute of frauds and perjuries, could not be enforced, because it was not in writing, and the party seeking to avoid it, has received the whole or a part performance of such agreement, he cannot afterwards avoid it… and such part performance will enable the other party to prove it aliunde (from another place)…
PAROL. More properly parole. A French word, which means literally, word or speech. It is used to distinguish contracts which are made verbally or in writing not under seal, which are called parol… which are under seal which bear the name of deeds or specialties… It is proper to remark that when a contract is made under seal, and afterwards it is modified verbally, it becomes wholly a parol contract… 2. Pleadings are frequently denominated in the parol. In some instances the term parol is used to denote the entire pleadings in a cause as when in an action brought against an infant heir, on an obligation of his ancestors, he prays that the parol may demur, i. e., the pleadings may be stayed, till he shall attain full age… But a devisee cannot pray the parol to demur. 3. Parol evidence is evidence verbally delivered by a witness. As to the cases when such evidence will be received or rejected…
SEAL – OFFICE, English practice. The office at which certain judicial writs are sealed with the prerogative seal, and without which they are of no authority. The officer whose duty it is to seal such writs is called “sealer of writs;”
SEALING OF A VERDICT,practice. The putting a verdict in writing, and placing it in an envelop, which is sealed. To relieve jurors after they have agreed, it is not unusual for the counsel to agree that the jury shall seal their verdict, and then separate. When the court is again in session, the jury come in and give their verdict, in all respects as if it had not been sealed, and a juror may dissent from it, if since the sealing, he has honestly changed his mind.
By now, we should realize that this whole exchange is an attempt to exact (extort) money from people by government. The police officer is having you sign an informal bill (contract) requiring you to pay on account of the officer to the government court system, which in this case is the “third party”. The police man is an employee or officer of the government corporation, and is securing the bill as a title backed by yourself as surety to pay exaction (extortion money) to the government corporation (third party). If you don’t pay, you and your property (registered property with the State) are the collateral that will be collected or put in jail.
As a parol(e) contract, a ticket/citation (illegal summons) has no authority accept that which you give to it with your consent and signature. It is based on the presumption of law (prima facie law) and orated (without seal) by the officer of the government, and relies upon the consent of the governed (you) for its authority and jurisdiction.
A “ticket”, as an illegal summons to appear, is a contract signed by you to avoid being placed in jail (parole). If you do not sign the summons, you will be arrested. Under this threat, most people sign the ticket, just as they would give their wallet over to an armed robber who threatened to harm or kill them.
Thus, the summons is not lawful. It is an illegal contract based on coercion and fear.
Of course, most people just accept and consent to the authority and jurisdiction of the police officer due to their fear of that officer and to that of the illegitimate for-profit court system of the corporations called municipalities and their prisons. If they decide to take a stand against this ridiculous extortion and racketeering ring hilariously called “law enforcement”, they must then do as the illegal summons requires them to do under their forced signature, which is to make an appearance in court.
APPEARANCE, practice. Signifies the filing common or special bail to the action. 2. The appearance… should (in accordance with the ancient practice) purport to be in term time… yet, in fact, much of the business is now done, in periods of vacation (without appearing). 3. The appearance of the parties is no longer (as formerly) by the actual presence in court, either by themselves or their attorneys; but, it must be remembered, an appearance of this kind is still supposed, and exists in contemplation of law. The appearance is effected on the part of the defendant (when he is not arrested) by making certain formal entries in the proper office of the court, expressing his appearance… or, in case of arrest, it may be considered as effected by giving bail to the action. On the part of the plaintiff no formality expressive of appearance is observed.
The most important aspect of this term is the fact that it can be done through the certified mail using a notary public. In short, the notary is your court away from court. By responding (answering) via certified mail (certification show proof of receipt by the court) with a notarized letter (the notary makes the letter official by witness), the court must then consider that answer as a contract. It must answer that contract or be in violation of it. Thus, a time period (generally 21 days) for the answer of the court must be included within your letter, just as the original illegal summons allowed you a certain amount of time to pay for your fine or appear in court. Items requested should be things like the judges oath and affirmation to the united states of America (not the United States without America), a fee schedule showing the fees required by you to conduct commerce in that court, and demands for cause of action among other things.
This is your appearance and your answer to the illegal summons. And the last thing you want to do is to appear in a court, unless it is with a grand jury.
In a grand jury, the judge has no real authority over you, and the people of the grand jury decide the outcome of the case. Chances are, since the court system is a for-profit enterprise, the case will be dismissed long before it reaches an expensive and arduous grand jury process that must be paid for by the government. After all, they just wanted to exact you of the amount of the citation, and hope you will just be a good little slave and pay it via mail or online with a credit card. And with the judge and police officer participating in organized crime, the last thing they would want is to be indicted by a grand jury for coercion, racketeering, and illegal contracts created at gunpoint.
It is important to note here that when we show up to what is commonly referred to as “traffic court”, we are not really going to court at all. In fact, often times the presiding attorney over the traffic court is not even a true judge, but is just an administrative clerk assigned to arbitrate the proceedings. In order to actually make an appearance, the traffic court would have to schedule a hearing, which it does for those who are fooled into making a plea of “not guilty”. Of course, the only true answer to the question posed by the court as to your being guilty, not guilty, or no contest, is the word “innocent”.
INNOCENCE, The absence of guilt. 2. The law presumes in favor of innocence, even against another presumption of law…
Making a plea of “not guilty” is not synonymous with being innocent. In a municipal administrative traffic court (legal setting), you are presumed guilty. Only in law is one presumed innocent. This is why “traffic courts” are set up as the first place the people will appear. Traffic courts are like spider webs – they catch the 99% of the ignorant people who make an appearance there, and entrap them with a plea. Claiming innocence is not a plea. It is a demand.
CLAIM. A claim is a challenge of the ownership of a thing which a man has not in possession, and is wrongfully withheld by another…
The claim of the innocence of a man by that man cannot be withheld or challenged by the court.
However, the guilt of a man who claims his person (a corporation/thing) to be not guilty can be so held and presumed under contract created by the plea.
With the plea of “not guilty”, guilt is still assumed by the court under the contract (ticket) signed. After all, you signed the ticket – and this could be construed as an admission of guilt (though you had no choice and would be arrested if you didn’t sign). The plea itself is also a contractual agreement with the court, and the court will demand (legal obligation) action (recovery of what is due the court by contract) based on any plea. A plea of any type is not a demand, but is instead literally a process of begging of the courts forgiveness by answering the declaration (challenge) of the unlawful plaintiff (police officer of the court or government), as opposed to answering the court’s claim with your own demand for the cause of action through the notarized and certified mail, as talked about above.
PLEA, practice. The defendant’s answer by matter of fact, to the plaintiff’s declaration.
PLEA, chancery practice… A plea is a special answer to a bill, and differs in this from an answer in the common form, as it demands the judgment of the court in the first instance, whether the matter urged by it does not debar the plaintiff from his title to that answer which the bill requires… 2. Pleas are of three sorts: 1. To the jurisdiction of the court. 2. To the person of the plaintiff. 3. In bar of the plaintiff’s suit…
This process of making a plea takes place within the court, and binds the plea maker (defendant) to the court in contract. One should never make a plea, for this assigns the jurisdiction of the court to the case, and places the person under that jurisdiction.
In opposition to this, an answer may be created by the innocent man to the the courts (plaintiff’s) claim prior to the date of the summons, which may challenge the jurisdiction of the court and require a cause of action of the plaintiff. In most traffic citation cases, there is no cause of action, because the demand was created without the cause of action existing. So there is no official cause of action that dated prior to the illegal summons issued by the police officer (plaintiff), thus the demand (citation and summons) was not based on a legal action of that court – which would have created the summons in the first place. And so your notarized “answer” to the court listed on the “ticket” (illegal summons) through the certified mail is to demand the cause of action, for which the court cannot produce because the summons was created without an action by the court.
Thus, this paradox is not answerable by the court, and its jurisdiction is challenged successfully. Remember, in traffic code violation cases, a civil action is a legal demand of one’s right, or it is the form given by law for the recovery of that which is due.
There is no law that gives a corporate for-profit municipal traffic court the lawful ability to recover what is due to them under a contract (citation/illegal summons) that was created under duress and by force and coercion. If you pay the fee listed on a ticket, you are doing so under your own free will with consent (and ignorance of the law), and accepting the validity, pain, and punishment of the unlawful contract by paying the fee, so as to not have to appear physically in court. This is extortion, and you submit to it by payment or by appearing in traffic court, instead of standing on your natural, God-given rights against tyranny.
What does it mean to legally answer the court?
ANSWER, practice. The declaration of a fact by a witness after a question has been put asking for it…
ANSWER, pleading in equity. A defense in writing made by a defendant, to the charges contained in a bill or information, filed by the plaintiff against him in a court of equity… 2. As a defendant is called by a bill or information to make a discovery of the several charges it contains, he must do so, unless he is protected either by a demurrer, a plea, or disclaimer…
DISCOVERY, practice, pleading. The act of disclosing or revealing by a defendant, in his answer to a bill filed against him in a court of equity.
The answer is part of the discovery process in our case. It should be done by mail.
PLEADING, practice. The statement in a logical, and legal form, of the facts which constitutethe plaintiff’s cause of action, or the defendant’s ground of defense; it is the formal mode of alleging that on the record, which would be the support, or the defense of the party in evidence… In a general sense, it is that which either party to a suit at law alleges for himself in a court, with respect to the subject-matter of the cause, and the mode in which it is carried on, including the demand which is made by the plaintiff; but in strictness, it is no more than setting forth those facts or arguments which show thejustice or legal sufficiency of the plaintiff’s demand, and the defendant’s defense, without including the statement of the demand itself, which is contained in the declaration or count. Bac. Abr. Pleas and Pleading.
So what does it mean for a police officer to “serve” a process or a notice?
PROCESS, practice. So denominated because it proceeds or issues forthin order to bring the defendant into court, to answer the charge preferred against him, and signifies the writ or judicial means by which he is brought to answer… 3. In criminal cases that proceeding which is called a warrant, before the finding of the bill, is termed process whenissued after the indictment has been found by the jury…
PROCESS, rights. The means or method of accomplishing a thing.
NOTICE. The information given of some act done, or the interpolation by which some act is required to be done. It also signifies, simply, knowledge; as A had notice that B was a slave… 2. Notices should always be in writing; they should state, in precise terms, their object, and be signed by the proper person, or his authorized agent, be dated, and addressed to the person to be affected by them.
In case you missed that, the “serve” part of “To Protect and Serve” is to deliver notices and to issue process (serve process) so as to give official notice to you that you are either required to pay a fine, fee, tax, or other exaction (extortion), or are required to appear in court via a warrent in criminal charges, or as a defendant in a civil case.
To “serve” does not mean to “help”.
It means to “force” or to “deliver”.
“Serving” is a legal term, not a lawful one. Cops are not required to help you or to protect you in any way, accept those which are required of the cop in serving legal documents in process, notice, or summons.
But let’s go back further into the roots of the word serve under feudal law:
SERVICE,feudal law. That duty which the tenant owes to his lord, by reason of his fee or estate. 2. The services, in respect of their quality, were either free or base, and in respect of their quantity and the time of exacting them, were either certain or uncertain. 2 Bl. Com. 62. 3. In the civil law by service is sometimes understood servitude. (q. v.)
SERVITUDE,civil law. A term which indicates the subjection of one person to another person, or of a person to a thing, or of a thing to a person, or of a thing to a thing… 4. The subjection of one person to another is a purely personal servitude; if it exists in the right of property which a person exercises over another, it is slavery. When the subjection of one person to another is not slavery, it consists simply in the right of requiring of another what he is bound to do, or not to do; this right arises from all kinds of contracts or quasi contracts. Lois des Bat. P. 1, c. 1, art. 1.
SERVITUS,civil law. A service or servitude; a burden imposed by law, or the agreement of parties upon certain persons, for the benefit of others; or upon one estate for the advantage of another, or for the benefit of another person than the owner.
SERVITUS.Servitude; slavery; a state of bondage. “Servitus autem, est constitutio,” say the Institutes of Justinian, 1, 3, 2, “qua quis dominio alieno contra naturam subjicitur.” Servitude is a disposition of the law of nations, by which, against common right, one man has been subjected to the dominion of another. See Bract. 4 b; Co. Litt. 116.
SUBJECTION. The obligation of one or more persons to act at the discretion, or according to the judgment and will of others.
SUBJECT,contracts. The thing (i.e.person) which is the object of an agreement…
SUBJECT,persons, government. An individual member of a nation, who is subject to the laws; this term is used in contradistinction to citizen, which is applied to the same individual when considering his political rights (not the same as natural rights – political rights are codified civil legal privileges granted via contract. Natural rights are God-given and above the laws of men.).
SLAVE.A man who is by law deprived of his liberty for life, and becomes the property of another. 2. A slave has no political rights, and generally has no civil rights. He can enter into no contract unless specially authorized by law; what he acquires generally, belongs to his master… 3. In Maryland, Missouri and Virginia slaves are declared by statute to be personal estate, or treated as such… In Kentucky, the rule is different, and they are considered real estate… In general a slave is considered a thing and not a person; but sometimes he is considered as a person; as when he commits a crime; for example, two white persons and a slave can commit a riot…
Remember, the 13th Amendment didn’t end slavery, it made all persons as equal slaves through conviction. This is what government calls equal rights!
Remember, the police are there to serve you process and notice and to protect your rights of punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind.
What more really needs to be said here?
.
For more fun and understanding of our collective disposition within this government fraud per the legal definitions of the words that bind us, you may wish to explore my other essay, here:
Disclaimer: I am not an attorney. I am not offering legal advice. I am not practicing law. I will never act as or within any of these presumptions. Claims put forth otherwise will be met with a lawsuit for defamation of my character and slander… If you understand this, then you understand self-actualization and liberty.
.
P.S. I turned 40 years old today. Happy berth-day to me…
.
–Clint Richardson (realitybloger.wordpress.com)
–Wednesday, August 8th, 2012
With the help of the mainstream media and its rags, the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) is yet again using its over $233 in reported investment fund wealth to somehow claim it is in a deficit, despite having an investment return this fiscal year.
(Note here that the actual gross fund balances are generally many billions higher, and were reported as $245,848,527,000 in 2011, and $204,727,543,000 in the 2010 CAFR’s.)
USA Today put out the following story, which was of course originally printed from the false-news clearing house, Associated Press:
“SACRAMENTO, Calif. – The nation’s largest public pension fund collected a dismal 1% annual return on its investments, a figure far short of projections that will likely bring pressure on California’s state and local governments to contribute more money, officials said Monday.
The return reported by the California Public Employees’ Retirement System was well below its projected return of 7.5% for the fiscal year that ended June 30.
The investment returns are critical because taxpayers are on the hook for the difference if the pension funds fail to meet their performance targets.
“The last 12 months were a challenging period for all investors as the ongoing European debt crisis and slowing global economic growth increased market volatility and reduced equity returns,” said chief investment officer Joe Dear. “It’s a clear reminder that we must remain focused on performance, risk and internal controls in today’s financial environment.”
The fund was most impacted by a negative -7% return on global equities. Half the pension’s assets are in equities, Dear said.
The fund, known as CalPERS, runs a $234 billion pension system for more than 1.6 million state employees, school employees and local government workers…”
–=–
In this first three paragraphs we can see the entire scam played out in front of us, as told from a master story-teller who is trying to sell sunglasses to a blind man. But even a blind man should be able to read between the lines here…
So far, we have learned that the CalPERS Pension fund has earned a 1% increase in its investment portfolio, which for this year would have been over $2.2 billion dollar in gains on investments. Yes, that’s $2,200,000,000 when spelled out properly. And this is of course reported as bad news!
Why?
Simply because CalPERS did not reach its “projected” goal. It wished upon a star, and failed to reach that star. It did not lose value or money, it only failed to miss its desired gains. It still did fine, and has no problems whatsoever meeting its “obligations” to pensioners. In fact, if CalPERS liquidated all of its investments today at today’s market value it could easily pay future pension benefits for the next 15-20 years.
So what’s the problem?
That’s just it, there is no real or tangible problem. You see, governments across the country are crying broke or bankruptcy based on this type of situation – hiding assets with future liabilities, without reporting the future assets that will pay for those liabilities. With billions in assets, all of this hoopla is based on nothing more than throwing a temper tantrum because the CalPERS fund didn’t reach what it wanted to reach this year.
It’s true. Nothing bad has actually happened here, as we will see in a moment. But the government creates any excuse it can in order to collect higher taxes, or to funnel as much taxpayer money into the pension system. Case in point: here the article states that “California State and local governments (will be forced to) contribute more money“. In other words, the government wishes to keep its investment wealth untouched instead of liquidating it to pay for pension obligations to its employees. And so it will raise taxes instead, as the article states here: “taxpayers are on the hook for the difference if the pension funds fail to meet their performance targets.” Remember, taxes fund government. So government contributions means taxpayer contributions, despite the fact that taxpayers receive absolutely no benefits from the pension system, only employees of the government receive pension benefits.
Now imagine if Target, Bank of America, General Electric, or any other corporation out there forced all people in America or in an individual State or local government to pay for its private employee’s pension fund costs. How would that make you feel? Well, that is how the pension fund system works, as this article tells you.
Note here as well that the so-called “loss” on the equity value of stock and investments does not represent a loss of the actual number of stocks or investments. Just because a stock goes down in value for a 1 year period, does not mean that it will stay down. The same amount of stock is still held, and that physical equity has not changed, only this years value.
For instance, the following capital gains for 2010 and 2011 fiscal years were stated by the CalPERS pension fund in its Comprehensive Annual Financial Report:
CalPERS (2011) –$41.1 billion gain in net assets after all benefits paid.
“CalPERS reports 20.7% investment return for fiscal year“
“The California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) reported a 20.7 percent return on investments in preliminary estimates for the one-year period that ended June 30, 2011.
This is our best annual performance in 14 years, said Rob Feckner, CalPERS Board President. For the second straight fiscal year, the Pension Fund exceeded its long-term annualized earnings target of 7.75 percent.”
CalPERS (2010) – 13.3 % increase with a $23.2 billion gain in net assets after all benefits paid.
“The California Public Employees’ Retirement System, the largest U.S. public pension, earned a 12.5 percent return in 2010, led by gains in private equity and U.S. stocks, Chief Investment Officer John Dear said.
The $228 billion pension fund earned 17.3 percent from domestic equity and 21.5 percent in alternative investments such as private equity, Dear said today. Its real-estate portfolio lost 5 percent while its fixed-income investments gained 12 percent“.”
Also, in 2009 fiscal year, as with all fiscal years, the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report show the following contributions from employees and separately from taxpayers (government).
Employees:$4,154,388,000
Taxpayers:$7,605,532,000
And here is a USA Today article with the headline:
“Calpers posts 16.7% gain for fiscal year“
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) — Calpers, the biggest U.S. pension fund, earned a 16.7% return on its investments in its fiscal year ended June 30, (2004) best returns in six years, the fund said Tuesday.
And in 1998, CalPERS reported a record 19.5% gain in its investment portfolio. Yipee!
So the question you might be asking yourself is… Why don’t the taxpayers get a refund of all of that money they are putting into the pension system when there is a good year, when we have to be “on the hook” to support the fund with more taxpayer money in a bad year? Not that this was really a bad year, mind you.
–=–
Notice here that I am not mentioning 2008 in this list, and instead giving the reader the impression that CalPERS has gained every year in its portfolio. That is what the news does, you see, but not me. In 2008, Calpers lost a butt-load of asset value to the tune of $58.8 billion due to the financial crash of that time. This was big news of course.
The point here is that a portfolio such as this is designed to acquire as many assets as possible, knowing in advance that those assets will go up and down in the short term, but is designed for the long term. A slow year or a loss is expected every once in a while, of course, and events happen and the economy goes bad and the strengthens again. This is an established reality that any long term investor will tell you.
So let’s here what CalPERS itself says about this years portfolio:
Press Release
July 16, 2012
External Affairs Branch
CalPERS Reports Preliminary 2011-12 Fiscal Year Performance of 1 Percent
Real estate portfolio earns nearly 16 percent exceeding benchmark
SACRAMENTO, CA – The California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) today reported a 1 percent return on investments for the 12 months that ended June 30, 2012, falling short of its benchmark that returned 1.7 percent. CalPERS assets at the end of the fiscal year stood at more than $233 billion.
The small gain – despite continued volatility in world markets and economies – was helped by improved performance of CalPERS real estate investments. Investments in income-generating properties like office, industrial and retail assets returned approximately 15.9 percent, outperforming the pension fund’s real estate benchmark by more than 3 percent.
CalPERS performance was negatively impacted by significant allocations to U.S. and international public equities.
“The last twelve months were a challenging period for all investors as the ongoing European debt crisis and slowing global economic growth increased market volatility and reduced equity returns,” said Joe Dear, CalPERS Chief Investment Officer. “It’s a clear reminder that we must remain focused on performance, risk and internal controls in today’s financial environment.”
CalPERS 1 percent return is below the fund’s discount rate of 7.5 percent, a long-term hurdle lowered recently in response to a steady decline in inflation and as part of CalPERS routine evaluation of economic assumptions. CalPERS 20-year investment return is 7.7 percent.
“It’s important to remember that CalPERS is a long-term investor and one year of performance should not be interpreted as a signal about our ability to achieve our investment goals over the long-term,” said Henry Jones, Chair of CalPERS Investment Committee…
Returns for real estate, private equity and some components of the inflation assets reflect market values through March 31, 2012 (not June 30, 2012). Final performance including the last quarter of the fiscal year will be available after asset valuations are completed.
Investment returns are based on compounded daily earnings over the year, including continuing member contributions and benefit payments, and do not precisely correspond to one-year changes in CalPERS overall portfolio market value.
In another listed report, the CalPERS system shows that “CalPERS Outperformed Its 7.5 Percent Target 13 out of the Last 20 Fiscal Years (FY 1992/93 – FY 2011/12).
–=–
So what does this all mean?
Remember, this reported bad thing of an over $2 billion gain in net assets for the fiscal year is being reported after all benefits have been paid out to the employees of this pension fund. And so there is no loss at all for the year, and this gain is all profit for the fund.
Also notice that for the last 20 years, this fund has attained an above average return on investments, 7.7% compared to the desired 7.5%. This is the wonderful aspect of the CAFR – it allows you to see previous cycles so as to not be fooled by media sound bites. Here, CalPER’s confirms the data in the financial statements that prove that this fund is wealthy beyond even the stated CalPER’s long term goals.
Simply put, this whole media frenzy was a false flag scare tactic – utilizing incomplete information for the CalPERS fiscal year report as stated by CalPERS to pre-program the people of California to accept unnecessary and unneeded increases in taxation, and all for a pension fund that will benefit the taxpayers in no way whatsoever.
We will not know the true statement of CalPERS financial situation until the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) is released for fiscal year 2011-2012, sometime in the next couple of months.
The problem is, most taxpayers have never heard of the CAFR, and place blind trust in their government and their media when they report such ridiculously contradiction data-sets as we have seen here from the Associated Press. And as government forces taxpayers to contribute taxpayer money into the public pension systems of the Federal, State, County, municipality, and district funds on an involuntary basis every year, the taxpayer base looses over $900 billion into the either of public pension black hole each year. This is to say nothing of what the employees of government are also forced to contribute.
If Walmart or Haliburton corporations required taxpayers to fund their pensions at no benefit to the taxpayers in any way, there would be riots in the street tomorrow.
And if they tried to get away with trying to convince the people (or for that matter the IRS) that their over $2 billion dollar gain in investments was somehow a bad thing or was somehow a loss requiring more taxpayer infusions into the Walmart or Haliburton corporate structure, there would be attorneys, accountants, CEO’s, and Board members hanging from the nearest tree…
What gives America?
.
–Clint Richardson (realitybloger.wordpress.com)
–Saturday, July 21, 2012
In a small blurb on a back page of the Salt Lake Tribune was this little gem of a story, referencing a recent Associated Press article. I laughed out loud when I read it, and I think you will too…
First Published Jul 09 2012 01:28 pm • Last Updated Jul 10 2012 12:17 am
“Vatican City • The Vatican has registered one of its worst budget deficits in years, plunging back into the red with a (euro) 15 million ($19 million) deficit in 2011 after a brief respite of profit.
The Vatican on Thursday blamed the poor outcome on high personnel and communications costs and adverse market conditions, particularly for its real estate holdings.
Not even a (euro) 50 million gift to the pope from the Vatican bank and increased donations from dioceses and religious orders could offset the expenses and poor investment returns, the Vatican said in its annual financial report…”
–=–
Note here that we can all learn from this official statement from the Vatican in a big way. For this is exactly the same scam that all governments are claiming around the country, some even now in bankruptcy proceedings. So let’s list these similarities:
1) The Vatican is a corporation, as is each individual and Federal government entity.
2) The Vatican and government operate both in the non-profit and for-profit realm.
3) Both have an Annual Financial Report, and both have a budget report.
4) Both the Vatican and the Government have real estate holdings, as well as stock investments, foreign currency holdings, and both invest heavily into the world-wide corporate structure and fund its liquidity.
5) Both promote their debt, while hiding their investment asset balances.
6) Both have a central bank, which bails it out in moments of need, and then expects Catholics/taxpayers to pay the bill despite its liquid investment holdings.
7) Both openly lie by omission to the people of Earth, while in a position of trust, referring to a deficit while completely ignoring its investment holdings – as if these fund balances don’t even exist.
8) Both use the “depreciation” of capital assets (land holdings, buildings, etc.) to show on their financial reports a liability against other assets, in order to decrease reportable value of these investment assets.
9) Both create budgets that are falsely imploded with such things as future liabilities so as to justify its raising of taxes and its request for tithing.
10) Both create separate sub-corporations with their own financial statements as for-profit entities, but do not use those profits for the benefit of the people.
11) Both call the people “customers”, not people.
12) Both lay off employees with the excuse of budget shortfalls, still not dipping into their vast trillions in liquid investment capital.
13) AND BOTH OWN AND CONTROL THE MEDIA THROUGH STOCK INVESTMENT AND COERCION, AND USE IT TO HIDE ALL OF THIS FROM THE PEOPLE BY KEEPING THEM ENTERTAINED WITH EVERYTHING BUT THIS INFORMATION.
In this truly ironic statement by the Vatican we can see perhaps the best example ever of how a government corporation lies by the act of utter and ridiculous disassociation and nondisclosure of its true wealth. And yes, the Vatican is a corporation, and it is the government of Vatican City – as a “nation state”. It just happens to call itself a church.
Associated Press story continued…
–=–
“The Vatican said it ran a (euro) 14.9 million deficit in 2011 after posting a surplus of (euro) 9.85 million in 2010. The 2010 surplus, however, was something of an anomaly. In 2009 the Vatican ran a deficit of (euro) 4.01 million, in 2008 the deficit was (euro) 0.9 million and in 2007 it was nearly (euro) 9.1 million.
The Vatican city state, which mainly manages the Vatican Museums and is a separate and autonomous administration, managed a budget surplus of (euro) 21.8 million. That’s largely due to a spike in revenue from the museums: More than five million people visited the Sistine Chapel and other works of art in the Vatican museums last year, bringing in (euro) 91.3 million in 2011 compared to (euro) 82.4 million a year earlier.
And the Vatican could also cheer that donations from the faithful were also up last year despite the global economic crisis: Donations from Peter’s Pence, which are donations from the faithful to support the pope’s charity works, rose from $67.7 million in 2010 to $69.7 million last year. That money, however, doesn’t figure into the Vatican’s operating budget, though contributions from dioceses, religious orders and the Vatican bank do.
The Vatican bank, known as the Institute for Religious Works, is able to make such a big contribution to the Vatican’s budget each year based on investments.
Draining the Vatican’s finances were the high costs for its main job of spreading the faith viaVatican media: Vatican Radio, the Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano and Vatican television all have significant expenses and little or nothing in the way of revenue. Vatican Radio, however, is expected to save hundreds of thousands of euros a year in energy costs each year after it cut back short and medium-wave transmissions to Europe and the United States from its main transmission point in Rome.
The Rev. Federico Lombardi, who runs the Vatican radio and television departments and is also the Vatican spokesman, stressed that layoffs among the 2,832 Holy See personnel aren’t in the offing, although he acknowledged that savings must come from elsewhere.
During the meeting of cardinals who oversee the Vatican’s finances this week, he said, there was a “request for prudence and savings.”
“I’m not an expert,” he said of the deficit. “Yes, it’s bigger than in past years, it’s true.” But he noted that the amounts on a global scale aren’t alarming. “Certainly they indicate a need to pay attention and see the criteria the Vatican’s assets are administered.”
–END ARTICLE
–=–
I’ve written extensively on the trillions in government investments that are covered up in the same way and completely ignored on the budget report while being reported on the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR).
The Vatican is no different. In fact, it is the extreme example of the government (nation state) hoarding of wealth that would benefit the people of the world.
Think about it for a moment…
Just one of the thousands upon thousands of artifacts, paintings, sculptures, precious metal coins and treasures, and every other trinket and parchment of knowledge that the Vatican holds within its bowels – just the value of one of those literally priceless artifacts could feed the entire world, let alone cover a 16 million euro deficit in the selectively presented budget report of the Vatican politicians.
And so, I’ve come up with a few propaganda slogans that I think might help the Pope, the Black Pope, and his financial officers continue to fool the useful idiots that keep donating to this massive for profit country called the Vatican…
–=–
“We can’t sell our assets. They are priceless.
There is not enough money in the world to buy just one.
Therefore, we are declaring bankruptcy.”
–=–
“The Saints organized a union,
and they are demanding health benefits.
Please give.”
–=–
“Where in God’s name did I put my savings account?”
–=–
“I’m sorry, but God just called.
He says we’re broke.
–=–
I could go on… and on and on and on… but you get the point. The organization of corporate religion is not a Christian one. And the Vatican is a corporate camel with no chance of fitting through even the largest gauge needle.
In the end, if you understand what has been written here, then you understand the entirety of the government investment scheme. And you understand that the people of America are wealthy beyond imagination, but that wealth is being hidden in plain sight while government creates welfare programs to sustain the poverty level while collecting even more taxes from the poor – never fixing the very problem of poverty because that is the only thing that will create wealthy men and corporations.
Welcome to America… a potential heaven on earth, kept in purgatory by government obfuscation and hoarding of its actual wealth.
.
–Clint Richardson (realitybloger.wordpress.com)
–Friday, July 13, 2012
REALITY BLOG 