Governments to Control Large Cash Transactions


 

I have been pointing out the crisis we face moving forward. The gist of this is the total fiscal mismanagement of government for which we, the people, are always blamed. This hunt for taxes has led down the path of arguments for eliminating currency. While people think Bitcoin is an answer, they do not understand government’s hunt for taxes no less the lack of a true rule of law. The government need only pass a law that anyone who fails to report what they have in Bitcoin is criminal and they get to confiscate all your assets.

Switzerland has its “wealth tax” which they argue is nothing just 0.02%. However, it requires you to report all assets worldwide. They then know precisely what you have and it is merely one vote away at anytime to raise the tax or impose criminal penalties for failure to report everything. Yet, once Switzerland has that info, under G20 they must share it with all other governments.

We have stood by and watched India cancel all high denomination notes. Try walking around with €500 notes in Europe and they look at you funny or won’t accept them. ATM machines have been reduced in Europe to taking a maximum of €200 in cash at best. This is all th hunt for taxes because government cannot function ethically no less morally.

Now the German Federal Minister of Finance, Wolfgang Schäuble, is proposing to control all large cash transactions claiming this will prevent black money transactions and money laundering. Of course, they see these two issues not as typical crime like drugs, but tax avoidance.

Schäuble is coming up with an alternative for the resistance to eliminating cash is rising globally. He knows he cannot abolish cash. If you cannot eliminate cash, then Schäuble said there should be an upper limit placed on cash transactions, from which cash transactions must be registered and reported to the tax authorities. This is also happening in Europe where you cannot pay for a hotel bill greater than €1000 in France. Schäuble said cash transactions must be registered declaring who are the parties to the transaction on each side to prevent the black money transactions, money laundering and terrorist financing.

It has become painfully obvious that the real winner in the Terrorism War was Osama bin Laden. What this single man did was change the entire world into a hunt for taxes destroying our liberty and right to privacy. He destroyed our liberty like no other invader in history. Osama bin Laden has certainly made the list of the top 10 most influential people in history, but has not surpassed Karl Marx.

Schäuble previously said he was against eliminating cash and imposing ceiling on cash payments as were the French and Italy. Schäuble is joining the ever increase microscope to hunt down citizens for taxes always using Bin Laden as the excuse. Even the IMF recently published a handbook on how the reduction of cash could be implemented as silently as possible.  Australia is stalking children going to private schools and has declared “cash is for criminals!”

This trend is only going to end in revolution. Historically, all revolutions are about money.

Inside Every Liberal is a Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out


The winner of a essay contest, N. A. Halkides, wrote a piece which is actually very on point. I have written before saying essentially the same position that those on the right seek liberty and justice for all because their greatest dream is to be free and left alone to pursue this gift of life. The left, is where revolutions emerge because they are never satisfied with the world and always want to be like the thief who breaks into you home to take what they want for themselves. Halkides explained like this:

The Progressive believes in precisely two things:  his own magnificence and the constructive power of brute force.  In combination, they lead him naturally from the role of pestiferous busybody to brutal dictator.  Where the productive man dreams of the things he might create if only left alone by his fellows, the Progressive dreams of the world he could create if only the lives and property of his fellows were at his disposal.  The roots of his pathology lie in that oldest and most destructive of all human vices, the desire for the power to rule over other men.

To give someone something to help them when they really need it actually makes you feel good inside. To be forced to turnover assets so someone else can claim to be charitable is not charity by any means – it is extortion. Even Hillary on the campaign trail remarked that Trump was worth several billions. “Think what we could do with that!” she exclaimed. It is always violating the Tenth Commandment – Thous shall not covert anything belonging to someone else. It seems God understood the totalitarian hiding inside every leftist and made it a violation of his 10 Commandments.

California Voter Fraud – 11 Counties Posted Votes in Excess of their Population


Judicial Watch has filed a letter of intent that reflects a very serious problem in California voting. Eleven California counties posted more votes for Hillary than the population. We are looking at massive voter fraud in California that could serious rock the nation when we consider that if we eliminate California, Trump won the majority of the vote everywhere else. This is not about supporting Trump. That is long since done. This is about going forward. Can any election be trusted any more?

If we can buy goods online in a secure manner, we can also vote on line. Even those who do not have a computer posses usually a smart phone which can also be used to vote. For those people who do not have either, then they can go to the public library or town hall to vote. Voting online will eliminate voter fraud for you cannot vote without a Social Security card. Plain and simple.

McMasters of The Universe – An Ongoing NSA Saga…


There is a considerable amount of visible internet and social media angst surrounding the National Security Council and staffing decisions made by National Security Advisor HR McMaster.   CTH has no insight into the inner workings of disagreements within the current NSC, however, with a modest amount of both skepticism and cynicism the current level of alarm appears over indulged.

Within any work group there’s going to be differences of opinion.  Within any national security working group there’s going to be ideological differences of opinion.  The issues are important and very complex.  The differences should never be dismissed or marginalized in their potential consequence.  That said, it’s not the differences of opinion that present problems – it’s when those differences become entrenched in opposition to the reason for the groups primary function.  That’s when differences become problems.

Consider the foreign policy proposals, and worldviews therein, of candidate Donald Trump and candidate Ted Cruz.  Now think about taking the foreign policy/NatSec principals from both candidate camps, and the outlooks carried therein, and put them into the same council chamber to hammer out papers of recommended action toward policy.

Can you see the structure for an underlying problem?  Now overlay the ideological interests of the institutional military with a healthy dose of both deep state and religious (centered principle outlook) career ideology, and you’ve got a recipe for disagreement.  Well, that’s essentially what I see when reviewing various media reports of internal group conflict points.

The Atlantic presents an article about an NSC staffer being removed for the production of a rather entrenched ideological view –SEE HERE– and Breitbart provides another example of removal for a like-minded albeit possibly less entrenched view –SEE HERE -. Oh, and there’s literally dozens more depending on your normal internet travel pattern.

CTH looks at all of these reports with a level dose of both skepticism and cynicism.

Skepticism surrounding the underlying tone in presentation of the information, and cynicism in the conclusions, logical or illogical, drawn from within each presentation.  Let me explain by taking the Muslim Brotherhood issue as one example that seems to draw out the polarity of opinion.

I’m solidly in the camp of Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi when it comes to the Muslim Brotherhood.  From my decades of looking at them as an organization from the Holy Land Foundation trial, to the various Arab Spring uprisings (Islamist Spring), and with specific attention to the epicenter of the ideological conflict in Egypt, I agree with President al-Sisi that the Muslim Brotherhood is a dangerous geo-political entity constructed to be favorable to the worst elements within extremist Islam.

That is to say the Brotherhood is the political shield that gives validity to various extremist elements of Islam.  Additionally, and with direct association, the preferred propaganda media outlet for the Muslim Brotherhood has been al-Jazeera (Qatar based).

In order for al-Sisi to protect the larger Egyptian population he needed to get control of the extremists.  It was a matter of immediate urgency, and later ongoing necessity, for him to banish the Brotherhood and kick out al-Jazerra.

Those decisions provided the space for breathing room away from the shouting.  The Brotherhood leadership went to Qatar, and then eventually to Turkey after Qatar came under the original Arab State pressure (2013) to stop supporting these horrible political extremists.

That same inner-Islamic conflict still remains in place today between the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) and Qatar.  That ideological feud erupted again in 2017 and is still ongoing.

The fact that Turkish leader Recep Erdogan was so willing to open his doors to harbor the Brotherhood Leadership in exile also served as a keen precursor to the ideology behind the Erdogan mask.  Since accepting the Brotherhood Turkey has increasily moved toward extremism and totalitarian control.  These issues are not unrelated even though the slide toward Erdogan’s authoritarianism took place over several years.

That said, I can totally understand why President Trump can support al-Sisi’s position 100%, and yet not label the Brotherhood as an officially recognized terrorist entity with all that label entails.   Again, the Brotherhood is political (face to the world) AND ideological (face to Islam).   The label alone provides the extremists (al-Qaeda, al-Nusra, ISIS, AQIP, AQIM and al-Shabab) with ideological recruitment tools.

That’s the argument against the label. And that’s a solid argument.

President Trump doesn’t label the Brotherhood as a terror network, but he simultaneously, and very publicly, supports Fattah al-Sisi doing so.  Within the complexity these are not mutually exclusive points of policy.   Additionally, President Trump also supports Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, Bahrain and Qatar following al-Sisi’s lead.

President Trump supports every article of policy that isolates and marginalizes the Brotherhood.  Heck, he not only supports it – he challenges the majority mid-East nations to support it.  Remember: “drive them out” etc.  However, notice President Trump doesn’t provide a problem for the goal by becoming part of the ‘great Satan narrative’; later to be used by the ideological Brotherhood as a shield and a sword.

I can entirely reconcile the reasons for this administration not to affix the label.  It’s a policy and a strategy… and so far, at least in granular movement, it’s working.  ISIS is being defeated, extremist elements are on their heels, and hopefully in the longer-term this pragmatic policy will prove to be very effective.

However, I can also entirely see a reason for those who, understanding all historic references, want the U.S. to take exactly the same approach as Egypt.  I disagree, because it’s more fair to see if the alliance effort/approach works first, but I can see validity in the counter position reasoning for their stance.

Now, if you overlay an entrenched disposition drawn out and influenced by elements within political policy and political media who have an underlying religious basis for their unwillingness to accept pragmatism, well,… then the conversation gets more…. well, confrontational and immediately challenging. I’m using the word “challenging” here with a great level of diplomacy between the syllables.

This example is what it sounds and apparently looks like around the NSC table on just this one-single-issue.   This is just one single organization and approach toward that political organization within one single regional policy and recommendation to the President.

Multiply that understanding times the complexity of Russia, Ukraine, North Korea, China, A.S.E.A.N nations and take it to the exponential level with Turkey and the EU; and well, you see how differences of opinion can go from zero to infinity level angst in minutes.

The paralysis of analysis is also a problem, and nothing creates that dynamic more than a dysfunctional NSC.

Again, to understand the complexity here consider former CIA Director George Tenet trying to get to George W. Bush, for weeks, with a warning about airlines and the use by terrorists in the summer of 2001 prior to 9/11.   Read Tenet’s book “At the Center of The Storm” to see how challenging it was while Condoleezza Rice was Bush’s first year National Security Advisor.

Against the backdrop of 9/11/01 I think we can all well understand the ramifications to differences of opinion within the NSC, and the need for clarity of purpose with specific policy recommendations therein.  It is entirely possible that Condi Rice carried a tremendous amount of regret in hindsight.

But I mention all of these aspects only to contrast how easy it is for all of us to sit in judgement of these personnel changes and inner-group battles within the NSC as they are rolled into the political media for us to consider.  The executive people loading the information pellets into our feeder machines have an ideology also.  Remember that when you pull their lever, read their narrative, and subsequently exit with your pellet.

Ultimately, there’s one Commander-in-Chief looking through the fog of often contrary opinion, and measuring it through the prism of his or her own compass.  Fortunately we have a President who is well versed in looking at multi-dimensional and complex problems and applying a sequential linear approach toward them.

Fortunately we have a President sharp and smart enough to evaluate the progress at each point he chooses along the road and make adjustments to the direction regardless of political benefit or cost thereof.

Fortunately we have a president willing to challenge the Condi Rice’s or HR McMasters’ of the world, reset the conversation points and say “yeah, but what if”?…..

American Imperialism – Why Congress Violates International Law


FATCAWe have a very serious problem with Congress. Their actions in far too many ways is displaying (1) a total disregard for international law, and (2) a clear arrogance that they will punish foreigners for not obeying US law outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. What if Germany passed a law to punish Americans for criticizing something in Germany from within the United States? Would that not be outrageous?

Congress has been on a path of IMPERIALISM since the Obama Administration and it began with taxes. Even John McCain supported a law which thankfully failed that would have required every business to collect the sales tax of every state and remit it to them monthly. You cannot imagine how that would have destroyed small business with legal and accounting fees subjecting them to outrageous penalties for a single mistake. Then came FATCA. Congress has single-handedly destroyed the ability of American small business to grow internationally. They assumed that if an American had any account outside the USA it was to hide money. Since Congress did not trust the people to pay taxes, they imposed harsh penalties upon any foreign institution that did not REPORT to the United States what any American was doing overseas. An American can no longer open offices overseas for no institution will accept a business account from an American no matter how legitimate because if they FAIL to report what the American is doing, the institution;s assets in the United States can be seized by the government. The risk is far too high so no American or dual citizen can now open a bank account in Europe or Asia reducing American economic expansion.

Now the Russian sanctions are effectively an all out economic war. Once again, Congress has taken an imperialist view and will punish any foreign company doing business in the United States if they also do business with Russia. This is beyond a trade war – it is wholesale economic war which also took place during the 1930s that set in motion World War II. The French disagreed with merging Germany and Austria so they began shorting the Austrian bonds. When Germany tried to support Austria, the French turned against Germany in the financial markets shorting their bonds. Britain came in to try to support Germany and the French began shorting the British gilts. The net result was World War II began in 1931 when country after country was forced off the gold standard defaulting on their national debts. The arrogance of the American Congress is no different than the French actions in 1931.

Europe is now threatening the US with counter-measures because of its sharper Russian sanctions, which could also hit German companies. Congress is attempting to dictate to non-American companies punishing them for doing business with Russia and this is simply unlawfully violating international law. The American Congress cannot punish foreign companies because they are doing business in another country. Congress has moved far beyond a trade war of simply tariffs. This is an economic war that can set in motion the next MONETARY CRISIS just as the French set in motion the MONETARY CRISIS of 1931.

Russia is currently reacting with a massive expulsion wave against US diplomats to the US Congress’s tightening of sanctions against the country and is rightly doing so. President Vladimir Putin announced in an interview that 755 US diplomats had to leave the country by September 1st. The Russian Foreign Ministry announced that the number of employees at the US embassy and consulates in Russia should fall to 455 by the end of August. At the same time, Putin retained further retaliatory measures for the future, and was skeptical about an imminent improvement in relations between the two countries. Congress has simply lost its mind.

 

Congress is regularly violating International Law and unfortunately, it has refused to submit jurisdiction to any international court. The likelihood of the US Supreme Court overruling FATCA or this new round of Russian Sanction is about nil. Congress’ actions show the total IGNORANCE of what is at stake and what the American Revolution was all about. The reason the Congress cannot compel foreign entities to comply with US law outside the United States is called TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION, which was born with the American Revolution. No nation can sanction another outside its jurisdiction and then demand that all other countries obey its law – that is IMPERIALISM

The Founding Fathers knew very well what they were doing when the established Jurisdictional Law. For you see, “JURISDICTION” was different before the American Revolution. You were the PROPERTY of the king. If you killed someone while on vacation in Paris from England, the French were NOT allowed to punish you. They had to send you back to your king who owned you telling him what you did and ONLY he could punish you since you were his property.

Then comes the American Revolution against monarchy. This presented a HUGE problem legally. What if you were on vacation from France and killed someone in New York? If Americans did not have a king and you were a FREE citizen not belonging to a king here, how would they deal with the problem? Did they send you back to your king because he claimed he “owned” you when we claimed we were FREE individuals?

The subject of law and jurisdiction was considered deeply by the Founding Fathers and what emerged was human rights not the rights of monarchs. It was decided that the laws of the United States must apply to everyone while they were here and nobody would be sent back to a king they did not recognize. Thus, what emerged was TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION. With the death of monarchy and the rise in the respect for the dignity of man, the laws of nations were to secure the rights, liberties, privileges and protection of ALL inhabitants within the TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION of the sovereign state. This fundamental change in the focus of rights of the monarch to that of the individual is reflected in Madison’s Report on the Virginia Resolutions (1800)  (4 Elliot’s Debates 556).  It was the American Revolution that changed international law establishing for the first time Jurisdictional Law predicated upon human rights. Congress’ actions with FATCA and now the Russian sanction demonstrates that they are no different from the monarchy of old and place their desires first above human rights.

The emergence of the nation-state in Europe and the growth of the doctrine of absolute territorial sovereignty changed the nature of extraterritorial rights or international law. No longer were strangers to be denied the advantages of local law. Indeed, territorial sovereignty meant the exercise of sovereignty over all residents within the borders of the state, and thus is it utterly UNCONSTITUTIONAL for the States to impose ANY obligation upon anyone outside its TERRITORY to comply with its own laws even regarding their own citizens. Congress tried to defeat the constitution regarding the detainees at Guantanamo Bay arguing that they were not within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. On June 12, 2008, the Supreme Court ruled against the U.S. government in cases brought by foreign nationals challenging their detention at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba military facility. A five-justice majority in Boumediene v. Bush held that the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA) to deny the application of rights to Guantanamo Bay violated the U.S. constitutional right of the detainees to meaningful habeas corpus review by federal civilian judges. According to the Court, the Constitution prevents the government from barring detainees from rigorous habeas review and instead substituting military fact-finding followed only by a limited right of review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Notably, the Supreme Court did not decide which specific habeas review procedures are required by the Constitution, but instead sent the cases back to the federal district court to litigate that and related issues. The four dissenting justices would have upheld the constitutionality of the MCA’s withdrawal of habeas jurisdiction.

The in 2004, the Supreme Court reversed itself avoiding constitutional review limiting it to statutory construction in a very obvious rejection of the Constitution. In Rasul v. Bush (2004), the Supreme Court reversed on very narrow grounds the holding that U.S. courts have jurisdiction under a federal habeas statute to hear the detainees’ lawsuits. “Considering that the [habeas] statute draws no distinction between Americans and aliens held in federal custody,” the Court found “little reason to think that Congress intended the geographical coverage of the statute to vary depending on the detainee’s citizenship.” Constitutional questions about access to courts or substantive rights of aliens outside the sovereign territory of the United States were left for another day avoiding any ruling. Rasul was thereafter released by the government and that ended that review.

In 2004, at the same time as Rasul, the Supreme Court decided in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld that a U.S. citizen in military custody inside the U.S. had a constitutional right under the Due Process Clause to “receive notice of the factual basis for his classification, and a fair opportunity to rebut the Government’s factual assertions before a neutral decisionmaker.” Though this holding did not by its terms apply to the non-citizens at Guantanamo, it did suggest that the Court was skeptical of the military detention process and willing, at least in some circumstances, to use the Constitution to supervise it. These cases demonstrate that Congress has deliberately attempted to violate the Constitution with regard to jurisdiction whenever it can. This is further evidence that they attempt to act like a dictator and deny human rights themselves whenever possible to maintain power. This is reflected both in FATCA as well as the new sanctions against Russia punishing foreign entities outside of the territorial jurisdiction of the United States for not obeying Congress.

Carpenter MatthewClearly, Congress is openly committing treason against the United States by asserting power it does not have and it clearly knows what it is doing but count on the fact that there is no court which will stand up to their usurpation of power. Historically, what emerged internationally and the fall of monarchy at first was the extraterritorial consular jurisdiction that finally tended to die out among Christian nations in the 18th and 19th centuries. Consular Courts were US courts held in foreign jurisdictions. At first an American committing a crime on a ship in a Japanese port was tried there by Americans but without the constitutional protections. This was still a claim over jurisdiction over the person based upon territory for it would apply to a non-Americans regarding a crime on an American ship.

In 1881, Senator Carpenter, while attacking these Consular Courts on the floor in Congress, argued they were “a disgrace to this nation” because they deprived citizens of the “fundamental and essential” rights to indictment and trial by jury, declared: “If we are too mean as a nation to pay the expense of observing the Constitution in China, then let us give up our concessions in China and come back to as much of the Constitution as we can afford to carry out.” 11 Cong. Rec. 410. Of course John McCain and Lindsey Graham do not appreciate the constitutional restraints in the least. They supported the total denial of any human right to anyone the government dares to allege sent even $1 to an organization the government further alleged supported terrorism. You are to be thrown in prison, denial all rights, a lawyer, and a trial until you die.

McCain-Graham

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ni-nPc6gT4

International Law goes back to ancient times. It was seaborne transport that caused this same problem to surface. Whose law governed a ship? It was one of the earliest channels of commerce, and rules for resolving disputes involving maritime trade were developed in ancient recorded history. Early historical records of these laws include the Rhodian law (Nomos Rhodion Nautikos), which has not survived, but has been referenced in other legal texts such as Roman and Byzantine legal codes. Even the later the customs of the Hanseatic League refer to Rhodian law. In southern Italy the Ordinamenta et consuetudo maris (1063) at Trani and the Amalfian Laws were also early dated forms of international law that emerged from maritime or admiralty law after the Dark Ages. Congress has violated centuries of establishing human rights and international law.

Jefferson-Sig

The king abused the admiralty courts where there was no trial by jury. This was a prominent feature in the prelude to the American Revolution. Thomas Jefferson included the phrase in the Declaration of Independence “For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury” referring to the practice of Parliament giving the Admiralty Courts jurisdiction to enforce the Stamp Act in the American Colonies for taxes. Congress is trying to overturn the Constitution also today for taxes with respect to FATCA seizing assets of a foreign entity for an act it fails to do in its own country. Since the Stamp Act was unpopular, a colonial jury was unlikely to convict a colonist of its violation. However, because admiralty courts did not then grant trial by jury, a colonist accused of violating the Stamp Act (not paying taxes) could be more easily convicted by the Crown’s agents since there was no jury trial. Congress has done this to the Guantanamo Bay detainees and thus they remain in prison for life with no trial since 2001. And the US dares to claim China and Russia violate human right pretending to respect human rights itself.

Hamilton-2

Many American lawyers who were prominent in the American Revolution were in fact specialists in this unique area of international law and were known as admiralty and maritime lawyers in their private lives. Those included are Alexander Hamilton in New York and John Adams in Massachusetts. Today, very few lawyers even study the constitution for most only deal with statutory law presuming whatever law Congress enacts is constitutional. They are incapable of constitutional concepts for they study one semester and one class in constitutional law. Hence, we get Draconian laws with no concept that they are writing something really damaging to the nation as a whole. Moreover, the lawyers in Congress are typically those who failed in the legal profession to begin with. They were normally low-level lawyers.

Adams-JohnIn fact, in 1787 John Adams, who was then ambassador to France, wrote to James Madison proposing that the U.S. Constitution, then under consideration by the States, be amended to include “trial by jury in all matters of fact triable by the laws of the land [as opposed the law of admiralty] and not by the laws of Nations [i.e. not by the law of admiralty]”. The result was the Seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which reads:

“In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.”

John Adams represented John Hancock in an admiralty case in colonial Boston involving seizure of one of Hancock’s ships for violations of Customs regulations. Even Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes was an admiralty lawyer. Since trade was by ship among nations, we can see that an admiralty lawyer was a lawyer trained in international law.

Territorial Jurisdiction is a very serious matter for if we bend that to collect taxes or punish Russia, nothing is left. The Supreme Court once said “jurisdiction is not a matter of sympathy or favor. The courts are bound to take notice of the limits of their own authority, and it is no part of the defendant’s duty to help in obtaining and unauthorized judgment by surprise.” Reid v US, 211 US 529, 539 (1909). Congress is undermining the entire fabric upon which the global economy is constructed. This is VERY SERIOUS!

In Johnson v Eisentrager, 339 US 763 (1950), the Supreme Court rejected the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the Constitution and would not apply it to enemy aliens arrested in China and imprisoned in Germany after WWII saying they had no right even to file habeas corpus in the United States. The Guantanamo Bay is US Territory, and thus they had the right to habeas corpus because the government brought them back to the United States, see Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008). The Johnson Court said:

“Such extraterritorial application of organic law would have been so significant an innovation in the practice of governments that, it intended or apprehended, it could scarcely have failed to excite contemporary comment. Not one word can be cited. No decision of this court supports such a view. Cf. Downes v Bidwell, 182 US 244 (1901). None of the learned commentators on our constitution has even hinted at it. The practice of every modern government is opposed to it.”

          Id/ 339 US at 784

This decision clearly states that FATCA and the Russian Sanctions are patently in violation of international law. Yet go try and find a federal judge to stand up and do the right thing – good luck. Even if you find one honest judge, the court of appeals will quickly overrule them. Welcome to the tyranny of imperialism.

When Government is infested self-interest for political vengeance against Russia to defend Hillary, it would help if they took the time to study the reasons we have Territorial Jurisdiction and why they are undermining centuries of law that is the foundation of civilization itself. Congress is destroying everything and commerce would be unworkable if every country did the same as the US Congress. If every American having any business in a foreign country failed to report what a German owns in Kansas could be seized overseas or arrest for traveling to Europe on vacation, it does not take a vivid imagination to realize that the entire global economy will come crashing down.

We will be preparing the Monetary Crisis Cycle report since it begins next year. Welcome to the insanity of politics. We simply MUST stop putting people who are ignorant of the past and the rule of law if we hope to create a better future for our posterity rather than a desolated land and a new Dark Age because we have stupidly destroying civilization.

Winning with Precise Words: A guide to understanding Islam


It is very difficult to have the right thoughts if you don’t have the right words. Almost all of the words used in talking about Islam are subjective. What do words like moderate Islam and radical Islam actually mean? They are subjective terms. We need to use the objective names that are found in the doctrine of Islam.
The logic and correct naming must come from Allah and Mohammed, the Koran and the Sunna, the Trilogy. Just as there are two Korans, Meccan and Medinan, there are two kinds of Islam and Muslim. Instead of moderate Islam/Muslim, it is Meccan Islam/Meccan Islam. Instead of radical Islam/Muslim, the correct name is Medinan Islam. Don’t say terrorist, say jihadist.

Don’t get involved with Islam, the religion, only deal with political Islam, the Islam for Kafirs.

Browder – Russia – Trump – Safra


Hermitage_Capital_ManagementWilliam Felix Browder is all over the news trying to play into the whole Russian/Trump affair muddling the waters. Browder founded Hermitage Capital to invest exclusively in Russian companies. Edmond Safra, the notorious banker who was the center of what was called the Money Plane, put in $25m of seed capital for Hermitage Capital and Safra’s Republic National Bank of New York controlled it. This was the Russian deal I was being asked to join. When HSBC bought Republic National, Browder embarked on a series of share deals which has left him with complete ownership because the whole Hermitage Capital deal was at the center of a real political controversy many were trying to bury for at the center was the attempt to take over the. natural resources of Russia.

Safra-Berezovsky

Money-Plane NY Mag 1996 CoverThe scheme set in motion the plot to get the president Boris Yeltsin to steal $7 billion from the IMF loans I have written about before. He did, and Safra steered the bank wire transaction through Bank of New York to a company in Geneva claiming to refurbish the Kremlin. As soon as the wire took place, Safra’s Republic Bank of New York ran to the U.S. Justice Department and informed them that a $7 billion wire just took place at Bank of New York from Russia and it was money laundering. The transcripts of the bankers pleading guilty and got only 6 months house arrest, shows when asked what was the laundering, they simply said it involved ransoms for Russian business men. Safra was in league with the U.S. government to move billions of dollars in US currency notes on skids to Russia by the plane load. Clearly, the U.S. government was involved in this scheme to that extent (see Money Plane).

So while Browder portray’s himself as the businessman who was a victim of Putin, to set the record straight, Browder’s grandfather was the leader of the American Communist Party and stood for election to the Presidency of the United States against Theodore Roosevelt. His Grandfather was a communist who was later imprisoned in the McCarthyite period. Browder claims he went to Russia in 1995 to regain his roots. However, he ended up among Russia’s highest profile investors linked to Safra who in turn was linked to Boris Berezovsky, who was close to Yelstin. Yeltsin was going to run for election in 2000 a second time. This is when the plot to takeover Russia was hatched. Yeltsin was threatened to be exposed by the Bank of New York money laundering and he was to resign, keep the money, and appoint Berezovsky president. Yeltsin realized he was set up so that is when he turned to Putin. Berezovsky fled to London, others fled to Israel, and Putin then probably had Safra killed. Since Safra controlled Hermitage Capital, it was seized. The claim of Browder that his Russian tax attorney Sergei Magnitsky was imprisoned and died before trial was trying to fight corruption in Russia is far from the truth. Putin seized all the assets of Hermitage Capital and Browder fought in Congress to get the Magnitsky Act passed. I always found it very strange that here the object was to influence the election of president of Russia by blackmail, and the Congress passes the Magnitsky Act as if it was human rights because of some attorney who dies in a prison in Russia. Something is seriously missing.

Both Browder and Putin disliked the imprisoned oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky who back in 2003 was considered the wealthiest man in Russia. Yukos was one of Russia’s major corporations for oil and petrochemical industries and was also one of the world’s largest non-governmental groups. It was founded by Mikhail Khodorkovsky in 2003. Khodorkovsky had considered running for President crossing paths with Putin. However, he would also not join in with Safra and his Hermitage Capital seeking to corner the resources of Russia in gold, diamonds, and energy.

Back in October 2003, Khodorkovsky was arrested and charged with fraud and Putin froze shares of Yukos shortly thereafter on tax charges. Putin’s government took further actions against Yukos, leading to a collapse of the company’s share price. Yokos was sized and later declared bankrupt on August 1, 2006 by a Moscow court. In May 2005, he was found guilty and sentenced to nine years in prison. In December 2010, while he was still serving his sentence, Khodorkovsky and his business partner Platon Lebedev were further charged with and found guilty of embezzlement and money laundering; Khodorkovsky’s prison sentence was extended to 2014. After Hans-Dietrich Genscher lobbied for his release, President Vladimir Putin pardoned Khodorkovsky, releasing him from jail on 20 December 2013 and he moved to Switzerland. Browder claimed that Khodorkovsky was doing asset stripping and transfer pricing. Browder said: “We found him to be our toughest opponent. That is one of the reasons I am so sympathetic with President Putin.”

Browder turned against Putin and he was denied a visa to reenter Russia. The official Russian explanation for the decision to revoke Browder’s visa  was formally announced in a letter he received on November 25th reading: ‘The decision to deny entry into the Russian Federation for Mr William Felix Browder has been made by the competent authorities in accordance with Article 27, Item 1, of the Federal Law No 114FZ.’ This article says that entry can be denied to someone in the interest of ‘ensuring the security of the State, public order or public health’.

Hermitage Capital Management claimed it was pioneering American corporate governance and commercial probity in the boardrooms of Russia’s largest companies. That is by no means the story I was fed to invest $1 billion into Hermitage Capital. It was all about natural resources of Russia. Hermitage Capital grew raising money to $1bn in the first two years.

Sorry, I just do not believe the propaganda that surrounds trying to rewrite history. Khodorkovsky was considering running for politics and was financing political parties that opposed Putin. He clashed with Putin over the corruption in the Russian government. There is a whole other side to this story that nobody seems to be interested in exposing because it just might reveal American attempts to manipulate Russian politics that backfired and opened the door to Putin. The connections between Safra and the government to enable the Money Plane is possibly the reason I would allege is how Browder was able to get the Magnitsky Act passed trying to get his money back. If I were Trump, I would open this black box to discover the truth lurking in the shadows behind the Magnitsky Act.

Italy Threatens to Blow Up the Refugee Crisis


If you are against the refugees, many will call you a racist even though the refugees are not of a single race. The problem is they are economic migrants – not refugees from exclusively Syria, which the West can stop in a heartbeat. The crisis is economic. These people coming in are getting the benefits of unemployed workers without work and are breaking down an economic system at the worse possible moment.

Nicolas Sarkozy of France says immigrants should ‘speak French’ and attacks ‘medieval’ burkini revealing the culture clash. This influx is even starting to change fashion gradually. There is little assimilation, but the West is bending over backwards to accommodate them and in so doing is starting to change itself.

The crisis is economic. Italy cannot afford to pay for all these people benefits when the State is in serious economic trouble to begin with. They are now threatening a ‘nuclear option’ to migrant crisis by giving EU visas to 200,000 incomers and sending them north as the country struggles with the sheer cost of human warehousing.

Multinational Corporations and The Export of American Wealth…


To understand the larger objectives of the global and financial elite it is important to understand the three-decade global financial construct they seek to protect. Global financial exploitation of national markets:

♦Multinational corporations purchase controlling interests in various national elements of developed industrial western nations.
♦The Multinational Corporations making the purchases are underwritten by massive global financial institutions, multinational banks.
♦The Multinational Banks and the Multinational Corporations then utilize lobbying interests to manipulate the internal political policy of the targeted nation state(s).
♦With control over the targeted national industry or interest, the multinationals then leverage export of the national asset (exfiltration) through trade agreements structured to the benefit of lesser developed nation states – where they have previously established a proactive financial footprint.

Since initially explaining this modern import/export dynamic some have asked for specific examples in order to gain a better understanding.  There are a myriad of interests within each sector that make specific explanation very challenging.  However, here’s an attempt.

For three decades economic “globalism” has advanced, quickly.  Everyone accepts this statement, yet few actually stop to ask who and what are behind this – and why?

People with vested financial interests in the process have sold a narrative that global manufacturing, global sourcing, and global production was the inherent way of the future.  But what’s brutally missed in the discussions is the fundamental truth that advocates selling this “global” message have a vested financial and ideological interest in convincing the information consumer it’s just a natural outcome of progress.

It’s not.

It’s not natural at all.  It is a process that is entirely controlled, promoted and utilized by large conglomerates and massive financial corporations.

Again, I’ll try to retain the larger altitude without falling prey to the esoteric weeds.  I freely admit this is tough to explain and I may not be successful.

Bulletpoint #1: ♦ Multinational corporations purchase controlling interests in various national elements of developed industrial western nations.

This is perhaps the most challenging to understand.  In essence, national companies expanded their influence into multiple nations, across a myriad of industries and economic sectors (energy, agriculture, raw earth minerals, etc.).

Think of these multinational corporations as global entities now powerful enough to reach into multiple nations -simultaneously- and purchase controlling interests in a single economic commodity.

A historic reference point might be the original multinational enterprise, energy via oil production.  (Exxon, Mobil, BP, etc.)

However, in the modern global world, it’s not just oil; the procurement extends to virtually every possible commodity and industry.  From the very visible (wheat/corn) to the obscure (small minerals, and even flowers).

Bulletpoint #2 ♦ The Multinational Corporations making the purchases are underwritten by massive global financial institutions, multinational banks.

During the past several decades national companies merged.  The largest lemon producer company in Brazil, merges with the largest lemon company in Mexico, merges with the largest lemon company in Argentina, merges with the largest lemon company in the U.S., etc. etc.  National companies, formerly of one nation, become “continental” companies with control over an entire continent of nations.

…. or it could be over several continents or even the entire world market of Lemon/Widget production.  These are now multinational corporations.   They hold interests in specific segments (this example lemons) across a broad variety of individual nations.

National laws on Monopoly building are not the same in all nations.  But most are not as structured as the U.S.A or other more developed nations (with more laws).  During the acquisition phase, when encountering a highly developed nation with monopoly laws, the process of an umbrella corporation might be needed to purchase the interests within a specific nation.  The example of Monsanto applies here.

Bulletpoint #3  ♦The Multinational Banks and the Multinational Corporations then utilize lobbying interests to manipulate the internal political policy of the targeted nation state(s).

With control of the majority of actual lemons the multinational corporation now holds a different set of financial values than a local farmer or national market.  This is why commodities exchanges are essentially dead.  In the aggregate the mercantile exchange is no longer a free or supply-based market; it’s now a controlled market exploited by mega-sized multinational corporations.

Instead of the traditional ‘supply/demand’ equation determining prices, the corporations look to see what nations can afford what prices.  The supply of the controlled product is then distributed to the country according to their ability to afford the price.  This is how the corporation maximizes it’s profits.

Back to the lemons.  A corporation might hold the rights to the majority of the lemon production in Brazil, Argentina and California/Florida.   The price the U.S. consumer pays for the lemons is directed by the amount of inventory (distribution) the controlling corporation allows in the U.S.

If the U.S. harvest is abundant, they will export the product to keep the U.S. consumer spending at peak or optimal price.  A U.S. customer might pay $2 for a lemon, a Mexican customer might pay .50¢, and a Canadian $1.25.

The bottom line issue is the national supply (in this example ‘harvest/yield’) is not driving the national price because the supply is now controlled by massive multinational corporations.

The mistake people often make is calling this a “global commodity” process.  In the modern era this “global commodity” phrase is particularly BS.

A true global commodity is a process of individual nations harvesting/creating a similar product and bringing that product to a global market.   Individual nations each independently engaged in creating a similar product.

Under modern globalism this process no longer takes place. It’s a complete fraud.  Currently, massive multinational corporations control the majority of product inside each nation and therefore control the entire global product market and price.

In highly developed nations this multinational corporate process requires the corporation to purchase the domestic political process, the approval, within individual nations allowing the exploitation.  As such, their lobbyists pay hundreds of millions to politicians for changes in policies and regulations one sector or industry at a time.

EXAMPLE:  The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS)

CFIUS is an inter-agency committee authorized to review transactions that could result in control of a U.S. business by a foreign person (“covered transactions”), in order to determine the effect of such transactions on the national security of the United States.

CFIUS operates pursuant to section 721 of the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended by the Foreign Investment and National Security Act of 2007 (FINSA) (section 721) and as implemented by Executive Order 11858, as amended, and regulations at 31 C.F.R. Part 800.

The CFIUS process has been the subject of significant reforms over the past several years.  These include numerous improvements in internal CFIUS procedures, enactment of FINSA in July 2007, amendment of Executive Order 11858 in January 2008, revision of the CFIUS regulations in November 2008, and publication of guidance on CFIUS’s national security considerations in December 2008 (more)

Bulletpoint #4With control over the targeted national industry or interest, the multinationals then leverage export of the national asset (exfiltration) through trade agreements structured to the benefit of lesser developed nation states – where they have previously established a proactive financial footprint.

The process of charging the U.S. consumer more for a product, that under normal national market conditions would cost less, is a process called exfiltration of wealth.

It is never discussed.

To control the market price some contracted product may even be secured and shipped with the intent to allow it to sit idle (or rot).   It’s all about controlling the price and maximizing the profit equation.   To gain the same $1 profit a widget multinational might have to sell 20 widgets in El-Salvador (.25¢ each), or two widgets in the U.S. ($2.50/each).

Think of the process like the historic reference of OPEC (Oil Producing Economic Countries).  Only in the modern era massive corporations are playing the role of OPEC and it’s not oil being controlled, it’s almost everything.

Individual flower growers in Florida out of business because they didn’t join the global market of flower growers (controlled market) by multinational corporate flower growers in Columbia and South America, who have an umbrella company registered in Mexico allowing virtually unrestricted access to the U.S. market under NAFTA.

Agriculturally, multinational corporate Monsanto says: ‘all your harvests are belong to us‘.  Contract with us, or you lose because we can control the market price of your end product.  Downside is that once you sign that contract, you agree to terms that are entirely created by the financial interests of the larger corporation; not your farm.

The multinational agriculture lobby is massive.  We willingly feed the world as part of the system; but you as a grocery customer pay more per unit at the grocery store because domestic supply no longer determines domestic price.

Within the agriculture community the (feed-the-world) production export factor also drives the need for labor.  Labor is a cost. The multinational corps have a vested interest in low labor costs. Ergo, open border policies.  (ie. willingly purchased republicans not supporting border wall etc.).

This corrupt economic manipulation/exploitation applies over multiple sectors, and even in the sub-sector of an industry like steel.   China/India purchases the raw material, ore, then sells the finished good back to the global market at a discount.  Or it could be rubber, or concrete, or plastic, or frozen chicken parts etc.

The ‘America First’ Trump-Trade Doctrine upsets the entire construct of this multinational export/control dynamic.  Team Trump focus exclusively on bilateral trade deals, with specific trade agreements targeted toward individual nations (not national corporations).  ‘America-First’ is also specific policy at a granular product level looking out for the national interests of the United States, U.S. workers, U.S. companies and U.S. consumers.

Under President Trump’s Trade positions, balanced and fair trade with strong regulatory control over national assets, exfiltration of U.S. national wealth is essentially stopped.

This puts many current multinational corporations, globalists who previously took a stake-hold in the U.S. economy with intention to export the wealth, in a position of holding contracted interest of an asset they can no longer exploit.

RELATED:

♦The Modern Third Dimension in American Economics – HERE

♦The “Fed” Can’t Figure out the New Economics – HERE

♦Proof “America-First” has disconnected Main Street from Wall Street – HERE

Next up: How the Stock Market is disconnected and why that matters.

Illinois Should Just Be Dissolved as the Solution


John Kass of the Chicago Tribune has come out with a blunt article, yet it is the only possible solution since the government is effectively just bankrupt with no hope of recovery. He writes:

“Illinois is like Venezuela now, a fiscally broken state that has lost its will to live, although for the moment, we still have enough toilet paper.

But before we run out of the essentials, let’s finally admit that after decade upon decade of taxing and spending and borrowing, Illinois has finally run out of other people’s money.”

To comprehend what is happening, all we need do is understand that socialism has really been about government helping themselves to other people’s money for their personal benefit. Their constitution set that government pensions come before everything else. How is that helping the poor to paying their debts? The greed of the employees of Illinois has pushed the State to beyond the point of no return. The constitution can only be amended to deny future employees pension. It cannot be altered to deal with the quarter-trillion owed to state employee pension funds. There really is no way out and it because questionable if Illinois can even simply go bankrupt when it is constitutionally owed. So Kass’ solution may sound insane, but it is probably the only way to deal with the crisis – tear-up the state as a state and dissolve it entirely. Krass wrote:

Dissolve Illinois. Decommission the state, tear up the charter, whatever the legal mumbo-jumbo, just end the whole dang thing.

We just disappear. With no pain. That’s right. You heard me.

The best thing to do is to break Illinois into pieces right now. Just wipe us off the map. Cut us out of America’s heartland and let neighboring states carve us up and take the best chunks for themselves.

The group that will scream the loudest is the state’s political class, who did this to us, and the big bond creditors, who are whispering talk of bankruptcy and asset forfeiture to save their own skins.

This is the reality we face going forward. I have stressed get out of all government debt in the state and local level and buy NO MORE!!!!! The party is over!