Share

Thursday, December 18, 2014

IMF Now Ready To Slam The Door On The U.S. And The Dollar

IMF Now Ready To Slam The Door On The U.S. And The Dollar
Wednesday, 17 December 2014 06:29 Brandon Smith



As I write this, the news is saturated with stories of a hostage situation possibly involving Islamic militants in Sydney, Australia. Like many, I am concerned about the shockwave such an event will create through our sociopolitical structures. However, while most of the world will be distracted by the outcome of this crisis (for good or bad) for at least the week, I find I must concern myself with a far more important and dangerous situation.

Up to 40 people may be held by a supposed extremist in Sydney, but the entire world is currently being held hostage economically by international banks. This is the crisis no one in the mainstream is talking about, so alternative analysts must.

As I predicted last month in “We Have Just Witnessed The Last Gasp Of The Global Economy,” severe volatility is now returning to global markets after the pre-game 10 percent drop in equities in October hinted at what was to come.

We expected such destabilization after the wrap-up of the Fed taper, and the markets have not disappointed so far. My position has always been that the taper of QE3 made very little sense in terms of maintaining the manipulated illusion of economic health — unless, of course, the Federal Reserve was implementing the taper in preparation for a renewed financial catastrophe. That is to say, the central bankers have established the lie of American fiscal recovery and then separated themselves from blame for the implosion they KNOW is coming. If the markets were to collapse while stimulus is officially active, the tragedy would be forever a millstone on the necks of the banksters. And we can’t have that now, can we?

This is not to say that individual central banks and even currencies are not expendable in the grand scheme of things. In fact, the long-term goal of globalists has been to consolidate all currency systems and central banks under the outward control of the International Monetary Fund and the Bank Of International Settlements, as I outlined in “The Economic Endgame Explained.”

That particular article was only a summary of a dangerous trend I have been concerned about for years; namely the strategy by international financiers to create a dollar-collapse scenario that will be blamed on prepositioned scapegoats. I have no idea what form these scapegoats will take - there are simply too many possible triggers for fiscal calamity. What I do know, though, is the goal of the endgame: to remove the dollar’s world reserve status and to pressure the American people into conforming or even begging for centralized administration of our economy by the IMF.

The delusion perpetuated in the mainstream is that the IMF is a U.S.-dominated institution. I have outlined on many occasions why this is false. The IMF like all central banks is dominated by the international corporate banking cartel. Central banks are merely front organizations for globalists, and I am often reminded of the following quote from elitist insider Carroll Quigley when I hear people suggest that central banks are somehow independent from one another or that the Federal Reserve is itself the singular “source” of the world’s economic ills:

It must not be felt that these heads of the world’s chief central banks were themselves substantive powers in world finance. They were not. Rather, they were the technicians and agents of the dominant investment bankers of their own countries, who had raised them up and were perfectly capable of throwing them down.

The substantive financial powers of the world were in the hands of these investment bankers (also called “international” or “merchant” bankers) who remained largely behind the scenes in their own unincorporated private banks. These formed a system of international cooperation and national dominance which was more private, more powerful and more secret than that of their agents in the central banks.

No one can now argue against this reality after we have witnessed hard evidence of Goldman Sachs dictating Federal Reserve policy, as outlined here.

And, most recently, we now know that international bankers control political legislation as well, as Congress passed with little resistance a bill that negates the Frank-Dodd restrictions on derivatives and places the U.S. taxpayers and account holders on the hook for more than $303 trillion in toxic debt instruments. The bill is, for all intents and purposes, a “bail-in” measure in disguise. And it was pushed through with the direct influence of JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon.

The Federal Reserve, the U.S. government and the dollar are as expendable to the elites as any other economic or political appendage. And it can be replaced at will with yet another illusory structure if this furthers their goal of total centralization. This has been done for centuries, and I fail to see why anyone would assume that globalists would change their tactics now to preserve the dollar system. They call it the “New World Order,” but it is really the same old-world monetary order out of chaos that has always been exploited. Enter the IMF’s old/new world vision.

While the investment universe has been mesmerized by the deterioration of the Russian Ruble and oil prices, the IMF has been a busy little bee hive...

In articles over the past year, I have warned that the plan to dethrone the dollar and replace it with the special drawing rights basket currency system would be accelerated after it became clear that the U.S. Congress would refuse to pass the IMF reforms of 2010 proclaiming “inclusiveness” for developing economies, including the BRICS nations. The latest spending bill removed any mention of IMF reforms. The IMF, under Christine Lagarde, has insisted that if the U.S. did not approve its part of the reforms, the IMF would be forced to pursue a “Plan B” scenario. The details on this “plan B” have not been forthcoming, until now.

The Financial Times reported on the IMF shift away from the U.S. by asserting the authority to remove the veto power America has always enjoyed over the institution. This action is a stark reminder to mainstream talking heads and to those who believe the U.S. is the core economic danger to the world that the IMF is NOT an extension of American policy. If anything, the IMF and the U.S. are extensions of international banking power, just as the BRICS are nothing more than puppets for the same self-serving financial oligarchy clamoring for the same IMF-controlled paradigm, as Vladimir Putin openly admitted:

"In the BRICS case we see a whole set of coinciding strategic interests. First of all, this is the common intention to reform the international monetary and financial system. In the present form it is unjust to the BRICS countries and to new economies in general. We should take a more active part in the IMF and the World Bank’s decision-making system. The international monetary system itself depends a lot on the US dollar, or, to be precise, on the monetary and financial policy of the US authorities. The BRICS countries want to change this…"

And of course the Chinese have pronounced their fealty to the IMF global currency concept:

The world economic crisis shows the "inherent vulnerabilities and systemic risks in the existing international monetary system," Gov. Zhou Xiaochuan said in an essay released Monday by the bank. He recommended creating a currency made up of a basket of global currencies and controlled by the International Monetary Fund and said it would help "to achieve the objective of safeguarding global economic and financial stability."

The BRICS are not the only nations demanding the U.S. lose its supposed "influence" over the IMF. Germany, the core economic pillar of the EU, called for America to relinquish its veto power back in 2010 just as the reforms measure was announced.

The IMF decision to possibly eliminate U.S. veto power and, thus, influence over IMF decisions may come as early as the first quarter of next year. This is the great “economic reset” that Largarde has been promoting ad nauseam in multiple interviews and speeches over the past six months. All of these measures are culminating in what I believe will be a more official announcement of a dump of the U.S. dollar as world reserve currency.

Along with the imminent loss of veto power, I have also written on the concerns of the coming SDR conference in 2015. This conference is held only once every five years. My suspicion has been that the IMF plans to announce the inclusion of the Chinese yuan in the SDR basket and that this will coincide with a steady dollar dump around the globe. Multiple major economies have already dropped the dollar in bilateral trade with China, and engineered tensions between the U.S. and the East have exacerbated the issue.

The timing of the SDR conference has now been announced, and the meeting looks to be set for October of 2015. Interestingly, this linked article from Bloomberg notes that China has a “real shot” at SDR inclusion and official “reserve status” next year, but warns that the U.S. “may use its veto power” to stop China’s membership. I have to laugh at the absurdity of it all, because there are many people in the world of economic study who still believe the developments of globalization and fiscal distress are all “random.” I suppose that if it is all random, then it is a rather convenient coincidence that the U.S. just happens to be on the verge of losing veto power in the IMF just before they are about to bring the BRICS into the SDR fold and supplant the dollar.

This is it, folks; this is the endgame right in front of our faces. The year of 2014 is the new 2007, with all the negative potential but 100 times more explosive going into 2015. Our nation has wallowed in slowly degrading financial conditions for years, hidden by fake economic statistics and manipulated stock prices. All of it has been a prelude to a much more frenetic and shocking event. I believe that we will see continued market chaos from now on, with a steep declining trend intermixed with brief but inadequate “dead cat” stock bounces. I expect a hailstorm of geopolitical crises over the next year to provide cover for the shift away from the dollar.

Ultimately, the death of the dollar will be hailed in the mainstream as a “good and necessary thing.” They will call it “karma.” They will call it “progress.” They will even call it “decentralization” and a success for the free market. But it will not feel like a positive development for the American public, who will suffer greatly as the dollar crumbles. Only those educated in the underpinnings of shadow banking will understand the whole thing is a charade designed to hide the complete centralization of sovereign economic governance into the hands of the globalists, using the IMF and BIS as “fiscal heroes,” saving the world from a state of economic destruction the elites themselves secretly created.

Wednesday, December 17, 2014

Judge declares Obama immigration action unconstitutional

Judge declares Obama immigration action unconstitutional
Tue, Dec 16 15:44 PM EST


By Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama's new plan to ease the threat of deportation for 4.7 million undocumented immigrants violates the U.S. Constitution, a federal judge found on Tuesday, handing down the first legal ruling against the plan.

The ruling has no immediate impact, with the government saying there was no reason for Judge Arthur Schwab of the Western District of Pennsylvania to address the issue in the case, which concerns 42-year-old Honduran immigrant Elionardo Juarez-Escobar.

Schwab is the first judge to rule on the legality of the plan Obama announced on Nov. 20. The executive action by the Democratic president is opposed by Republicans and is already subject to other legal challenges.

Schwab ruled that the executive action violated the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of separation of powers and the separate "take care clause," which requires the president to faithfully execute laws passed by Congress.

Schwab says he ruled on the executive action issue because he concluded that Juarez-Escobar could be eligible for relief under the executive action.

Government lawyers told Schwab that Juarez-Escobar, who has pleaded guilty to re-entering the country, was not eligible because Obama's order does not affect criminal proceedings.

(Editing by Kevin Drawbaugh and Lisa Von Ahn)

Supreme Court rules an officer’s misunderstanding of a law is protected
By: Zach McAuliffe Dec 16, 2014

http://benswann.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/supremecourt-dd6385dba48910068ac8f1d92526b1f1fe2924f8-s6-c30-700x525.jpg
A Supreme Court ruling on Monday found police officers who pull over a car for a traffic stop can search and seize the vehicle, even if the officer does not have a full understanding of the law used to pull the vehicle over.

The ruling comes after Nicholas Heien, a North Carolina resident, was pulled over in 2009 on the premise of a single broken taillight. After being pulled over, the officer searched the vehicle and found a baggie of cocaine, and the officer then arrested Heien.




However, North Carolina law only requires one working taillight, so when the officer pulled over Heien, it would appear he had no legal right to do so.

The case was brought up to a North Carolina appeals court who, according to VOX, agreed the stop was unlawful. The case was then heard by the state’s highest court and the Supreme Court, who both ruled in favor of the officer, saying even if the officer does not know the technical aspects of a law, a search and seizure is still constitutional.

“This Court held that reasonable mistakes of law, like those of fact, could justify a certificate of probable cause,” reads the Court’s ruling. The vehicle search, therefore, does not violate the Fourth Amendment, as was argued by Heien, which protects citizens from unlawful searches and seizures without probable cause. The Court said, “a search or seizure may be permissible even though the justification for the action includes a reasonable factual mistake.”

Ultimately, the Court found the Fourth Amendment requires officers to act reasonably, but not perfectly, since officers are human and make mistakes as well. Chief Justice John Roberts said, according to the AP, an officer’s mistake of fact can rightly justify a traffic stop and therefore that misunderstanding can also satisfy the Constitution.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor was the only member of the Court to disagree with the decision, saying an officer’s mistake or misunderstanding of a law, “no matter how reasonable, cannot support the individualized suspicion necessary to justify a seizure under the Fourth Amendment.”

Spokane Deputy Promotes MRAP For Constitutionalists, Gun Owners: Full Clip

Monday, December 15, 2014

Disrupt Podcast- Ferguson Oathkeepers

The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity : Do They Really Oppose Torture?

Do They Really Oppose Torture?
written by ron paul
thursday december 11, 2014


The Senate Intelligence Committee released its long-awaited report on CIA torture of detainees and the reaction has been strong. While some still maintain that torture is justified, the emerging details of the program have left most of the country disgusted and ashamed.

Many in the current Administration blame the Bush people for this dark chapter, claiming that President Obama finally put an end to what his predecessor started.

Senator John McCain, an advocate for war and an interventionist foreign policy, has nevertheless been one of the strongest voices opposing torture. He has recalled his time as an abused prisoner of war in Vietnam to argue the importance of facing up to the recent behavior of the US government and making necessary corrections.

He said he knows from personal experience that torture does not produce good intelligence, as the victims will say whatever they believe their captors want to hear to gain some relief from their agony. Torture is morally wrong and it doesn’t work, he maintains.

I believe the Senator is sincere and that his intentions are good when it comes to the torture outlined in the report. I also believe that President Obama is sincere when he denounces the practices outlined by the Senate Committee.

But I think both President Obama and Senator McCain are being disingenuous and selective in their opposition to torture.

It is one thing to argue that people should not have their feet broken and be forced to stand cuffed to a wall, to oppose rectal force-feeding, and to condemn water-boarding a detainee 50 or 100 times. Most of us reject this kind of torture for both moral and practical reasons.

But is that the only kind of torture? Is it not torture to go to a wedding in Pakistan and watch as your family is blown up by a US drone? Is it not torture to have your village water treatment plant bombed by NATO planes seeking to overthrow Gaddafi? Is it not torture for parents of the 500,000 Iraqi children who were killed by US sanctions? Is endorsing pre-emptive war, knowing that thousands of civilians are sure to be “collateral damage,” not support for torture?

Both Senator McCain and President Obama take the moral high ground with regard to CIA torture, but both are enthusiastic supporters of past and current US military interventions that have the same effect on millions. It is one thing to oppose horrific practices that leave perhaps dozens killed or maimed. But what about practices that do the same for tens of thousands or millions?

A consistent anti-torture position would also reject sanctions, “humanitarian” interventions, regime change, and pre-emptive war. Anything less is missing the whole point.
Copyright © 2014 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.
Please donate to the Ron Paul Institute



Related
US Military Training Overseas: Vast and Under-Reported - 16 April 2013
The Coming Non-Intervention Revolution - 16 April 2013
The Interventionist Failures and How To Fix Them - 17 April 2013
Scenes From the Ron Paul Institute Press Conference - 22 April 2013
Congress Exploits Our Fears to Take Our Liberty - 22 April 2013

Sen. Rand Paul Appears on Fox's On the Record with Greta Van Susteren - ...

Saturday, December 13, 2014

Fourteen ways you can avoid paying the Obamacare tax | Ben Swann Truth In Media

Fourteen ways you can avoid paying the Obamacare tax | Ben Swann Truth In Media

Congress Protects Surplus M14, M1 Garands, & M1911 Pistols in CRomnibus

Congress Protects Surplus M14, M1 Garands, & M1911 Pistols in CRomnibus

CONGRESS PROTECTS SURPLUS M14, M1 GARANDS, & M1911 PISTOLS IN CROMNIBUS







Under Title VIII of the Division C (DoD Appropriations Act), as part of the Continuing Resolution (CRomnibus), Congress made it very clear that none of the funds were to be used to dispose of older-style and much beloved military rifles and handguns. Also included is a mention of small arms ammunition. While this text has appeared in the Defense Appropriations Acts before, it is important to note that it is still there, especially in light of many in congress being strong anti-gun advocates. For the longest time civilians have been able to purchase these surplus weapons directly from the military, and it seems that Congress preserved that capability.



A quick search around Facebook or gun forums you will see a plethora of people who love the M1 Garand, M14, and M1911. There is a cult following that is very loyal and are very happy that these weapons will be preserved to either fight another day or be sold on the civilian market.



Below is the text of the provision we are talking about:





SEC. 8018. None of the funds available to the Department of Defense may be used to demilitarize or dispose of M–1 Carbines, M–1 Garand rifles, M–14 rifles, .22 caliber rifles, .30 caliber rifles, or M–1911 pistols, or to demilitarize or destroy small arms ammunition or ammunition components that are not otherwise prohibited from commercial sale under Federal law, unless the small arms ammunition or ammunition components are certified by the Secretary of the Army or designee as unserviceable, unsuitable, or unsafe for further use.



You can read the entire Continuing Resolution here: CRomnibus.