Dirty Secret Of The Bailout: 32 Words That None Dare Utter

.... I fear we and congress too might not get a choice on this one... but like the above poster points out. It's their heads if they screw up whether they think the public has the backbone to do it or not.

It's time to draw a line in the sand for sure. I think it's high time that we say enough is enough and take our country back. Remember, it's our Constitutional Obligation to abolish a corrupt government. This government is above and beyond corrupt now.

".........According to some estimates we can not track 2.3 trillion dollars in transactions. "

Guess who said that ?
Answer. Donald Rumsfeld.

When did he say it ?
September 10 , 2001.

Where did he say it ?
The Pentagon.

..................unbelievable........................................................

Have a look for yourself .

2.3 trillion = $ 8,000 for every man , woman and child in the U.S.A.

Its too easy spending other peoples money !

Note to OP/ I posted this to highlight the dangers of huge sums of money moving about , without oversight. /
[yvid] [/yvid]

[edit on 24-9-2008 by UmbraSumus]

That's just from one incident too...

Even the GAO admits we've been hemorraging more than a bailout bill a year pretty much every year for quite awhile now...

These people are very good at making money disappear... now they've convinced people to hand them a rolling 700 billion for god knows what really.

Watching Cspan over the past couple of days I can't believe the balls these guys have or what we used to say a few years back "they have no shame"!! Couldn't they at least give us a bit of "hat in hand" with more "mea culpa" to inspire confidence in their intentions. But no, what we get is a pistol to the head with the gangster flare barking out orders "Get on the floor...". Pay up or die...pay up or watch everything you have worked for and dream about for your kids and grandkids destroyed! You got 10 seconds to get the money ready.

I have been watching the hearings on CSPAN and I am appalled that all that is left of our once great country is a petty veneer of bluster and self important grandiosity of those who should not be in any position of responsibility. I guess we have all seen the section where Henry Paulson is not responsible to anyone or any body of government for 700 billion dollars.

Wonder how much we could get done with a trillion dollars if we told Wall Street, in the words of Dick Cheney, "Go f*ck yourself Wall Street!" We will use the Trillion dollars on renewable energy at home and creating the 21st century economy for us and our families soooooo f*ck y'all you should move to China or India we don't want you here anymore cause you don't seem to care about the citizens of THIS country only the market. Go to Dubai with Dick!

reply to post by Lebowski achiever


After reading your post I just couldn't say what your stand is. Many in this land know that politics has and always will be the game that rich men use to seperate the wealth of the world from the poor mans' labor. So, what standing have we to trust any politician?

reply to post by Maxmars


My reference was to the trading banks, not the Federal Reserve (that is owned by said larger banks). The problem is that the banks will not lend to one another as they do not trust that other banks are actually not in fact hiding bankrupt ledgers. Maybe they are all bankrupt, but we need the truth here so that it can be prevented from happening again.

Don't worry too much though because the consciousness of the masses is rising as a result of the abominations of control from the psychopaths that rule in just about every nation on this planet, which will surely lead to a new and more advanced paradigm. Personally I think we've had enough of materialism, evil and vacuous people to last for many lifetimes ahead

When a few people want to take greater executive power but not be held accountable for any decision they ever make, they're hiding something criminal they want to bring forth in the future.

A red flag is raised. If you've never contacted your representatives before, I suggest you do so now. Most especially if you have children.

Originally posted by Nineteen
reply to post by Maxmars

 

My reference was to the trading banks, not the Federal Reserve (that is owned by said larger banks). The problem is that the banks will not lend to one another as they do not trust that other banks are actually not in fact hiding bankrupt ledgers. Maybe they are all bankrupt, but we need the truth here so that it can be prevented from happening again.

Don't worry too much though because the consciousness of the masses is rising as a result of the abominations of control from the psychopaths that rule in just about every nation on this planet, which will surely lead to a new and more advanced paradigm. Personally I think we've had enough of materialism, evil and vacuous people to last for many lifetimes ahead

i think we are headed for a time where there is more violent class warfare not peace.

yes the masses are no longer willingly ignorant because the blissful part is dissapearing (ecnomic pain is growing)

they are willing to unbiasedly look at the possibility of more uncomfortable truths instead of trying to rationalize them away


wall street/establishment party (made up of most dem/reb) vs. the majority of citizens and a minority of congressional "patriots (skeptics of the bailout's intents)

the largely STEALTH leverage that wallstreet /elite money masters has gained over other country's politicians and over the last several decades (the U.S.A) has been a testament to both human ability to not want to believe bad news (sheeple) , other's to be bought (congressmen in wall street's pocket$) and the establisments ability to frame the information given out by the media and "biased knowledge" put into the financial books at our institutes of "higher learning" by the donations and leverage the establisment party has over our education and information outlets to keep people in the dark.



[edit on 25-9-2008 by cpdaman]

In no uncertain terms, if these crooks pass this legislation, it's time to shift into 2nd Amendment mode, ammo up, and fly the Gadsden Flag. It is our Constitutional Obligation to abolish this corrupt government, before they completely ruin this country.

Bailouts- add to national debt, devalue dollar, add to worries about bond rates (eventually increasing debt MORE).....

This money which doesn't exist is going to support companies which got us into the mess of a debt-based economy in the first place.

Gah. I'm calling Sen. Dole in the morning...

to add:
We need to switch to a real currency. Start using gold, something! Use your $US before they aren't worth blowing your nose on....

[edit on 25-9-2008 by korosareru]

I've been recently looking into more info concerning Allodial Title on land...

One of the problems that is associated with the "bailout" that no one seems to be willing to mention (especially the Treasury Secretary!), once these companies get ahold of the money, they can go for another massive "land grab," just as was done during the Great Depression Era. When considering that the General Land Office is under the Department of the Treasury...And the Secretary of the Treasury still wants certain concessions of immunity over how the "bailout" is handled, the implications become clear that "citizen corporations" (as defined under the 14th Amendment), which are potentially immortal for as long as they can stay in business (as Human Beings cannot) can grab Allodial Titles (unchallenged in Court proceedings!) for massive tracts of land...And can hold them in perpetuity (forever) under Law!

And yet, there are many Legislated Statutes in effect that seek to keep this kind of abuse out of the hands of corporations! I don't have an actual source-link but this quoted source comes from a legally-prepared 29-page Memorandum I found that can be used. I've uploaded it to ATS & it can be found here (Adobe PDF format). This Memorandum states the history of Land Titles as they evolved from England into America & how the government must by Law honor the Sovereign Individual's Rights to own property. The quote below is excerpted from pages 17-18 of the Memorandum:

There have been dozens of statutes enacted pursuant to Article IV, Section 111, Clause 11. Some of these statutes had very specific intents of aiding soldiers of wars, or dividing lands in a very small region of one state, but all had the main goal of creating in the sovereigns, freeholders on their lands, beholden to no lord or superior. Some of the statutes include, 12 Stat 392, 37th Congress, Sess. 11, Ch. 75, (1862) (the Homestead Act); 9 Stat. 520, 3 Ist Congress, Sess. 1, Ch. 85 (1850) Military Bounty Service Act); 8 Stat. 123, 29th Congress, Sess. 11 Ch. 8, (1847) (Act to raise additional military force and for other purposes); 5 Stat 444, 21st Congress, Sess. 11, Ch. 30 (1831); 4 Stat 51, 18th Congress, Sess. I.,Ch. 174 (1824); 5 Stat 52, 18th Congress, Sess. 1, Ch. 173 (1824); 5 Stat 56, 18th Congress, Sess. 1, Ch. 172, (1824); 3 Stat. 566, 16th Congress, Sess. 1, Ch. 51, (1820) (the major land patent statute enacted to dispose of lands); 2 Stat 748, 12th Congress, Sess. 1. Ch. 99 (1812); 2 Stat. 728, 12th Congress, Sess. 1, Ch. 77, (1812); 2 Stat. 716, 12th Congress, Sess. 1, Ch. 68, (1812) (the act establishing the General Land-Office in the Department of Treasury); 2 Stat 590, Ilth Congress, Sess. U, Ch. 3.5,(1810);2 Stat 437, 9th Congress, Sess. H, Ch. 34, (1807); and 2 Stat 437, 9th Congress, Sess. H, Ch. 31, (1807)

These, of course, are only a few of the statutes of enacted to dispose of public lands to the sovereigns. One of these acts however, was the main patent statute in reference to the intent Congress had when creating the patents. That status is 3 Stat 566,

In order to understand the validity of a patent, in today's property law, it is necessary to turn to other sources than the acts themselves. These sources include the congressional debates and case law citing such debates. For the best answer to this question, it is necessary to turn to the Abridgment of the Debates of Congress, Monday, March 6, 1820, in the Senate, considering the topic "The Public Lands." This abridgment and the actual debates found in its concern one of the most important of the land patent statutes, 3 Stat 566, 16th Congress, Sess. 1. Ch. 51, Stat. 1, (April 24, 1820)

In this important debate, the reason for such a particular act in general and the protection afforded by the patent in particular were discussed. As Senator Edwards states; "it is not my purpose to discuss, at length, the merits of the proposed change. I will, at present, content myself with an effort, merely, to shield the present settlers upon public lands from merciless speculators, whose cupidity and avarice would unquestionably be tempted by the improvements which those settlers have made with the sweat of their brows, and to which they have been encouraged by the conduct of the government itself, for though they might be considered as embraced by the letter of the law which provides against intrusion on public lands, yet, that their case has not been considered by the Government as within the mischief's intended to be prevented is manifest, not only from the forbearance to enforce the law, but from the positive rewards which others, in their situation, have received, by the several laws which have heretofore been granted to them by the same right if preemption which I now wish extended to the present settlers." Further, Senator King from New York stated, he considered the change as highly favorable to the poor man; and he argued at some length, that it was calculated to plant in the new country a population of independent, unembarrassed freeholders; that it would cut up speculation and monopoly; that the money paid for the lands would be carried from the State or country from which the purchaser should remove; that it would prevent the accumulation of an alarming debt, which experience proved never would and never could be paid.

In other statutes, the Court recognized much of these same ideas. In United States v. Reynes, 9 How. (U.S.) 127 (1850), the Supreme Court stated:"The object of the Legislature is manifest. It was intended to prevent speculation by dealing for rights of preference before the public lands were in the market. The speculator acquired power over choice spots, by procuring occupants to seat themselves on them and who abandoned them as soon as the land was entered under their preemption right, and the speculation accomplished. Nothing could be more easily done than this, if contracts of this description could be enforced."

I used External Quotes because I don't know the tags for Internal Quotes...

This is one very important reason why there should be NO BAILOUT AT ALL, regardless of any other conditions !! Any bailout at all will lead to another Great Depression, when Big Corps bought up foreclosed lands on pennies-to-the-dollar & hold the Allodial Titles away from the People forever, making big bucks as the land starts to appreciate again!

Add this info to whatever else you say when you write your Congressional Officers, because they're being pushed into providing the corporations with financing they want to give the Treasury Secretary immunity from Unlawful Dispersal of American Lands!

[edit on 26-9-2008 by MidnightDStroyer]

Originally posted by SectionEight
reply to post by Lebowski achiever

 

Incumbants to Congress do not get reelected if they sit on their hands against overwhelming public opinion or act against overwhelming public opinion. There is a large opposition to this by quite a few Republican Senators, this is why.

Yes they do get reelected, thats the problem. Thanks in a very large part to our Public School System. "We live in a Democracy, We live in a Democracy." 'Form of Government' "Republic".

Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer

I used External Quotes because I don't know the tags for Internal Quotes...

This is one very important reason why there should be NO BAILOUT AT ALL, regardless of any other conditions !! Any bailout at all will lead to another Great Depression, when Big Corps bought up foreclosed lands on pennies-to-the-dollar & hold the Allodial Titles away from the People forever, making big bucks as the land starts to appreciate again!

[edit on 26-9-2008 by MidnightDStroyer]

You've presented a lot of food for thought. It seems to make a deal of sense to me but I'm unable to weigh up what you present from a legal standpoint as I'm not an expert on the law. But I'm glad you've offered this perspective as it's another factor that I haven't seen mentioned before.

About using external quotes: it was right that you did, as the material you're quoting is from an external source and not authored by you. (Even though you might have posted the material elsewhere on ATS it's still best to quote it in "ex" quote form.) Your quoted material is a bit longer than the guidelines allow for on ATS, though. Have a look at this thread by Springer about quoting sources, which spells things out pretty clearly.

To use internal quotes, write the coding within the square brackets like you do for "ex" sources, but substitute the word "quote" for "ex" in both the opening and closing codes.

Regards,

Mike

In Constitutional Jurisprudence, there is the Poltical Question Doctrine. The gyst of the Political Question Doctrine is that some decisions by members of the Executive Branch are Poltical questions which should not and cannot be reviewed by courts. For example, the Attorney General is free to hire and fire deputy Attorney Generals as he pleases without the intervention of the courts. Of course, there are political repurcussions if the Attorney General uses this authority in an inappropriate way and Antonio Gonzalez lost his job because he inappropriately fired some deputy Attorney Generals. Similarly, some of the Secretary of the Treasuries decisions are cloaked by the Political Question Doctrine.

This is not to say that the Secretary of the Treasury can have free reign to do whatever he wants. He still has to work within the confines of the constitution. For example, he can only make regulations if he has been guided by some "intelligible principle" set forth by Congress. A court can strike down this provision as unduly broad if he is allowed to make rules unfettered.

McCotter Rejects 700-pound Billion Dollar Bag of Dung

Let me put this in the simplistic terms for people l...

uk.youtube.com...