NUCLEAR BOMBSHELL: THE DUTCH INTERCEPTED FLIGHT 370 ON IT'S WAY TO CRASH THE NUCLEAR SUMMIT.

Though they state no foul play was involved, and claimed it was a "cargo jet", it's not every day that a 777 airplane flies unidentified straight towards a nuclear summit where all the world's leaders are. I am going to say it like it 99.9999% likely is - THEY BLEW IT, FLIGHT 370 HAS BEEN FOUND AND STOPPED FROM CRASHING THE NUCLEAR SUMMIT, THE SAME TARGET EVERYONE GUESSED IT WAS DESTINED FOR.

BINGO, GREAT JOB EVERYONE, THIS TIME WE NAILED IT.
And to the Dutch: Great job finding flight 370! Remove whatever mock ups were installed to hide what it was and return it to Malaysia airlines. Then start asking the pilots (if there were any) serious questions about where the passengers are.
Simple law of probablility nails the intercepted jet as flight 370. Out of hundreds of thousands if not millions of flights annually, jumbo jets flying with their transponders off to avoid identification virtually never happens even once a year globally, let alone towards a nuclear summit where all the world's leaders (sans Israel's) are and the fact this was a 777, the same plane that is now missing, CINCHES IT.
They can bag whatever spin they put on this and throw it straight in the trash, how many times have you heard of the Air Force being scrambled to intercept an unidentified jumbo jet, let alone the Dutch air force?

Malaysia Airlines, your plane is found. Demand it back, remove whatever mock ups were installed to hide what it was, make them pay to repaint it, service it, and put it right back in your fleet.

The story is that this was a cargo plane. Interesting, because the Jews now own Fedex, DHL, UPS and a majority of other carriers, and only high class carriers will fly 777 jets. If this jet ends up belonging to anyone’s military, that’s equally bad. If you want to know who the enemy is, just look to see who ends up being identified as the owner of this “cargo plane” and if it ends up being Arabs, THAT would also be a set up.

The original article posted by the Dutch has been preserved. This cannot be silenced, if anyone tries I will put the original right back online in the form of a mailable Jpeg.

http://www.jimstonefreelance.com/

RED ALERT! Possible use for flight 370 found

John wrote:

Israel closes embassies all over the world as diplomats go on indefinite strike:

(RT) "Israeli ambassadors abroad will not go to work, no consular services will be available, and Israel will not be represented at any international gatherings during the strike. Even the Foreign Ministry’s political leadership and management will be locked out."

That's too coincidental.
Israel is a delegate nation at NSS. I guess now this means they've pulled out at the last minute. (Remember the lucky folks who didn't go to work morning of 9/11 because they were tipped off?) Pulling out of all embassies world wide makes total sense too and possibly another clue to this being a false flag event in the making with the pretext of attacking Iran. Once they attack Iran they wouldn't want their people anywhere in the world being targeted by angry Iranians and other sympathizers seeking revenge.
My comment:
Vanishing Israelis and Jews from important places has indeed happened before, on 911 and when all Magna BSP employees working Fukushima returned to Israel just before the tsunami and nuclear disaster. This is spooky, DAMN SPOOKY considering the disappearance of flight 370. Something big is coming, COUNT ON IT, and DON'T FALL FOR THE OFFICIAL LIE WHEN IT HAPPENS.
http://www.jimstonefreelance.com/

WOW: This sums it up perfectly - TWO AMERICAs

Subject: Fwd: WOW: This sums it up perfectly - TWO AMERICAs
Date: 03/25/14 09:03:20 A

 A must read!
 

On Monday, March 24, 2014 11:02 PM, C L wrote:

WOW: This sums it up perfectly - TWO AMERICAs

This is very good!

Another excellent example of articulating the condition that besets our country. I think it's fair to say that we've isolated the problem with America today, and, we have clearly defined the solution that will fix it. The larger question is, are we capable of achieving this objective?

The mid-term elections are pivotal in winning back our country. If we fail in our efforts at the mid-terms, the 2016 election will, most certainly, break the back of the Republic and set us on the course for revolution. There will be no peaceful resolve from that point forward. Revolution will be inevitable. It will only be a matter of when it will happen.


One of the clearest explanations ever about the current state of America.

In early January 2014, Bob Lonsberry, a Rochester talk radio personality on WHAM 1180 AM, said this in response to Obama's "income inequality speech":

Two Americas

The Democrats are right, there are two Americas.

The America that works, and the America that doesn’t.

The America that contributes, and the America that doesn’t.

It’s not the haves and the have nots, it’s the dos and the don’ts.

Some people do their duty as Americans, obey the law, support themselves, contribute to society, and others don’t. That’s the divide in America.

It’s not about income inequality, it’s about civic irresponsibility.

It’s about a political party that preaches hatred, greed and victimization in order to win elective office.

It’s about a political party that loves power more than it loves its country.

That’s not invective, that’s truth, and it’s about time someone said it.

The politics of envy was on proud display a couple weeks ago when President Obama pledged the rest of his term to fighting “income inequality.” He noted that some people make more than other people, that some people have higher incomes than others, and he says that’s not just.

That is the rationale of thievery. The other guy has it, you want it, Obama will take it for you. Vote Democrat.

That is the philosophy that produced Detroit. It is the electoral philosophy that is destroying America.

It conceals a fundamental deviation from American values and common sense because it ends up not benefiting the people who support it, but a betrayal.

The Democrats have not empowered their followers, they have enslaved them in a culture of dependence and entitlement, of victim-hood and anger instead of ability and hope.

The president’s premise that you reduce income inequality by debasing the successful seeks to deny the successful the consequences of their choices and spare the unsuccessful the consequences of their choices.

Because, by and large, income variations in society is a result of different choices leading to different consequences. Those who choose wisely and responsibly have a far greater likelihood of success, while those who choose foolishly and irresponsibly have a far greater likelihood of failure. Success and failure usually manifest themselves in personal and family income.

You choose to drop out of high school or to skip college and you are apt to have a different outcome than someone who gets a diploma and pushes on with purposeful education.

You have your children out of wedlock and life is apt to take one course; you have them within a marriage and life is apt to take another course.

Most often in life our destination is determined by the choices we make and the course we take.

My doctor, for example, makes far more than I do. There is significant income inequality between us. Our lives have had an inequality of outcome, but, our lives also have had an inequality of effort. While my doctor went to college and then devoted his young adulthood to medical school and residency, I got a job in a restaurant.

He made a choice, I made a choice, and our choices led us to different outcomes. His outcome pays a lot better than mine.

Does that mean he cheated and Barack Obama needs to take away his wealth? No, it means we are both free men in a free society where free choices lead to different outcomes.

It is not inequality Barack Obama intends to take away, it is freedom. The freedom to succeed, and the freedom to fail.

There is no true option for success if there is no true option for failure.

The pursuit of happiness means a whole lot less when you face the punitive hand of government if your pursuit brings you more happiness than the other guy.

Even if the other guy sat on his arse and did nothing. Even if the other guy made a lifetime’s worth of asinine and shortsighted decisions.

Barack Obama and the Democrats preach equality of outcome as a right, while completely ignoring inequality of effort.

The simple Law of the Harvest as ye sow, so shall ye reap is sometimes applied as, “The harder you work, the more you get." Obama would turn that upside down. Those who achieve are to be punished as enemies of society and those who fail are to be rewarded as wards of society.

Entitlement will replace effort as the key to upward mobility in American society if Barack Obama gets his way. He seeks a lowest common denominator society in which the government besieges the successful and productive to foster equality through mediocrity.

He and his party speak of two Americas, and their grip on power is based on using the votes of one to sap the productivity of the other. America is not divided by the differences in our outcomes, it is divided by the differences in our efforts. It is a false philosophy to say one man’s success comes about unavoidably as the result of another man’s victimization.

What Obama offered was not a solution, but a separatism. He fomented division and strife, pitted one set of Americans against another for his own political benefit. That’s what socialists offer. Marxist class warfare wrapped up with a bow.

Two Americas, coming closer each day to proving the truth to Lincoln’s maxim that a house divided against itself cannot stand.

Bill Moyers (1987) Moyers: "The Secret Government is an interlocking network of official functionaries, spies, mercenaries, ex-generals, profiteers and super-patriots, who, for a variety of motives, operate outside the legitimate institutions of governme

The Secret Government:

Bill Moyers (1987)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=28K2CO-khdY

Published on Aug 4, 2012

Moyers: "The Secret Government is an interlocking network of official functionaries, spies, mercenaries, ex-generals, profiteers and super-patriots, who, for a variety of motives, operate outside the legitimate institutions of government.

http://www.pbs.org/

http://www.youtube.com/user/Conspirac...

http://conspiracyscope.blogspot.com/

·       Category

News & Politics

GLASS STEAGALL ACT PROTECTED BY CONSTITUTION SUPREMACY CLAUSE AFFIRMS COMMON LAW REMEDY "district courts of the United States shall have original jurisdiction of all such suits";

Citing: Bribery of Public Officials and Witnesses (18 USC § 201) - Third Circuit to enforce 18 U.S.C. SEC. 201 Bribery of Public Officials to repeal the Glass Steagall Act go and check who voted to "repeal" the Non Repealable.

18 USC § 201 : US Code - Section 201 - US Codes and Statutes

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/11/201 -

FindLaw provides 18 U.S.C. § 201 : US Code - Section 201: Bribery of public

U.S. Office of Government Ethics - 18 U.S.C. § 201: Bribery of public ...

http://www.oge.gov/Laws-and-Regulations/Statutes/18-U-S-C--%C2%A7-201--Bribery-of-public-officials-and-witnesses/ - 

18 U.S.C. § 201 proscribes bribery and the acceptance of certain gratuities. The

Bribery of Public Officials and Witnesses (18 USC § 201) - Third Circuit

http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/sites/ca3/files/Chap%206%20Bribery.pdf - - 

6.18.201C1B Receiving Illegal Gratuity by a Public Official (18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(1)(

NOTE: 

Text of the Glass-Steagall Act - Scribd - Read Unlimited Books

www.scribd.com/doc/29150973   Complete text of the Glass Steagall-Act of 1933. Upload. Log in. ...
and the district courts of the United States shall have original jurisdiction of all such suits;

Yes there is Common Law Remedy.  Constitutional Common Law-Supremacy Clause i.e.,

Supremacy Clause Law & Legal Definition - USLegal

.

Supremacy Clause Law & Legal Definition

The Supremacy Clause, found in Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, establishes the Constitution, Federal Statutes, and U.S. treaties as "the supreme law of the land."  Therefore, if a state law conflicts with a federal law, the federal law must be followed.
The Supremacy Clause states:
"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be Supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."
According to U.S. law treaties are those international agreements that receive the advice and consent of the Senate. (Article II, section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution). A treaty to which United States is a party is given status equal to that of a federal legislation and therefore forms a part of the Supreme law of the land.
This concept of federal supremacy was first developed by Chief Justice John Marshall in McCulloch v. Md., 17 U.S. 316, 406 (U.S. 1819), where the court held that the State of Maryland could not tax the Second Bank of United States, a branch of the National Bank. It was concluded that "the government of the Union, though limited in its power, is supreme and its laws, when made in pursuance of the constitution, form the supreme law of the land, "any thing in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
In Edgar v. Mite Corp., 457 U.S. 624, 632 (U.S. 1982) it was held that “a state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid federal statute” and that a conflict will be found either where compliance with both federal and state law is impossible or where the state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.
Similarly in Stone v. San Francisco, 968 F.2d 850, 862 (9th Cir. Cal. 1992) the court held on the issue of injunction and remediation, that "otherwise valid state laws or court orders cannot stand in the way of a federal court's remedial scheme if the action is essential to enforce the scheme. State policy must give way when it operates to hinder vindication of federal constitutional guarantees."  http://definitions.uslegal.com/s/supremacy-clause/

1.     In Section 9 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, Congress implemented the constitutional grant:
". . . the district courts . . . shall also have exclusive original cognizance of all civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction . . . saving to suitors, in all cases, the right of a common law remedy, where the common law is competent to give it . . . see 53. 53 1 Stat. 76-77, The provision has been carried over in somwhat altered language, into 28 U.S.C.A. Stat. 1333; see infra at note 125.

You will find it in Law of Admiralty under Admiralty Jurisdiction in the United States. The Jurisdiction and Procedure of Courts Sec. 1-9. Cl.
Some of us kept our old Original Jurisdiction law books.  V.K.D.   http://nesaranews.blogspot.com/2014/03/breach-of-trust-fee-schedule.html#comment-form

2. U.S. Code › Title 28 › Part IV › Chapter 85 › § 1333

Glass–Steagall “repeal” and the financial crisis

Robert Kuttner, Joseph Stiglitz, Elizabeth Warren, Robert Weissman, Richard D. Wolff and others have tied Glass–Steagall repeal to the late-2000s financial crisis. Kuttner acknowledged “de facto enroads” before Glass–Steagall “repeal” but argued the GLBA’s “repeal” had permitted “super-banks” to “re-enact the same kinds of structural conflicts of interest that were endemic in the 1920s,” which he characterized as “lending to speculators, packaging and securitizing credits and then selling them off, wholesale or retail, and extracting fees at every step along the way.”^[47] Stiglitz argued “the most important consequence of Glass–Steagall repeal” was in changing the culture of commercial banking so that the “bigger risk” culture of investment banking “came out on top.”^[48] He also argued the GLBA “created ever larger banks that were too big to be allowed to fail,” which “provided incentives for excessive risk taking.”^[49] Warren explained Glass–Steagall had kept banks from doing “crazy things.” She credited FDIC insurance, the Glass–Steagall separation of investment banking, and SEC regulations as providing “50 years without a crisis” and argued that crises returned in the 1980s with the “pulling away of the threads” of regulation.^[50] Weissman agrees with Stiglitz that the “most important effect” of Glass–Steagall “repeal” was to “change the culture of commercial banking to emulate Wall Street's high-risk speculative betting approach.”^[51]

Legislative history of the Glass–Steagall Act

Main article: Banking Act of 1933

The article on the 1933 Banking Act describes the legislative history of that Act, including the Glass–Steagall provisions separating commercial and investment banking. As described in that article, between 1930 and 1932 Senator Carter Glass (D-VA) introduced several versions of a bill (known in each version as the Glass bill) to regulate or prohibit the combination of commercial and investment banking and to establish other reforms (except deposit insurance) similar to the final provisions of the 1933 Banking Act.^[15] On June 16, 1933, President Roosevelt signed the bill into law. Glass originally introduced his banking reform bill in January 1932. It received extensive critiques and comments from bankers, economists, and the Federal Reserve Board. It passed the Senate in February 1932, but the House adjourned before coming to a decision. The Senate passed a version of the Glass bill that would have required commercial banks to eliminate their securities affiliates.^[16] The final Glass–Steagall provisions contained in the 1933 Banking Act reduced from five years to one year the period in which commercial banks were required to eliminate such affiliations.^[17] Although the deposit insurance provisions of the 1933 Banking Act were very controversial, and drew veto threats from President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, President Roosevelt supported the Glass–Steagall provisions separating commercial and investment banking, and Representative Steagall included those provisions in his House bill that differed from Senator Glass’s Senate bill primarily in its deposit insurance provisions.^[18] Steagall insisted on protecting small banks while Glass felt that small banks was the weakness to U.S. banking.
As described in the 1933 Banking Act article, many accounts of the Act identify the Pecora Investigation as important in leading to the Act, particularly its Glass–Steagall provisions, becoming law.^[19] While supporters of the Glass–Steagall separation of commercial and investment banking cite the Pecora Investigation as supporting that separation,^[20] Glass–Steagall critics have argued that the evidence from the Pecora Investigation did not support the separation of commercial and investment banking.^[21]
This source states that Senator Glass proposed many versions of his bill to Congress known as the Glass Bills in the two years prior to the Glass-Steagall Act being passed. It also includes how the deposit insurance provisions of the bill were very controversial at the time, which almost led to the rejection of the bill once again.
The previous Glass Bills before the final revision all had similar goals and brought up the same objectives which were to separate commercial from investment banking, bring more banking activities under Federal Reserve supervision and to allow branch banking. In May 1933 Steagall’s addition of allowing state chartered banks to receive federal deposit insurance and shortening the time in which banks needed to eliminate securities affiliates to one year was known as the driving force of what helped the Glass-Steagall act to be signed into law.

The Glass–Steagall provisions separating commercial and investment banking

Main article: Glass–Steagall: legislation, limits and loopholes

The Glass–Steagall separation of commercial and investment banking was in four sections of the 1933 Banking Act (sections 16, 20, 21, and 32).^[1] The Banking Act of 1935 clarified the 1933 legislation and resolved inconsistencies in it. Together, they prevented commercial Federal Reserve member banks from:

• dealing in non-governmental securities for customers
• investing in non-investment grade securities for themselves
• underwriting or distributing non-governmental securities
• affiliating (or sharing employees) with companies involved in such activities

Conversely, Glass-Steagall prevented securities firms and investment banks from taking deposits.
The law gave banks one year after the law was passed on June 16, 1933 to decide whether they would be a commercial bank or an investment bank. Only 10 percent of a commercial bank's income could stem from securities. One exception to this rule was that commercial banks could underwrite government issued bonds.
There were several “loopholes” that regulators and financial firms were able to exploit during the lifetime of Glass-Steagall restrictions. Aside from the Section 21 prohibition on securities firms taking deposits, neither savings and loans nor state charted banks that did not belong to the Federal Reserve System were restricted by Glass-Steagall. Glass-Steagall also did not prevent securities firms from owning such institutions. S&Ls and securities firms took advantage of these loopholes starting in the 1960s to create products and affiliated companies that chipped away at commercial banks' deposit and lending businesses.
While permitting affiliations between securities firms and companies other than Federal Reserve member banks, Glass-Steagall distinguished between what a Federal Reserve member bank could do directly and what an affiliate could do. Whereas a Federal Reserve member bank could not buy, sell, underwrite, or deal in any security except as specifically permitted by Section 16, such a bank could affiliate with a company so long as that company was not “engaged principally” in such activities. Starting in 1987, the Federal Reserve Board interpreted this to mean a member bank could affiliate with a securities firm so long as that firm was not “engaged principally” in securities activities prohibited for a bank by Section 16. By the time the GLBA repealed the Glass-Steagall affiliation restrictions, the Federal Reserve Board had interpreted this “loophole” in those restrictions to mean a banking company (Citigroup, as owner of Citibank) could acquire one of the world’s largest securities firms (Salomon Smith Barney), as described in the article Glass–Steagall: decline.

By defining commercial banks as banks that take in deposits and make loans and investment banks as banks that underwrite and deal with securities the Glass Steagall act explained the separation of banks by stating that commercial banks could not deal with securities and investment banks could not own commercial banks or have close connections with them. With the exception of commercial banks being allowed to underwrite government issued bonds, commercial banks could only have ten percent of their income come from securities.
The Glass Steagall Legislation page specifies that only Federal Reserve member banks were affected by the provisions which according to secondary sources the act “applied direct prohibitions to the activities of certain commercial banks.

Glass–Steagall decline & effective repeal

Main article: Glass–Steagall: decline

It was not until during 1933 that the separation of commercial bank and investment bank was considered controversial. There was a belief that the separation would lead to a healthier financial system.^[22] Later on, over the years the separation became controversial. By 1935 Senator Glass himself attempted to “repeal” the prohibition on direct bank underwriting by permitting a limited amount of bank underwriting of corporate debt.
In the 1960s the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency issued aggressive interpretations of Glass-Steagall to permit national banks to engage in certain securities activities. Although most of these interpretations were overturned by court decisions, by the late 1970s bank regulators began issuing Glass-Steagall interpretations that were upheld by courts and that permitted banks and their affiliates to engage in an increasing variety and amount of securities activities. Starting in the 1960s banks and non-banks developed financial products that blurred the distinction between banking and securities products, as they increasingly competed with each other.
Separately, starting in the 1980s Congress debated bills to repeal Glass-Steagall’s affiliation provisions (Sections 20 and 32). In 1999 the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act repealed those provisions.
These and other developments are described in detail in the main article, Glass–Steagall: decline, under the following topic headings:

• Glass–Steagall developments from 1935 to 1991
• Senator Glass’s “repeal” effort
• Comptroller Saxon’s Glass–Steagall interpretations
• 1966 to 1980 developments
• Increasing competitive pressures for commercial banks
• Limited congressional and regulatory developments
• Reagan Administration developments
• State non-member bank and nonbank bank “loopholes”
• Legislative response
• International competitiveness debate
• 1987 status of Glass–Steagall debate
• Section 20 affiliates
• Greenspan-led Federal Reserve Board
• 1991 Congressional action and “firewalls”
• 1980s and 1990s bank product developments
• Securitization, CDOs, and “subprime” credit
• ABCP conduits and SIVs
• OTC derivatives, including credit default swaps

• Glass–Steagall development from 1995 to Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act
• Leach and Rubin support for Glass–Steagall “repeal”; need to address “market realities”
• Status of arguments from 1980s
• Failed 1995 Leach bill; expansion of Section 20 affiliate activities; merger of Travelers and Citicorp
• 1997-98 legislative developments: commercial affiliations and Community Reinvestment Act
• 1999 Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, eliminating legal barriers between commercial banks, investment banks, securities firms, and insurance companies

One of the most significant weakness of the act was the restrictions put on the separation of the investment and commercial banking, it prohibited the bank underwriting. Due to the restrictions put on banks for underwriting securities, some banks could not keep up with their competition, so a repeal for the act was put on. The repeal included many things but the most important was the repeal of separation of investment and commercial banking and the limited of underwriting securities.
That an appeal was necessary because banks were losing their competition, also by allowing banks to underwrite securities, it would allow to create a better relationship with customers and help maintain a customer loyalty to the bank. Also, by having investment and banking activities operate in the same institution, it would make the industry more credible because of diversification.

Aftermath of repeal

Main article: Glass–Steagall: Aftermath of repeal

Because the Federal Reserve’s interpretations of Glass–Steagall Sections 20 and 32 had weakened those restrictions, commentators did not find much significance in the repeal of those sections. Instead, the five year anniversary of their repeal was marked by numerous sources explaining that the GLBA had not significantly changed the market structure of the banking and securities industries. More significant changes had occurred during the 1990s when commercial banking firms had gained a significant role in securities markets through “Section 20 affiliates.”
After the financial crisis of 2007–08, however, many commentators argued that the repeal of Sections 20 and 32 had played an important role in leading to the crisis. Other commentators argued that the repeal had helped end, or mitigate, the crisis.
The main article on this subject, Glass–Steagall: Aftermath of repeal, has sections on:

• Commentator response to Section 20 and 32 repeal
• Financial industry developments after repeal of Sections 20 and 32
• Glass–Steagall “repeal” and the financial crisis

It also mentions that in the 1960's the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency made the Glass Steagall Act allow national banks to engage in a variety amount of securities actitivites. In the essay by Neely, from the federal reserve history website, she also mentions the important information presented above but expanded with it more. For example, she expands on what banks can underwrite which includes commercial paper, mortgage-backed securities, equity and corporate debt as long as these contribute to a small percentage of their affiliate’s revenue. She also adds that the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency allows banks to engage in mutual fund related activities including discount brokerage services.

Glass Steagall in post-financial crisis reform debate

Main article: Glass–Steagall in post-financial crisis reform debate

Following the financial crisis of 2007-08, legislators unsuccessfully tried to reinstate Glass–Steagall Sections 20 and 32 as part of the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Currently, bills are pending in United States Congress that would revise banking law regulation based on Glass–Steagall inspired principles. Both in the United States and elsewhere banking reforms have been proposed that also refer to Glass–Steagall principles. These proposals raise issues that were addressed during the long Glass–Steagall debate in the United States, including issues of “ring fending” commercial banking operations and “narrow banking” proposals that would sharply reduce the permitted activities of commercial banks.
Please see the main article, Glass–Steagall in post-financial crisis reform debate, for information about the following topics:

• Failed 2009-10 efforts to restore Glass–Steagall Sections 20 and 32 as part of Dodd–Frank
• Post-2010 efforts to enact Glass–Steagall inspired financial reform legislation
• Volcker Rule ban on proprietary trading as Glass–Steagall lite
• Further financial reform proposals that refer to Glass–Steagall
• UK and EU “ring fencing” proposals
• Similar issues debated in connection with Glass–Steagall and “firewalls”
• Limited purpose banking and narrow banking
• Wholesale financial institutions in Glass–Steagall reform debate
• Glass–Steagall references in reform proposal debate

MORE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_Act#Legislative_history_of_the_Glass.E2.80.93Steagall_Act

(a) For the purpose of this section - (1) the term "public official" means Member of Congress, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, either before or after such official has qualified, or an officer or employee or person acting for or on behalf of the United States, or any department, agency or branch of Government thereof, including the District of Columbia, in any official function, under or by authority of any such department, agency, or branch of Government, or a juror; (2) the term "person who has been selected to be a public official" means any person who has been nominated or appointed to be a public official, or has been officially informed that such person will be so nominated or appointed; and (3) the term "official act" means any decision or action on any question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy, which may at any time be pending, or which may by law be brought before any public official, in such official's official capacity, or in such official's place of trust or profit. (b) Whoever - (1) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official or person who has been selected to be a public official, or offers or promises any public official or any person who has been selected to be a public official to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent - (A) to influence any official act; or (B) to influence such public official or person who has been selected to be a public official to commit or aid in committing, or collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or (C) to induce such public official or such person who has been selected to be a public official to do or omit to do any act in violation of the lawful duty of such official or person; (2) being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for: (A) being influenced in the performance of any official act; (B) being influenced to commit or aid in committing, or to collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or (C) being induced to do or omit to do any act in violation of the official duty of such official or person; (3) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any person, or offers or promises such person to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent to influence the testimony under oath or affirmation of such first-mentioned person as a witness upon a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, before any court, any committee of either House or both Houses of Congress, or any agency, commission, or officer authorized by the laws of the United States to hear evidence or take testimony, or with intent to influence such person to absent himself therefrom; (4) directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity in return for being influenced in testimony under oath or affirmation as a witness upon any such trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in return for absenting himself therefrom; shall be fined under this title or not more than three times the monetary equivalent of the thing of value, whichever is greater, or imprisoned for not more than fifteen years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States. (c) Whoever - (1) otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty - (A) directly or indirectly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official, for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official; or (B) being a public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official, otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty, directly or indirectly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such official or person; (2) directly or indirectly, gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any person, for or because of the testimony under oath or affirmation given or to be given by such person as a witness upon a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, before any court, any committee of either House or both Houses of Congress, or any agency, commission, or officer authorized by the laws of the United States to hear evidence or take testimony, or for or because of such person's absence therefrom; (3) directly or indirectly, demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally for or because of the testimony under oath or affirmation given or to be given by such person as a witness upon any such trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or for or because of such person's absence therefrom; shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than two years, or both. (d) Paragraphs (3) and (4) of subsection (b) and paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection (c) shall not be construed to prohibit the payment or receipt of witness fees provided by law, or the payment, by the party upon whose behalf a witness is called and receipt by a witness, of the reasonable cost of travel and subsistence incurred and the reasonable value of time lost in attendance at any such trial, hearing, or proceeding, or in the case of expert witnesses, a reasonable fee for time spent in the preparation of such opinion, and in appearing and testifying. (e) The offenses and penalties prescribed in this section are separate from and in addition to those prescribed in sections 1503, 1504, and 1505 of this title. - See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/11/201#sthash.6s8cNBvj.dpuf

Search 18 U.S.C. § 201 : US Code - Section 201: Bribery of public officials and witnesses - See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/11/201#sthash.6s8cNBvj.dpuf

3-24-2014 Newshound Guru Stryker

3-24-2014   Newshound Guru Stryker   [I wonder if they have an impeachment procedure in place to get rid of...Maliki?]   It's called a parliamentary no-confidence vote and its been tried...The biggest issue that I see is who will run against Maliki that has the right stuff this time?  If we can see the revaluation of the dinar before the election as announced on Iraqi TV as some have stated then we really don't care about who runs against Maliki...  [post 1 of 2....stay tuned]

3-24-2014   Newshound Guru Stryker    Stability is what Iraq needs and Maliki is the opposite of stability in my opinion.   Let's just hope that Maliki has burned enough bridges that he can't win again and that someone with some real pride of Iraq comes to power...it's a CBI Monetary Reform Policy that will change the value of the dinar and is not up to Maliki to implement.  His stall tactics I believe are starting to run dry too, IMO...Which is great for us dinar holders!  [post 2 of 2]

3-24-2014   Intel Guru TNT Tony   All information tells us the arguing, chest bumping, etc. have concluded and everyone is on the same team now.  It is supposed to be smooth sailing to the end.  The banking people are in place and told any minute now...that's how close we are. The 800#'s have been released, but not issued to us yet.  Many people are considering selling out...don't do it! You are so close to the end!  It is totally in the IMF's hands. There is official date/time stamp that it'll be acknowledged...could happen at any moment.  Nobody knows when it will go, they are keeping that info to themselves so it doesn't become an issue.  Iraq is telling their people it'll change by April 1.


http://www.dinarguru.com/

GLOBAL MEDITATION - TODAY PDT/6:10 a.m. MST/8:10 CDT/9:10 a.m. EDT

http://jhaines6.wordpress.com/2014/03/24/repost-in-preparation-all-roads-lead-to-rome-global-meditation-march-25-2014-with-doreen-agostino/

Poppy3

Poppy3 

 we seem to have maliki trying to get the rv done now and...HE IS THE BEST AT WHAT HE DOES AND THAT IS PLAY POLITICS TO WIN AND HE WILL WIN AT ALL COSTS...GET READY FOR PAYDAY. 

Monday Night Dinar Chatter

Monday Night Dinar Chatter

03/24/2014

KTFA:

Powerofprayer:   So it is a coincidence that Ukraine lost 36 tons of Gold and Iraq gains 36 tons? ...Wait there are no coincidences....

Frank26:  Here is the answer........ TA DA !!!  Well done Powerofprayer !!!

KTFA,  Frank

**************************

GET:

beach] 3-24-14 Shredd: Article: "Central Bank buys 36 tons of high-purity gold bullion." That’s roughly $1,668,699,648.00 USD. This is in preparation for a monetary policy change to support the exchange rate. Support? 1.6 Billion USD sounds more supportive of an increase in the value rather than stabilizing!
....
*************************

TNT:

Rrrr: Let’s Stay Grounded Dinarians… Simple Fact…The Iraqi Budget, with a rate of $3.71, is effective Tuesday, April 1st…. The RV must occur before then. The PTB have pushed this out as far as they could… But they are out of time. Our moment is between now and the next week. Enjoy the short time we have left and make sure you are prepared for this Bounty we are about to receive…. Life is Beautiful… Savor every Moment!

[SaraLee] imperium Tell me your take on whats happening please?

[imperium] We're going through a major shift in how countries do financial business with each other... without having to be held hostage by the USD.

 [imperium] A balancing of the books so to speak... a heading in a more fair-for-all landscape…. The availability and use of 'real money' instead of funny money.

[imperium] SaraLee understand Basel III and the move towards asset backed instead of fiat currency. That's what's happening. The rest of the world has decided it doesn't want to be dupped anymore with bogus equity based in the USD. END

*****************************

Stage3Omega:

WHERE ARE WE NOW THAT THE IMF REFORMS DEBATE IS OVER...?

Posted by EXOGEN on March 24, 2014 at 8:01pm

SMOOTH SAILING!!!!!!!!!!

******************************

OOM&F:

DinarBob: This nation has become too soft on a lot of lazy people where instant gratifications and handouts for those who do not qualify. I believe in charity and hand-ups not hand-outs. I have seen our 401K's wiped out with the stroke of a key on the keyboard ... years of peoples hard earned savings gone in an instant ... There needs to be justice somewhere. Prayerfully that may be coming!  I have seen Masses of people laid off jobs and those jobs given to people overseas ... people have lost their homes, bank accounts ... and more ...

[lonellc] what does Okies post mean ?

[~KiniBop] lonellc We will soon find out ... no hidden messages ... just be watchful and alert to major changes ahead ...

[DinarBob] IMHO, the majority of us conservative dinarians have been able to read between the lines as we have been taught well. IMO, we will still be surprised at the depth of change to our beloved America. IMO, America will be given a 2nd chance to become the nation that God intended for America to be. We dinarians have been educated for what we are to receive.

[lonellc] DinarBob I hope it is the change of monetary systems from a debt based to a asset based currency.

 [~KiniBop] DinarBob I believe you are close ...

[DinarBob] ~KiniBop I didn't want to say too much but changes are coming.

[lonellc] DinarBob personally I feel i have been lied to all my life. I am so naive i always thought we the people where being treated fairly. after doing my research and seeking the truth and beleiving in what i am reading as fact. I am appalled at what I discovered. I hope all this will be corrected and there is a reset in the world currencies and a reset in our style of govermentment , banking and monetary system

******************************

MIG:

[Plowboy] Late nite DINAR Updates INFO Call w/BGG & Kaperoni - Mar 24th @ 9:00PM CST LIVE Q and A - 760-569-7676 pin# 398647

 [Sparkles-GURU] Plowboy can you tell us what he says

[MsDiva] Plowboy i heard its an important call

[Plowboy] Sparkles-GURU I'll try. I'm not the fastest typist

[Sparkles-GURU] just tell us the good stuff

 [Plowboy] M is setting things up to take full credit for the rv

[Sparkles-GURU] Let him take full credit just do it

[Plowboy] Kaperoni is excited

[Plowboy] its like a 1000 piece jigsaw puzzle. The pieces don't seem that significant in themselves, but they form a big picture which is coming together especially in the last 72 hr.

[Sparkles-GURU] Oh we got a new window

[Plowboy] central bank acquired a bunch of gold

 [Plowboy] why is the gold buy so significant?

 [Plowboy] the fact that they acquired so much so quickly

 [Plowboy] the gold stabilized the economy

[Plowboy] they are preparing for art 8

 [Plowboy] the banks are only willing to let the public have 10% in large notes. They are really trying to bring in the large and the small are the only ones available

 [Plowboy] that implies an impending rv

 [Plowboy] they still haven't passed the economic laws they said had to be passed

[Plowboy] they may pass them all in one fell swoop

 [Plowboy] guys remember what i said on the last two calls . we seem to have maliki trying to get the rv done now and even though i dislike the old joker he is the best at what he does and that is play politic's to win and he will win at all cost even if it means killing his opposition. If you rich friends will listen to the call you will see what the joker has done even today in our favor. Get ready for payday. .

[MsDiva] Plowboy what was Kap so excited about

[MsDiva] Plowboy ok i see why

[MsDiva]  [kaperoni] So you have the MPs on TV saying it cannot wait till after elections.

[kaperoni] you have the CBI buying gold

[kaperoni] you have the CBI consultation back on (after it was postponed)

[kaperoni] you have banks holding 3 zero notes

[kaperoni] and Yasiri said... there is a tendency to launch the Prime Minister 's initiative

[kaperoni] if you all read the IMF documents on exiting closed monetary policy exchange regime, to flexible exchange regime (float) stocking gold is important part

[kaperoni] IMO, they are about to request from the IMF to leave Article XIV

[kaperoni] if you read Yasiri statement closely, he backs what the IMF states..gradual

[kaperoni] lots of pieces fitting together this week

[Plowboy] MsDiva thanks for bringing that in

[Plowboy] couldn't have said it better myself.........git er don

[Plowboy] done

http://www.dinarrecaps.com/1/post/2014/03/monday-night-dinar-chatter22.html

Do The Ancient Hebrews Have Sirian and Lyraen Genetics?

2014-03-25

Do The Ancient Hebrews Have Sirian and Lyraen Genetics?

Vatic Note:  I found this very interesting, for several reasons.  First of all, I have been trying to find out why the Book of Enoch, that has been in the old Testament for a very long time, was fairly recently, in relative time to the ancient writings, removed and taken out and called apostasy?   Enoch walked with God on the earth and dealt with God on a trusted basis. 

In fact, he was so favored by God, that God took Enoch up into the sky alive.  He did not have to die to go with God to Heaven.   How can someone so favored and so well treated by God, be treated as not good  enough to be in the Bible?   I don't even know who made that decision.  But its out of both the Catholic Bible and the King James Bible. 

We posted several blogs on Enochs writings and they were very detailed about the coming down to earth of the "fallen angels"  and "The Watchers".   You can check out what we posted here, here and here.  There were more but this is enough to make the point.  

We also did several series on Dulce, on the murder of Phil Schneider who did seminars about his encounter with aliens while he was in Dulce hired as a geologist to build facilities under ground.  Then we also posted information we found on Sitchins translation of the sumarian writings talking about the "gods who came to earth". So this below became important to consider.  

He has no references to where he obtained this information, so please take that for what its worth.   There is some similarities to other pieces of ancient records, so read this and decide for yourselves.  I have tried to verify and was unable to do so but that does not mean someone else can't find more info, than I have been able to do.  Its worth putting out there with this disclaimer, for consideration and possible follow up by others .   Enjoy the read. 

The Ancient Hebrews
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sumer_anunnaki/reptiles/reptiles17b.htm#9%20-%20The%20Ancient%20Hebrews

Most modern Jews have absolutely no genetic link to the Middle East. There are in fact, many different physical types of Jews, covering many racial characteristics. This supports the fact that they are not a homogeneous group, but a religious group that spans many cultures. 

The story of Abraham going out from the city of Ur and coming to Canaan is really telling the story of the Reptilian hybrids leaving Sumerian territory and colonizing other parts of Central Asia and the Middle East. The vast majority of European/American Jews can trace their genetic lineage to the Khazars, mentioned in the last chapter, who all converted to Judaism in the 800s to circumvent the Catholic rule of the Holy Roman Empire.

In the year 2000, the University of Pavia in Italy did a genetic study of European men. They found that 80% of them had a direct lineage to Central Asia and the other 20% to the Middle East. This supports the statement that the Sumerians entered into Central Asia and then migrated to Europe and the Middle East. This also nullifies the theory of Africa as the birthplace of mankind. There is absolutely no genetic connection from Asia or Europe to Africa.

The ancient Hebrews have nothing to do with modern Jews. As mentioned in the previous chapter, the Hebrews were Sirian-created in Egypt by combining Sirian and Lyraen genetics. These people were tall and powerful, and spoke the Sirian language which is the equivalent to the ancient Hebrew language. Scholars agree that the Hebrew language suddenly appeared on the scene.

The ancient peoples of Palestine spoke Aramaic, which was the parent language of Arabic, Farsi, and several other Middle Eastern dialects. Originally, Hebrew was a language used exclusively by the priesthood and the Egyptian secret society. Eventually, ancient Hebrew began to mix with Aramaic, among other languages.

The Hebrews were actually paid workers in Egypt. They went to Canaan to assimilate the native cultures for the Egyptian Empire. They mixed with the local tribes of Sumerian-hybrid descendants, practicing blood-ritual and human sacrificed. All of this was incorporated into a conglomerate religion based on ancient Egyptian/Atlantean/ Sirian beliefs. That is how Judaism was born.


The story of the Exodus of the Jews from Egypt is a poor retelling of the destruction of the island of Santorini in the eastern Mediterranean Sea by volcanic explosion. The lava dispersed into the sea causing it to turn blood-red. The volcanic ash and rock that spewed forth created the legend of the plagues on Egypt. Many citizens fled the area. The Red Sea parted when the ground under the water rose up, exposing land that could then be crossed. Several hours later, it sank back down, drowning whoever was still trying to cross.

The actual translation of how the Ten Commandments, or the Bible codes, were transmitted to the people of the Exodus, states that the people spontaneously started speaking the instructions. This is a demonstration of mind-to-mind communication. In this case, programming was electromagnetically activated, revealing DNA instructions that were then written down. These instructions were designed to keep the experiment/project in line.

The Middle East became a focal point for the Sirians and their Reptilian allies. Together, they generated a new version of religion and culture for ease of global control and domination. What better way to do that than by programming a race of nomadic people that would carry the religion and culture everywhere on the Earth.

Whenever the conditions within the experiment became unmanageable, the particular overseer group made corrections. For example, most people are familiar with the story of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, where a group of humans in the mankind experiment went awry. Their sexual habits were not conducive to propagation since they were predominantly homosexual.

A virus was introduced into the population to destroy it. However, it started to spread outside the immediate region. This disturbed the controllers, so they sent two agents to investigate, and to determine if anyone was salvageable. The local inhabitants called them angels, because of their blonde hair, blue eyes, and perfect bodies.

Lot and his wife took the agents into their home to protect them, since all the men in town wanted to have sex with them. Soon after, Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed. To this day, radiation can be detected at the site. Melted rock is seen in the canyon walls. Sodom and Gomorrah were eliminated with a nuclear weapon.

In the early 1960s, Israeli scientist digging at the site of Sodom found remnants of bone and body tissue encased in rock. American scientists were called in because they had better equipment. What they found in the preserved body tissue was a sample of the virus. The Americans reconstituted it with living cellular nuclei. Quietly it was tested on a terminally ill patient in a St Louis Hospital in 1967. The man died a horrible death. The virus was called AIDS because it removed whatever immune system the man had left. The American research determined that this thousands-of-years-old virus was artificially genetically created.

The ancient Hebrew religion was a conglomeration of the Sumerian-Reptilian belief system, ancient Egyptian-Atlantean-Lyraen belief system, and the Reptilian tribal subcultures found in the land of Canaan that were incorporated into one acceptable dogma. It included blood-ritual and human sacrifice, which is why Abraham was so eager to please God by killing his own son on an altar. This symbolism came in handy later on for religious purposes.

The Hebrew language itself did not appear until after the Hebrews left Egypt, and then only for religious ceremonial purposes by the priests. In fact, many of the terms and names used in the Hebrew religion came from the Egyptian ceremonial rites. The name, Moses, originates from the title given to adepts of the secret Egyptian pyramid cult.

 

---

The article is reproduced in accordance with Section 107 of title 17 of the Copyright Law of the United States relating to fair-use and is for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.

Posted by Vatic Master

http://vaticproject.blogspot.com/2014/03/do-ancient-hebrews-have-sirian-and.html