ERIC HOLDER HAS MADE IT HARDER

          
HOLDER HAS MADE IT HARDER FOR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO LEGALLY SEIZE YOUR PROPERTY

The Daily Signal

Jason Snead

January 22, 2015    

In a stunning announcement last week, Attorney General Eric Holder announced the Department of Justice would immediately stop “adopting” state civil asset forfeiture cases. Attorney General Eric Holder’s announcement came exactly one week after leaders on Capitol Hill called on him to halt the controversial program as a step toward broader reform of the nation’s civil forfeiture system.

Before today’s announcement, federal agencies could take over, or “adopt,” forfeiture cases from local or state law enforcement agencies. In other words, state or local law enforcement personnel would seize property and then turn it over to the federal government to process.

Pursuant to agreements with the federal government, once the property was successfully forfeited in federal court, the originating state or local agency got a portion of the proceeds, potentially as high as 80 percent. That money had to be used for law enforcement operations, placing it beyond the control of local governments and state legislators.

The program became the subject of controversy for effectively allowing local agencies to circumvent restrictive state laws in favor of the potentially more lucrative federal route, raising serious federalism and good government concerns. Even where states had strong procedural safeguards for property owners or limitations on the use of forfeiture funds, law enforcement could partner with the federal government and use federal rules to seize property and make use of the profits.

Sens. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, and Mike Lee, R-Utah, and Reps. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wisc., and John Conyers, D-Mich., wrote that “these seizures might circumvent state forfeiture law restrictions, create improper incentives on the part of state and local law enforcement, and unnecessarily burden our federal authorities.”              

     

Apparently responding to these concerns, the attorney general’s new policy bars federal authorities from adopting local or state seizures of “vehicles, valuables, cash and other monetary instruments.”

The AG was able to make this change unilaterally because the statutes underlying federal civil forfeiture made the equitable sharing payments optional. 

The Department of Justice has the authority to craft, and to change, the rules of the program. The Treasury Department, which operates its own forfeiture fund, announced its forfeiture operations will conform to the same guidelines as those laid out by Holder. 

Although this is an important step, there are some important limitations and potentially significant loopholes to the new rule:

• “Adoptive” forfeitures make up a declining, and relatively minor, percentage of the equitable sharing program’s payouts to the states – about 17 percent in 2010, according to the GAO. This means the vast majority of the equitable sharing program is untouched by the new rule.

• Federal adoptive forfeitures are still allowed for four express categories representing “public safety concerns” – firearms, ammunition, explosives and child pornography. These types of adoptive forfeitures have accounted for a mere 0.1 percent of forfeitures since 2008, according to The Washington Post.

• The attorney general’s order allows for “seizures pursuant to federal warrants, obtained from federal courts to take custody of assets originally seized under state law.” It is relatively easy for federal authorities to obtain a warrant from a federal magistrate that would enable those authorities to take custody of assets “originally seized [by state law enforcement authorities] under state law.” If federal authorities do this routinely, this exception could prove to be broad indeed, grossly undercutting effective limitations on federal adoption of state forfeiture matters.

• Property seized as part of a joint task force, composed of federal and state or local law enforcement officials, is unaffected by the new rules. If “joint federal-state investigations” are defined to mean instances where there is genuine and continuous cooperation, then this exception may be relatively narrow. But if this is defined more broadly—as any task force that simply receives federal money, or has any contact, however incidental, with a federal law enforcement agency—this exception could render the order a dead letter.

• Although “adoption” is now prohibited, federal civil asset forfeiture by referral is not. In other words, local law enforcement may simply give a heads-up to federal law enforcement to make the initial seizure. Pursuant to federal law, state or local law enforcement agencies still might be eligible for equitable sharing funds. This type of action violates the spirit of last week’s move but not the letter.

• The assistant attorney general for the Criminal Division can approve adoptions going forward. It remains to be seen how often, and on what grounds, adoptions will be granted under this exception, which also could prove to be quite broad.

• Finally, the order represents internal DOJ policy and not a change in statute. It thus could be reversed at any time.

Will this reform be a case where the exceptions swallow the rule? That remains to be seen. The exact limits placed on equitable sharing are as yet unclear.

Today’s announcement in no way will hinder forfeiture actions executed solely by federal authorities, and it leaves open the option for state and local law enforcement to pursue in state courts the civil forfeiture cases they otherwise would have transferred to the federal government. This puts renewed focus on the need for legislative reform of state civil forfeiture laws. Washington, D.C., and Minnesota have enacted broad reforms meant to protect innocent property owners; other states should follow suit.

And regardless of how broadly or narrowly these exceptions prove to be, if one of these exceptions is invoked, it still allows state and local agencies to skirt any state law limitations regarding how and when forfeited funds obtained under current equitable sharing rules can be used by local authorities.

While the Justice Department continues its top-to-bottom review of the civil forfeiture program, Congress should continue to take up the challenge of forfeiture reform, addressing this and the many other issues of federal forfeiture that remain untouched. Numerous bills have been proposed in both houses of Congress, and this is one of the few truly bipartisan issues.

The prospects look good: Sen. Grassley, the new chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, praised Friday’s announcement but indicated he would still push for legislative reforms.

http://dailysignal.com/2015/01/22/holder-just-made-harder-federal-government-legally-seize-property/   

In Index of Economic Freedom, U.S. Is 12th Freest Economy....

    

Anthony B. Kim / @AKFREEDOM / January 27, 2015      

Photo: Getty Images

Commentary By

Anthony B. Kim/ @AKFREEDOM

Anthony B. Kim researches international economic issues at The Heritage Foundation, with a strong focus on economic freedom. Kim is co-editor of the Index of Economic Freedom, the flagship product of the Heritage Foundation in partnership with The Wall Street Journal. Read his research.

There is no single formula for overcoming challenges to economic development and maintaining economic dynamism, but one thing is clear: Around the globe, governments that respect and promote economic freedom provide greater opportunities for innovation, progress and human empowerment. The 2015 Index of Economic Freedom, released today, tracks policy developments affecting economic freedom across the world by looking at four primary areas: rule of law (property rights, freedom from corruption), government size (fiscal freedom, government spending), regulatory efficiency (business freedom, labor freedom, and monetary freedom), and market openness (trade freedom, investment freedom, financial freedom).

Here are five key points you should take away from this year’s Index:

• The United States continues to be only the 12th-freest economy, seemingly stuck in the ranks of the “mostly free,” trailing such comparable economies as Australia, New Zealand and Switzerland. Although the downward spiral in U.S. economic freedom since 2008 has come to a halt with modest gains in six of the 10 economic freedoms, the 1.6-point decline in overall economic freedom over the past five years reflects broad-based deteriorations in key policy areas. Increased tax and regulatory burdens, aggravated by favoritism toward entrenched interests, have undercut America’s historically dynamic entrepreneurial growth. As Americans more than ever look to their future with growing frustration, 2015 should be the year of action to put America back on the path to freedom and revitalize its entrepreneurial pulse.
• The global average economic freedom score has advanced to its highest level ever. Despite the continuing challenges that confront the world economy, the global average economic freedom score has improved over the past year by one-tenth of a point, reaching a record 60.4 (on a 0-to-100 scale) in the 2015 Index. Although the rate of advancement has slowed in comparison to last year’s near record 0.7-point increase, the world average has now reached a level a full point higher than that recorded in the aftermath of the financial crisis and recession.
• 101 countries, the majority of which are less developed or emerging economies, showed advances in economic freedom over the past year. 37 countries, including Taiwan, Lithuania, Georgia, Colombia, Israel, Cabo Verde, Montenegro and Côte d’Ivoire, achieved their highest economic freedom scores ever in the 2015 Index.
• Competition for the top spot in the Index rankings has intensified more than ever. The 2015 Index has recorded a number of noticeable realignments and achievements within the top 20 global economic freedom rankings. For example, although Hong Kong has maintained its status as the world’s freest economy, a distinction that it has achieved for 21 consecutive years, the gap between that territory and Singapore, the second-freest economy, has further vanished.
• Countries with higher levels of economic freedom continue to outperform others in reducing poverty, achieving greater prosperity, and ensuring broader progress in many dimensions of social and human development. As the Index has catalogued, nations with higher degrees of economic freedom prosper because they capitalize more fully on the ability of the free-market system not only to generate, but also to reinforce dynamic growth through efficient resource allocation, value creation and innovation. Policies that promote freedom, whether through improvements in the rule of law, the promotion of competition and openness, or suitable restraints on the size and economic reach of government, turn out in practice to advance practical solutions to a wide range of economic and social challenges.

A recurring theme of human history has been resilience and revival. The country profiles in the 2015 Index of Economic Freedom include many examples of countries that have accelerated their economic and social progress in the face of difficult challenges and a sometimes harsh international environment. Their successes can be emulated by others. The Index charts not just one path to development, but as many as the ingenuity of humans can produce when they are free to experiment and innovate.

The 21st edition of the Index of Economic Freedom assesses economic policy developments in 186 economies in six regions around the world. Since its inception in 1995, the Index, an annual cross-country analysis by The Heritage Foundation, in collaboration with The Wall Street Journal, has tracked the progress of economic freedom and measured the impact of advancing economic liberty around the globe.

Societynews

Firearms Sellers Say They’re Being Choked Off From Payment Processors....

Kelsey Harkness / @kelseyjharkness / January 12, 2015           

Photo: Newscom

Go to a gun show, and you won’t find many merchants using PayPal.
You’ll also find few vendors using popular payment processors such as Square, Stripe and Spark Pay.

That’s because some payment processors explicitly prohibit the use of their systems for online — and some in-store — sales of firearms, ammunition and certain accessories.
Retailers in the gun industry say they’re being discriminated against.

Subscribe to updates and alerts

Email address

“Being shut out from mainstream payment processors makes us feel like we are part of some type of shady business when, in fact, there is more regulation and documentation required for federally licensed firearms dealers than most businesses,” said Trevor Blandford of Terminal Performance Associates in Caroline, Va.
Blandford, 21, has been working gun shows for his family’s business since he was 14 years old. Recently, his parents named him general manager of Terminal Performance, which is known for its custom-built pistols and rifles and originally finished wraps. He and his family sell their merchandise online and at local trade shows.

Terminal Performance, an online gun merchant based in Caroline, Va. , custom builds their own pistols, rifles, and sells originally-finished wraps. (Photo: Terminal Performance)

To process payments, most merchants use some sort of payment processor.
Payment processors are companies, often third-party outlets, which handle credit card transactions between merchants and banks.
The concern some firearms sellers expressed to The Daily Signal is that restricting their access to some of the largest payment processors in the country — who offer the lowest transaction fees in the business — puts them at an unfair disadvantage to other industries.
>>> Commentary: This Terrible Anti-Gun Treaty Goes Into Effect Christmas Eve
Add that to the long list of regulations firearms sellers already face, and some say it’s not even worth attempting to start a business.
“In most of the states, especially California and New York, you’re a lunatic if you start a gun business,” Cody Wilson, co-founder of Defense Distributed told The Daily Signal.

“In most of the states, especially California and New York, you’re a lunatic if you start a gun business,” says Cody Wilson.

Wilson had his bank account closed by Chase.
He was blocked from his PayPal account twice and shut out from Stripe.
Stripe is a San Francisco startup that provides an easy way for websites and mobile apps to take payments using a range of payment systems from credit cards to Apple Pay.
Wilson’s case is more murky than other gun merchants. Instead of directly selling firearms and accessories, he provides blueprints on the Internet to manufacture 3D-pistols at home. The government classifies his business as the equivalent to distributing weapons without a license.

Defense Distributed provides blueprints on the Internet to manufacture 3D-pistols. (Photo: Defense Distributed)

Still, Wilson claims, the roadblock against gun dealers in the industry is real and it hurts small businesses most.
Policy Play
Some payment processors publicly state their policy against gun sellers. Square, for example, which is famous for its tiny white credit card reader that plugs into iPhones and other cellular devices, explicitly prohibits sellers from accepting payments in connection with firearms.

Photo: CC by 2.0

It wasn’t always Square’s policy to box out firearms sellers. A handful of vendors at “The Nation’s Gun Show” in Dulles, Va., told The Daily Signal on Jan. 2 that they used to enjoy the many benefits of using Square and similar payment processors.
But after Square updated its policies, merchants such as Blandford of Terminal Performance are left using what they consider second-rate payment processors.
On May 10, 2013, Terminal Performance received an email notification regarding Square’s updated seller agreement.
In it, Blandford discovered that Square added firearms to its “prohibited” seller list.

Under its “Seller Agreement,” Square publicly prohibits customers from accepting payments for the sale of firearms. (Photo: Square)

Proactively, Blandford’s family business terminated its relationship with Square because just a few years earlier, PayPal had frozen its account with money still inside.
“The inability to utilize Square and Paypal has been detrimental to our business both in monetary ways as well as inconvenience,” said Blandford.
In a statement to The Daily Signal, PayPal said the company has prohibited the use of its system for the online sale of “firearms, ammunition and certain firearm parts and accessories” since 2003. It does, however, allow “certain” merchants to sell these items in their stores.
“As a leader in global payments, we have to comply with laws and regulations around the world,” said a PayPal spokesperson.
Square did not return The Daily Signal’s request for comment.
The Outlier 
With few options, Terminal Performance then turned to Transnational, a payment processor located in Rosemont, Ill., that is not shy in boasting its support for the Second Amendment.
Although it processes payments for a range of industries, Transnational has capitalized on the trend of payment processors choking firearms merchants from their customer lists.
“Our decision to provide services within the firearms industry mostly is predicated by the fact that we believe through the obtaining of an [federal firearms license] it’s one of the more heavily regulated processes that has good governance and good oversight,” Jae Haas, President of Transnational told The Daily Signal in a phone interview.
Having been in the payment processing business for 16 years, Haas said he’s observed a growing trend of banks and payment processors adding firearms dealers to their “prohibited” or “high-risk” lists.
>>> These 7 Emails Show Federal Officials Scheming to Target Legal Businesses
Bank Role
It’s unclear what role — if any — banks play in how payment processors go about setting their policies.
But the connection between payment processors and banks is inseparable: In order to exchange money from a buyer to a merchant, a bank must process and move that payment.
To do business, payment processors must enter agreements with banks to sponsor its payments.
Square, for example, has a commercial entity agreement with JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo.
A business owner using Square is essentially entering an agreement with JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo as well.
Haas, president of Transnational, which is sponsored by several different banks, said “there’s no secret” that banks have some influence over payment processors in regards to who they can or cannot do business with, although that influence varies depending on the agreement.
‘Operation Choke Point’
The federal government also may have an outside role in the decision of payment processors not to do business with firearms merchants.
The Daily Signal previously published a series of articles exploring the relationship between banks and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which is the governmental body responsible for regulating and auditing more than 4,500 U.S. banks.
Republican members of Congress have accused the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, among other government agencies, of having undue influence when it comes to banks’ decision not to do business with firearms merchants.
The program, initiated inside the Justice Department, is known as “Operation Choke Point.”
Whether the implications of Operation Choke Point seeped into policy decisions at third-party payment processors is unknown.
>>> Congressman Wants FDIC to Pay for Trying to ‘Choke’ Legal Businesses
When asked by The Daily Signal whether it plays any role in advising payment processors against doing business with gun sellers, an FDIC spokeswoman would not respond, instead pointing to testimony given before Congress in July 2014.

It is the FDIC’s policy that insured institutions that properly manage customer relationships are neither prohibited nor discouraged from providing services to any customer operating in compliance with applicable law…The FDIC has a responsibility to cooperate with other government agencies and to ensure that the banks we supervise are adhering to laws, including those governing anti-money laundering and terrorist financing.

No matter its origin, Blandford hopes the “blatant discrimination” that exists against the firearms industry will come to an end so that in the future, he can enjoy the freedom to utilize “any and all payment processors” in the market.

Internationalcommentary

What the Firearms Industry Thinks About the UN Arms Trade Treaty Signed By Obama Administration

Ted Bromund / @Bromund / January 27, 2015       

Photo: Courtesy Michael Bazinet/SHOT Show

Commentary By

Ted Bromund/ @Bromund

Ted R. Bromund, Ph.D., is the Margaret Thatcher senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Read his research.

LAS VEGAS—Supposedly, the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty, which took effect Christmas Eve, is no big deal.

But people who work in the business of manufacturing, importing and exporting firearms are concerned about the treaty and what it means for them and their industry.

I talked to several last week at the Shooting, Hunting, and Outdoor Trade (SHOT) Show in Las Vegas. Although they were grateful for the strong stand against the treaty taken by both the Senate and House, they were confused about what is going on with the treaty and how such agreements work their way through the Senate.

The idea behind the treaty, supposedly, is to prevent weapons from reaching the hands of terrorists or mass killers. But the treaty has been championed by avowedly “progressive”—in other words, left-wing—organizations, which have a long history of hostility to the Second Amendment and Israel, and a track record of seeking to use international institutions to impose their views on the United States. It’s not in our interest to play along with them.

Subscribe to updates and alerts

Email address

Understandably, the treaty was a nonstarter for the United States until President Obama took office and changed the country’s stand on it. Secretary of State John Kerry signed the treaty, but the administration has not yet submitted it to the Senate for ratification.

Already, a majority of the Senate—led by Sens. Jerry Moran, R-Kan., Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and James Inhofe, R-Okla.—has signed letters pledging to oppose the ATT.

This doesn’t erase the U.S. signature from the treaty. But the Senate’s letters (and similar efforts in the House, led by Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Pa.) do send a powerful signal that the Senate would reject the treaty if the administration ever gets around to submitting it.

But even if the Senate votes against the treaty, the U.S. signature would remain on it.

Only the president, by doing what is colloquially known as “unsigning” the treaty, can erase that U.S. signature. President George W. Bush, for example, unsigned the Rome Statute on the International Criminal Court in 2002, which President Bill Clinton had signed in 2000.

And even if the Senate votes against the treaty, that does not “kill” the treaty. Treaties are like zombies: They rarely die.

For example, the Senate rejected the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in 1999, but the U.S. signature remains on it, and it continues to sit in the in-box of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, waiting for a day when an administration that supports the treaty senses the Senate is likely to look favorably upon it.

There is no expiration date on pending treaties, even ones the Senate has rejected. If you get the sense it’s really hard to get rid of a treaty, you’re right.

In short, the only thing that would come close to “killing” the ATT as far as the United States is concerned would be for a president to unsign the treaty.

Of course, that would not kill it around the world, but it at least would make the U.S. legal and political stance clear. And even then, a future president could re-sign the treaty and pull the zombie back out of the grave, though this would be a highly unusual step that likely would cause political controversy.

It goes to show that, to vary the analogy, bad treaties are like bad pennies—they just keep turning up. It also shows how important it is for the United States to stay engaged internationally: We can’t always stop bad treaties from being negotiated, but we can at least try.

All this begs a question: Why hasn’t the administration transmitted the ATT to the Senate? After all, Kerry signed it in September 2013.

It’s possible the administration hasn’t completed its legal review of the treaty—in which case, it effectively signed the treaty without reading it. It’s also possible the administration realizes the Senate won’t approve the ATT anytime soon, so it sees no point in bothering, especially as it has other bad treaties that it wants to get ratified first.

A third possibility is the administration actually prefers to keep the treaty in its back pocket.

Now that the United States has signed it, we are in theory bound not to defeat its object and purpose, meaning the administration can claim to be on the road to ratification and—using the president’s famous administrative pen—can keep U.S. policy aligned with it. Especially given the Senate’s hostility, this is likely one reason the administration hasn’t acted.

But there’s a final possibility.

When an administration sends a treaty to the Senate, the treaty is accompanied by a transmittal package—in essence, a full analysis of the treaty, including its deficiencies and the administration’s recommendations for correcting them. This does not in any way limit the Senate, which has full power to add its own limits, conditions and interpretations to its approval of the treaty, and even to re-write the text of the treaty itself. But the administration’s package naturally forms a starting point for the Senate’s deliberations.

It is possible the administration is unwilling to offer its own analysis of the treaty for Senate and public scrutiny because an accurate analysis would have to concede, for example, that the treaty cannot hope to do all—or even most—of what its advocates claim, and that it was adopted via a process that violated one of the administration’s own red lines. No analysis that ignored this would be credible.

In short, the administration may be stuck—unable to go forward because of the Senate’s hostility and the treaty’s flaws, unwilling to unsign, and therefore ready to settle for simply keeping the treaty in its back pocket and using its pen as it sees fit.

If that is the case, the leadership of the Senate and House becomes all the more important.

Although the Senate cannot unsign a treaty, it can offer powerful guidance to the nation and to the courts that it has not given its advice and consent to the treaty, does not plan to do so, and rejects the argument the United States is bound to uphold its object and purpose. That, in turn, paves the way for a future president to unsign the treaty.

And in the interim, there is a lot—11 things, at least—for the Senate and House to do to keep the treaty from encroaching on our sovereignty and posing other threats. It’s hard to get rid of a bad treaty. But it’s not impossible, and it’s time we get started.

‘Isolated’? The Irony Behind New Russia and Iran Defense Deal

http://21stcenturywire.com/2015/01/21/isolated-russia-and-iran-sign-defense-deal/

‘Isolated’? The Irony Behind New Russia and Iran Defense Deal

January 21, 2015 By Stuart Hooper

Stuart J. Hooper
21st Century Wire

We’ve heard for months now that Russia is isolating itself from the international community; with it’s support of Assad in Syria and opposition to what can only be described as a violent coup in Ukraine. However, what we are now coming to understand is that the term ‘international community’ describes only part of the world – the West, NATO and NATO allies.

Russia has had no problem signing huge energy deals with China, ensuring its energy and economic security, and even cooperating further with the Chinese to coordinate potential responses to the proposed U.S. missile defence shield; ensuring territorial and military security. Now, we learn Russia is extending its relationships with other international partners such as Iran. The two nations have signed a “military cooperation deal that implies wider collaboration in personnel training and counter-terrorism activities”. These activities are surely looking to stand in direct opposition to the growing threat of a Western funded ISIS, looking to protect both nations from a proxy army that has gotten far out of control. The deal will also mean advanced Naval cooperation, which should help to deter any Western attempts to attack Iran in the future.

To further this deterrence of unwanted interference, the cooperation will also facilitate an S-300 missile deal previously “cancelled in 2010 by then Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, to fall in line with UN sanctions imposed on Iran”. As military Generals in Washington now admit they are backing radical Islamic terrorists, who can blame these two nations, constantly framed by Western media as our enemies, for wanting to work together? Such a relationship between the nations can only bring about positive results for them, and hopefully protect against foreign encroachment.

The irony here is that the ability of Russia to enact international deals, such as these with Iran and China, has been enabled by decades of Western-led, neoliberal economic globalisation. While the West has the ability to impose sanctions upon Russia, the Russians have the ability to work with other potential international partners instead; all thanks to Western, neoliberal globalisation. If a global free market was truly the West’s aim, we hope that they will not find an issue here; yet, you would not be advised to hold your breath on that hope.

In a world of rising powers and declining Anglo-American hegemony leading to desperate responses, Russia is poised with its vast resources to forge new and prosperous relationships throughout the world.

Follow here: http://twitter.com/StuartJHooper

While some nations choose conflict, others choose cooperation…

Russia and Iran sign defense deal, ‘may resolve’ S300 missile delivery issue

RT NewsMoscow and Tehran have signed military cooperation deal that implies wider collaboration in personnel training and counter-terrorism activities. It may also resolve the situation concerning the delivery of Russian S300 missiles, Iranian media reported.

Russia’s Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu and his Iranian counterpart Brigadier General Hossein Dehghan, signed the document during a visit by Russia’s top brass to Iran’s capital on Tuesday.

Under the new agreement, the broadened cooperation will include military personnel training exchanges, increased counter-terrorism cooperation and enhanced capabilities for both countries’ Navies to use each other’s ports more frequently…

WHAT THE HECK IS THE CORPORATE GOLD FRINGE DOING AROUND THE RUSSIAN AND THE IRANIAN FLAGS ?? DOES ANYONE SMELL SOMETHING FUNNY...??

Continue reading the full story at RT.com
READ MORE RUSSIA NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire Russia Files 

China’s complicity in building the Rockefeller New World Order, in their own words…

In my last entry, The Rockefeller Plan for the BRICS New World Order, in their own words, I laid out the Rockefeller Plan for the New World Order (NWO) as reflected in their official blueprint for it, a 1961 book titled Prospect for America. Given the reaction counters I saw for the article, I can tell that I need to explain things even further to reach certain people. So in this entry, I will continue to expose the globalist plot by pointing out how the Chinese government is assisting in the construction of the Rockefeller NWO.
To begin, let’s take a look at…
The Chinese Economic Propaganda Line
In the aftermath of the US Government “shutdown” of October 2013, I came across a very telling Xinhua article titled U.S. fiscal failure warrants a de-Americanized world. If you’re unfamiliar with the Xinhua News Agency, here is a little snippet from their Wikipedia page…
“The Xinhua News Agency is the state press agency of the People’s Republic of China. Xinhua is a ministry-level department subordinate to the State Council. Its president is a member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China.”
So the information put forth by Xinhua reflects the official propaganda line of the Chinese Communist Party, which makes what the article said all the more interesting. Here is what I wrote about it at the time…

It should be well known to all by now that the mainstream media, as well as the bulk of the alternative media, are attempting to portray a geopolitical conflict featuring the Anglo-American bankers & NATO on one side and the BRICS bankers & militaries on the other. The brings forward an obvious question: if China and their BRICS allies are really acting in opposition to the Western Establishment, why are they pointing to the Western globalist institutions as the solution to the world’s ills?
To help answer that question, let’s have a closer look at the institutions touted by the Chinese article…
1) The United Nations (UN) – According to the Rockefellers’ Prospect for America blueprint for world government, the United Nations is the international body that will exercise authority over regional groupings of the world’s nations. The institution itself was founded at the behest of the Western central banking families, and it was such a pet project of the Rockefellers that they decided where and how it would be built and provided the land on which it now stands.
The United Nations Headquarters complex “was constructed in stages with the core complex completed between 1948 and 1952. The Headquarters occupies a site beside the East River, on 17 acres of land purchased from the foremost New York real estate developer of the time, William Zeckendorf, Sr. Nelson Rockefeller arranged this purchase, after an initial offer to locate it on the Rockefeller family estate of Kykuit was rejected as being too isolated from Manhattan. The US$8.5 million (adjusted by inflation US$83.4 million) purchase was then funded by his father, John D. Rockefeller, Jr., who donated it to the city. Wallace Harrison, the personal architectural adviser for the Rockefeller family, and a prominent corporate architect, served as the Director of Planning for the United Nations Headquarters. His firm, Harrison and Abramovitz, oversaw the execution of the design.”
Upon clicking the link to the Wikipedia entry on Kykuit (the Rockefeller family estate), I found this extra bit of insight…
“In late 1946 two of [John D. Rockefeller] Junior’s sons, John D. 3rd and Laurance, each offered their respective residences, Rockwood Hall and Fieldwood Farm, as headquarters for the then newly formed United Nations. Family patriarch Junior vetoed the proposals as too isolated from Manhattan. He tasked second son, Nelson, to buy a 6.9-hectare (17-acre) site along the East River, subsequently donated for the construction of the UN Headquarters.”
Don’t you find it interesting that the location of the United Nations Headquarters was decided by an internal discussion amongst John D. Rockefeller Jr. and his sons?
2) The World Bank (WB) – Many people may be unaware that the World Bank is “a United Nations international financial institution that provides loans to developing countries for capital programs. The World Bank is a component of the World Bank Group, and a member of the United Nations Development Group.” It was created at the Bretton Woods Conference of 1944. And what was the formal name of the Bretton Woods Conference? The “United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference.”
3) The International Monetary Fund (IMF) – The IMF was also a creation of the United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference of 1944. And like the World Bank Group, the IMF is a Specialized Agency of the United Nations.
Specialized Agencies are “autonomous organizations working with the United Nations and each other through the coordinating machinery of the United Nations Economic and Social Council at the intergovernmental level, and through the Chief Executives Board for coordination (CEB) at the inter-secretariat level. Specialized agencies may or may not have been originally created by the United Nations, but they are incorporated into the United Nations System by the United Nations Economic and Social Council acting under Articles 57 and 63 of the United Nations Charter.”
So basically, the UN, WB and IMF are part of one giant globalist complex put in place by the Rockefellers and their affiliated global bankster families. Among the banking clans, the Rockefellers had a very prominent role in the creation of the global government because they were the family whose base nation (the US) emerged from World War 2 with the most wealth and power. The Rockefellers had the biggest tool at their disposal (America), so they wore that tool down to the nub to build the NWO. And this globalist complex is what the Chinese offer as the solution to the world’s problems (which also were created by the bankster families)?
With an overview of the globalist complex in place, let’s have a look at more of what the Chinese have been saying.
China’s Central Banker and the IMF
In the course of researching this article, I came across a link to a March 2009 speech by Zhou Xiaochuan…

…titled “Reform the International Monetary System.”
The speech was given during the depths of the 2007-2009 financial crisis and follows the globalists’ standard “let’s create a problem, then offer our solution” template. He begins by pointing to the problems posed by the (engineered) economic meltdown, then he goes on to explain how a new kind of global reserve currency would solve all those problems. Finally, he makes his recommendation…
“The scope of using the SDR should be broadened, so as to enable it to fully satisfy the [IMF] member countries’ demand for a reserve currency.”
His recommendation for the gradual replacement of existing national reserve currencies with the IMF’s Special Drawing Right (SDR) is the same thing the Western banksters have been calling for since the SDR’s creation (see Mainstream globalist propaganda reveals East/West conflict is a farce).
Zhou’s speech is such a classic example of the problem / reaction / solution strategy that I recommend reading it in its entirety. If you find such speeches too dry and difficult to understand, though, I’ll provide an explanation of the key passages from the speech in Update 1 at the bottom of this article.
Governance changes will turn evil globalist institutions into good?
Bankster propagandists attempt to explain-away the BRICS Alliance’s adherence to the globalist institutions by making the argument that the Alliance is somehow outmaneuvering the Western elite and taking over the institutions from within. In fact, Zhou makes mention of “voice and representation reform” for the IMF in his speech, and he brings it up again in PDF page 4 of his International Monetary and Financial Committee statement from October 11 of this year…

This widely-parroted propaganda theme of instituting governance reforms to end the “unipolar” dominance of the global institutions by the United States and their Western allies would be convincing except for one thing: the Rockefeller propagandists are using the same talking points as the BRICS propagandists. Here is a portion of an article from Finance and Development Magazine (a quarterly publication of the IMF) titled “World Economy: Convergence, Interdependence, and Divergence” (from PDF page 16)…

This sounds an awful lot like what Zhou is saying, doesn’t it?
The section continues by spouting off the globalist buzzwords of “interdependent” and “multipolar,” then finishes with a one-line bio of the author…

So the author of this article is a high-level member of the Brookings Institution, an Establishment think tank headquartered on Embassy Row in Washington, D.C. And do you care to guess who funds the Brookings Institution?…
“In 1952, Robert Calkins succeeded Moulton as president of the Brookings Institution. He secured grants from the Rockefeller Foundation and the Ford Foundation that put the Institution on a strong financial basis. He reorganized the Institution around the Economic Studies, Government Studies, and Foreign Policy Programs.”
By the way, guess who else has ties to the Brookings Institution…


Given all we’ve seen in this entry and the last, which narrative do you find more likely to be true?
1) That the BRICS Alliance is real, and they’re seizing the globalist institutions from the hands of the “Anglo-American Banking Cabal” in order to stop the NWO?
…or…
2) That the BRICS Alliance is a public relations construct, and within the Worldwide Central Banking Cabal, they’re playing the role of the “solution bringers” who save the day from the “problem creators” in order to garner public acceptance of the NWO?
I’ll leave you to answer that for yourself…

But to help you make a more informed decision, my next entry will be on Russia’s complicity with the Rockefeller NWO.

http://redefininggod.com/2014/11/chinas-complicity-in-building-the-rockefeller-new-world-order-in-their-own-words/

Fall 2014: 2 Generals and 1 Admiral foul Obama's attempt to nuke America

        

Ex-US Agent Claims US Military Thwarted Obama False Flag EMP Nuke Attempt on America in Fall 2014

Tuesday, January 27, 2015 10:49

Obama False Flag Nuke a total breakdown in society and with in one year the death of 300 million Americans.

 

Dr. James Garrow, the philanthropist and former US clandestine operative, revealed on Nov. 18 2014 in posts on social media that among the top military brass who have been relieved of duty by the Obama administration, there are three who were involved in preventing the President from launching a “false flag” attack on the US this Fall, one which involved nuclear devices and was calculated to cripple American infrastructure.

The content of Dr. Garrow’s scrubbed posts appears below.

Three individuals have just saved 300 million lives in the past 2 weeks (Fall 2014). They saved the 90% of the population that would be dead if Bathhouse Barry had not been stopped from using 3 nuclear devices against the American populace.  2 Army Generals and 1 Navy Admiral, whose duties included the safeguarding and oversight of the nuclear arsenal.      

Obama ordered that 3 nukes be transported in a major breach of protocol and safety regulations of long standing. He wanted it NOW, and these officers were made aware of what the intention was. The admiral had the one Navy nuke taken 200 miles off South Carolina and detonated deep in the ocean. The other 2 nukes disappeared, thanks to the handiwork of the 2 Generals, the numbers 1 and 2 men in charge of the Army ordinance.  

These three men are heroes of the highest order. Look up the events of 2 Generals and 1 Admiral being dismissed in the past two weeks and you will find their names. They saved your lives and the lives of 300 million of your fellow citizens. 

Mr. Obama’s intention was to set off the three nukes to devastate all computer related systems on the continent thus taking America back 200 years and guaranteeing a total breakdown in society and with in one year the death of 300 million Americans. To see how this would be possible read, “One Second After”. You can get it on Amazon. 

We peered over the edge of the precipice of the death of our civilization and have lived to tell the tale. 3 heroes stood tall for America and the mad man in the white house was stopped for the first time in his life. He is unsure of what to do just now and he does not possess the keys to the nuclear submarines nor the two nukes that are now hidden. For the first time in his life someone said no, meant it, and stopped him from murder and devastation.  

The next few days are critical. Be afraid and go to prepper sites to find out how to save your family, if you can. – Dr. Jim Garrow 

In the condominium complex in Casa Grande, Arizona where I have a unit, a visit was made yesterday by a group of 4 men in a black Suburban with lots of antenna’s on the roof. The management of our large group of condo’s was asked to open the door of my unit. The badges were a combination of many different alphabet agencies including my former one. Interesting because after I posted about EMP’s and missing nukes, my phone rang late in the evening and I was requested to cease and desist.  

My posts have been removed. I am not, however, repentant nor cowed. If anything like this happens again, I have instructed people to begin the release of documents and information as per prepared plans in the hands of these people.

Obama is known for overplaying his hand, and now should be known far and wide as a dangerous amateur. He may have gotten Breitbart, Hastings and Clancy, but they were just writers. I hope that he enjoys the protests today in DC.  – Dr. Jim Garrow

An EMP attack involves detonating nuclear bombs high up in the atmosphere.  With an EMP attack there is no radioactive fallout, nor bombed-out cities. But what a successful EMP attack would do is knock out our entire electric grid and fry all our electronic devices.

An EMP attack would turn the lights out across America. That’s because an EMP attack would not only destroy the electrical grid and everything attached to it, the electrical systems of all vehicles built in the last few decades would also be destroyed.

The only vehicles that would work would be antiques, such as Edsels and VW bugs. So the teeming millions in our cities would either be stuck or have to walk out. Beyond transportation and communication, the novel also looks at all the other systems that depend on electricity, like food and medicine.

Diabetics, for instance, whose insulin must be kept cool, would not be long for this world. One of the more disturbing scenes occurs soon after the attack when the central character visits the local nursing home and finds it in total chaos.

The food situation soon becomes dire and the town declares martial law. Disabuse yourself of the idea that you’d be able to live off the land.  In a nation of more than 300 million, game would quickly disappear.



  


http://beforeitsnews.com/self-sufficiency/2015/01/ex-us-agent-claims-military-thwarted-obama-false-flag-nuke-a-total-breakdown-in-society-and-with-in-one-year-the-death-of-300-million-americans-emp-attack-this-fall-video-4-2486188.html

Youth Take Back Their Country – Greece

Posted on January 25, 2015 by Martin Armstrong

The celebrations are going on in Greece. My emails have been lighting up. This is precisely what was suppressed in Scotland and in Spain. The younger generation is revolting against what they see as the corrupt elites. One cannot deny that the older establishment of thinking is so out of touch with reality it is unbelievable.
The older generation is dominated by people who are still fighting World War II. They have passed their expiration date and by 2016, we will see a sweeping new trend of a younger generation taking back their countries around the world.
This is exciting for there is hope perhaps on the horizon. Not that this will prevent the Crash & Burn, but that this will be the passing of the crown from one generation to the next. Taxes are OBSOLETE. There is no longer any need for taxes and these draconian austerity measures create unemployment and cause the economy to implode. These insane political elites in power borrow year after year with no intention of paying anything back and they have simply refused to even look at what they are doing. It is only about them.

About 70% of the national debts are accumulative interest expenditures. This socialistic agenda has done nothing but lined the pockets of politicians for this money did not go to the poor or schools or anything else they pretend. Yes they “feel” our pain – and rachet the screws tighter to see how much more society can endure.

This is not unique to the United States. This is a systemic crisis that is engulfing the entire world. Government should be prohibited from borrowing money and only print what they need for their budget. That is it – nothing more. The budget should be capped at 5% of GDP under penalty of life-imprisonment or death – their choice. Here is the view of Germany – the so-called best of the EU. There is nothing different.

Now these brilliant elites are moving interest rates into negative territory. This funds more and more of their debt while robbing the elderly of everything they worked for over their lifetime. It is a real shame. The savings of the elderly are worthless and taxes keep rising. States are hunting pension to tax and they consume every penny they possibly can. There is no promise these politicians will not violate to keep the game going with them in power as Obama just displayed at the State of the Union address. He relies upon the press to be stupid and controlled to grid their fellow citizens down into the ground.
The wheel of fortune is completing its revolution. There is nothing we can do to stop it. We simply have to crash and burn and then hopefully the younger generation will reject these brain-dead ideas of how to run a country into the ground.