NDAS - How to sign your name without assuming liability

FOLLOWING IS A REPOST OF AN ARTICLE SUBMITTED EARLIER BY JUDGE ANNA VON REITZ IN REGARD TO SIGNING THE NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENTS ….

07 – How to sign your name without assuming liability

 

What does a signature mean? I will tell you right now that when you sign something (no matter what “they” say), it means that you accept liability. And if you don’t read and agree to EVERYTHING you sign, you are making a big mistake.

I am constantly being asked… “How do I sign my name? … AND maintain my rights?”

We all know that before they let us go, they ALWAYS want us to sign something to keep us coming back. There are other points in the “legal” system where a “signature” is expected or required before the court can proceed as well.

I have heard that adding “Under Duress”, or “All Rights Reserved” to a signature when signing a document will maintain our inherent human rights; and while this could work as well, the proper and Latin way to sign under duress is to add a “V.C.” before your name.

Vi Coactus, abbreviated to V.C., is a latin term. The website wikipedia cites the definition of vi coactus as:

“constrained by force”. Used when forced to sign (“or else …”)
Perhaps the most famous use of vi coactus when signing a document was that of Cornelius de Witt. Alexandre Dumas captured the event as follows:

The Grand Pensionary bowed before the will of his fellow citizens; Cornelius de Witt, however, was more obstinate, and notwithstanding all the threats of death from the Orangist rabble, who besieged him in his house at Dort, he stoutly refused to sign the act by which the office of Stadtholder was restored. Moved by the tears and entreaties of his wife, he at last complied, only adding to his signature the two letters V. C. (Vi Coactus), notifying thereby that he only yielded to force.

There is scant authoritative information regarding this term on the web. However, on the One Heaven Society of United Free States of Spirits website the following information is provided:

The Bar wants you to sign as surety

At key points in a Court case, the Bar members want you to sign certain documents. Why? Because your signature is like your vocalized consent – it can be legally interpreted as your agreement to be surety for an obligation and to perform as well as to waive other rights.

Do you have to sign? No you don’t. But in many cases, the Bar has designed a system so that if you don’t it is interpreted as dishonor so that they can invoke their power of attorney powers to declare you delinquent, incompetent and send you to prison anyway.

This is why you may have heard of people who refused to sign the papers when entering prison and yet were treated worse than most serious criminals, with complete apparent ignorance of their rights.  Why? Because the system is designed at certain points where you MUST sign.

So how do you overcome an unjust and unfair system that forces a man or woman to sign under duress, against their will and yet interprets such signatures as valid under Canon Law? The answer is making sure your signature follows a clear mark of duress.

Vi Coactus

Before you sign anything under duress, in order not to be unfairly determined as in dishonor and incompetent, you may lawfully initial in large letters the letters V.C. where you will sign, then sign your name after- always after.

What V.C. stands for is Latin for Vi Coactus which means literally “under constraint”. This should normally be sufficient on any document which you are forced to sign to bear witness to the fact that it was done under duress.

Now, at the earliest opportunity before the court or official, you can make it known that, upon review of your signature, it can be proven to have been forced under threat and coercion and so cannot be used as legally binding agreement.

In some locations and in some prisons as this knowledge grows, it is possible that law enforcement officials may start to reject such signatures, adding more threat and force on a person to sign without using V.C. It is your choice remembering that if you allow such criminal intimidation and torture to prevail and do sign without protest then the system can simply lie and state you made such a sign of your “own free will”.

So if they tear up the paperwork and demand you do it again, stating that such a signature is unlawful then such claims are against the laws of the Roman Cult Canon Law - the actual law that underpins their own statutes and regulations. However, if after several attempts they still refuse, there is a second method equally valid - the use of ellipse.

The use of ellipses

When the threat of intimidation or outright rejection of lawful protest is too great, then a second and equally valid method of signing under protest is permitted, namely the use of three full stops placed first, followed by the signature so that the three dots are not obscured by the signature.
This is called an ellipsis eg “…” and indicates that legally there was a form of words you wanted to state but were unable due to some event, in this case because of threat and coercion.
Thus, at the earliest opportunity the ellipsis can be revealed and it can be stated that you intended to write V.C. but were prevented therefore nullifying any agreement.
It would be of interest to the author if there have been any more recent cases where V.C. has been used to sign a document. There appears to have been a case in Indonesia where Dutch interests signed V.C.; however, the author does not have full access to the journal in question:
The Measures Taken by the Indonesian Government against …by I Login – 1958 – Related articles
Authority” or “o.p.” (under protest) or “v.c.” (vi coactus). And that, of course, was preciously what it was: compelled by force. …
Source: journals.cambridge.org/article_S0165070X00029879

Further definitions and their sources:
Black’s Law Dictionary (9th edition)
The ninth edition does not provide a definition for vi coactus.
Cassell’s Latin Dictionary (27th edition, 1955, pp.103)
Coactus – a compulsion, compelling; coactu atque efflagitatu meo, cic.
The Oxford Latin Dictionary ABS-LIB (1968, pp. 339)
coactus1
1. Compressed, condensed; (of milk) curdled. b (neut. pl. as sb.) felt cloak.
2. Unnatural, artificial, forced, contrived.
3. (of instruments, actions, etc.) Unwilling, forced. b. required by law, compulsory.
coactus2
Compulsion, constraint.
Interestingly, Cassell’s Latin Dictionary and the Oxford Latin Dictionary provide the additional definitions:
Cassell’s Latin Dictionary:
coacto – To compel.
coactor – 1. a collector of rents, money at auctions, etc. 2. One who compels.

 

References

List of Lation abbreviations (wikipedia.org)    Dumas, Alexandre – Black Tulip, The (literature.org)    Signing in protest and under duress (one-heaven.org)    Cassell’s Latin Dictionary, pp.103 (exfacie.com)    Oxford Latin Dictionary, pp.339 (exfacie.com)
Note: Correction to the reference from one-heaven.org was applied (removing the term ellipse for ellipsis). Thanks to Gerald for identifying this correction.
Article courtesy of Freedom From Government

VOID JUDGEMENT

The Commonwealth Style manual says at page 116 that the only proper way to spell some one’s name is in lower case and that even to capitalize the first Letter is a family decision…  so here you have the Commonwealth Government admitting that all caps is not the proper way to spell some one’s name then if you add to that this statement by a USA supreme court justice the following…

“Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial persons. The imaginary, having neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible. The legal manifestation of this is that no government, as well as any law, agency, aspect, court, etc. can concern itself with anything other than corporate, artificial persons and the contracts between them.” – S.C.R. 1795, Penhallow v. Doane’s Administrators (3 U.S. 54; 1 L.Ed. 57; 3 Dall. 54), Supreme Court of the United States 1795 [Not the “United States Supreme Court”]

This tells you where it stands at the moment…
If you need proof this unconscionable system is used in Australia, then all you need to do is examine your birth certificate, driver license and most government and financial institution issued documents.  In effect the law changes a human-being’s status from one of a free man or woman to an artificial person, juristic person, “ens legis” (creature of legislation) or legal fiction.  It is despicable fraud and deception by the political and legal systems.

If you have ever read a statute or Act, you will see references being made to a “person” instead of a man, woman or human-being.  Most Acts do not define what type of person they refer to: is it a “natural person” (human-being) or an “artificial person?”  In some law dictionaries a “natural person” can also mean an artificial person, so it would be best not to refer to yourself as a natural person, but only a man, woman or human-being.

If you are ever charged and summoned into court always ask and demand to know if your first name and family name is written in all-capital letters on the charge sheet, summons and any other court document.  Ask something like: “Before I grant my conditional consent to this proceeding, what is the nature of the entity this court believes me to be?” and/or “Does that name printed in all capital letters represent an artificial person; a juristic person and a legal fiction?”

If the magistrate or judge ignores, evades or disregards your question, then you can be reasonably certain that they want you to be liable and responsible for their created “strawman” legal fiction.  You are standing in a court acting deceptively and fraudulently in that it won’t disclose the fact that it’s dealing with legal fictions instead of free-born sovereign human-beings.  Tell the court: “I am not the artificial person/entity printed in your legal documents despite my name sounding the same as the all-capital printed name.  You are attempting to enslave me against my will and consent to accept liability for the artifical person/entity printed on those documents.”

Do not answer a magistrate or judge whenever he uses your name unless he is willing to state on and for the record the context in which your name is being used, and all the legal documents have been changed to spell your name in proper noun English and not all capital letters.

Continue to object, protest and dissent even if the judgement goes against you because, without your consent, any judicial decision is null and void and of no legal consequence.  The judgement only applies to their artificial person/entity – not you!

Capitis Diminutio Maxima (Name in ALL CAPITALS)

For purposes of understanding one’s legal or commercial status under the Admiralty system (the law system used in England, Canada and much of the US), it is necessary to examine the curious use of all CAPS - Capitis Diminutio Maxima - in legal and domestic income tax forms, credit cards and statements, loans, mortgages, speeding and parking tickets, car documents, road tax, court summons, etc. While seemingly a trite concern, this apparently small detail has extremely deep significance for all of us!

Gage Canadian Dictionary 1983 Sec. 4 defines Capitalize adj. as: “To take advantage of – To use to ones own advantage.”

Blacks Law Dictionary – Revised 4th Edition 1968, provides a more comprehensive definition as follows …

Capitis Diminutio (meaning the diminishing of status through the use of capitalization)

Officials Who Took Bribes to Pass Nuke Deal

BREAKING: Iran Just Threatened to Release Names of Officials Who Took Bribes to Pass Nuke Deal

By The Conservative Jew on May 14, 2018

Now, this is truly epic!

Although the Deep State and the Swamp made every effort to avoid it, last week President Trump made his decision to pull out of the Iran deal just a few days before the May 12th deadline with it effectively unraveling what little is left of Barack Hussein Obama’s eight dark years in office.

This came after even the former Secretary of State and all around Traitor to the U.S. John “Heinz” Kerry took a secret trip to Iran in order to try to keep the deal Iranian nuclear deal alive. Kerry sat down twice with Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif in recent months to strategize in a bid to save this one-sided deal, as part of what was coined as “an aggressive yet stealthy” mission to put pressure on the Trump administration to keep the deal alive in some form. 

Kerry’s actions immediately sparked criticism and raised claims that such dealings with Iranian and European officials would be in violation of the Logan Act which prohibits private citizens from negotiating on behalf of the U.S. government without authorization, but since we all know by now that the Democrat Party and it’s operatives get away with everything, we can be sure he will never be investigated or prosecuted.

But now things might really get good.

Yup, H.J.Ansari Zarif’s senior advisor actually confirmed that they will be naming the politicians who took bribe money during the nuclear negotiations with Iran if Europeans stop trading with Iran and don’t put pressure on the U.S. to come back to the negotiating table.

Wouldn’t it be great if this does happen and the Iranians give out the names of all the corrupt politicians who sold out our nation for their own political and monetary gain? 

Let’s all hope and pray that list is released soon.  Once it’s released, maybe this nation will wake up and dust off the firing squad!

Here is more information on The Logan Act:

“Logan Act"

The Logan Act (18 U.S.C.A. § 953 [1948]) is a single federal statute making it a crime for a citizen to confer with foreign governments against the interests of the United States. Specifically, it prohibits citizens from negotiating with other nations on behalf of the United States without authorization.  (Would this not also include Obama as well as Clinton and Kerry?)

Congress established the Logan Act in 1799, less than one year after passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts, which authorized the arrest and deportation of Aliens and prohibited written communication defamatory to the U.S. government. 

The 1799 act was named after Dr. George Logan. A prominent Republican and Quaker from Pennsylvania, Logan did not draft or introduce the legislation that bears his name, but was involved in the political climate that precipitated it.

In the late 1790s, a French trade embargo and jailing of U.S. seamen created animosity and unstable conditions between the United States and France. Logan sailed to France in the hope of presenting options to its government to improve relations with the United States and quell the growing anti-French sentiment in the United States. France responded by lifting the embargo and releasing the captives. Logan’s return to the United States was marked by Republican praise and Federalist scorn. 

To prevent U.S. citizens from interfering with negotiations between the United States and foreign governments in the future, the Adams administration quickly introduced the bill that would become the Logan Act.  The Logan Act has remained almost unchanged and unused since its passage. 

The act is short and reads as follows:

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

The language of the act appears to encompass almost every communication between a U.S. citizen and a foreign government considered an attempt to influence negotiations between their two countries. 

Because the language is so broad in scope, legal scholars and judges have suggested that the Logan Act is unconstitutional. Historically, the act has been used more as a threat to those engaged in various political activities than as a weapon for prosecution. In fact, Logan Act violations have been discussed in almost every administration without any serious attempt at enforcement, and to-date there have been no convictions and only one recorded indictment.

One example of the act’s use as a threat of prosecution involved the Reverend Jesse Jackson. In 1984 Jackson took well-publicized trips to Cuba and Nicaragua and returned with several Cuban political prisoners seeking Asylum in the United States. President Ronald Reagan stated that Jackson’s activities may have violated the law, but Jackson was not pursued beyond a threat.

The only Logan Act indictment occurred in 1803. It involved a Kentucky newspaper article that argued for the formation in the western United States of a separate nation allied to France. No prosecution followed.”

H/T The Gateway Pundit

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

Read Trump's Speech Withdrawing 

         From the Iran Deal

• Lena Felton
• May 8, 2018

On Tuesday, President Donald Trump announced that the U.S. will withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal and reinstate sanctions on the country. The agreement—which was reached by the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, China, and Germany, along with the European Union, in July 2015—lifted sanctions on Iran in return for the country halting its nuclear program. Trump has long been vocal in his opposition to the deal, calling it a “horrible agreement,” an “embarrassment,” and, a day before his announcement, “very badly negotiated.” Trump’s decision to reinstate sanctions on Iran puts the U.S. at odds with its allies, who have indicated that they plan to stay in the deal. 

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani recently said that if the U.S. exits the deal, “it will quickly see that this decision will be a regret of historic proportions.” However, the debate as to the best course of action is a heated one: Some argue that the deal isn’t effective, while others say that withdrawing risks provoking an unnecessary crisis.  

Here, a full transcript of Trump’s remarks.

---

My fellow Americans, today I want to update the world on our efforts to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. The Iranian regime is the leading state sponsor of terror. It exports dangerous missiles, fuels conflicts across the Middle East, and supports terrorist proxies and militias such as Hezbollah, Hamas, the Taliban, and al-Qaeda.
 

Over the years, Iran and its proxies have bombed American embassies and military installations, murdered hundreds of American servicemembers, and kidnapped, imprisoned, and tortured American citizens. The Iranian regime has funded its long reign of chaos and terror by plundering the wealth of its own people. No action taken by the regime has been more dangerous than its pursuit of nuclear weapons and the means of delivering them.
 

In 2015, the previous administration joined with other nations in a deal regarding Iran’s nuclear program. This agreement was known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA. In theory, the so-called Iran deal was supposed to protect the United States and our allies from the lunacy of an Iranian nuclear bomb, a weapon that will only endanger the survival of the Iranian regime.
 

In fact, the deal allowed Iran to continue enriching uranium and, over time, reach the brink of a nuclear breakout. The deal lifted crippling economic sanctions on our end in exchange for very weak limits on the regime’s nuclear activity and no limits at all on its other maligned behavior, including sinister activities in Syria, Yemen, and other places all around the world. In other words, at the point when the United States had maximum leverage, this disastrous deal gave this regime—and it’s a regime of great terror—many billions of dollars, some of it in actual cash. A great embarrassment to me as a citizen and to all citizens of the United States.

 

A constructive deal could easily have been struck at the time, but it wasn’t. At the heart of the Iran deal was a giant fiction that a murderous regime desired only a peaceful nuclear-energy program. Today, we have definitive proof that this Iranian promise was a lie. Last week, Israel published intelligence documents, long-concealed by Iran, conclusively showing the Iranian regime and its history of pursuing nuclear weapons.
 

The fact is, this was a horrible, one-sided deal that should have never, ever been made. It didn’t bring calm, it didn’t bring peace, and it never will. In the years since the deal was reached, Iran’s military budget has grown by almost 40 percent, while its economy is doing very badly. 

 

After the sanctions were lifted, the dictatorship used its new funds to build nuclear-capable missiles, support terrorism, and cause havoc throughout the Middle East and beyond.
 

The agreement was so poorly negotiated that even if Iran fully complies, the regime could still be on the verge of a nuclear breakout in just a short period of time. The deal’s sunset provisions are totally unacceptable. If I allowed this deal to stand, there would soon be a nuclear-arms race in the Middle East. Everyone would want their weapons ready by the time Iran had theirs.
 

Making matters worse, the deal’s inspection provisions lack adequate mechanisms to prevent, detect, and punish cheating—and don’t even have the unqualified right to inspect many important locations, including military facilities. Not only does the deal fail to halt Iran’s nuclear ambitions, but it also fails to address the regime’s development of ballistic missiles that could deliver nuclear warheads.

 

Finally, the deal does nothing to constrain Iran’s destabilizing activities, including its support for terrorism. Since the agreement, Iran’s bloody ambitions have grown only more brazen. In light of these glaring flaws, I announced last October that the Iran deal must be either renegotiated or terminated. Three months later, on January 12, I repeated these conditions. I made clear that if the deal could not be fixed, the United States would no longer be a party to the agreement.
 

Over the past few months, we have engaged extensively with our allies and partners around the world, including France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. We have also consulted with our friends from across the Middle East. We are unified in our understanding of the threat and in our conviction that Iran must never acquire a nuclear weapon.
 

After these consultations, it is clear to me that we cannot prevent an Iranian nuclear bomb under the decaying and rotten structure of the current agreement. The Iranian deal is defective at its core. If we do nothing, we know exactly what will happen. In just a short period of time, the world’s leading state sponsor of terror will be on the cusp of acquiring the world’s most dangerous weapon. Therefore, I am announcing today that the United States will withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal.
 

In a few moments, I will sign a presidential memorandum  to begin reinstating U.S. nuclear sanctions on the Iranian regime. We will be instituting the highest level of economic sanction. Any nation that helps Iran in its quest for nuclear weapons could also be strongly sanctioned by the United States. America will not be held hostage to nuclear blackmail. We will not allow American cities to be threatened with destruction and we will not allow a regime the chance death to America to gain access to the most deadly weapons on Earth. 

 

Today’s action sends a critical message. The United States no longer makes empty threats. When I make promises, I keep them. In fact, at this very moment, Secretary Pompeo is on his way to North Korea in preparation for my upcoming meeting with Kim Jong-Un. Plans are being made, relationships are building, hopefully a deal will happen, and with the help of China, South Korea, and Japan, a future of great prosperity and security can be achieved for everyone.

 

As we exit the Iran deal, we will be working with our allies to find a real, comprehensive, and lasting solution to the Iranian nuclear threat. This will include efforts to eliminate the threat of Iran’s ballistic-missile program, to stop its terrorist activities worldwide, and to block its menacing activity across the Middle East. In the meantime, powerful sanctions will go into full effect. If the regime continues its nuclear aspirations, it will have bigger problems than it has ever had before.
 

Finally, I want to deliver a message to the long-suffering people of Iran: The people of America stand with you. It has now been almost 40 years since this dictatorship seized power and took a proud nation hostage. Most of Iran’s 80 million citizens have sadly never known an Iran that prospered in peace with its neighbors and commanded the admiration of the world. But the future of Iran belongs to its people. They are the rightful heirs to a rich culture and an ancient land and they deserve a nation that does justice to their dreams, honor to their history, and glory to their god.
 

Iran’s leaders will naturally say that they refuse to negotiate a new deal. They refuse and that is fine. I probably would say the same thing if I was in their position. But the fact is they are going to want to make a new and lasting deal, one that benefits all of Iran and the Iranian people. When they do, I am ready, willing, and able. Great things can happen for Iran and great things can happen for the peace and stability that we all want in the Middle East. There has been enough suffering, death, and destruction. Let it end now. Thank you. God bless you.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/05/full-transcript-iran-deal-trump/559892/

Breitbart - Damning evidence in Anthony Weiner's computer!

Breitbart News Daily - Erik Prince - November 4, 2016

Damning evidence found on Anthony Weiner's computer via emails found from the last 20 years against Obama/Clinton/Abedin, the DOJ and political appointees 


https://soundcloud.com/breitbart/breitbart-news-daily-erik-prince-november-4-2016

Hear more: www.breitbart.com/radio

THIS WON'T END WELL

THIS WON'T END WELL
SPECULATORS HAVE NEVER BEEN MORE SHORT BONDS....EVER

by Tyler Durden

Sat, 04/28/2018 - 08:35

 

"It's a no-brainer..." 

As the yield on the 10Y US Treasury note broke above the 3.00% Maginot Line this week (for the first time since Jan 2014), traders piled on - pushing net speculative positioning for 10Y note futures to their largest short ever. In fact, along with almost $4 trillion notional in Eurodollar shorts (betting on rising short-term interest rates), the aggregate position across the rest of the Treasury futures space has also reached a new record short, which, as the chart below shows, is equivalent to well over 1.1 million 10Y futures contracts.



However, just as it became 'obvious' that rates were now set to rocket higher - umm growth and inflation and well stocks are awesome-er, right - yields tumbled...





And the yield curve flattened dramatically...



With both the level of the curve and its shape dropping notably on the week.

And while we are yet to see whether this record positioning will prove the crowd is always wrong again, there is one clear set of 'losers' already facing considerable losses - mom-and-pop investors in Wall Street's latest and greatest 'conservative' bond offering - 'Steepener' Securities.

As Bloomberg reports, as the yield curve flattened to the lowest in more than a decade, the fallout spread beyond the realms of high finance and central banking. It also caused the value of hundreds of millions of dollars worth of debt -- often held by retail investors -- to evaporate.

Holders of ‘‘steepener’’ securities are facing the prospect of minuscule or even zero coupons. The structured products were issued in droves in recent years by Wall Street banks including Citigroup Inc., Goldman Sachs Group Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Morgan Stanley. Frequently marketed by brokers, they pay a high introductory fixed rate that switches to a floating coupon linked to the gap between short- and long-term U.S. interest rates.

The complex math behind the trade has been laid bare by the flattening curve, leaving a slew of retail investors blindsided, say critics, as issuance booms.

Globally, around $2.5 billion of notes tied to constant maturity swap rates was sold last quarter -- the most since 2015 -- scores of which use the steepener structure, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

And as the price action of the following Goldman 'steepener' security shows, it has not been a pretty picture for mom-and-pop retail investors - lured by the promise of 'low risk, bond like characteristics' and higher than normal initial yields...

The products -- to a large degree, a bullish bet on U.S. growth and inflation over the long haul -- share the same basic structure. The steeper the slope, the higher the coupon, up to a cap.

If the curve levels out -- as it has been over the past year -- or inverts, buyers can be stuck with measly coupons or even no interest payments.

A $64 million steepener note issued by Goldman in 2013 is illustrative of how the flat curve has whittled down its value.

The security has recently slumped to 64 cents on the dollar as coupons shrank to less than 1 percent a year, according to TRACE data -- a far cry from the 9.25 percent investors received at the beginning of the term, according to its prospectus.

The coupon is calculated according to a formula based on the difference between the 30-year constant maturity swap rate and the five-year rate.

While banks issue the debt securities, Bloomberg notes  that they’re often marketed and sold to investors via intermediaries such as brokerages. In some cases, the latter have been censured and fined by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority for failing to ensure the products were suitable for their clients.  No banks were named in these actions.

“They were sold as being conservative investments, which of course they’re not,” said Jeffrey Pederson, an attorney in Denver, Colorado, who has represented investors in settlements against financial institutions over whether such notes were suitable for his clients.

Issuance has hardly slowed down this quarter, with around $1.9 billion of swap-linked notes sold globally through April 26. Many of these use the steepener structure, offering a high introductory coupon which then switches to a floating rate linked to the steepness of the yield curve.

“Your average person getting these things is Joe Salesman, and they end up losing a lot of money pretty quickly” if the curve flattens, said Pederson.

So once again - the sucker at the table was retail... and one wonders just how much of the record futures positioning is driven by mom-and-pop flows from ETFs as the 'home-gamer' is battered into submission day after day that 'rising interest rates is a no brainer'... so why would you want to hold bonds, when stocks only go up in value?

 

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-04-28/wont-end-well-speculators-have-never-been-more-short-bonds-ever

 

US Treasury Bonds Shorted World Wide

US Treasury Bonds Shorted World Wide

A defining moment for President Trump and this young administration

Freed North Korea hostages hand over emotional note for President Trump after landing in U.S.

 

 

The release of the North Korean hostages is a defining moment for this young administration.

 

May 13, 2018

 

 

What may be even more defining is a note handed over to Vice President Mike Pence by one of the hostages to give to the President:

 

margaret brennan ✔ @margbrennan

10 May

.@VP Pence showed me the psalm & personal thank you handwritten on a notecard by the 3 Americans freed from North Korea. We spoke at Joint Base Andrews at 4am. Our interview airs on @CBSThisMorning. pic.twitter.com/2Ii6ZYURKp

margaret brennan ✔ @margbrennan

"We were like men who dreamed." Here's a copy of the handwritten psalm given to @VP Pence & signed by the 3 freed prisoners. They handed it to him after arrival at JBA. @FaceTheNation pic.twitter.com/Jpkx0zXmPJ

1:45 PM - May 10, 2018

 

When Trump took office, he immediately called out Kim Jong Un.

He was constantly putting pressure on the rogue world leader.

Trump even went so far as to call him “Rocket Man,” embarrassing Kim for all the world to see.

Dems swore up and down Trump was putting us on the verge of war, but Trump was doing nothing more than playing a high-stakes game of chicken with the North Korean leader.

Kim blinked first and not only backed down, but offered to open up talks to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula.

Then, as a gesture of good faith, Kim released three Americans that were being held prisoner.

The Release  

When the prisoners were released, it amazingly did not garner the headlines everyone thought it would.

Rather than giving Trump credit for another item marked off his list, the liberal media tried to find a way to rip the achievement down.

However, the accomplishment of the administration was not lost on the three men that were freed.

As a token of their appreciation and a show of the faith that permitted them to exist day in and day out under horrible conditions, one of the prisoners passed the note to Pence.

Had he waited a little longer, he would have been able to give the note to the President himself, because POTUS and FLOTUS greeted the men before they got off the plane.

For many of us, our dream is to have a six-figure job, a big family, and professional success — but that was not the dream of these men.

Their dream was simply to get their freedom back… and Trump made it come true.

https://www.patriotnewsalerts.com/freed-north-korea-hostages/?utm_source=boomtrain&utm_medium=automated&utm_campaign=CNA2&utm_source=boomtrain&utm_medium=automated&utm_campaign=CNA2

Do you really believe that Obama or Hillary would have taken the needed steps to gain the release of these three hostages? No!  In fact, Hillary would have asked for a bar-b-q featuring the three men and invited herself as a guest. 

Our nation FINALLY has a REAL President in our President Trump! One who is smart, loves the nation and its people, and spends the time to do whatever it takes to turn this nation around.  We are most fortunate.  Pray for him and his family like never before for wisdom, insight, strength to continue and that he will not be deceived, led astray or overtaken by the reptillians.

Obama's 'legacy'?

  

The Con is On

By Anna Von Reitz

I am reposting this article because I want to shock people into full wake-up mode.   File your Human Trafficking complaints and reclaim your birthright political status now.  

Submitted by Mark Glennon of Wirepoints --- Reposting from Rumormillnews

An audible gasp went out in the breakout room I was in at last month’s pension event cosponsored by The Civic Federation and the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. That was when a speaker from the Chicago Fed proposed levying, across the state and in addition to current property taxes, a special property assessment they estimate would be about 1% of actual property value each year for 30 years.

Evidently, that wasn’t reality-shock enough. This week the Chicago Fed published that proposal formally. It’s linked here.

It surely ranks among the most blatantly inhumane and foolish ideas we’ve seen yet.

Homeowners with houses worth $250,000 would pay an additional $2,500 per year in property taxes, those with homes worth $500,000 would pay an additional $5,000, and those with homes worth $1 million would pay an additional $10,000.

Is the Chicago Fed blind to human consequences? Confiscatory property tax rates have already robbed hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of Illinois families of their home equity — probably the lion’s share of whatever wealth they had.

Property taxes in many Illinois communities already exceed 3%, 4% and even 5% of home values. Across Illinois, the average is a sky-high 2.67 percent, the highest in the nation.

In south Cook County they already average over 5%. Most of those communities are working class, often African-American. The Fed says maybe you could make the tax progressive by exempting lower values, but that’s very difficult to do and, if you did somehow exempt the poor and working class, the bill pushed to the others would be astronomical.

Those rates have already plunged many communities into death spirals, demanding an immediate solution, but the Chicago Fed apparently wants to pour on more of the accelerant.

Don’t they understand that people won’t build on or improve property when property taxes are that high? When taxes are 3 percent to 6 percent, any value you add to your home is going to be taxed at that high rate forever. Have they never been to our communities with countless disrepaired, abandoned homes and commercial properties, which are the result?

Get this, which is part of the Fed’s reasoning:

“New taxes wouldn’t affect people thinking of moving to Illinois. While they would have to pay higher property taxes, that would be offset by not having to pay as much for their new homes. In addition, current homeowners would not be able to avoid the new tax by selling their homes and moving because home prices should reflect the new tax burden quickly.”

In other words, just confiscate wealth from current owners because they will pay, whether they stay or not, through an immediate reduction in home value.

This proposed tax would only address the five state pensions. What about the other 650-plus pensions in Illinois, particularly those for overlapping jurisdictions in Chicago which are grossly underfunded? The Fed was asked that at last month’s seminar and they, without explanation, said they didn’t bother to cover that.

I’ve earlier met Rick Mattoon, one of the Chicago Fed authors of the proposal. He’s a smart, likeable guy who I thought had lots of interesting information. For the life of me, however, I can’t understand how he would put his name on this proposal.

Property can’t leave, so seize it. That’s the basic idea.

Planetary Location Check -- Where is Bob Hurt?

By Anna Von Reitz

 

What planet are you living on, Bob?   

Larry Becraft has replied to things I never said, and you think that that constitutes proving me wrong?  Hello?  

Larry put up a big explanation of the repeal of the Act of 1871 and pretended that this had something to do with me.  I never brought the subject up.

And when I corrected him and gave the complete history of the Act of 1871 and showed how it was repealed and then instituted via a piecemeal process that was completed by 1878, neither you nor he had a word to say.   He didn't show me up.  I showed him up.  

I not only showed up the fact that he was making a false argument, but I shamed him for telling half the truth. 

You want to interpret that sorry performance and others like it, all having the same result, as Larry putting Anna in her place?  

Just like now.  Faced with having to rattle off a few legal definitions, you suddenly have nothing to say. 

Why?  Because you are blowing off your mouth.  You don't really know what you're talking about.  And you are too lazy to find out. 

Shame on you.  Shame on the horse that brought you.  Shame on your pal, Larry, too, because he knows better. 

The Obama Legacy Deserves To Be Destroyed

By David Harsanyi
May 12, 2018 at 12:20pm

It’s strange that a president who had such a transformative effect on our national discourse will leave such a negligible policy legacy.

But Barack Obama, whose imperial term changed the way Americans interact and in some ways paved the way for the Trump presidency, is now watching his much-celebrated and mythologized two-term legacy be systematically demolished. This, in many ways, tells us that American governance still works.

When President Donald Trump announced that the United States would withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal, he was able to do so without much difficulty because the agreement hinged on presidential fiat rather than national consensus. Obama’s appeasement of Iran was only one in a string of unilateral norm-busting projects that deserve to be dismantled.
 
You’ll remember the panic-stricken coverage we endured when the United States withdrew from the faux international Paris climate agreement last year. It’s true that the deal was oversold as a matter of policy (by both parties for political reasons), but it was symbolic of how the Obama administration concerned itself more with international consensus than domestic compromise.

We know this because the president would never have won ratification for a deal remotely similar to the one he entered — nor did he attempt to. Obama, despite the hagiographic framing of his scandal-ridden presidency, had about as much interest in genuine concession as his political adversaries did.

Obama allies at home incessantly pointed to poll numbers as a justification for his executive abuse, mostly because the only polls that really mattered, congressional elections, continued to soundly reject his agenda.

The defense rested on the idea that the Republican-led Congress had failed to “do its job” and act on issues Democrats had deemed vital. But Congress, of course, “acted” all the time by checking the president’s ambitions. This was not only well within its purview but also in many ways the reason the electorate handed the GOP Congress in the first place.

Even if you substantively supported Obama’s actions — as I do on legalizing the children of immigrants who are in the country illegally, for instance — the reasoning that girded these supposedly temporary executive decisions was soon revealed to be abusive.

In 2012, Obama told the nation that the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which by any standard was a stand-in for legislation, was merely a “temporary stopgap measure.” 

By the time Trump overturned it, the measure represented “who we are as a people.” That’s because by “temporary,” Obama always meant “until Democrats can make it permanent through the courts or electoral victories.”

Even when implementing laws Congress could pass, Obama and his allies relied on coercing participation through mandates. But when it became inconvenient, they began arbitrarily implementing parts of laws.
 
Administrative discretion became administrative abuse. When the president decided Obamacare’s employer mandate was politically inconvenient, for example, he simply skipped it for expediency.

The Constitution doesn’t say, “No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law unless liberals tell us it’s super important.” Yet shortly after the passage of the Affordable Care Act, the Obama administration realized it would need more subsidies and asked for an appropriation from Congress.

When Congress, then teeming with politicians elected on the promise of overturning Obamacare, refused, then-Treasury Secretary Jack Lew ordered the administration to begin making “cost-sharing reduction” payments anyway without any public legal justification.

Obama created a $7 billion per year appropriation for insurance companies participating in the supposedly self-sufficient and competitive state health care exchanges. Not a single liberal pundit that I know of concerned himself with this norm-breaking.

One federal court found the Obamacare subsidy unconstitutional, and the case was working its way toward the Supreme Court. But then again, no administration in memory was stopped more often by courts, often by unanimous Supreme Court decisions.

Whether it was ignoring the Senate in making appointments or claiming to rewrite employment law, Obama tried to function without constitutional restraints.

None of this even breaches the unprecedented regulatory regime Obama built to circumvent the legislative branch. Even The New York Times characterized his governing as “bureaucratic bulldozing, rather than legislative transparency."

Fortunately, it is also unsustainable. As we now see, this kind of governance not only corrodes constitutional order but also undermines stability, as new presidents busy themselves overturning the executive actions and international agreements enacted by the previous.

While most Americans aren’t sticklers for process, it seems they are content with destroying legacies built on the rickety foundation of unilateralism for political reasons.

That’s fine, too. It means that if Trump engages in similar legislative efforts through the executive office, his agenda will also be dismantled one day. That’s as it should be.

Do you agree that the 'Obama legacy' deserves to be destroyed?


David Harsanyi is a senior editor at The Federalist and the author of the forthcoming “First Freedom: A Ride through America’s Enduring History With the Gun, From the Revolution to Today.”

https://www.westernjournal.com/the-obama-legacy-deserves-to-be-destroyed/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=rightalerts&utm_campaign=dailypm&utm_content=ttp