Bachmann to Geithner: "...an international monetary standard as soon as the G20... Would you categorically renounce the United States moving away from the dollar and going to a global currency as suggested this morning by China and also by Russia?"
Geithner: "I would, yes."
...And the Federal Reserve Chair? -
"I would also."
Congresswoman Bachmann Questions Geithner & Bernanke About A Global Currency
Boehner says Geithner nonbank plan a power grabHmmm...seems this Rep sees something going on here...
www.reuters.com...
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's request for government authority to wind down failing non-bank financial firms is an unprecedented power grab, House Minority Leader John Boehner said on Tuesday.
"This is an unprecedented grab of power, and before that occurs, there ought to be a real debate about whether we should give that authority to the Treasury Secretary," Boehner, an Ohio Republican, told reporters. There were many unanswered questions, he said, but stopped short of saying flatly that he would oppose the plan.
U.S. boardroom group launches governance campaignMore at Link...
www.reuters.com...
NEW YORK (Reuters) - A U.S. corporate directors' group on Tuesday recommended a slate of new governance principles for company boards, including better communication with investors on executive pay and improved oversight of business risks.
The recommendations by the National Association of Corporate Directors (NACD), an educational group for boards that has about 10,000 members, come as director effectiveness has been questioned by investors at many big U.S. companies hard-hit by the economic crisis.
The Washington, D.C.-based group said boards of publicly traded companies should put greater focus on four areas: executive pay, risk oversight, corporate strategy and transparency. Board members are supposed to be investor watchdogs who oversee management.
The recommendations are the result of 18 months of collaboration with board members, business leaders and government officials, said Kenneth Daly, NACD president.
The idea is "to challenge every corporate board and individual director to restore public confidence in Corporate America," he said in a telephone interview. He said boards "need to be way more transparent and more aggressive in being able to describe what they do and why they do it."
The Banker's Manefesto of 1892Does this not ring a bell???
www.thepoliticsofcommonsense.org...
:snip:
When through the process of the law, the common people have lost their homes, they will be more tractable and easily governed through the influence of the strong arm of the government applied to a central power of imperial wealth under the control of the leading financiers. People without homes will not quarrel with their leaders.
*As foreclosures mount, Florida court turns to 'rocket docket'*
www.cnn.com...
History repeats itself in regular cycles. This truth is well known among our principal men who are engaged in forming an imperialism of the world. While they are doing this, the people must be kept in a state of political antagonism.
The question of tariff reform must be urged through the organization known as the Democratic Party, and the question of protection with the reciprocity must be forced to view through the Republican Party.
By thus dividing voters, we can get them to expand their energies in fighting over questions of no importance to us, except as teachers to the common herd. Thus, by discrete action, we can secure all that has been so generously planned and successfully accomplished."
The above was taken from the "Banker's Manifest", for the private circulation among leading bankers only, taken from the "Civil Servants' Year Book, "The Organizer" of January, 1934. The Banker's Manifesto ties in with U.S. Senate Document No. 43, 73rd Congress, 1st Session (1934), to wit:
"The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual so-called "ownership" is only by virtue of Government, i.e., law, amounting to mere "user" and use must be in acceptance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State."
The following is quoted from John Prukop of the Coalition of a Constitutional Washington:
The "plan" is to control all resources, human and natural. The control is not by elected public officials, but by a self-appointed oligarchy. This is born out by reading the details of Article 21 and 39 of the "Convention On Biological Diversity." This treaty declares there are no reservation of rights. Article 21 mandates that three international organizations, the UNEP, UNDP and the World Bank, will direct and control "the policy, strategy, programme priorities and eligibility criteria relating to access to and utilization of resources" in each member country.
U.N.'s Ban says slump may lead to political crisisHmmm...
www.reuters.com...
:snip:
"Looking around the world we see a growing list of political instability. If we do not manage it properly, this crisis, I am concerned that this crisis may develop into global political instability," he said.
"If life goes much like this and harder ... social unrest will surely increase," he said. "That is why in London I will speak out forcefully for action to prevent the potential catastrophe in human development."
The head of the International Monetary Fund, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, on Monday said the crisis would push millions into poverty and unemployment, risking social unrest and even war.
Ban used his Moscow speech to call on countries to use anti-crisis stimulus packages to help fight climate change.
"My answer is it would be very smart to invest a certain proportion of this stimulus package in green growth and by doing this we can catch two birds with one stone," he said.
"If we are going to spend trillions of dollars on the global stimulus packages let us be smart and tackle climate change at the same time."
Originally posted by weedwhacker
Well....I'd like to see a link to your claim Re: the Treasury Secretary and his 'alleged' claim to powers.....
The Treasury Department said on Wednesday it will send proposals to Congress this week that would let it seize troubled non-bank financial firms, one day after Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner called for expanded powers in order to avoid possible future bailouts.
Geithner on Tuesday testified before lawmakers angry at big bonuses paid to executives of American International Group after the insurer got billions in government bailout funds. Treasury on Wednesday said the government could have acted differently if it already had the powers it now seeks when AIG got in trouble.
"It could have resolved AIG in an orderly manner that shared losses among equity and debt holders in a way that maintained confidence in the institution's ability to fulfill its obligations to insurance policyholders and other systemically important customers," Treasury said in a statement.
The proposals, which Treasury says would grant it powers over non-bank financial firms that are similar to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's authority to shut down banks, may face a rocky road on Capitol Hill. Some Republicans signaled they will oppose it because it concentrates too much authority in government hands.
House Republican leader John Boehner told reporters on Tuesday that Treasury's request for authority to shutter non-banks sounded like "an unprecedented grab of power."
But a prominent lobby, the Financial Services Roundtable, said it backs the idea as part of a broader regulatory overhaul that the Obama administration promises is coming.
It said the new resolution authority "must include consultation with a dedicated federal insurance regulator" to advise a conservator or receiver how to deal with a troubled non-bank firm.
The Treasury proposals will apply to financial firms, like insurers or possibly financing arms of some big industrial companies, that might pose risks to the entire financial system and that are not covered by the FDIC.
The Treasury wants the government to have the right to put a troubled non-bank financial firm into receivership or under care of a conservator, which could then either orchestrate an orderly reorganization or shut the firm down.
In its statement, Treasury suggested the expanded powers would reduce the need to put taxpayers' money at risk supporting financial firms because a conservator or receiver could sell off assets and raise money that way.
If a firm were in receivership, the receiver would also have the power to repudiate the firm's contracts, including those with employees.
Treasury said the proposals will be modeled after the system that permits the FDIC to take over troubled banks and either shut them down or hold them until they can be reorganized or sold to another banking organization.
It said the expanded authority could be funded by appropriating funds for it to the FDIC or through some form of assessment or fees that would be charged to firms that are covered by it, implying that the FDIC may be Treasury's favored agency for administering it.
The Original Thirteenth Amendment
Ratified March 12, 1819
www.barefootsworld.net...
The Founders held an intense disdain and distrust of "Nobility" as a result of a long history, during Colonial times, of abuses and excesses against the Rights of Man and the established Common Law and Constitutions by the "Nobility", and therefore placed in the new Constitution two injunctions against acceptance of Titles of Nobility or Honor or emoluments from external sources. The Revolutionary War for Independence was primarily waged to eliminate these abuses and excesses of the "Nobility" and the "Monied Classes" from the life of the Nation, recognizing the Equality of all men.
As there was no penalty attached to a title of nobility or honor in the Constitution as originally ratified, the Original Thirteenth Amendment was proposed in December of 1809 to institute penalty for accepting or using a "Title of Nobility or Honor" to set oneself apart from, or superior to, or possessing of any special privileges or immunities not available to any other citizen of the United States, and to eliminate the widespread use of "emoluments" as bribery and of the legislatures and judiciary used to further the causes and positions of "Special Interests". It was an attempt to keep politicians and civil servants "Honest" in their service to the citizens.
As noted in the discussion in Article 1 of the Constitution, the original Thirteenth Amendment, was ratified in 1819, adding a heavy penalty upon any person holding or accepting a Title of Nobility or Honor, or emoluments from external powers by making that person "cease to be a citizen of the United States" and "incapable of holding any Office of Trust or Profit under the United States". This Amendment was proposed, properly ratified, and was a matter of record in the several States archives until 1876, by which time it was quietly, and fraudulently deleted, never repealed, during the period of Reconstruction after the Civil War and the presently acknowledged Thirteenth Amendment was substituted. The original records of the original 13th amendment were thought to be destroyed at the time of the burning of the capitol during the War of 1812, but have since been found in the archives of the British Museum, the national archives and in the archives of several of the States and territories. The fact of its existence had been lost to memory until, by chance, researchers discovered in the public library at Belfast, Maine an 1825 copy of the U. S. Constitution. Subsequent research shows that it was in the records of the ratifying states and territories until 1876, the last to drop it from record was the Territory of Wyoming after 1876. The most intriguing discovery was the 1867 Colorado Territory edition which includes both the "missing" Thirteenth Amendment and the current 13th Amendment, on the same page. The current 13th Amendment is listed as the 14th Amendment in the 1867 Colorado edition.
The 1876 Laws of Wyoming which similarly show the "missing" Thirteenth Amendment, the current 13th Amendment (freeing the slaves), and the current 15th Amendment on the same page. The current 13th Amendment is listed as the 14th, the current 14th amendment is omitted, and the current 15th Amendment is in proper place.
For further discussion and the history of the Original Thirteenth Amendment see "Demon of Discord, Ratification and Suppression of the Original Thirteenth Article of Amendment to the Constitution of the United States."
On December 3, 1860, the month after Lincoln was elected, President Buchanan asked Congress to propose an "explanatory amendment". It was to be another 13th Amendment, to eradicate and cover-up the deletion of the Original Thirteenth Title of Nobility and Honour Amendment. This proposed amendment, which would have forever legalized slavery, was signed by President Buchanan the day before Lincoln took office.
This amendment to the Constitution relating to slavery was sent to the states for ratification by the Second Session of the Thirty-sixth Congress on March 2, 1861, when it passed the Senate, having previously passed the House on February 28, 1861. It is interesting to note in this connection that this and the ratified Anti-Slavery amendment of 1865 are the only resolutions proposing amendments to the Constitution to have been signed by the President. The President's signature is considered unnecessary because of the constitutional provision that on the concurrence of two-thirds of both Houses of Congress the proposal shall be submitted to the States for ratification.
The resolve to amend signed by President Buchanan on March 2, 1861, two days before Lincoln's inauguration, read:
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the following article be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which, when ratified by three-fourths of said Legislatures, shall be valid, to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution, viz:
"ARTICLE THIRTEEN, No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State."
In other words, President Buchanan had signed a resolve that would have forever permitted slavery, and upheld states' rights. Only one State, Illinois, Lincoln's home state, had ratified this proposed amendment before the Civil War broke out in 1861. It appears at 12 Stat. 251, 36th Congress. Two more State legislatures ratified it, beginning with Ohio on May 13, 1861, followed by Maryland on January 10, 1862.
But the onslaught of the Civil War taught that the Nation may be in even greater peril from the States than they ever were from the Nation. And so, after more than seventy years of national life, the people, by the presently acknowledged 13th Amendment and the two following, laid upon the States restrictions which a few years before would have been impossible. The Constitution had gone forty-six years (1819 - 1865) without an Amendment.
In the tumult of 1865, the original Thirteenth Amendment was removed from our Constitution. In a Congressional Resolve to amend dated December 5, 1864, approved and signed by President Lincoln, February 1, 1865, another Amendment numbered XIII (which prohibited slavery in Sect. 1, and ended states' rights in Sect. 2) was proposed. When, on January 13, 1865, a two-thirds vote was taken in the House of Representatives for proposing the currently presented 13th Amendment "in honor of the immortal and sublime event" the House adjourned. It was then presented to the States for ratification. Two months later, April 9, 1865, the Civil War ended with General Lee's surrender. On April 14, President Lincoln was assassinated, dying on April 15th.
On December 18, 1865, the "new" 13th Amendment loudly prohibiting and abolishing slavery (and quietly surrendering states rights to the federal government) was proclaimed adopted by Secretary of State Seward, replacing and effectively erasing the original Thirteenth Amendment that had prohibited acceptance of "titles of nobility" and "honors" and "emoluments", and dishonest politicians have been bought and bribed and have treasonously accepted graft from external sources ever since, with no thought of penalty.
US continues to be in a permanent state of national emergency since March 9, 1933, and possibly as far back as the Civil WarContinued below...
--Senate report 93-549 (1973)
On April 15, 1861,
President Lincoln reconvened Congress under the Executive branch by proclamation (number 1): "I do hereby, in virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution, convene both Houses of Congress."
Ceasar (President) is now in full control even over the Senate (Congress).
A Presidential dictatorship has been imposed on U.S. citizens. The sad thing is, "Most American people do not realize it yet."
The corporate government created in 1871 will continue to exist as long as:
"state of war" or "emergency" exists (War on Drugs, War on Poverty, War on Terrorism, War on Iraq, etc.),
the President does not terminate "martial" or "emergency" powers by Executive Order or decree, or
the people do not resist submission and terminate by restoring lawful civil courts, processes and procedures under authority of the "inherent political powers" of the people.
---------------------------
The original Thirteenth Amendment (no title of nobility), approved by 13 of the 17 states March 12, 1819 and thereby ratified, is the last proper draft of a de jure Amendment but is not recognized by the corporate (de facto) UNITED STATES.
The original 13th Amendment prohibits "Esquires" (Attorneys) from holding positions of public office.
The Fourteenth Amendment for all intents and purposes does not exist. On March 28, 1861 Congress adjourned sine die and never has reconvened de jure.
www.scratchinpost.net...
