The People Are Guaranteed to Lose


Home Forums The Automatic Earth Forum TAE Blog Finance The People Are Guaranteed to Lose

Viewing 13 posts - 1 through 13 (of 13 total)
  • Author
  • #5154



    Ann Barnhardt and I (Warren Pollock) talk about the most important issues of today including the property rights, collateral, the lack of safety in savings and retirement plans, and the 2012 election. We discuss the Sentinel Bankruptcy as a test case for violating key safeguards to any and all of your financial instruments within the context of fraud or banking interests. This ruling has major implications to you as well as Jon Corzine. We anticipate the need to fund Treasuries with funds captured in retirement plans. Most importantly, Ann and I describe events without pointing the finger to “them” this is a time to take personal responsibility by finding clarity in current events.


    Ann Barnhardt is another one who advocates getting out of the financial institutions. So assuming she has gotten out of the markets like she is telling everyone to do, does anyone know what Barnhardt has done with her money? Does she farm, grow food?


    Y’all may believe whatever you wish, but I’ve seen Barnhardt’s vids and read her comments at her site… and she’s the last person I would ever turn to for ANY advice whatsoever. In my opinion, she’s so hate filled that all that hate has so clouded her judgement as to make her completely insane. In fact, a person unfamiliar with finance and money, just a normal, walking around american, must come to the conclusion, after watching her vids, that this woman has lost her mind.

    I think there’s a certain class of people, I call them republicons, who are more effected by right wing paranoia than more balanced people, who, unfortunately I cannot call democrats. I believe balanced, normal minded people are in short supply at this time in history when we need them the most. Our history in this country, to some extent, informs this paranoia, but it’s been more prevalent sine 9/11.

    You cannot allow yourself to be influenced by these hate-toids. They are not normal and down that path is misery of mind and desolation.I’m not suggesting a Pollyanna vision, just balance. The world is not black with spots of white, just the opposite.


    And there we have the normalcy bias in all its splendor. Thanks, m111ark.

    As I’ve heard said, it’s not paranoia when someone really is following you.

    That said, Barnhardt wouldn’t be my first choice to share with a friend or family member. Of course, by the time I got around to doing so (after they rationalized why they could ignore whoever or whatever I pointed them to, say, TAE), it might be too late.


    Ah-ha… the favorite refrain of the excitable, “it’s different this time.”

    It may be, in the very long time frame, but in my remaining years, not likely. Do you really think you’ve discovered something unique that’s only be going on for the last few years or decades? FOREVER, my friend. FOR – EVER! The only thing different is that the internet affords the excitable an opportunity to display their ignorance.


    What kind of financial system will we end up with after a reset?
    I will not be the one redrawing up and imposing any kind of system.
    So, if you are interested in finding out what could be happening, here is something to read.
    The Chicago Plan Revisited

    Jaromir Benes and Michael Kumhof

    Here is a ref. and a few quotes for those interested in the history of money, and gold backed currency.

    The historical debate concerning the nature and control of money is the subject of
    (The Lost Science of Money
    by Stephen A. Zarlenga),
    a masterful work that traces this debate back to ancient Mesopotamia, Greece and Rome.

    … the harvest cycle in ancient farming societies, but Zarlenga (2002), Del
    Mar (1895), and the works cited therein contain numerous other historical examples where
    this mechanism was at work. It repeatedly led to systemic borrower defaults, forfeiture of
    collateral, and therefore the concentration of wealth in the hands of lenders. For the
    macroeconomic consequences it matters little whether this represents deliberate and
    malicious manipulation, or whether it is an inherent feature of a system based on private
    money creation. We will return to this in our theoretical model, too.

    A discussion of the crises brought on by excessive debt in ancient Mesopotamia is
    contained in Hudson and van de Mierop (2002). It was this experience, acquired over
    millennia, that led to the prohibition of usury and/or to periodic debt forgiveness
    (“wiping the slate clean”) in the sacred texts of the main Middle Eastern religions. The
    earliest known example of such debt crises in Greek history are the 599 BC reforms of
    Solon, which were a response to a severe debt crisis of small farmers, brought on by the charging of interest on coinage by a wealthy oligarchy. It is extremely illuminating to
    realize that Solon’s reforms, at this very early time, already contained many elements of
    what Henry Simons (1948), a principal proponent of the Chicago Plan, would later refer
    to as the “financial good society”. First, there was widespread debt cancellation, and the
    restitution of lands that had been seized by creditors. Second, agricultural commodities
    were monetized by setting official monetary floor prices for them. Because the source of
    loan repayments for agricultural debtors was their output of these commodities, this
    turned debt finance into something closer to equity finance. Third, Solon provided much
    more plentiful government-issued, debt-free coinage that reduced the need for private
    debts. Solon’s reforms were so successful that, 150 years later, the early Roman republic
    sent a delegation to Greece to study them. They became the foundation of the Roman
    monetary system from 454 BC (Lex Aternia) until the time of the Punic wars (Peruzzi
    (1985)). It is also at this time that a link was established between these ancient
    understandings of money and more modern interpretations. This happened through the
    teachings of Aristotle that were to have such a crucial influence on early Western thought.
    In Ethics, Aristotle clearly states the state/institutional theory of money, and rejects any
    commodity-based or trading concept of money, by saying “Money exists not by nature but
    by law.” The Dialogues of Plato contain similar views (Jowett (1937)). This insight was
    reflected in many monetary systems of the time, which contrary to a popular prejudice
    among monetary historians were based on state-backed fiat currencies rather than
    commodity monies. Examples include the extremely successful Spartan system (approx.
    750-415 BC), introduced by Lycurgus, which was based on iron disks of low intrinsic
    value, the 390-350 BC Athenian system, based on copper, and most importantly the early
    Roman system (approx. 700-150 BC), which was based on bronze tablets, and later coins,
    whose material value was far below their face value.

    Many historians (Del Mar (1895)) have partly attributed the eventual collapse of the
    Roman republic to the emergence of a plutocracy that accumulated immense private
    wealth at the expense of the general citizenry. Their ascendancy was facilitated by the
    introduction of privately controlled silver money, and later gold money, at prices that far
    exceeded their earlier commodity value prices, during the emergency period of the Punic
    wars. With the collapse of Rome much of the ancient monetary knowledge and experience
    was lost in the West. But the teachings of Aristotle remained important through their
    influence on the scholastics, including St. Thomas Acquinas (1225-1274). This may be
    part of the reason why, until the Industrial Revolution, monetary control in the West
    remained generally either in government or religious hands, and was inseparable from
    ultimate sovereignty in society. However, this was to change eventually, and the beginnings
    can be traced to the first emergence of private banking after the fall of Byzantium in 1204,
    with rulers increasingly relying on loans from private bankers to finance wars. But
    ultimate monetary control remained in sovereign hands for several more centuries. The
    Bank of Amsterdam (1609-1820) in the Netherlands was still government-owned and
    maintained a 100% reserve backing for deposits. And the Mixt Moneys of Ireland (1601)
    legal case in England confirmed the right of the sovereign to issue intrinsically worthless
    base metal coinage as legal tender. It was the English Free Coinage Act of 1666, which
    placed control of the money supply into private hands, and the founding of the privately
    controlled Bank of England in 1694, that first saw a major sovereign relinquishing
    monetary control, not only to the central bank but also to the private banking interests
    behind it. The following centuries would provide ample opportunities to compare the results of government and private control over money issuance.


    Interpreting this guarantee clause poses an interesting problem,
    but it is stupifiying that the vital conception of a republican form
    cannot be readily defined within constitutional parameters,
    any applicable definition must be directly evident from the document itself.

    I find that the Domestic Violence clause in the same section
    does readily apply to the imminent threat of Homeland Security
    and its projected purchase of 1.4 billion bullets for domestic use.

    Section 4
    The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, [as delineated in this document]
    and shall protect each of them against Invasion;
    and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive
    (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence [perpetrated by the Executive].

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed [under pain of kinetic constitutionalism].


    The problem with Barnhardt’s advice is she doesn’t say what to do with your money if you get it out of all financial accounts. Its just get the hell out. Imagine if even 25% of the population did this, it would collapse the financial system. I’m not saying there isn’t a problem with the debt, but it is caused by the banks on one hand and the role of the US as an international policeman on the other.

    Maybe there is no solution but if there is a governmental collapse, many of us won’t live through it. Just turn off your TV, internet and power for a week and try it.

    Mr. Pollock has stopped all comments on the video because he can’t address the implications of doing what he advocates. Maybe he and Barnhardt are right but will they trigger the nuclear option?


    Gravity post=4863 wrote: Interpreting this guarantee clause poses an interesting problem,
    but it is stupifiying that the vital conception of a republican form
    cannot be readily defined within constitutional parameters,
    any applicable definition must be directly evident from the document itself.

    Not that I’m aware of. Then again, not many concepts or powers are “directly evident from the document itself”. Take Congress’ power to “regulate interstate commerce”, for ex. There is really no further explanation of what that entails, and it has therefore become so broad as to encompass just about any economic activity. Federal courts can really interpret these vague clauses as broadly or as narrowly as they want, depending on what corporate or political interests are in play for any given set of facts. Precedents can be amassed to support those interpretations, and, if there is little preceding judicial support, the judges can rely on some other ad hoc reasoning to ignore/overturn prior precedent.


    ashvin post=4866 wrote:
    Take Congress’ power to “regulate interstate commerce”, for ex. There is really no further explanation of what that entails, and it has therefore become so broad as to encompass just about any economic activity.

    On the obamacare ruling, the administration tried to reason that not purchasing a product is a commercial activity which influences price as much as a positive purchase would, and so not purchasing a product must be equally regulated as a commercial activity under said commerce clause, because a commercial non-action may influence the price of any good or service in interstate transactions.

    So not engaging in commerce is nonetheless rendered a commercial activity.

    This absurd reasoning was dismissed, only to be superceded by the more vicious reasoning of the taxation clause; that purchasing, for private use, a private insurance on the use of one’s own body [from a third-party commercial entity], must be mandated by law to be conductive for the ‘general welfare’.

    ashvin post=4866 wrote:
    Federal courts can really interpret these vague clauses as broadly or as narrowly as they want, depending on what corporate or political interests are in play for any given set of facts.

    Its the meaning of words that keeps shifting between interpretations. If the definitions of certain key words were renormalised by proper weight in a legal heuristic, it would be more clear and adequately inviolate.
    A novel mathematical language may be employed to parse the precise meaning of constitutional language, based on the reciprocal recursion of unalienable rights, to constrain the transient immanence of legal abstraction.

    The ‘living document’ idea is often abused in this way, enabling haphazard re-interpretation in accordance with the needs of special interests. The timeless condition of constitutional vitality must afford that a cogent constitution may be rightfully applied or amended within strict parameters, when novel socio-economic situations demand legal codification or clarification, without internal contradictions arising in the meaning of words long established.

    Seriously, the document itself ought to contain all applicable definitions of what form of government it does delineate; “a republic if you can keep it”, but none can define it, even after 200+ years?


    “Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.”

    The judiciary may successfully compel congress to perform their duty and impeach the POTUS for a high crime and misdemeanor under article II section 4 [committed by engaging in unauthorised offensive military force in the Libyan war], under pain of criminal dereliction of congressional duty yielding complicity in said high crime, being Treason by levying War against them, under article III section 3.

    Notwithstanding the enactment of house c. res. 107, as constitutional stipulations readily apply, a judiciary intervention to compel congress to perform their duty may not conflict with a prohibitive political question doctrine, as it is [rendered] a distinct criminal question.
    “The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.”


    Good that someone with legal training and ability is able to track this case with all of its pernicious potential consequences.

    For my money (admittedly not much), these were the most chilling words I’ve read all day:

    “. . . decentralization is nothing more than a slogan for radical centralization of wealth/power, and the non-existent rule of law in “civilized” countries such as the U.S. We should not be fooled into thinking that the federal courts, U.S. Congress or the federal executive/administrative agencies are relying on the “historical and true” meaning of the U.S. Constitution in these types of situations. They are simply manipulating the Constitution to achieve their corrupt, short-term goals and combat the storm surge of decentralization.”

    We often lose sight of the fact that “reframing” and redefinition of terminology is often the first way that the “slippery slope” gets its grease.

Viewing 13 posts - 1 through 13 (of 13 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.