Marilyn Writes

WISCONSIN VERSUS LEO E. WANTA: COURT TRANSCRIPTS

2012-01-30T22:23:00.013-07:00

NOTE: Pages 1 through 4 of actual transcript are Title Page and Table of Contents.

WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO AMBASSADOR LEO/LEE EMIL WANTA UP TO THIS POINT:

NOTE: It is logical to progress from the last blog about the unlawful tax cases involving Falls Vending which were filed against Ambassador Wanta by the State of Wisconsin Department of Revenue [from 1982 - 1987] to the next major court event in his life: his arrest in Lausanne, Switzerland. At this moment, however, the Editor awaits a response from the Lausanne Courts regarding a recent letter to them (which is a response to a letter to me from them). Another letter from the International Court of Justice at The Hague is also expected. The Lausanne Court system has sent 20 pages of court text -- a Tribunal Decision from 2000. It is in French and is currently being translated. While waiting for the necessary tools to write the portion of Wanta World that deals with the Ambassador's imprisonment in Switzerland, it is time to begin coverage of the Dane County (Madison) Wisconsin trial... if one can call it a trial. Interpreting court transcripts is difficult and time consuming work and will be provided as analysis is completed.

Editor: EVENTS LEADING TO THE DANE COUNTY TRIAL:

1. On July 7, 1993, the Swiss Surete arrested Ambassador Wanta in Lausanne just as he was paying the breakfast bill at the Hotel Au Lac for a group of people who were traveling with him (“On July 7, 1993, I bought breakfast for Consul General Giovanni Ferro and Lorrayne Fine [an Israeli Mossad agent] of L.H. Financial Group, Johannesburg, South Africa. Others in the group – but not at breakfast – included Anthony Maniaci [Queen’s Counsel at Toronto, Ontario, Canada], and Sandro Sordi [former Dade County Deputy AG]," Wanta stated in a recent interview.)

2. Leo Emil Wanta was appointed Ambassador to Switzerland (and also Canada) by the nation of Somalia. His Ambassadorial Investiture was witnessed by the Foreign Minister of France, the Honorable Alain Juppe… a former Mayor of Paris. Thus, questions arise as to the legality of the imprisonment of Ambassador Wanta in Lausanne. The Swiss may question the validity of the Ambassadorial appointment, but they do not have the right to ignore it. Why would the Swiss Government imprison someone with Diplomatic Immunity in violation of the various international agreements known as the Vienna Conventions? Thus we see the first attacks on an innocent man caused by good old fashioned greed... the attraction of the moth to the flame of money.

3. The group was leaving for Geneva, a short distance from Lausanne (they were going by cab) to meet with White House Deputy Counsel Vince Foster. Foster and his group (which included Leon Panetta) would join Wanta and his group at the Hotel de la Paix in Geneva. Vince Foster's presence is affirmed by his American Express credit card statement Foster (who was murdered within two weeks of the planned meeting) was there to get $250 million from Ambassador Wanta. The funds had been requested by White House Economic Chairperson Laura d'Andrea Tyson, right-hand to First Lady (at the time) Hillary Clinton. The money was for the Children's Defense Fund (which is rumored to be Hillary's personal piggy bank).

4. The reason they were traveling by cab to Geneva (rather than by train) was because of a large, heavy blue nylon bag Leo Wanta was carrying. It contained all of his immediate investigative records and included highly classified information about an undercover operation on which he was working called "Operation Chaselet." Chaselet involved Credit Suisse and Letters of Credit issued by Chase Manhattan Bank. He had been told by his U.S, Treasury Department Representative, RAC William LeCates (Nashville), to take his records with him on this trip. The records included a federal arrest warrant for Marc Rich, issued by FBI Director William Sessions (who was terminated by Clinton two days after Wanta was arrested and the arrest warrant went unexecuted -- and yes, the same Marc Rich who was the last person pardoned by President William Jeffersonn Clinton as he departed the White House for the final time). Was Wanta being set up for the fall he took that day in Lausanne?

5. Wanta was traveling on his Somali Diplomatic Passport.

6. Wanta was held in what he terms "a dungeon" (Cell No. 130, within Prison du Bois - Mermet, CH du Bois - Gentil, 1018 Lausanne, Switzerland) from July 7, 1993 until November 17, 1993. On that date, the Swiss put him in body restraints (chains -- heavy duty stuff for someone against whom the Swiss filed no charges after unlawfully holding him in prison for over four months), and with two armed guards sent him on Swiss Air Flight #110 to New York where he was arraigned in Federal District Court in Brooklyn.

7. On November 17, 1993, Ambassador Wanta re-entered the United States using his Somali Diplomatic Passport. It was recorded by U.S. Customs upon his re-entry; to further prove the point, his U.S. Passport had expired in August 1993; it would have been impossible for him to use it to re-enter the U.S. This is irrefutable evidence that the Somali Ambassadorship and the Diplomatic Passport that came with it were valid... further evidence the Swiss government arrested and imprisoned a man entitled to Diplomatic Immunity.

8. Judge Allyne Ross dismissed all charges against Leo Emil Wanta on November 19, 1993. I have a copy of the New York Court Docket.

9. Ambassador Leo Emil Wanta was re-arrested on the steps of the Brooklyn Federal District Court and was held in New York until mid-December when he was "extradited" to Wisconsin.

THE DANE COUNTY CRIMINAL TRIAL OF AMBASSADOR LEO/LEE EMIL WANTA

Judge Michael B. Torphy, Jr., a former District Attorney thoroughly familiar with criminal law, states in Circuit Court Branch 2, Madison (Dane Coounty), Wisconsin, on May 8, 1995:

THE COURT: We are on the record in the matter entitled State of Wisconsin versus Leo E. Wanta. Mr. Wanta is charged in an information dated April 20, 1995.

(See Page 5 of Court Transcript, above.)

Thus, it appears the criminal charges on which Lee Wanta is being tried were filed a mere three weeks before the trial. This raises a huge question: On what charges did Wisconsin have Wanta re-arrested on the steps of the Brooklyn Federal District Court after Judge Allyne Ross dismissed all charges against him on November 19, 1993, when Switzerland finally sent him back (in body chains) to the United States?

Based on Judge Torphy's "on the record" statement, it appears the only "charges" the State of Wisconsin had against Ambassador Wanta in 1993 until the criminal charges were filed in 1995 were civil charges for an estimated income tax deficiency. Is an unproven, estimated civil income tax penalty sufficient reason for extradition from New York to Wisconsin -- in body chains? Is an unproven, estimated civil income tax penalty sufficient reason to hold an American citizen in a filthy city jail from December 1993 until his trial in May 1995? It is obvious that something else was going on here. The State of New York and the Federal Government became complicit in this unlawful procedure when Wanta was held unlawfully in the Brooklyn Federal prison for a month -- from November 19th (after Judge Ross dismissed all charges against him on November 19, 1993) until mid-December when he was flown (again in body chains) from New York to Madison, Wisconsin, where he was immediately incarcerated in the Dane County Jail.

Bear in mind, Wanta paid the estimated civil income tax of $14,129 under protest a full year before any of this unlawful behavior by New York, Wisconsin and the federal government occurred. The State of Wisconsin billed him for income taxes during years Wanta was not a resident of the State of Wisconsin. Leo/Lee Wanta became a legal resident of Vienna, Austria, in June of 1988.

PARAGRAPH 3, PAGE 5, FROM THE TRANSCRIPT::

MR. CHAVEZ: Judge, yes, I do. I’d like to make a record. I’d prefer it be in camera. And Mr. Haag and I discussed we’d also – it’s my understanding he would have no objection to an ex parte in camera discussion.

THE COURT: Ex parte with who?

MR. CHAVEZ: With you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: You and Mr, Wanta?

MR. CHAVEZ: Yes.

THE COURT: Just the three of us?

MR. CHAVEZ: Yes.

THE COURT: I always am very leery of ex parte discussions.

Why would a defense attorney discuss his desire to make a record before a trial begins? Why does he care if prosecutor, Assistant Attorney General J. Douglas Haag, objects and why is he coordinating defense strategies with the prosecution? Why does he all but apologize for wanting to make a record? It does NOT strike me as strange that a defense attorney would ask for an ex parte in camera discussion with the judge that's about to try his case – but the judge’s reaction indicates surprise – “just the three of us?” Does a request for an ex parte in camera meeting usually involve anyone but the defendant and his counsel? Yes, Judge Torphy, the defense attorney and his client – without the prosecutor. Then Haag injects himself into the conversation as if he’s giving the Court his blessing/permission to confer with the defendant and his lawyer – he even suggests the terms re when he’d be willing to leave. Who is running courtroom procedures?(See Page 5, above, and Page 6, below.)

This first 30 pages of the State of Wisconsin versus Leo Emil Wanta provide some of the strangest courtroom verbal exchanges in courtroom history. It took me until the third reading to realize the three lawyers (Chavez, Haag, and Torphy) are sharing a kind of "code speak." There is no other reasonable explanation for what is said and how it is verbally stated.

PAGE 6, 1995 DANE COUNTY COURT TRIAL TRANSCRIPT:

Page 5 ends with non-appointed State Public Defender (illegal under Wisconsin Statutes),counsel for the Defendant, Mr. John Chavez, a retired military lawyer, a former Judge Advocate General (JAG) and an Attorney at Law from Cambridge, Wisconsin, stating that he wants to make a record. The Courtroom conversation that occurs after this request is strange, indeed. In addition to Mr. Chavez, we have J. Douglas Haag, Assistant Attorney General, prosecuting the case for the State of Wisconsin, Department of Revenue. It is Judge Michael B. Torphy, Jr.'s courtroom -- though in the following record from the Court transcript it certainly doesn't sound like Torphy's in charge. Torphy is a former district attorney who is more than a little familiar with criminal law.

MR. HAAG: The only – perhaps we ought to convene all of us – but what I’m concerned about is that I don’t want – to the extent that any matters that could be deemed privileged would be brought to the Court’s attention, I don’t want to be in a position where that privilege was inadvertently breached because I was present.
So I think we have to be particularly cautious about proceeding on these matters with that – just with the privilege issue in mind, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Well, I guess if -- I’m willing to have Mr. Chavez and Mr. Wanta discuss with me whatever they – if you’re agreeable to it.

MR. HAAG: Well…

THE COURT: I don’t know what it is. I don’t know why it is, and I – but that’s – that’s sort of a carte blanche situation.

MR. HAAG: I would prefer to be present at first, but if it at all appears to Your Honor or Mr, Chavez that we may be entering into a very delicate area of privilege, then I would be happy to leave.

THE COURT: Yeah. But I don’t know what’s privileged. How would I know what’s privileged?

MR. HAAG: We have to leave that to Mr. Chavez’s determination.

THE COURT: I guess what I would like to do in that circumstances, very honestly, is rather than moving back and forth between chambers and the courtroom, unless there is some objection I’d like to, you know, just clear the courtroom. Is that sufficient for your purposes?

MR. CHAVEZ: (Moves his head in an affirmative manner.)

THE COURT: And get everybody back at such time as it’s appropriate. So to that extent I would like to have everybody but the counsel and Mr. Wanta, as I understand, excused from the room.

COURT REPORTER: Do you want this on the record?

THE COURT: It’s on the record – no question about it.

DANE COUNTY TRIAL TRANSCRIPT, MAY 8, 1995, BOTTOM OF PAGE 7: (At this time the following record was made in a closed courtroom with the Court and counsel, at 9:25 a.m.)

THE COURT: I gather, just so the record is clear, Mr. Wanta, you have no objection to that, I assume?

THE DEFENDANT: No, I don’t. But I would like to give the Court a statement, which I have the right to do, Your Honor. And if I may approach the bench, I have a statement I would like to present the Court.

2. WISCONSIN VERSUS LEO E. WANTA, TRIAL TRANSCRIPT, PAGES 8 AND 9

BEGINNING OF PAGE 8:

THE DEFENDANT (continued): I think it’s very essential and important for justice.

MR. CHAVEZ: For the record, I have not seen it, nor has Mr. Haag.

THE DEFENDANT: That is correct

It is very interesting how Mr. Chavez is so aware of what Mr. Haag, the prosecutor, knows and doesn’t know -- what he’s seen and what he hasn’t seen -- of the defendant's case.

THE COURT: Do you have any objection to my sharing it with both your attorney and Mr. Haag?

THE DEFENDANT: I have no objection as long as it becomes the property of the Court.

THE COURT; Why don’t we – Can we deal with what Mr. Chavez wants to talk about first?

THE DEFENDANT: Certainly.
THE COURT: Mr. Chavez?
MR. CHAVEZ: Thank you, Judge. Again, Judge, I have tried to withdraw from this case twice.
THE COURT: That’s true.
MR. CHAVEZ: Both times you denied it. We -- Certainly it is in -- it is within your power. The statement I want to make now is this.
Mr. Wanta wants me to proceed with the defense that I do not agree with – I do not want to go forward with. I do not have a choice, however. I have to believe what he’s telling me. I’ve tried to find out whether or not these things are, in fact, true, but I cannot verify it absolutely one way or another.
Thus I feel I have to go forward with what he’s...

BEGINNING OF PAGE 9:

...telling me is the truth. Did I believe it, I don’t think that matters at this point. I have to go forward with what he wants me to do. I find it repugnant, I find it absolutely ludicrous to go forward with this, and I think we’re demeaning this Court by going forward with this type of defense; however, that’s what Mr. Wanta wants me to do. I will do it.

(Continued on Page 10 of Transcript)

Would such statements from your defense lawyer to the Court and in the presence of the prosecution make you feel warm and fuzzy at the quality of defense you are about to get in the impending trial? Would you feel certain that justice is about to be done and that you are assured of a fair trial?

EDITOR’S COMMENTS RE THE WORD “REPUGNANT”

The average person sees the word “repugnant” and thinks of it in its typical dictionary definition. We relate it to adjectives like: abhorrent, abominable, detestable, disagreeable, disgustful, disliked, displeasing, distasteful, diversus, forbidding, fulsome, hateful, inedible, insufferable, loathsome, noisome, objectionable, obnoxious, odious, offending, offensive, out of favor, painful, repellent, repelling, repulsive, revolting, unacceptable, unappetizing, unpalatable, unpleasant, unpopular, and unsavory. Or, it can mean adverse, alien, antagonistic, at odds, at variance, clashing, conflicting, contrary, different, disagreeing, discordant, incongruous, inconsistent, inharmonious, inimical, irreconcilable, jarring, opposed, or opposing.

But there is an associated concept of “repugnant” that has application to this text. It is part of the “secret code” to which I referred earlier that these lawyers are using. It has to do with the Constitution of the United States. The words of Mr. Chavez sound like a lawyer making negative comments about his client’s case. Instead, it is establishing a base for his own safety net should the case he is about to throw to the wolves be appealed… as he is sure it will be.

In the case Marbury v. Madison (James Madison was, at the time, Secretary of State), Marbury sought to compel the delivery of his commission by seeking a writ of mandamus in the Supreme Court.

Learned and thoughtful, President John Adams had several commissions of appointment to office that had been signed but not delivered and were withheld on President Thomas Jefferson’s express instructions when he succeeded Adams. Marbury sought to compel the delivery of his commission by seeking a writ of mandamus in the Supreme Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction against Secretary of State Madison. Jurisdiction was based on Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789. Marbury interpreted Section 13 to authorize the Court to issue writs of mandamus in suits in its original jurisdiction. The Court decided Sec. 13 authorization was an attempt by Congress to expand the Court’s original jurisdiction beyond the constitutional prescription and was therefore void.

Because the Constitution is “a superior paramount law,” it is unchangeable by ordinary legislative means and “a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law.”

And here is the key phrase as it relates to Mr. Chavez’s use of “repugnant”

“If an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void, does it notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the courts, and oblige them to give it effect?” The answer, thought the Chief Justice, was obvious. “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. . . . If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each." Chief Justice Marshall said: “A law repugnant to the Constitution is void.” (Editor's Note: Though a different topic altogether, this statement by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall explains why the Federal Reserve Act is unlawful: It is repugnant to the Constitution which gave responsibility for today's functions of the Federal Reserve to the United States Congress, not a private corporation like the Fed.)

The Wanta case had numerous conflicts of law involving his Ambassadorship (which dictated that the Supreme Court of the United States was the only Court qualified to try him) and conflicts of law existed regarding the sharing of intelligence information in a public forum ike this trial -- you remember the (relatively meaningless by comparison) Valerie Plame incident. Vice President Dick Cheney's Aide, Scooter Libby, went to prison for "outing" Plame in a far less public forum than this mock trial in Madison, Wisconsin which outed Leo Emil Wanta, the man who is documented to have brought down the Soviet ruble and, as a result of that operation, of bringing down the Iron Curtain. Plame's outing is nothing by comparison to having an Assistant Attorney General for the State of Wisconsin "out" a Title 18 Section 6 company designed to gather intelligence information for the United States of America and operated by covert operative Leo Wanta.

Mr. Chavez planned no defense against these conflicts. Thus he was worried about being charged with providing ineffective counsel. That's why the two concepts are presented at the same time: "repugnant" and "ineffective." That's what all of this "secret code" legal talk is intended to cover -- and keep reading because it gets worse. The testimony by itself proves the reference being made has to do with a conflict of laws in this case and both Mr. Chavez and Judge Torphy express concern about it.

The law Judge Torphy chose to pursue in the trial of Leo Emil Wanta was “repugnant to the Constitution.” It is, therefore, void. At least, constitutionally. Read the ongoing testimony and judge for yourself.

The concept of repugnance has been used in recent law. For example, former Attorney General John Ashcroft might have faced personal liability for the decisions that led to the detention of an American citizen as a material witness after the 9/11 attacks. A federal appeals court panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco said “We find this to be repugnant to the Constitution, and a painful reminder of some of the most ignominious chapters of our national history,” said the opinion. The Patriot Act was quickly passed to cover such incidents once the “war on terrorism” began.

RETURN TO THE COURT TRANSCRIPT DATED 8 MAY 1995, PAGE 9:

MR. CHAVEZ: I further have discussed the idea of his testifying. He told me Friday that he wants to testify, which is certainly his right. I – I can’t keep him from testifying. He’s going to take the stand because he told me he was going to take the stand. I’ve surrounded my whole case around him taking the stand.

Again, I don’t – I find that repugnant, but if that’s what he wants me to do, take the stand and testify, fine. I’m only making the record here now pertaining to his testimony because I’m afraid later on he’s going to say I’m not testifying and then he’s got me hooked. And then there is the ineffective right there and he’s got me hooked. I think that’s what we’re doing here today is more or less setting up Mr. Wanta’s appeal, and that’s the record I want to make.

END OF PAGE 9 TESTIMONY

Why would defense counsel think having his client take the stand was “repugnant” – unless this was an expressed fear about a constitutional violation. Why would defense counsel want to prevent his client from testifying? The most logical reason is because he knows he cannot control potential testimony that proves the “repugnant” reference and its potential violation of the Constitution which would make the Court decision “void.” That is why the two topics appear together… “repugnant” and “I can’t prevent my client from testifying.” Add to that the final statement: “And then there is the ineffective right there and he’s got me hooked.”

To what is Mr. Chavez referring – “ineffective?”

The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution guarantees a fair trial via its Due Process Clauses. It says:

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

So, a fair trial is one in which evidence subject to adversarial testing is presented to an impartial tribunal for resolution of issues defined in advance of the proceeding. Thus, there must be adversarial testing of the prosecution’s case for a fair trial to occur. Mr. Chavez has already admitted that his total case is based on Ambassador Wanta’s testimony. He plans no adversarial testing of the prosecution’s case – no assertive cross-examination of witnesses… his entire case rests on Ambassador Wanta’s testimony and he is worried that the Ambassador will not testify because if he does not, as Mr. Chavez himself says: “And then there is the ineffective right there and he’s got me hooked.”

Just because a person is a lawyer and represents a client at trial is not enough to satisfy the constitutional command. The Sixth Amendment recognizes the right to assistance of counsel – but counsel that will play a critical role by using his ability within the adversarial system to produce justice. An accused is entitled to be assisted by an attorney, retained or appointed, who plays the role necessary to ensure a fair trial.

Mr. Chavez planned no defense and did not “play the role necessary to ensure a fair trial.” His lack of representation was a planned event and he was thus worried about being accused of ineffective counsel if Ambassador Wanta, in the end, chose not to testify. He admits that on the record. If you have wondered why the other lawyers ran from this assignment, the lack of funds for defense costs and the “repugnant” constitutional questions involved have to play a huge role. Mr. Chavez, it appears, was willing to overlook them… until it got to the date of the trial. He was compelled to make a record in his own defense for the lack of representation he knew he was making.

Bear in mind, one of the primary complaints Ambassador Wanta had was the Court freezing his more than ample liquid assets which prevented him from retaining his own legal counsel, paying for witness depositions, paying for witness travel, etc.

That a person who happens to be a lawyer is present at trial alongside the accused, however, is not enough to satisfy the constitutional command. The Sixth Amendment recognizes the right to the assistance of counsel because it envisions counsel's playing a role that is critical to the ability of the adversarial system to produce just results. An accused is entitled to be assisted by an attorney, whether retained or appointed, who plays the role necessary to ensure that the trial is fair.

Finally with regard to this portion of the court transcript of Leo Emil Wanta’s first day of trial, May 8, 1995, remember this from the Sixth Amendment:

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation…”

This trial was held in Dane County (or the County of Dane). Ambassador Wanta never paid a tax of any kind in Dane County. None of the unlawful Falls Vending delinquent tax problems or other suits filed against him were in Dane County. That county, in other words, had no jurisdiction to try him… at least that’s what the Sixth Amendment says.

Finally, Leo Emil Wanta was first arrested in Lausanne, Switzerland, on July 7, 1993. He was held in prison for over four months before being returned to the United States where all charges against him were immediately dismissed in Federal District Court. He was rearrested on the steps of the courthouse and was held in the Brooklyn federal facility for over a month before Wisconsin picked him up in mid-December and flew him, in body chains, to the Dane County Jail... where he was held from December 1993 until charges were finally filed against him in April 1995 and his trial began on May 8, 1995.

What was that part of the Sixth Amendment about a fair and speedy trial in the district where the "crime" occurred?

References:

Government violates the right to effective assistance when it interferes in certain ways with the ability of counsel to make independent decisions about how to conduct the defense. See, e.g., Geders v. United States, 425 U.S. 80 (1976) (bar on attorney-client consultation during overnight recess); Herring v. New York, 422 U.S. 853 (1975) (bar on summation at bench trial); Brooks v. Tennessee, 406 U.S. 605 (1972) (requirement that defendant be first defense witness); Ferguson v. Georgia, 365 U.S. 570 (1961) (bar on direct examination of defendant). Counsel, however, can also deprive a defendant of the right to effective assistance, simply by failing to render "adequate legal assistance," Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S., at 344 (actual conflict of interest adversely affecting lawyer's performance renders assistance ineffective).

The Court has not elaborated on the meaning of the constitutional requirement of effective assistance in the latter class of cases--that is, those presenting claims of "actual ineffectiveness." In giving meaning to the requirement, however, we must take its purpose--to ensure a fair trial--as the guide. The benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness must be whether counsel's conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result. 3. WISCONSIN VERSUS LEO E. WANTA, COURT TRANSCRIPT, MAY 8, 1995, PAGES 10 - 11

In pages 5 through 9, we found Ambassador Wanta's attorney, John Chavez, was afraid Wanta would charge him with ineffective representation.

A good defense lawyer should be interested in the welfare of his client… in the outcome of the trial immediately ahead of him.

But not Mr. Chavez.

Instead, Chavez is worried his "planned defense" is repugnant to the Constitution. He is worried about that because he has built no case to defend his client. The courts -- either in Switzerland or in Wisconsin or both -- froze Ambassador Wanta’s international bank accounts containing vast amounts of wealth. This single act prevented Wanta from retaining legal counsel of his choice. It put the State of Wisconsin in control of the trial. The only thing that can absolutely prevent the potential filing of an ineffective counsel charge against Chavez is the Ambassador's testimony which makes it look like Mr. Chavez has presented a defense when, indeed he has not. Thus, it is key for the Court to determine whether or not the Ambassador will testify. Read on and see how the Court accomplishes this.

MR. CHAVEZ: Also, for the record, I had advised my client to accept the deal of the State, okay? I find that evidence absolutely overwhelming against Mr. Wanta. Mr. Wanta claims his innocence, fine. I can't tell the Judge or the Court either way if I think he’s guilty or innocent, that doesn’t matter, either. All that matters is Mr. Wanta wants his trial and he wants to testify.

Now that you know the game that's being played, the words "...All that matters is Mr. Wanta... wants to testify" take on a whole new meaning, don't they?

The following paragraphs contain negative comments about Mr. Chavez -- and he deserves them. However, he also deserves some sympathy for his plight. You see, Mr. Chavez wasn't court-appointed counsel. When on pages 5 and 6 Chavez begged Judge Torphy to allow him to withdraw from the case, he made it sound like the Court had appointed him as Counsel to Ambassador Wanta. That is untrue.

Did the Wisconsin Court system and Department of Revenue (in league with... who? The CIA? The Swiss?) decide the easiest way to handle the Wanta matter was to have him committed to a mental institution? Four times they sent him for mental evaluation... he was found competent, even though they tried four times. Why these desperate attempts? If "they" can get Wanta confined to a mental institution, Wisconsin (and anyone with the power to demand access) controls $27.5 trillion that belongs to Ambassador Wanta -- money he earned at the behest of President Ronald Reagan for the American people.

Interestingly, the Swiss provided a good excuse for Wisconsin to put this plan into effect by having Ambassador Wanta mentally evaluated while he was unlawfully imprisoned there. The Swiss said they didn't believe his story about being an American covert intelligence operative. They decided the Ambassador was living in a fantasy world and committed him for psychiatric evaluation where they proceeded to pump him full of drugs. That they "didn't believe his intelligence involvement" is impossible since the blue nylon bag Wanta carried was filled with communiques with the FBI. In their November 17, 2000 Tribunal Decision from the Lausanne Courts, the Swiss admit finding 73 messages between Wanta and the FBI. They knew. The Swiss denial is not credible.. but it provided a good excuse for them to keep Wanta behind bars while they examined and evaluated the intelligence data contained in that blue bag. Remember, Wanta was told to take those records to Switzerland with him by RAC William LeCates of Nashville, his supervisor when working within the U.S. Treasury Department.

Thus, the Swiss paved the way for the Wisconsin strategy to get Wanta committed to their mental institution.

Concurrently, Wisconsin gave the Swiss a payback when they put on this farce of a trial to find Wanta guilty of a non-existent crime. The Swiss Tribunal Decision, dated 17 November 2000 (strangely, seven years to the day the Swiss returned Ambassador Wanta to the United States to have all charges against hin dismissed in a New York Federal District Court), justified their imprisonment of Ambassador Wanta in 1993 by saying he was, after all, convicted of criminal tax matters in Wisconsin in 1995. What does that have to do with holding him in a Swiss prison in 1993? The Tribunal Decision (about which you'll hear more later) had no charges to justify holding Ambassador Wanta in prison for over four months. At the end of the Tribunal Decision they made a weak effort to justify their actions by saying "Well, Wisconsin found him guilty of non-payment of income taxes in 1995." Each court washed the other's hands.

But back to the subject: Why Mr. Chavez deserves our sympathy.

Before this trial, two or three lawyers accepted retainers averaging about $15,000 each, to defend Leo Emil Wanta (Kenneth Starr was one of them -- yes, that Ken Starr... and then retained by the state of Wisconsin - Department of Education - without repaying the retainer and later became Special Counsel in the William Jefferson Clinton impeachment process; surely the Clinton appointment wasn't a payoff?). After accepting the retainer and beginning investigation of Leo Wanta's case, the lawyers disappeared, money still in hand, After all, who wants to crosss swords with the CIA, the FBI, and several other intelligence agencies for which Ambassador Wanta had done covert work?

The Office of the Wisconsin Public Defender had appointed two lawyers to the case. They, too, walked. Mr. Chavez was appointed by the Public Defender's Office to coordinate the mental competency tests Judge Torphy decided Ambassador Wanta should undergo. After all, Wanta had just been evaluated for mental illness in Switzerland, so Torphy could justify this decision on the basis of the Swiss precedent. Of course, the Swiss found no mental impairment... but the way the Wisconsin courts work, that didn't matter. Neither did it bother the Wisconsin Courts that spending Public Defender funds on a defendant who is probably the wealthiest man in the world and had more than sufficient funds to personally pay for private counsel... violated Wisconsin Statutes. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, the Wisconsin Public Defender's Office is always substantially over budget and is suspected of appointing lawyers to defend highly affluent people (many with mob connections) who can easily afford their own lawyers.

To make a long story a bit shorter, when Mr. Chavez completed the mental competency work for which the Public Defender retained him, Judge Torphy would not release him. It appears Mr. Chavez was forced into service -- forced to try the Wanta case. As he, himself, clearly states, he had tried to resign from the case twice, but Judge Torphy wouldn't allow him to withdraw. Those who were after the Wanta trillions saw an easy solution: Get him declared mentally incompetent, put him in a mental institution, fill him with whatever drugs necessary to get out of him all the information required, and perhaps a convenient overdose would end this situation with Wanta's untimely death. The plan was thwarted by the chief physician at the Mental Health Division of the Office of Human Services. She, in fact, is quoted as having said: "The only people who are crazy are the people in Madison who sent this man here for evaluation."

When the "Let's put him in a mental institution" strategy failed, Mr. Chavez was forced to try the Wanta case and is due some sympathy... and understanding how he got drug into the Wanta trial helps to better realize his fear of being charged with providing ineffective counsel. That, however, doesn't change the fact that it was ineffective counsel at an unlawful trial for a non-existent crime.

The Chavez quote, above, is a perfect example of being considered guilty until proven innocent – by your own lawyer. Wanta’s own counsel (before a jury is even selected) tells the Court he thinks his client is guilty – he tells the Judge and the Prosecutor that the evidence against his client is overwhelming and he has advised Ambassador Wanta to accept whatever deal the State of Wisconsin has offered. As you will see later in the transcript, the evidence was not only NOT overwhelming, there was absolutely no evidence produced proving INCOME (as opposed to corporate cash flow or personal expense reimbursement) was paid to Leo Emil Wanta.

The above paragraph from the transcript establishes that a plan exists to avoid difficult cross-examinations, and to avoid investigating or challenging the lack of funds so witnesses or their depositions can be presented on the Defendant’s behalf. Chavez is establishing the basis for his own defense should ineffective counsel charges be brought against him. He obviously plans to present a defense that is repugnant to the Constitution of the United States.

According to bank statements dated April 1993 just prior to his arrest in Switzerland, Ambassador Leo E. Wanta had billions of dollars in the bank -- more than enough to fly witnesses to Wisconsin from Singapore, Austria, Russia, Switzerland, and other foreign locales which is where his witnesses resided. The Court withheld access to those funds; the Court withheld access to legal counsel of his choice. The Court provided a lawyer who appears to have involved himself in a plot to withhold any vestige of justice from Leo E. Wanta and which makes a joke of the Wisconsin Department of Revenue and the Attorney General’s office. These men, responsible for making sure defendants get a fair trial, were engaged in a plot to do everything but that.

If any citizen with relatively average intelligence was suddenly appointed by a court to defend a fellow citizen from charges of not paying legitimate income taxes, what’s the first thing he or she would do? It doesn’t take a law degree to know. The first thing that needs to be proven is that income was paid to the client. Only if income was paid can taxes against it be assessed by the State.

Most of us also know that there are two basic forms on which income is declared. There is a 1099 Miscellaneous Income form for the self-employed, and there is a W-2 Federal income declaration form used by employers. There are various other forms as well, but let’s keep it simple. At no time during the trial did attorney John Chavez demand the prosecution produce any income reporting form to prove income had been paid to Leo E. Wanta.

We citizens appointed to defend a client would be screaming; “Where are the 1099 Forms or the W-2 Forms which prove the Defendant earned income and didn’t pay taxes on it?”

This basic question was never asked by Mr. Chavez during the trial.

"Well," the prosecution might insist, "no forms were issued. That doesn't prove the Defendant didn't receive income – after all, we’re talking about illicit, illegal income here… a company owned and managed by the Defendant. He chose not to send himself a W-2 Form from a company he owns and controls."

Another question must then be asked in response to the Prosecutor's statement: “Where is the evidence proving the company did not issue the required forms… has that company been prosecuted or charged with tax violations? Was it investigated?” The answer is "No."

If the company required by law to provide the tax forms to Mr. Wanta is not being investigated or prosecuted, why? If there is not sufficient evidence to prosecute the company for not producing required income tax forms to employees (owners or otherwise), there is insufficient evidence to prosecute an employee of the company!”

This proves Mr. Chavez is either more ignorant than the average person who might be placed in his position. Or, it proves that Mr. Chavez was intentionally ignoring the basic charges filed against Ambassador Wanta.

There is no doubt that a Nevada corporation – one of Leo E. Wanta’s Title 18 Section 6 companies with a branch office in Wanta's former home in Appleton, WI – sent him checks which Mr. Wanta cashed. (For a definition of a Title 18 Section 6 company, go here and scroll to #4.)

Does cashing checks sent to him by his Nevada corporation make the funds “personal income” to Leo Wanta? It may or it may not. When a person works for a Nevada corporation but is performing duties for the company at a distant location, such an employee is usually reimbursed for travel and living expenses. And, as the trial progresses, it is Leo E. Wanta’s travel and living expenses the prosecutor presented to the Court, calling it personal income. But Mr. Chavez never makes these key points – because his only defense is Mr. Wanta’s testimony… which he finds "repugnant."

John Chavez is truly frightened that this trial may cost him his license to practice law in Wisconsin. He is frightened that the ineffective defense he plans – a defense designed to help find his client guilty of an imaginary charge – will fall apart and provide sufficient reason to get him disbarred should Wanta decide to not testify. Chavez ends his agonizingly embarassing "I want to make a record" statement by saying:

MR. CHAVEZ: There. I’ve made a record. I’m just – Again, the reason I’m making this record is, Mr. Wanta is only setting this up for ineffective assistance and for appeal

.The closing comments on this topic by Mr. Chavez once again show his fear of ineffective assistance charges. There can only be one reason for this kind of fear before a jury is even chosen, before he performs poorly during the trial: The ineffective defense is planned and is known in advance.

Page 10, Paragraph 3, Line 13:

THE COURT: All right. Let me – Anything else, Mr. Chavez?
MR. CHAVEZ: No, Judge. Let me read what Mr. Wanta just gave to me, and then I’m going to have some questions of him.
THE COURT: Why don’t you make a couple copies of that for counsel.
The first question I’d like to ask and I – I would have asked it sooner or later, in any event, depending on whether or not Mr. Wanta indicates his desire to testify or his desire not to testify – or whether you would have called him or not called him, I guess…

COURT TRANSCRIPT, MAY 8, 1995, PAGE 11

…is a better way to phrase it. And I guess my question, Mr. Wanta, without getting into the details of the other things that Mr. Chavez has said, and that is that you understand that you have a right not to testify?
THE DEFENDANT: Your Honor, I’m innocent of the charges and I want to prove it by testifying – by testifying with the exhibits.
THE COURT: Please answer my questions. We’ll get to what you want to do. My question is, do you understand that you have a right not to testify?

The Defendant did answer your question, Judge. He added a thought, though. He has suggested that his testimony will be accompanied by exhibits. You had to get past that quickly because you and Mr Haag, the Prosecutor, aren’t going to allow any exhibits, are you?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: And as I understand Mr. Chavez and from what you just said, it is at least presently your desire to testify as a witness on your own behalf in this case; is that true?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor, because he has not called a single witness – a witness on my behalf. He has refused to. He claims that the State did not give him enough in his budget and all this other material.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. CHAVEZ: That’s absolutely -- --

All right? The Defendant has told Judge Torphy his counsel has informed him there are no funds available for his defense and the Judge's response is "All right."? There are no questions asked of Mr. Chavez to verify this statement or deny it. Unbelievable! This is absolute proof that the Judge was aware that no funds had been made available to provide an acceptable defense for this defendant. This entire trial was a farce!

In a normal trial, at what point is the defendant advised of his right to testify or not to testify? Not before a jury is even selected, I'll wager. How often before a trial does a Judge ask a Defendant if he intends to testify and advise him of his right to either testify or not testify?

According to Leo E. Wanta, his funds were frozen and it prevented him from retaining his own counsel. His lawyer, provided by the court system (if not technically "court appointed")has informed him that there are no funds available to provide a coherent defense... no witnesses, no depositions. Wanta refused to accept court appointed counsel… in fact, at one point Mr. Chavez asked Wanta to terminate him as counsel. Ambassador Wanta informed Mr. Chavez that he couldn’t terminate his service because he hadn’t retained him.

Wanta’s funds were frozen by the Swiss. Did they defrost them before returning him to the U.S.? If not, why not? The massive deposits Wanta had in Swiss banks at the time of his arrest in Lausanne simply disappeared. The money was never returned to him or to the American people. Even so, why would an American courtroom allow frozen funds that would have paid for a private lawyer to remain frozen after his return to the United States and after all charges against Ambassador Wanta had been dropped? Why would the State of Wisconsin want to pay the costs for a court appointed lawyer when the Defendant was rumored to have access to $27.5 trillion? Answer: To gain and maintain control of the trial. In any fair trial, this would not have happened. In Wisconsin, it had to happen. The State had to maintain control of the unlawful performance it was about to give in the name of justice.

The point is, the frozen funds prevented Mr. Wanta from retaining his own counsel for this trial and stuck him with Mr. Chavez… who functioned under the control of the Court and the Public Defender's office.

Leo/Lee E Wanta was placed in an absolutely impossible position: Accept his lawyer’s advice (as Mr. Chavez admits giving it) and plead ”guilty” to a crime he hadn’t committed; or, go to trial to make sure certain important things got on the record. The things Leo Wanta needed to get on the record had to do with topics about which he, as an intelligence operative, could not speak. He needed to let the Court, the prosecution and his own defense counsel talk publicly about things it was unlawful for them to mention in a public forum, especially a Court of Law that had no jurisdiction to try his case. For them to mention such things merely violated the law; for an intelligence operative functioning under an Oath of Office to make the comments would have bordered on treason.

As the trial transcript reveals, they would try to lead him into betraying his Oath of Office, to speak of things intelligence operatives cannot reveal, but he wisely avoided that trap. He paid a heavy price for doing so, but not as severe as it would have been had he let them entice him onto that Yellow Brick Road. Perhaps that is what Mr. Chavez so feared about Ambassador Wanta’s testimony? Had Wanta gone into detailed explanations regarding his intelligence activities, he could have been skating around the edges of treason. Maybe that’s what the court hoped to provoke: a detailed explanation about an intelligence agency that had obviously thrown the Defendant under a bus. That would then provide a real reason to prosecute Wanta for treason and put him away for life. That, in turn, would give “them” legal access to the funds accrued by Ambassador Wanta’s Title 18 Section 6 corporations – which is, after all, what everyone was after.

When Ambassador Wanta charged Mr. Chavez with not calling witnesses on his behalf because court-provided funds were insufficient, the Judge has no reaction, whatsoever. He simply says “All right.” He doesn’t ask Mr. Chavez “Is this true?” The Judge knew there was no money made available to to try this case honestly on the basis of facts… probably the reason state public defenders and court appointed lawyers walked away from defending Wanta. Ambassador Wanta made very clear from the beginning that he had more than enough money, requested the funds be made available to him so he could retain his own legal counsel, and he strongly objected to having court-controlled lawyers forced upon him.

Interestingly, the prosecution (Mr. Haag) makes sure to point out to the jury (on Day 3 of the trial) that no witnesses were willing to appear on Mr. Wanta’s behalf – but that comes later. Telling a jury no one was willing to appear on behalf of a defendant is highy prejudicial.

What is a normal judicial reaction when a defendant in his/her courtroom says a court controlled lawyer told the defendant there was no money available to call witnesses (or take depositions)? My hope would be that the norm would be a Judge that called for an investigation. If the Court had made funds available, the Judge should be asking defense counsel where the money went. Obviously then, the Court did not make funds available and so the absence of them was not a surprise to Judge Torphy.

Based on the Sixth Amendment and its reliance on an adversarial system to achieve justice, funds to provide the basic needs of a defendant for a criminal offense certainly should be available. Of course, if a judge knew the charge was accurate and he was responsible for freezing the funds, no investigation would be ordered. Such a judge would say something like: “All right.”

When faced with this charge, Mr. Chavez is apparently going to say “That’s absolutely untrue” or “that’s absolutely a lie” or “That’s absolutely insane!” He suddenly stops after saying “That’s absolutely…” perhaps remembering they were on the record and he was about to tell a lie.

EDITOR'S COMMENT: Ambassador Leo Emil Wanta never did file ineffective counsel charges against John Chavez, Esq. -- though it certainly appears to this observer that he deserved them.

Mob Tactics Used by Wisconsin Against Wanta
Wisconsin Mystery
Wanta World Facts
Fraudulent Department of Revenue in Wisconsin?
Fraudulent Tax Warrant Examples
County Judge McGraw Says Wanta Not Responsible for Falls Vending Debts
Federal District Court Judge Reynolds Says Wanta Not Responsible for Falls Vending Debts
The 1992 Cancelled Check That Paid The Taxes For Which Wanta Was Tried in 1995
Senator Grassley Recommends Wanta as Inspector General at Department of Defense
Gerald R. Ford Letter recommends Wanta
Letter to Wanta from George H.W. Bush

WISCONSIN'S MOB TACTICS AGAINST LEO WANTA

On May 8, 1995, the State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff, began the prosecution – or, depending on your perspective, persecution – of Leo E. Wanta, Defendant, in Case Number 92-CF-683.

The trial (or Kangaroo Court if you know what really transpired in Judge Torphy's courtroom) ended on May 11, 1995. Leo E. Wanta was found guilty of several tax violations in the State of Wisconsin. He was sentenced to serve 22 years for a non-existent crime he didn't commit. Didn't we fight a Revolutionary War because of things like the British concept of Debtor's Prison?

Was Leo Wanta guilty? The court records tell a good story – but that's what it is: a story. The difficult part about reading the Wanta court transcripts from his criminal trial is that the prosecution does prove its case. The problem is, the story the prosecution proves is filled with lies cleverly presented as facts. If you look at the skewed evidence, lies told and misrepresentations given by an agent of the Department of Revenue, Judge Torphy accepting jury instructions from the prosecuting Wisconsin Assistant Attorney General, and failing to give proper ones of his own – it’s hard to fault the jury. It is not hard to fault the Department of Revenue, the Governor at the time, Tommy Thompson, and the Attorney General, Jim Doyle (who later became Governor of Wisconsin). This one case establishes that Wisconsin has a totally incompetent legal staff and taxing authority; or, it establishes fraud perpetrated on an innocent man.

All of the unlawful activity surrounding this trial has been provided to Wisconsin's current Governor, Scott Walker. So far, the information sent via Registered Mail is being ignored. Why should he concern himself with an 18-year old miscarriage of justice? Because, Governor, this case so obviously wipes away all pretense of a legitimate legal system in Wisconsin, it stinks. If you ignore it, you are or will become part of it. Or, you will be ineffective. The Rule of Law is a necessary ingredient to good governance. You need it on your side.

It all began when multiple court cases were filed against Leo E. and Joanne E. Wanta in the 1980s. All cases filed had to do with a company called “Falls Vending Services, Inc., d/b/a; Falls Food & Vending Service, Regency Catering, Vendor Leasing Service, QuarterHouse, Ltd.” located in Wisconsin. Unless a specific case is being quoted, it will hereinafter be referred to as "Falls Vending."

Here is a list of some of the cases filed against Leo E. and Joanne E. Wanta. As was explained in a blog entry dated August 10, 2011, titled The Shadow Knows… A Wisconsin Mystery (article link here), numerous judges found Leo E. Wanta had no responsibility for debts or taxes due from a bankrupt company called Falls Vending (or any of its other “doing-business-as” names). He had no position of ownership. He and his wife, Joanne E. Wanta, had at one time offered to buy the company, but no money or shares of the company had exchanged hands and the decision to purchase never got off the ground.

One of the judges who found Leo E. Wanta not responsible in any way for the debts or taxes due from the bankrupt Falls Vending was Chief U.S. District Court Judge John W. Reynolds (Order, Case 84-C-359, 7 September 1984 – link here. Another was Judge Robert T. McGraw, Circuit Judge, Waukesha County, WI (Order for Dismissal in Case 83-CV-452. 4 April 1985 – link here). Several other judges made similar decisions: Leo E. Wanta was not responsible for the debts or taxes due from the bankrupt Falls Vending. Regardless of the Court Orders for Dismissal involving Leo E. Wanta, all charges against him and his wife, Joanne E. Wanta, were not dropped.

Falls Vending filed for bankruptcy (Case No. 83-02386, United States Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin). As a part of that bankruptcy, a document signed by an Assistant United States Attorney said “Leo E. Wanta should be named to serve as the party responsible to perform the duties of the debtor(s)as set forth below, unless the Court, with a copy to the Internal Revenue Service…” (Milwaukee address given) changed that arrangement. Wanta, in other words, was to act on behalf of the bankruptcy court as an accountant for Falls Vending... pay their bills and taxes in compliance with bankruptcy laws.

“The debtors should be required to segregate in a separate bank account and maintain adequate and accurate accounting records with respect to…” F.I.C.A. and F.U.T.A. taxes, sales and withholding taxes, etc. That is what Leo/Lee Wanta was assigned by the U.S. Federal District Bankruptcy Court to do: Use Falls Vending funds to pay the company’s taxes (first) and bills (second). A sane person with no ownership interest in a company would never personally assume financial responsibility to pay the company's bankruptcy bills and taxes. However, a large number of lawsuits that tried to use the Wisconsin court system to force Wanta to do just that were filed. Why? Probably because he was paying their bills and taxes as requested by the bankruptcy court... he was signing the Falls Vending checks.

Neither the courts nor the Department of Revenue did anything to stop the onslaught – or even to oversee that it stayed within the bounds of the law. Yet, with all of that information filed as a matter of record at both the Federal District Court and the Waukesha County Circuit Court levels, in 1987 numerous delinquent sales, withholding and income tax warrants left unpaid by Falls Vending et al were filed against Leo E. Wanta. View examples of cases filed here.

In the many cases filed from 1982 through 1984, both Mr. and Mrs. Wanta were named. Suddenly in 1987, Joanne E. Wanta’s name was dropped like a hot potato from the tax charges filed against Leo E. Wanta. Like magic… even though all state taxes had, for the time in question, been filed jointly. If any taxes were owed, both husband and wife filing jointly owed them. Could it have anything to do with the fact that the couple separated in 1984 and separated legally in 1985? Did what appears to be a series of tax errors by the Wisconsin Department of Revenue and a lot of case hungry Wisconsin lawyers in the early 1980s morph into an overt attack in 1987 by a rejected wife feeling sorry for herself and determined to take it out on a husband who now lived abroad? Did she ever ask herself what he was supposed to do after finding she was sleeping with his personal lawyer who handled (some would say mishandled) the Falls Vending tax cases filed against both Mr. and Mrs. Wanta between 1982-1984?

This same “personal lawyer” (it gives an entirely different meaning to the word “personal,” doesn’t it?) also wrote Wanta’s Last Will and Testament. He knew about the hundreds of billions of dollars Wanta controlled in overseas accounts… evidently he did not know about the $27.5 trillion. Or, maybe he did. Maybe she did, too. Maybe they wanted to live the rest of their lives in comfort and ease and the expense of the American people. There are too many “maybes” to count in the life of Leo/Lee Emil Wanta.

Leo Emil Wanta became a legal resident of Vienna, Austria in June of 1988, remember. No. He did not relinquish his American citizenship. He just became a legal resident in a foreign city and did so as Director General of New Republic/USA Financial Group GES.m.b.H. in Vienna, Austria. It's kind of like a landed alien in the United States being gien a Green Card to run a company business here.

Here is a list of things to remember if you want to understand the complexities of what happened to Leo (baptism certificate) Lee (birth certificate) Emil Wanta.

1. Prior to President Elect Ronald Reagan’s Inauguration, Leo Wanta was meeting with a group of high-powered intelligence operatives to create a plan of action on how best to weaken the Soviet Union. This was done at Reagan’s request and included former CIA Director Bill Colby, William Casey (CIA Director 1981-87), Leo Wanta, and various military intelligence services. This further proves Wanta’s assertion that he was working as an undercover agent at Falls Vending. Specifically, he was investigating Frank (Bals) Balistrieri, a thug thought to be affiliated with the Chicago - Las Vegas mobs. When the investigation succeeded, Wanta was standing at the FBI counter wearing his service weapon when Balistrieri was arrested. If Balistrieri knew about Leo Wanta's status as an undercover agent, the mob knew about it, too.

2. Though George Soros loves to take credit for bringing down the Soviet ruble, it was Leo Wanta who went into Moscow and did it. Soros, it is rumored, was KGB (Soviet Intelligence) and Stasi – Ministerium für Staatssicherheit (MfS), commonly known as the East German Secret Police. Wanta being the key to devaluing the ruble has been clearly documented in Claire Sterling’s book, Thieves’ World (Simon & Schuster, 1994). When the ruble failed, the Iron Curtain came down. For that, this nation owes Leo/Lee Wanta a debt of gratitude. Though in Thieves’ World Sterling mischaracterized Wanta as a common crook or mafia-related agent, it is understandable. That is what his researchable background at the time was made to look like – had to look like to gain and maintain the credibility required for the job. Anyone who has watched a James Bond movie knows how easily intelligence agencies create appropriate backgrounds for agents.

3. Most people who are familiar with Wanta are also familiar with the words “$27.5 trillion man.” People uninvolved in the huge frauds perpetrated on the citizens of the world react to idea of “$27.5 trillion” with the thought: “There isn’t that much money in the world!” Until recently, that is. The greater the debt of the American government – currently hovering between $14 trillion and $16 trillion – the greater the understanding that such huge sums of money do exist. Those left with any doubts should read the early October 2011 news stories about the (approximate) $240 trillion in derivatives held by five Wall Street investment banking firms. By comparison, $27.5 trillion sounds like a dime to a dollar… it practically is.

4. In most of the non-court transcript data published by or about Ambassador Leo/Lee Emil Wanta, the term “Title 18 Section 6” is frequently used in reference to the many corporations which Wanta owned. What is a Title 18 Section 6 corporation?

On December 4, 1981, President Ronald Reagan signed Executive Order 12333, titled ‘United States Intelligence Activities’. This EO authorizes U.S. intelligence operatives to establish cadres of corporations owned by the US Government for intelligence purposes and allowed intelligence operatives to deny their intelligence community connections.

The relevant text reads as follows: “23. Contracting: Agencies within the Intelligence Community are authorized to enter into contracts or arrangements for the provision of goods or services with private companies or institutions in the United States and need not reveal the sponsorship of such contracts or arrangements for authorized intelligence purposes.”

Corporations established under EO 12333 are called "Title 18 Section 6 corporations." Several thousand of them exist and many have bank accounts with large sums of money accrued – money that belongs to the U.S. Government. Leo/Lee Wanta’s New Republic/USA in Vienna was a Title 18 Section 6 corporation. Wanta had numerous such corporations and it is into those corporations the $27.5 trillion flowed. Of the total, $4.5 trillion of the funds belonged to Wanta, $23 trillion belonged to the American people. To date, the U.S. Government has “taken” both sums. Lee Wanta has been unable to gain lawful access to his funds – and the American people have done nothing to gain access to theirs. How can they when they don't know about the money? Instead, while Wanta was hidden in various prisons from 1993 until 2001, the money intended for the American people was kidnapped by what Wanta calls “agent provocateurs.”

Title 18 Section 6 covers the establishment of onshore or offshore corporations by American intelligence operatives from any of the 18+ agencies ‘controlled’ by the Central Intelligence Agency and also such U.S. intelligence participations as are not supervised by the CIA, which is subordinate to the National Security Agency (NSA) in practice. Within the enormous US intelligence community, the colossal offshore fund accruals belonging to the US Government were waiting in mid-2006 for the legal environment to be adjusted to facilitate their repatriation to the US Treasury, and for funds stolen by various parties to be traced. It is said that some of the warring US Intelligence factions are committing treason by working for foreign powers.

To date then, the history provided by court documents regarding Ambassador Leo/Lee Emil Wanta tells us that in the early 1980s, somewhere between 35 and 50 tax cases were filed against him in the State of Wisconsin by those to whom Falls Vending owed money, Outagamie County filed phony Delinquent Tax Warrants, and a couple of cases were filed by Wisconsin regarding unemployment insurance -- which they lost. Most of those cases were filed before the Dismissal Order handed down by Chief U.S. District Court Judge John W. Reynolds (Order in Case 84-C-359, 7 September 1984), and by Judge Robert T. McGraw, Circuit Judge, Waukesha County, WI (Order for Dismissal in Case 83-CV-452, 4 April 1985) wherein both Judges determined Wanta had no personal liability for the debts or taxes of Falls Vending. All of the cases filed against Wanta had to do with Falls Vending (et al). Copies of other court dismissals will be made available as time for scanning legal documents permits. Many cases, however, were filed after these court decisions were made… it is almost as if the State of Wisconsin doesn’t understand that when a U.S. District Court Judge says a man isn’t responsible for the debts or taxes of a company, that’s the ruling that must be followed by the court system unless an appeal is filed and a reversal is obtained. There was no reversal of Judge Reynolds’ or Judge McGraw’s Decisions.

Leo/Lee Wanta was not responsible for the debts or taxes of that company but was treated by the State of Wisconsin as if he were. Why lawyers would continue to file cases when clients sought their services for litigation is understandable: They, at least, are earning money… well, perhaps "earning" is a bad choice of words. But the biggest filing offender against Wanta was the State of Wisconsin. It issued Delinquent Tax Warrant after Delinquent Tax Warrant, insisting that Wanta pay the Withholding and Sales taxes for Falls Vending. These filings occurred in 1987, two-to-three years after the Court Decisions were made… and each of them was costing the State of Wisconsin money to litigate. So why would they want to bear the expense of litigation... this illogical behavior? Hmmmm…

The court documents on these cases filed provide some interesting data: An attorney by the name of E.N. Rotter filed a Garnishment Complaint on behalf of Friedman Tobacco Corporation in the Waukesha Circuit Court (11/18/1992). The Garnishment was against the Outagamie Bank (which is in Outagamie County, so why was it filed in Waukesha County?). It is filed as "Friedman Tobacco Corp. vs Leo Wanta & Falls Food & Vending Service, Inc., d/b/a Regency Catering vs Outagamie Bank."

Mr. Rotter tells the Court “That the Defendant(s) is indebted to the Plaintiff in the sum of $36,685.99” and that the Circuit Court of Waukesha County, State of Wisconsin, had entered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the Defendants and references Case 82-CV-1781 on 10/25/82. In other words, Friedman Tobacco’s lawyer insists the Outagamie Bank garnish any funds in bank accounts Leo Wanta or Falls Vending has with the bank. He claims he has a Waukesha County Circuit Court Decision giving him the right to garnish funds from either Wanta or Falls Vending.

There was a problem because the Wantas did not have an account with Outagamie Bank – but Falls Vending did (in overdraft).

On October 17, 1984 – two years later – Judge Wollenzien, Circuit Court Judge, Branch 5 – issued an Order of Dismissal. Attorney Rotter had not pursued prosecution. If, indeed, Rotter had a judgment – as he stated – in Outagamie County, he would have filed in that county. Instead, he filed in Waukesha County. Did he tell a lie? Was it a mistake? We’ll never know.

Another lawyer, Frank F. Pikofsky, on April 30, 1982, filed on behalf of his client, Pioneer Sales & Service, Inc., against Leo Wanta, d/b/a Falls Vending Services (Case 82-CV-1121). Judge Wollenzien dismissed the case on June 29, 1982. Interestingly, it was dismissed again October 18, 1982 by the same judge.

On May 22, 1982, the Milwaukee law firm of Kohner, Mann & Kailas filed for its client, Sweetheart Cup Corporation (a foreign corporation), against Leo Wanta and Falls Food & Vending. In this case, the Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case.

On February 18, 1983, Terence P. Cahill, Assistant Corporation Counsel for Waukesha County filed charges against Falls Vending on behalf of the Wisconsin Department of Industry, Labor & Human Relations for James Doro who said the company owed him back wages. Attorney Cahill states that “…Leo Wanta, as president and shareholder of Falls Food & Vending Service, Inc. is personally liable for all debts owing to employees of said corporation for services performed for said corporation…” This case was re-filed by attorney Terry Wex on March 18, 1985 (Case No. 83-CV-452) – the case for which Judge Robert T. McGraw wrote the Dismissal.

Some of these cases still appear as active cases on the books of Wisconsin's various County Circuit Court Records. No wonder the state verges on the brink of bankruptcy. With erroneous records like that, how would state treasurers ever be able to determine expected future tax revenues? Can you imagine the legal costs involved in these nonsensical cases filed – and, it appears, encouraged by the Wisconsin courts and lawyers? No one did their homework (or maybe they did and justice wasn’t on their minds). How hard is it to pick up the telephone and call the Secretary of State’s office to find out the owners and stockholders of Falls Food and Vending Services? Duh…

No. This was intentional harassment – for whatever reasons.

The serious fraud against Leo Wanta began in 1987 when Jerome S. Engle, the actual owner of Falls Vending (et al), filed against Leo and Joanne Wanta, Defendants, along with Robert Pyzyk and Northwestern National Insurance Company, Garnishee Defendants.

Since Engle was the official owner of record of Falls Vending et al, it is safe to assume he knew Leo and Joanne Wanta were not the owners and had no liability for the debts of his company. Engle, himself, had liability. This was a fishing expedition to see what information he might get from Pyzyk and Northwestern National Insurance Company.

It’s interesting that Robert G. Pyzyk, Esq., of Niebler and Niebler, handled the defense of this case for both Falls Vending and Leo E. Wanta… interesting because on August 12, 1981, Mr. Pyzyk wrote a letter to Mr. Robert Klink of the Waukesha County Sheriff’s Department introducing himself as Leo Wanta’s lawyer and informing Klink that “Mr. Wanta acted as part-time Deputy Sheriff for the Waukesha County Sheriff’s Department” between 1973 and 1979.” Mr. Wanta took a leave of absence, Pyzyk told Klink, and now, in 1981, wished to return to his part-time duties. One reason this is interesting is because in Wanta's 1995 criminal trial, the prosecutor, Assistant Attorney General Haag, makes statements that Leo Wanta never had any affiliation whatsoever with the Waukesha County Sheriff's Department.

The letter to Klink was written just prior to the time the tax filings against Wanta began. Mr. Pyzyk states in his letter… “Mr. Wanta, in the last six months, has been cleared by the United States Justice Department prior to receiving his appointment as Inspector General of the Defense Department. He has received his security clearance…” and his credentials go unquestioned. Obviously, Pyzyk knew who Leo Wanta was. So did Klink. Hmmm….

Hardball replaced softball when Outagamie County began filing Delinquent Tax Warrants. A link to some of these tax forms appears at the beginning of this article. The amounts Outagamie County says Wanta owed were for withholding and sales taxes for Falls Vending.

It was September 30, 1987 when Case 87-CV-2941 was filed by Attorney Paul R. Schwartz. What’s really interesting about this name is the involvement of a Susan Schwartz. She is the Assistant Wisconsin Attorney General who on May 8, 1992” witnessed the statement of Department of Revenue agent Dennis Ullman – a man of many distortions of truth if not outright lies (called perjury outside of Wisconsin) – lies in the Wanta trial in 1995. In the sworn statement Susan Schwartz witnessed, Ullman said “that defendant’s (Wanta’s) taxable income for the years 1988 and 1989 was unreported, that defendant’s tax returns for those years were false and fraudulent, and that defendant intentionally evaded assessment.” You’ll hear more about Ullman's intentional misstatements in the next article discussing testimony given at Wanta’s May 8 - 11, 1995 criminal tax trial.

The truth was, Leo/Lee Wanta moved to Austria in 1988 and had no Wisconsin income to file. He and his wife were legally separated – a fact Ullman never seemed to “get.” If you moved from wherever you live today to another state and began paying the new state’s taxes, would you think it reasonable or fair for the state you used to live in to file criminal charges against you because you stopped declaring taxes in that state? That’s what this amounted to!

Even more interesting regarding the Schwartz name is the fact that Assistant Attorney General Susan Schwartz was also the person who removed Joanne E. Wanta’s name from the cases filed against the husband and wife who had filed joint returns. It would be interesting to know if Susan and Paul R. Schwartz are related and what Joanne Wanta traded for being let off of the Wisconsin tax hook. All charges agsint her were dropped and she was never prosecuted... only her husband faced prison for the tax charges filed... even though the tax returns were filed jointly. You don't suppose they held possible prosecution over the head of Mrs. Wanta when she testified at his trial, do you? Surely they wouldn't threaten to prosecute her if she didn't say exactly what they wanted!

Then, on April 4, 1988, F&M (Farmers & Merchants) Bank filed in Waukesha County a garnishment action against Leo E. and Joanne E. Wanta and AmeriChina Global Management Group, Inc. (88CV1043). Did F&M Bank have a court decision giving them the right to file for garnishment? None that this investigator can find – though they say they had one in Outagamie County (does that sound like a familiar strategy?). I requested and paid for all court records in Outagamie County that pertain to Leo Wanta and the decision F&M Bank claims it had. It cannot be found. And, if they had a judgment in Outagamie County, why would they file this case in Waukesha County? It makes no sense. One thing that becomes totally clear as an independent observer looks at these court cases is how the lawyers and Department of Revenue played the county game. Suits were filed in five different counties... and it appears the court trying a case often had no real jurisdiction.

Since AmeriChina is a name that came up as critical evidence eight years later, in the 1995 Wanta criminal tax trial, this case can be seen as a stepping stone to give the State of Wisconsin access to information that should have never been brought out in a civil or criminal Court of Law. Why should the AmeriChina name never have been brought up? Because Leo Wanta was President of AmeriChina, a Nevada corporation – more significantly, it was a Title 18 Section 6 company. AmeriChina had nothing to do with Wisconsin or F&M Bank or Falls Vending – and by 1988, Wanta had nothing to do with any of them. He became a legal resident of Vienna in June of 1988… one must live there for several months or a year to gain that status. AmeriChina was a Title 18 Section 6 company owned by an intelligence operative named Leo Emil Wanta – a company that was audited quarterly by the General Accounting Office of the U.S. Government.

Do you remember the stink made about the name “Valerie Plame” that caused liberals who wanted Dick Cheney’s head (but got Scooter Libby’s instead) for making her name as a former CIA agent public when it was mentioned one time? If so, you will understand that by mentioning AmeriChina, a company owned by an intelligence operative on behalf of the United States Government as stipulated under Executive Order 12333, a violation of federal law occurred (a much bigger no-no than mentioning a once was but no longer is CIA agent’s name in public). By putting this name into a 1988 court document that had no relationship whatsoever to F&M Bank and is recognized by F&M Bank in its filing as “a foreign corporation,” F&M Bank made public intelligence information that should have landed it in Federal Court.

Interestingly, F&M Bank was a “secured” (meaning it held collateral) lender to Falls Vending owned by Jerome S. Engle – who either was on the Bank’s Board of Directors or was personally very close to those who were (I'm waiting for information from the Wisconsin Secretary of State's Office). When Engle's company, Falls Vending, went bankrupt, F&M lost access to a very valuable piece of property owned by Falls Vending. Who was it the U.S. Bankruptcy Court appointed to pay the debts of Falls Vending? Leo Wanta. Who, in all likelihood, cost F&M Bank its collateral position on that property? Leo Wanta. F&M knew who owned Falls Vending: Jerome S. Engle. It knew Leo E. Wanta had absolutely no liability for Falls Vending’s debts. F&M also knew, however, that Wanta couldn’t talk about AmeriChina in public without violating his Oath of Office… they had found a weakness.

In their Exhibit A, F&M Bank requested that Leo Wanta bring for Deposition all corporate records including Articles of Incorporation, By-laws, Minutes of Meetings of Incorporators; Stock Ledger; and other items that could not, under Title 18 Section 6, be made public. Leo Wanta had Contempt charges filed against him for failure to appear before the Court Commissioner and for failure to produce documents. The fact that the federal government did not come to his aid in this matter is evidence that Wanta was being set up in 1987 for his arrest in Switzerland in 1993.

An Order was issued in favor of F&M Bank on June 30, 1988, signed by – guess who? Judge Robert T. McGraw, the same Judge who signed the Dismissal against one of the Falls Vending claims (link to McGraw Order). In that Decision, McGraw himself had declared that Leo Wanta had no ownership interest in Falls Vending. In this Order, however, Judge McGraw (without ever having reversed his former Order absolving Wanta from payment for Falls Vending as a non-owner) found in favor of F&M Bank and granted the bank $428,244.95. If you don’t find that very strange, something is wrong with you.

With all of the above on the record, when the primary intelligence agency for the United States Government was directed by those in the highest levels of government to get Ambassador Leo Emil Wanta out of the way so they could get their hands on the $27.5 trillion dollars sitting in banks around the world, it was a piece of cake. It was a cake walk, in fact. Of course, they needed the help of a Governor (who, if he agreed to help, would be well-rewarded with an important appointment... say, Secretary of Health and Human Services).

Next blog: The Wanta criminal trial – and criminal, it was.

THE SHADOW KNOWS... A Wisconsin Mystery SIMPLE QUESTION: How does an American citizen on official government business explain to his family that for years he was falsely imprisoned?

How does this citizen of Middle America tell his children that the charges levied against their father were not only lies, they represented evidence of a Department of Revenue within the State of Wisconsin that was operating in violation of the truth and of his constitutional rights? Children don’t understand words like “non-jurisdictional federal/state/county/private custodial facilities” or “renditioned” – and to tell them he was kidnapped by his own government went beyond anything they had watched on "Mission Impossible" as young children.

I wonder how President Obama would explain such a phenomenon to his two young daughters.

How is a citizen -- admittedly a man surrounded by intrigue, but a citizen nonetheless -- supposed to explain to his children that when he was arrested in Lausanne, Switzerland on 7 July 1993 for “Failure to pay a Wisconsin Civil Income Tax Assessment of $14,129.00,” he had already paid the tax even though the State's demands for payment were invalid? When the Demand for Payment was made, he had already paid it – twice – a year earlier in May and June of 1992. The primary reason he paid it was to prevent family upset… he hadn’t earned an income in the state making the spurious charges. He was out of the country – serving his country with honor. Yet, on 7 July 1993 while he was en route to meet Bill Clinton’s Deputy White House Counsel, Vince Foster, at the Hotel de la Paix in Geneva, he was arrested for non-payment on an alleged income assessment he did not owe and for a tax he had already paid twice.

Look at Check Number 6992.

It’s made out to the Wisconsin Department of Revenue in the amount of $14,129. (Click on the check to enlarge it.) Look at the endorsement on the back – on June 3, 1992 – a year before he was arrested for non-payment of this $14,129 civil income tax assessment. Why did the State of Wisconsin ignore the evidence? Why did they falsely convict this man in Dane County (or the County of Dane) for an unpaid estimated civil income tax payment supposedly filed in Outagamie County? How did Dane County gain jurisdiction? Answer: It never had jurisdiction… Leo Wanta never filed an income tax form in Dane County in his life. Perhaps Dane County (or the County of Dane) had the right Court available to achieve... the State’s objective? Who knows?

Some historical truths might help us understand, but unfortunately former Governor Tommy Thompson sent all of his gubernatorial archives to a paper mill – by mistake, of course. They were supposed to go to the appropriate state historical repository. The paper mill destroyed the history of Thompson’s term in office. A Wisconsin newspaper article verifies that statement. Who could make something like this up? Well, maybe a politician.

That should tell you something about the Republican who headed the State of Wisconsin in 1993 when Wanta was falsely arrested. It should explain why the Republicans lost the next gubernatorial race to Democrat Jim Doyle, a Harvard graduate who became State Attorney General in 1990 -- Leo Wanta was brought to trial in May 1995 while Doyle’s served as Wisconsin's Attorney General – and then Doyle became governor. Doyle’s first term as governor occurred when then-Governor Tommy Thompson’s brother, Ed, entered the race as a Libertarian and drew 10 percent of the vote from Republican candidate, Scott McCallum. It sounds pretty well planned.

To Wanta’s children, who were taught to respect law enforcement, such a story had to be difficult to believe. It had to be very difficult for Leo Emil Wanta, an adult, to believe. His children knew their Dad as Waukesha County Deputy Sheriff Badge #714 – they didn’t know he was an undercover – deep cover – agent for the federal government. They knew him as Executive Vice President of the Waukesha County Special Deputy Sheriff's Association, They didn’t know he was a covert agent for the United States government. It’s not something one talks about with the kids while on camping trips. Wanta was working with Sgt. Quinn O’Brien at Falls Vending Services, Inc. in Waukesha County, Wisconsin, while covertly investigating the Wisconsin-based Balistrieri mob ‘family.’

Waukesha County Court documents make the following things very clear:

1. In 1983, Leo E. Wanta was working for Falls Food and Vending Services, Inc. in Waukesha County, Wisconsin. He was involved in discussions about buying the company but no finalization of the purchase (or investment in the company) occurred because, while working for the company, Wanta found things were not as they had been purported to be. Leo Wanta had no real interest in buying Falls Food and Vending Services. At the time, his real job was working with William Casey and William Colby, former CIA Directors, to gather intelligence information, and he reported directly to President Ronald Reagan.

2. Falls Food and Vending Services, Inc. declared bankruptcy. Someone dubbed Mr. Wanta as “president” of the company – maybe someone who wanted him to take this fall – but he owned no stock and had no ownership position. He was just an employee… a covert operative investigative employee. But those people who wanted him to take the fall for the bankruptcy of Falls Vending probably didn’t know that.

3. On February 18, 1983, an Assistant Corporation Counsel alleged:

“Mr. Wanta,” his filed complaint said, “…is and was the president and shareholder of Falls Food & Vending Serivce, Inc.” That as “president and shareholder of Falls Food & Vending Service, Inc. he is personally liable for all debts owing to employees of said corporation for services performed for said corporation pursuant to s. 180.40 (6), Wis. Stats.”

Most responsible attorneys, before a bankruptcy action is filed against an individual to pay salaries and costs associated with the bankrupt company usually find legal evidence before disrupting the life of an innocent person. They make a telephone call (or, if the lawyer is really responsible, they pay a visit) to the Secretary of State’s office to verify who is and is not an owner, who owns stock in a company and who does not. They check tax records of the company. This lawyer didn’t bother to check. It’s interesting that no Judge checked with the Secretary of State regarding the business dealings and stock ownership of Falls Vending, either. In the thousand pages of Court documents reviewed thus far, the Secretary of State’s office is never mentioned. Not once.

Mr. Wanta was not an owner or a stockholder in Falls Food & Vending Service, Inc. and had no personal liability. Yet in the early and mid-1980s, his life was torn apart by the bankruptcy of a company for which he was merely an employee – because a not-very-good State lawyer didn’t do his job (and a lot of lawyers involved in bankruptcy claims didn’t do their jobs, either). The State of Wisconsin filed numerous lawsuits against Leo E. Wanta stating that he was responsible for paying the salaries of numerous employees when Falls Sales and Vending went bankrupt and didn't pay them. Wanta had no ownership position in the company. He owned no stock in it, either.

It’s almost as if a group of lawyers (and perhaps bankers) got together with the full intent of taking this man Wanta down and totally ignored the law to do it.

There are several Court Decisions available on this site from Waukesha County, Wisconsin. These Decisions say that Leo E. Wanta had no relationship to Falls Food and Vending Services, Inc., et al, other than that of “employee.”

One Decision was written by John W. Reynolds, Chief U.S. District Judge, who clearly says in his Order C.A. No. 84-C-359, dated 7 September 1984, that “Even if Falls Vending Service is not a corporation, Wanta lacks standing because his affidavit testimony indicates he is only an employee of the company. The owner of a company cannot confer standing on a non-lawyer employee by stipulation or otherwise.”

That Decision by Judge Reynolds should have brought a halt to this nonsense – but it didn’t.
On 4 April 1985 – a year after the Reynolds Decision – Judge Robert T. McGraw issued an Order for Dismissal saying “Falls Food & Vending Service Inc. has filed for bankruptcy in the Eastern District of Wisconsin under Case No. 82-02385,” and “…Leo Wanta is not individually liable for any claimed wages owing to plaintiff.” There are numerous other Court decisions that say the same thing. They are available, too, and as time permits will be posted at this site, too.

One good question to ask at this point is: Why, after a decision by a Chief U.S. District Judge, did a minor little government bureaucracy like the Wisconsin Department of Industry and Labor & Human Relations decide to have a Tribunal Hearing and, for all practical purposes, overturn (or at the very least ignore) the Decision of Judge Reynolds? Why did they continue to assume (or promote within the Courts) that Leo Wanta had an ownership interest in this company? There is no lawfully logical answer to that question.

Why did they continue to persecute this man? And persecution it was! Who in the late 1980s at this little government bureaucracy decided to have a Tribunal Hearing and re-activate the bankruptcy claims that had been settled in Leo Wanta’s favor years earlier? There had to be a reason. Many potential reasons will be disclosed as the Court Decisions and various filings are made public.

For years, Leo Wanta was harassed because some minor little lawyer appointed by the bankruptcy court didn’t do his job – or was pursuing something totally outside of his job which was very personally lucrative. That lawyer didn’t make a simple call to the Secretary of State’s Office to check his facts.

The State of Wisconsin paid tremendous expenses for the very large number of cases filed… cases that came before a Judge. And that’s what it was all about: Money. “They” weren’t just after a pittance called legal fees… they were after big money. That explanation will come later, too – and it is documented by Wisconsin’s own court system.

How long will Governor Scott Walker let this travesty of justice in the State of Wisconsin go without investigation? Correspondence has been sent to him – Certified Mail via the U.S. Post Office. There has been no answer. Why?

Wait until next week. It gets worse as the Road Kill Gang known as the Wisconsin Department of Revenue begins to pick apart the bones of what was left of the Wanta family… the number of liens placed on his family home for – you guessed it – more tax liens from Falls Food and Vending Services, Inc. You remember… the place where so many Court decisions said he was only an employee and had no responsibility for wages and other company costs resulting from bankruptcy? We’ll even look at an obituary for a guy named Jerry Engle:

“Engle, Jerome S: Passed away Friday, April 6, 2007, in Palm Springs, CA, aged 85 years, of Fox Point, beloved husband of Joyce Engle (nee Skowron). Dear father of Margie (Thomas) Krauskopf and Craig (Linda Engle Roeming) Engle. Fond brother of Howard (Esther Marsa) Engle and brother-in-law of Eddie (Betty) Levi. Loving grandfather of Sara Krauskopf, Joshua Krauskopf, Rachel (Joe) Walts, Miriam Engle and Eliza Engle. Preceded in death by his siblings, Jeanne Werner and Maxine Levi. Jerry was a long time volunteer, helping patients at Desert Hospital in Palm Springs, CA. He was owner of Falls Vending Service in Menomonee Falls and then Butler, WI for many years and previously worked at Sampson’s appliance store.”

Is it true that Jerome S. Engle, a.k.a. Jerry S. Engel, was the actual owner of Falls Vending, and was also a member of the Board of Directors at Farmers and Merchants (F&M) Bank? Is it true that numerous individuals in the Wisconsin Department of Revenue participated in Criminal Tax Fraud? Did they divert previously paid state and federal corporate tax payments made by Leo Emil Wanta (appointed by Assistant U.S. Attorney Joseph P. Stadtmueller to perform the duties of the debtors – Falls Vending) when they re-called tax payments made by Wanta who was doing what was directed of him by the U.S. District Court?

Were those re-called funds used to make payments due from Engle to Farmers and Merchants Bank?

As the documents are investigated and scanned, they will be made public.

Stay tuned.

TRUTH
WANTA WORLD FACTS

Elected officials from the White House to local school boards wonder what in the world is wrong with the American public! "Why," they ask, "is there no trust of government?"

Even Jeffrey Imelt, CEO of General Electric (which includes the National Broadcasting Company) recently chewed on business people to stop sitting on their cash and to start hiring people. In addition to his responsibilities at GE, Imelt is on Obama’s Economic Advisory team and has direct responsibility for job creation. Imelt doesn’t appear to have a clue that a large majority of jobs are created by independent business, not multi-nationals like GE who don’t know how to spell the word “loyalty.” Being a man who created his wealth by risking the money of other people (stockholders), he doesn’t grasp the difference between a real entrepreneur (who does risk his/her own money) and someone like himself, who does not.

But Imelt’s insensitivity and ignorance are not what this posting is about. This posting is about a governor of a state who is provided evidence – hard evidence (if his own court system is to be believed, if his own Department of Revenue records are to be believed) of fraud in his Department of Revenue -- and who sends an auto respond email talking about his service “as your Governor.”

I’ve left Governor Walker’s email address on his message because I believe anyone who wants to write to him (as I have, courtesy of the U.S. Postal Service Priority/Certified mail) should have the opportunity to do so.

Below is a story of agonizing pain for one American Patriot. It is a story with a plot that was hand-crafted by the dark side and still impacts the lives of all Americans.

Ambassador Lee/Leo Emil Wanta was brought to court in Wisconsin in 1984 on tax charges. During the early 1980s, Waukesha County (Wisconsin) Special Deputy Sheriff Leo Wanta, Shield No. 714 and Executive Vice President of Waukesha County Special Deputy Sheriff's Association, was engaged in certain deep cover investigations which involved certain members of a Wisconsin-based mob family. In this endeavor, he worked for a company called Falls Vending Service, Inc., based in Appleton and Butler, WI. He was to monitor and gather evidence with respect to a Joint Task Force Investigation. The company went bankrupt and, as such things go, people in line to take a loss from the bankruptcy – like people who owned the land and which had financed the building in which the company was housed – begin to maneuver to ameliorate their losses. Sometimes what they do isn't kosher.

Claims were made by some people against Leo E. Wanta. Claims often get filed against innocents during such times… people who stand to take a loss look for any scapegoat to sacrifice rather than facing the loss their own poor decisions cause. In some cases – as in this one – a sacrificial lamb is created. In this case, his name was Leo E. Wanta who was just an employee – but “just an employee” can often be set up to take the fall for a big (and powerful) bank. Since all of us have recently been set up to pay trillions of tax dollars to save frauds perpetrated by Wall Street banks, we realize such set ups exist.

Meanwhile, Wanta was doing his job. His actions were in accordance with directions given him by the Federal Court application of Assistant United States Attorney Joseph P. Stadtmueller. Those Court Instructions were for L.E. Wanta to perform the duties of the debtors(s)… which he did. Taxes were to be paid before debtors received relief. That may not be palatable to citizens who take losses when a company that owes them money goes bankrupt, but it the law and Wanta was doing the lawful thing.

Wanta’s job was to pay all taxes due to the State of Wisconsin, and the United States under Section 3111 and 3301 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as Amended (FICA and FUTA). When the company went bankrupt, notification was sent by someone in the Bankruptcy Court to the Department of Revenue in Wisconsin and the IRS that special arrangements had been initiated for all federal and state corporate tax payments issued by L.E. Wanta as a court appointed auditor. The Notice from the Bankruptcy Court instructed that any payments made to pay taxes be returned to the court to be applied in favor of a secured creditor, Farmers and Merchants Bank. The tax agencies were informed that L.E. Wanta was not the authorized representative of F & M Bank. That’s right. Wanta was not the authorized representative of F & M Bank. He was the representative of the Court… of the People.

As a result of the unlawful Notice, large amounts of dollars (in the hundreds of thousands) were returned to the Bankruptcy Court and were applied to the debt of F & M Bank (which had financed real property and building costs for Falls Vending Service, Inc.).

Swindling tax authorities out of tax payments lawfully made by Wanta in compliance with his directives by the court is bad enough. But the court system in Wisconsin appears to have gone even further. The Wisconsin Department of Revenue filed charges against Wanta for its lost tax revenue. Did Wanta send out the Notice to the Department of Revenue? No. Wisconsin’s own court system did that. Was he the one who returned the checks to the court so a bank could be bailed out rather than taxes paid? No. He was the one who sent the checks to the Wisconsin Department of Revenue (and the IRS) so taxes would lawfully be paid. Yet, here he is being charged with the responsibility for what appears to be a blatant swindle by people in high places within a bank and within the Wisconsin government.

Judge John W. Reynolds, then-Chief US District Judge, United States District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, confirmed in an ORDER dated 7th September 1984 (C.A. # 84-C-359) that: “Wanta is only an employee of the company [Falls Vending Service]. The owner of the company cannot confer standing on a non-lawyer employee by stipulation or otherwise.”

In other words, as early as September 1984, the man who is now Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court issued an Order absolving Wanta of any responsibility for taxes involving Fall Vending Services, Inc.

But the Wisconsin Department of Revenue wasn’t satisfied. They filed more tax charges against Wanta. Two more legal decisions in Wanta’s favor were issued… and like a dog tired of chewing on a bone, the Wisconsin Department of Revenue gave up – for awhile.

Judge Roberts’ ORDER was subsequently reconfirmed by an ORDER for Dismissal dated 4th April 1985 handed down by Circuit Judge Robert T. McGraw in the State of Wisconsin Circuit Court, Waukesha County [Case # 83-CV-452]: Wisconsin Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations, et al, and James Doro, vs. Fall Food & Vending Service Inc., and Leo Wanta], which concerned a claim for wages. Reporting that Falls Food and Vending Service, Inc. (as it was then named) had filed for bankruptcy in the Eastern District of Wisconsin under Case # 83-02385, the Judge stated that “Leo Wanta is not personally liable for any claimed wages owing to plaintiff" [for wages, please read: unemployment tax obligations].

Subsequently, Administrative Law Judge Jo Ellen Rehbein handed down an Appeal Tribunal Decision on behalf of the State of Wisconsin Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations, at a hearing held in Appleton, WI, in which the Judge confirmed that “Leo Wanta is not personally liable for the unemployment compensation tax delinquencies of Falls Vending Service, Inc. The Appeal Tribunal therefore finds that Leo E. Wanta is not personally liable for the delinquent unemployment compensation taxes of Falls Vending Service, Inc., within the meaning of Section 108.22(9) of the Statutes (25C).”

Many people have wondered how a financial genius like Lee Wanta could get himself arrested in a foreign country that had no right to arrest an American on European soil for U.S. or state tax problems of any kind. Most people who have followed the Wanta trials and tribulations realize it was a set up… they know the government wanted the money Wanta had saved to buy the American people out of the financial hole that was being dug for them. Wanta knew about it because he is a financial genius. What he hadn’t counted on was the betrayal of the government he had served with dignity, honesty, and loyalty. What they haven’t counted on in the aftermath of their attack is Wanta’s absolute commitment to his Oath of Office – and to the American People.

On July 7, 1993, Leo Wanta was arrested in Lausanne, Switzerland on charges that he had not paid income taxes. Some of the taxes in question still stemmed from those old charges against him involving the Falls Vending Service, Inc., bankruptcy – even though numerous judgments in his favor eliminated him from any tax liability at all had been filed in Wisconsin courts. It is apparent that in Wisconsin, court decisions hold little sway. Respect for the law by those who serve the people appear to have a few kinks in their links.

So Lee/Leo Emil Wanta fights on. During the years of Governor Tommy Thompson’s administration, it was impossible for Wanta to seek the help of the Governor because Wanta has always believed that Thompson was involved in the swindle, in the theft of the $27.5 trillion Wanta had amassed on behalf of the American People. Thompson was Governor during the phony arrests and the mock trials. If anyone needs proof that Wanta’s opinion about Thompson is likely an accurate one, they might want to consider how the Thompson administration’s records were totally lost in what can only be described as a bazarre science fiction plot. The records were on their way to be archived at the appropriate Wisconsin facility when they were mistakenly taken by a truck to a paper mill and were destroyed. I do have a bridge or two I’d like to sell anyone who believes that story!

There were a couple of years when Scott McCallum was Governor… after Tommy Thompson was appointed to the Department of Health and Human Services. But McCallum was Thompson's Lieutenant Governor… and Wanta had just been released from North Fork Prison in Oklahoma, one of the places Wisconsin “hid” him so those who sought Wanta’s trillions could tell banks around the world "Leo Wanta is dead."

In 2002, Jim Doyle became Governor for eight years. Couldn’t Wanta go to his administration for help? After all, as a Democrat wasn’t he a man who appreciated the “little guy”… someone who would seek justice on Wanta’s behalf?

Doyle was elected Wisconsin Attorney General in 1990 and maintained that position until he was elected Governor in 2002. Lee Wanta was arrested in Switzerland in 1993. His Kangaroo Court trial under the judicial gavel of Judge Michael Torphy (who was the Dane County District Attorney prior to being appointed to the bench) were held under the not-so-concerned-with-justice and not terribly watchful eye of Jim Doyle. So no, he couldn’t go to Doyle to seek justice.

And then Scott Walker became the new Republican Governor of Wisconsin. Lee/Leo Wanta had been very active in Wisconsin politics before reporting for duty as an intelligence operative who reported directly to President Ronald Wilson Reagan. He was a heavy contributor to the Republican Party and assisted many Republican candidates (locally as well as in Presidential races) get elected (or, try… sometimes failing).

So Lee/Leo Wanta, a man unlawfully sentenced to eight years in prison for a $14,129 tax debt, a man who, as a United States citizen (let alone a man appointed Ambassador to Switzerland from Somalia) was unlawfully arrested in Switzerland on those tax charges, sent an email message to recently-elected Governor of Wisconsin Scott Walker. He sent two email messages, each with extensive evidence of his innocence of the charges that had been brought against him by the State of Wisconsin in 1993 and for which he was unlawfully tried in 1995.

Perhaps the only thing more disturbing than the story above is the email response Lee Wanta received from Governor Walker… twice. What evidence did Wanta send to Governor Walker in the attachments to his email? Simple things like a copy of the check made out to the Wisconsin Department of Revenue and cashed by them in June of 1992 (the back side of that check tracking its clearing house progress through the system doesn’t cannot be forged). He also sent copies of legal decisions (like the one from Judge Roberts) specifically removing him from any culpability in the Falls Vending Service, Inc., bankruptcy and any taxes involved with it.

Lee Wanta sent to Governor Walker evidence that he has what appears to be a criminal enterprise working in his Department of Revenue. You’d think that might upset a Governor just a little bit.

Here is Governor Walker’s response to Lee Wanta. Below Walker’s response, you will find the email (accompanied by attachments verifying the claims made) sent to the Governor by Lee/Leo Emil Wanta, citizen of the State of Wisconsin.

For shame, Governor Walker. If you’re going to send a pre-programmed automatic email response to all incoming emails, at least so advise the recipient. Everyone has the courtesy to do that. If this is your final answer to Ambassador Wanta, you have provided the answer to the question: "Why don't the people trust their elected officials?"

Surely, you intend to do something about this miscarriage of justice!

Message from Governor Scott Walker

From: Governor@wisconsin.gov
Subject: Message from Governor Scott Walker
To: somam@prodigy.net
Date: Thursday, July 21, 2011, 11:23 AM

Thank you for your e-mail message. I welcome you expressing your views and concerns to me, and I commend you for participating in your state government. I take into account the views of all of the citizens of Wisconsin, and I will keep your specific comments in mind during my service as your Governor.

If you would like more information about my positions on issues, or would like to read my public statements on issues, I encourage you to explore my website: www.walker.wi.gov. I like to respond individually to every letter and telephone call I receive; however, I cannot respond to each e-mail individually due to the volume. If your request is time sensitive, please call my office at (608) 266-1212. You may also write to me via conventional mail at Governor Scott Walker: PO Box 7863, Madison, WI 53707.

As noted on our website, please know that any communications may be subject to release under Wisconsin's public records law and that our policy is generally to release communications sent to this email address.

Once again, thank you for contacting me. Please feel free to contact me again if I can ever be of assistance to you.

Sincerely,

Scott Walker
Governor

Below, please find the two email messages (which provided Governor Walker with sufficient evidence to raise the hairs on the back of his neck if he has any concern whatsoever for the State of Wisconsin’s lawful membership in the Union of States) from Lee/Leo Wanta to Governor Scott Walker. One message was sent on July 21st.

U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT FRAUD, CASE NO. 83-02385

Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 08:23:29 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ambassador Lee Emil Wanta
Subject: <<< US Bankruptcy Court Fraud, Case No. 83-02385 - Chapter 11 - Lawless Diversion of State and Federal Corporate Taxes >>>

To: WI_Governor Scott Walker
REFERENCING MY CORRESPONDENCE TO THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT _and _ THE OFFICE OF THE WISCONSIN GOVERNOR,

DATED, 12 Jul 11, 4 pages - Destabilization of the Soviet Union; and related correspondence, 19 pgs .

......................................................................................................................

pg 1 of 4 - F & M Bank, F&M Bank Attorney Russell Eisenberg, F&M Bank Vice Presidents listed below, under existing U.S. Federal Bankruptcy Laws MUST include the "HIDDEN CORPORATE REAL ESTATE ASSETS OF FALL VENDING SERVICES, INC, FALLS FOUNDRY [ UNDER FORECLOSURE WITHIN F&M BANK ASSETS/LIABILITIES ] REAL ESTATE PROPERTY PURCHASED WITH FVS/ENGLE/ENGEL OWNERSHIP PERSONAL - CORPORATE FUNDS OF USDollars 500,000.00 “DURING JUNE 1981, THRU POLACHEK REAL ESTATE AGREEMENT.”

.....................................................................................................................

From: Ambassador Lee Wanta
US Bankruptcy Court Fraud, Case No. 83-02385 - Chapter 11 - Lawless Diversion of State and Federal Corporate Taxes
To: "US President Barack H Obama"
Date: Thursday, July 21, 2011, 10:45 AM

In the matter of : -

Farmers and Merchant Bank [ F & M Bank ] of Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin, F&M Bank Director Jerome S Engle a.k.a. Jerry S Engel, F&M Bank Attorney Russell M Eisenberg, F&M Bank Vice Presidents Robert Magnan and Ronald Bittner, then State of Wisconsin Governor Tommy G Thompson, State of Wisconsin Department of Revenue Secretary Mark Bugher, et al, allegedly participated in Criminal Tax Fraud, Diversion of previously paid State and Federal corporate tax payments contrary to THE FEDERAL COURT APPLICATION OF ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY JOSEPH P STADTMUELLER – COURT INSTRUCTIONS FOR L. E. WANTA TO PERFORM THE DUTIES OF THE DEBTOR(S) AS SET FORTH BELOW,

(a.) TO PAY " ALL TAXES DUE TO THE UNITED STATES UNDER SECTION 3111 AND 3301 OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1954, AS AMENDED (EMPLOYERS F.I.C.A. AND F.U.T.A. TAXES, AS WELL AS (b), (c)... " PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: SPECIAL ARRANGEMENTS WERE INITIATED FOR ALL FEDERAL AND STATE CORPORATE TAX PAYMENTS” ISSUED BY L. E. WANTA [HAS COURT APPOINTED] ATTORNEY BE IMMEDIATELY RETURNED IN FAVOR OF THE SECURED CREDITOR 'FARMERS AND MERCHANTS BANK', AS L. E. WANTA WAS NOT THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNATORY OF THE SECURED CREDITOR [ F&M BANK ], THUS STATE AND FEDERAL TAX PAYMENTS WERE ILLEGALLY REVERSED AND CREDITED ELSEWHERE, CONTRARY TO U. S. FEDERAL COURT ORDERS, INTER ALIA.
PLEASE NOTE : WRONGFUL DEATHS OF:
a. STATE OF WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
CHARLES L. WNUKOWSKI, C. P. A. SPECIAL AGENT - FRAUD UNIT, SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS SECTION INCOME, SALES AND EXCISE TAX DIVISION WEST CLAIREMONT AVENUE, EAU CLAIRE, WI 54701-6190 b. UNDERCOVER WITNESS - DAVID ALT, MADISON, WI c. UNDER SPECIAL COVER ONLY

PARALLEL FABRICATED Falls Vending TAX DEMANDS

In the early 1980s, Waukesha County Special Deputy Sheriff Leo Wanta, Shield No. 714 and Executive Vice President of Waukesha County Special Deputy Sheriff's Association, was engaged in certain deep cover investigations, which involved certain members of the Wisconsin-based Frank Balistrieri mob family. For this purpose, he had become involved strictly as an employee, never as an owner of any corporate shares, in a JTF Operation called Falls Vending Service, Inc., based Butler, WI not least, to monitor and gather evidence with respect to a Joint Task Force Investigation. Federal and County Court documents agree that Leo Wanta was never at any time an owner of Falls Vending Service. Judge John W. Reynolds, Chief US District Judge, United States District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, confirmed in an ORDER dated 7th September 1984 (C.A. # 84-C-359) that: “Wanta is only an employee of the company [Falls Vending Service]. The owner of the company cannot confer standing on a non-lawyer employee by stipulation or otherwise.”

COURT ORDERS CONFIRM WANTA NEVER OWNED FALLS VENDING SHARES

This ORDER was subsequently reconfirmed by an ORDER for Dismissal dated 4th April 1985 handed down by Circuit Judge Robert T McGraw in the State of Wisconsin Circuit Court, Waukesha County [Case # 83-CV-452]: Wisconsin Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations, et al, and James Doro, vs. Fall Food & Vending Service Inc., and Leo Wanta], which concerned a claim for wages. Reporting that Falls Food and Vending Service, inc. (as it was then named) had filed for bankruptcy in the Eastern District of Wisconsin under Case # 83-02385, the Judge stated that “Leo Wanta is not personally liable for any claimed wages owing to plaintiff [for wages, please read: unemployment tax obligations].

This reflected the fact that he was never an owner of shares in Falls Vending Service, Inc., was not an officer in the company, and was simply a wage-earning employee thereof.

Subsequently, Ms. Jo Ellen Rehbein, Administrative Law Judge, handed down an Appeal Tribunal Decision on behalf of the State of Wisconsin Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations, at a hearing held in Appleton, WI, in which that Judge confirmed that “Leo Wanta is not personally liable for the unemployment compensation tax delinquencies of Falls Vending Service, Inc.

In order for Leo Wanta to have been so liable, it would have been necessary, under Section 108.22(9) of the relevant Wisconsin Statutes, for Leo Wanta to have been an officer or employee holding at least 20% of the ownership interest in a corporation subject to this chapter.

Judge Jo Ellen Rehbein determined that it was not established that the appellant owned at least 20 percent interest in Falls Vending Service, Inc. (As indicated above, Leo Wanta owned no shares in the company at all: he was no more than an employee).

[Leo E. Wanta, by virtue of not owning at least 20% of the company’s shares, given that he owned none] “exercised no control, supervision, or responsibility for filing contribution reports or making payments of contributions. Therefore, the conditions required under Section 108.22(9) of the Wisconsin Statutes were not satisfied for imposing personal liability on him for unemployment compensation tax delinquencies. The Appeal Tribunal therefore finds that Leo E. Wanta is not personally liable for the delinquent unemployment compensation taxes of Falls Vending Service, Inc., within the meaning of Section 108.22(9) of the Statutes (25C)."

OBITUARY NOTICE OF ACTUAL OWNER OF FALLS VENDING SERVICE, INC.

On 10th April 2007, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel carried the following obituary of the veteran actual owner of Falls Vending Service, Inc., noting that he was buried at Spring Hill Cemetery, Milwaukee. The text of this obituary read as follows:

Engle, Jerome S: Passed away Friday, April 6, 2007, in Palm Springs, CA, aged 85 years, of Fox Point, beloved husband of Joyce Engle (nee Skowron). Dear father of Margie (Thomas) Krauskopf and Craig (Linda Engle Roeming) Engle. Fond brother of Howard (Esther Marsa) Engle and brother-in-law of Eddie (Betty) Levi. Loving grandfather of Sara Krauskopf, Joshua Krauskopf, Rachel (Joe) Walts, Miriam Engle and Eliza Engle. Preceded in death by his siblings, Jeanne Werner and Maxine Levi. Jerry was a long time volunteer, helping patients at Desert Hospital in Palm Springs, CA. He was owner of Falls Vending Service in Menomonee Falls and then Butler, WI for many years and previously worked at Sampson's appliance store. During World War II he was a member of the 90th Infantry Division, 357th Regiment. He was a medic on Utah Beach in June 1944, rose to the rank of captain and was awarded the Bronze Star. Graveside services 11:00 AM, Friday, April 13, 2007 at Spring Hill Cemetery, 166 S. Hawley Ct., Milwaukee. In lieu of flowers, memorial contributions to the Lucy Curci Cancer Center at the Eisenhower Hospital Medical Center, 39000 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270; COA Youth and Family Center, 909E North Ave, Milwaukee 53212, (414) 263 8383; or a charity of your choice would be appreciated. BLANE GOODMAN FUNERAL SERVICE. Online guest book and information www.blanegoodmanfunerals.com (262) 241-4444.

REFERENCING MY CORRESPONDENCE TO THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT _ and _ THE OFFICE OF THE WISCONSIN GOVERNOR, DATED, 12 Jul 11, 4 pages –

“Destabilization of the Soviet Union; and related correspondence, 19 pgs”

......................................................................................................................

F & M Bank, F & M Bank Attorney Russell Eisenberg, F & M Bank Vice Presidents listed below, under existing U.S. Federal Bankruptcy Laws MUST in clude the "HIDDEN CORPORATE REAL ESTATE ASSETS OF FALL VENDING SERVICES, INC, FALLS FOUNDRY [ UNDER FORECLOSURE WITHIN F & M BANK ASSETS/LIABILITIES ] REAL ESTATE PROPERTY PURCHASED WITH FVS/ENGLE/ENGEL OWNERSHIP PERSONAL - CORPORATE FUNDS OF USDollars 500,000.00 DURING JUNE 1981, THRU POLACHEK REAL ESTATE AGREEMENT.

....................................................................................................................

From: Ambassador Lee Wanta
Subject: US Bankruptcy Court Fraud, Case No. 83-02385 - Chapter 11 - Lawless Diversion of State and Federal Corporate Taxes
To:(DELETED)

Farmers and Merchant Bank [ F&M Bank ] of Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin, F&M Bank Director Jerome S Engle a.k.a. Jerry S Engel, F&M Bank Attorney Russell M Eisenberg, F&M Bank Vice Presidents Robert Magnan and Ronald Bittner, then State of Wisconsin Governor Tommy G Thompson, State of Wisconsin Department of Revenue Secretary Mark Bugher, et al, allegedly participated in Criminal Tax Fraud, Diversion of previously paid State and Federal corporate tax payments contrary to THE FEDERAL COURT APPLICATION OF ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY JOSEPH P STADTMUELLER – COURT INSTRUCTIONS FOR L. E. WANTA TO PERFORM THE DUTIES OF THE DEBTOR(S) AS SET FORTH BELOW,

(a.) TO PAY " ALL TAXES DUE TO THE UNITED STATES UNDER SECTION 3111 AND 3301 OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1954, AS AMENDED (EMPLOYERS F.I.C.A. AND F.U.T.A. TAXES, AS WELL AS (b), (c)... " PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: SPECIAL ARRANGEMENTS WERE INITIATED FOR ALL FEDERAL AND STATE CORPORATE TAX PAYMENTS” ISSUED BY L. E. WANTA [HAS COURT APPOINTED] ATTORNEY BE IMMEDIATELY RETURNED IN FAVOR OF THE SECURED CREDITOR 'FARMERS AND MERCHANTS BANK', AS L. E. WANTA WAS NOT THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNATORY OF THE SECURED CREDITOR [ F & M BANK ], THUS STATE AND FEDERAL TAX PAYMENTS WERE ILLEGALLY REVERSED AND CREDITED ELSEWHERE, CONTRARY TO U. S. FEDERAL COURT ORDERS, INTER ALIA.

PLEASE NOTE : WRONGFUL DEATHS OF:

a. STATE OF WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
CHARLES L. WNUKOWSKI, C. P. A.
SPECIAL AGENT - FRAUD UNIT, SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS SECTION
INCOME, SALES AND EXCISE TAX DIVISION
WEST CLAIREMONT AVENUE, EAU CLAIRE, WI 54701-6190
b. UNDERCOVER WITNESS - DAVID ALT, MADISON, WI
c. UNDER SPECIAL COVER ONLY

PARALLEL FABRICATED Falls Vending TAX DEMANDS

In the early 1980s, Waukesha County Special Deputy Sheriff Leo Wanta, Shield No. 714 and Executive Vice President of Waukesha County Special Deputy Sheriff's Association, was engaged in certain deep cover investigations, which involved certain members of the Wisconsin-based Frank Balistrieri mob. For this purpose, he had become involved strictly as an employee, never as an owner of any corporate shares, in an JTF Operation called Falls Vending Service, Inc., based Butler, WI not least, to monitor and gather evidence with respect to a Joint Task Force Investigation. Federal and County Court documents agree that “Leo E. Wanta was never at any time an owner of Falls Vending Service.” Judge John W. Reynolds, Chief US District Judge, United States District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, confirmed in an ORDER dated 7th September 1984 (C.A. # 84-C-359) that: “Wanta is only an employee of the company [Falls Vending Service]. The owner of the company cannot confer standing on a non-lawyer employee by stipulation or otherwise.”

COURT ORDERS CONFIRM WANTA NEVER OWNED FALLS VENDING SHARES.

This ORDER was subsequently reconfirmed by an ORDER for Dismissal dated 4th April 1985 handed down by Circuit Judge Robert T. McGraw in the State of Wisconsin Circuit Court, Waukesha County [Case # 83-CV-452]: Wisconsin Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations, et al, and James Doro, vs. Falls Food & Vending Service Inc., and Leo Wanta], which concerned a claim for wages. Reporting that Falls Food and Vending Service, Inc. (as it was then named) had filed for bankruptcy in the Eastern District of Wisconsin under Case # 83-02385, the Judge stated that “Leo Wanta is not personally liable for any claimed wages owing to plaintiff” [for wages, please read: unemployment tax obligations]. This reflected the fact that he was never an owner of shares in Falls Vending Service, Inc., was not an officer in the company, and was simply a wage-earning employee thereof.

Subsequently, Ms. Jo Ellen Rehbein, Administrative Law Judge, handed down an Appeal Tribunal Decision on behalf of the State of Wisconsin Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations, at a hearing held in Appleton, WI, in which that Judge confirmed that 'Leo Wanta is not personally liable for the unemployment compensation tax delinquencies of Falls Vending Service, Inc.

In order for Leo Wanta to have been so liable, it would have been necessary, under Section 108.22(9) of the relevant Wisconsin Statutes, for Leo Wanta to have been “an officer or employee holding at least 20% of the ownership interest in a corporation subject to this chapter.”

Judge Jo Ellen Rehbein determined that “it was not established that the appellant owned at least 20 percent interest in Falls Vending Service, Inc.” (As indicated above, Leo Wanta owned no shares in the company at all: he was no more than an employee).

[Leo E. Wanta, by virtue of not owning at least 20% of the company’s shares, given that he owned none] exercised no control, supervision, or responsibility for filing contribution reports or making payments of contributions. Therefore, the conditions required under Section 108.22(9) of the Wisconsin Statutes were not satisfied for imposing personal liability on him for unemployment compensation tax delinquencies. The Appeal Tribunal therefore finds that Leo E. Wanta is not personally liable for the delinquent unemployment compensation taxes of Falls Vending Service, Inc., within the meaning of Section 108.22(9) of the Statutes.

OBITUARY NOTICE OF ACTUAL OWNER OF FALLS VENDING SERVICE, INC. On 10th April 2007, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel carried the following obituary of the veteran actual owner of Falls Vending Service, Inc., noting that he was buried at Spring Hill Cemetery, Milwaukee. The text of this obituary read as follows:

Engle, Jerome S: Passed away Friday, April 6, 2007, in Palm Springs, CA, aged 85 years, of Fox Point, beloved husband of Joyce Engle (nee Skowron). Dear father of Margie (Thomas) Krauskopf and Craig (Linda Engle Roeming) Engle. Fond brother of Howard (Esther Marsa) Engle and brother-in-law of Eddie (Betty) Levi. Loving grandfather of Sara Krauskopf, Joshua Krauskopf, Rachel (Joe) Walts, Miriam Engle and Eliza Engle. Preceded in death by his siblings, Jeanne Werner and Maxine Levi. Jerry was a long time volunteer, helping patients at Desert Hospital in Palm Springs, CA. He was owner of Falls Vending Service in Menomonee Falls and then Butler, WI for many years and previously worked at Sampson’s appliance store. During World War II he was a member of the 90th Infantry Division, 357th Regiment. He was a medic on Utah Beach in June 1944, rose to the rank of captain and was awarded the Bronze Star. Graveside services11:00 AM, Friday, April 13, 2007 at Spring Hill Cemetery, 166 S. Hawley Ct., Milwaukee. In lieu of flowers, memorial contributions to the Lucy Curci Cancer Center at the Eisenhower Hospital Medical Center, 39000 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270; COA Youth and Family Center, 909E North Ave, Milwaukee 53212 (414) 263 8383; or a charity of your choice would be appreciated. BLANE GOODMAN FUNERAL SERVICE. Online guestbook and information www.blanegoodmanfunerals.com (262) 241-4444

END, WANTA EMAIL TO GOVERNOR SCOTT WALKER

And that's the end of the story. How fitting that it ends with an Obituary. Or, how ironic.

Here's the real irony: Surely you noticed the Jerome S. Engle was a member of the Board of Directors and Farmers and Merchants Bank? No? Don't feel badly. Neither did the Courts in the State of Wisconsin. Senator Grassley Recommends Leo Wanta Letter re Leo Wanta from Gerald R. Ford Letter to Leo Wanta from George H.W. Bush Sarah McClendon: On Wanta from Washington, D.C.

Sarah McClendon From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sarah Newcomb McClendon (July 8, 1910 – January 8, 2003) was a long-time White House reporter who covered presidential politics for a half-century. McClendon founded her own free-lance news service as a single mother in the post-World War II era, and became known as a model for women in the press and as a vocal advocate of various causes, particularly those of United States military veterans. McClendon was best known, however, for her questions at United States Presidential press conferences, which often ranged from aggressive to brash or blunt.

From : Sarah McClendon 9-7-97 Tel. 1-202-483-3791 Fax 1-202-328-1818 By Sara McClendon

Washington, D.C. - - - Mystery increases as to how state officials of Wisconsin can abduct a man no longer a resident, charge him with state income tax evasion, shackle him in arm and leg irons, and bring him back into this country and hold him in an arrest for four years. Leo Wanta did not have an American passport as he had surrendered that when he was named briefly ambassador to Canada and Switzerland.

Wanta had lived in Austria since 1988 but was charged by Wisconsin Attorney General with not having paid $14,000 in state income taxes in 1989.

[Wanta] says he cannot get the Civil Rights Commission to take any interest in his case. Wanta thinks now that only President Clinton and Vice President Al Gore could free him.

He says he has paid Wisconsin the $14,000 twice but can get no receipt. In the meantime he says he had billions of dollars in U.S. Treasury certificates in his briefcase when taken and no report on what state officials did with its contents.

Why does he not simply walk away from the imprisonment which he describes as illegal?

"They would charge me with walking away without bail when I want clearance", he said.

"But what I wonder - - if state officials can do this to one citizen, could not other citizens be in danger of a similar action from some other state officials seeking to claim taxes"?

The case involves why the U.S. State Department is not seemingly interested in protecting an ambassador who alleges that he still holds that rank and why is not the Justice Department not interested in protecting the civil rights of this man?

Wanta refuses to buy his way out with the state officials. He says he has billions on deposit in various companies in banks in foreign countries but he does not wish to pay any sums to Wisconsin authorities.

His attorney, Pat Cameron of Los Angeles, has not been able to get any information about his repayment of taxes to the department of revenue of Wisconsin. When the $14,000 was first levied against him, he was sentenced to 18 years in state court for not having paid, a sentence which Cameron described as "unconscionable".

It looks as if his house arrest of Wanta and his refusal to assign any of his fortune in the billions to Wisconsin as a citizen will go on forever. He claims that he once owned a house worth about $120,000 which the state sold for $60,000 without giving him any return or receipt.

Wanta served nine different government agencies in the past including the Central Intelligence Agency and the White House.

Authority : Presidential Executive Order No. 12333 - United States Intelligence Activities - December 4, 1981

Wanta Court Transcripts, Pages 5, 6, 7

Wanta Court Transcripts, Part II, Pages 8-9
Wanta Court Transcripts, Part III, Pages 10-11

________ COUNTY REPUBLICAN PARTY RESOLUTION 12-001

2012-01-28T15:58:00.004-07:00

WHEREAS, the Federal Reserve is a private, joint-stock, for-profit corporation owned by private investors, and though federally chartered, is “federal” in name only; and,

WHEREAS, the United States of America is $15 trillion in debt and counting, with no apparent end in sight and national debt is forcing negative repercussions within the State of Colorado; and,

WHEREAS, the federal government is currently spending $1.50 for every $1.00 of revenue collected which, in essence, renders debt repayment impossible because every dollar that is printed to pay the debt immediately creates 50 cents of more debt; and,

WHEREAS, the Federal Reserve both regulates monetary policy for and profits from the debt of the United States which creates a severe conflict of interest in eliminating the debt because by doing so corporate profits to the Federal Reserve are eliminated; and,

WHEREAS, the current economic model of “debt capitalism” implemented by the Federal Reserve has caused the only downgrade of the credit rating of the United States in history; and,

WHEREAS, as a result of the economic crisis, certain of America’s largest banks with branch locations in Colorado have been deemed “too big to fail”; and,

WHEREAS, to cover their losses certain of America’s largest banks have become dependent upon perpetual bailouts funded by taxes collected from the America people and owed by the posterity of Colorado residents; and,

WHEREAS, banks chartered by the federal system totally dominate finance in Colorado and should the federal banking system fail so, too, will banks in the state of Colorado fail, causing economic chaos which can be avoided if the state of Colorado creates a State Bank; and,

WHEREAS, the cost of funding the bailout of the “too big to fail” banks, coupled with the cost of funding the Uni ted States’ debt obligation, coupled with the cost of funding the operation of both state and federal governments, coupled with a non-payable debt obligation, translate into an unreasonable tax burden on the People of the State of Colorado and their posterity; and,

WHEREAS, the Federal Reserve’s economic model is causing the transfer of the wealth and property of Colorado Citizens and ongoing reduced tax payments to the State thus damaging legislative efforts to effectively and efficiently manage the demands required to provide good governance; and,

WHEREAS, given the complexity of the economic crisis, it appears that the representatives elected by the People of Colorado, may not be serving the interests of the people, but rather the debt obligation to the Federal Reserve; and,

WHEREAS, it appears the labor, property, and wealth of Coloradans is being reduced to provide security for and the servicing of the federal deficit; and,

WHEREAS, America’s founding principles provide for the strict distribution and separation of powers to prevent the tyranny of the consolidation and centralization of power which is proving destructive to the State of Colorado; and,

WHEREAS, the existence and perpetuation of the current, centralized, private-corporate, bank-government relationship is the very definition of fascism in breach of the constitutional guarantee provided in Article IV Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States of a republican form of government; and,

WHEREAS, since 1919 the People of North Dakota have owned and benefited from the successful operation of the Bank of North Dakota, the specific purpose of which has been to provide an in-state repository for the holding, management and distribution of the fees and taxes collected from the operation of the government of North Dakota; and,

WHEREAS, the Bank of North Dakota is limited in its scope and purpose to: administer bank charters and audits, make funds available for state, city and county government operations, to benefit the People and communities of North Dakota, and to provide correspondent banking services for chartered members; and,

WHEREAS, the Bank of North Dakota is prohibited from competing in the private sector with privately-owned banks also operating in North Dakota under state or federal charter; and has specifically created a structure within its State Bank Board which guarantees its Bank will function on behalf of the people and not as a political tool; and,

WHEREAS, the People of North Dakota have significantly benefited from the Bank of North Dakota which has paid the state treasurer more than $325 million from bank profits over the past ten years; and,

WHEREAS, the Bank of North Dakota is attributed with being the cause for the North Dakota economy topping the list of state economies year after year, and with being the only State that has had a continuous budget surplus since before the financial crisis of 2008; and while the rest of America has been enduring a recession, the state of North Dakota has enjoyed the largest budget surplus in its history; and,

WHEREAS, the Bank of North Dakota is attributed with being the cause why in 2011 the People of North Dakota saw almost $500 million returned to them in income and property tax cuts and will enjoy a 30% decrease in tax liability when combining 2009-2011 tax cuts; and,

WHEREAS, the Bank of North Dakota is attributed with being the cause why North Dakota has the lowest foreclosure rate, the lowest credit card default rate, and the lowest unemployment rate of any State (3.3%) in the nation; and,

WHEREAS, banks in the state of Colorado are failing at a rate five times greater than banks in other parts of the United States; and,

WHEREAS, Small businesses in the state of Colorado have experienced great difficulties in obtaining necessary capital as a result of the recession that began in 2008 and which result from the monetary policies of the national banking system under the control of the Federal Reserv e System; and,

WHEREAS, The bank of North Dakota consolidates the handling of all state funds, while in Colorado various economic development and home ownership programs have limited authority, which may be more efficient if consolidated within one agency; and,

WHEREAS, Colorado State Representative Ray Scott recently visited with the President of the Bank of North Dakota and has confirmed that it functions as provided in this resolution; and,

WHEREAS, Colorado Treasurer Walker Stapleton recently attended a National Conference for State Treasurers held in Bismarck, North Dakota and following a thorough presentation about the Bank of North Dakota has expressed his support for a Bank of Colorado following the North Dakota model; and,

WHEREAS, Colorado Representatives Ray Scott and Kathleen Conti are co-sponsoring State Bank Legislation HB 12-032 together with a Resolution to add to the ballot for the next election a constitutional amendment authorizing the formation and establishment of the Bank of Colorado; now, therefore

Be It Resolved by the __________ County Republican Party and its members concurring herein:

That the Republican Party of ___________, Colorado hereby adopts and endorses the following as part of its platform:

That on the November 2012 ballot a proposal be given to Colorado voters to amend the Colorado Constitution by adding a provision authorizing legislation forming and establishing the Bank of Colorado modeled precisely after the Bank of North Dakota, to: a. Hold in trust for the People of Colorado, any and all profits, fees and taxes collected from the operation of state, county and city governments, b. Administer those funds collected in the best interest of and in a manner most suitable and beneficial to the People of Colorado;
c. Grant state banking charters to private banks who apply for membership;
d. Act as a lending partner (correspondent bank) for chartered member banks;
e. Make low-cost loan funds available to cities, counties and other communities within Colorado to stimulate positive business growth, new jobs, and projects required to support both growth and community stability and quality of life.
This _____ day of ________________ , 2012

_______________________________________

WORDS HAVE MEANING: LOVE AND FREEDOM

2012-01-08T01:01:00.003-07:00

By Marilyn M. Barnewall
January 8, 2012
NewsWithViews.com

How many of us have done things we wished we hadn’t – or spiritually deceived ourselves into accepting – because of the word love? We are told to love one another. We are told to love our neighbor and be our brother’s keeper. If we don’t understand the meaning of the word “love,” these acts can be impossible.

We cannot, for example, love another without first learning self-love. I don’t mean selfish love that’s based on a “me, me, me” attitude. I mean self-love that is based on self-respect and the realization that all people share our humanity.

I view God as total positive energy. I don’t suggest that view is right for anyone but me, but for me it is right. I believe we serve Him when we have positive energy and express it through our creativity. I believe when He breathed life into Adam that creative ability is the part of Himself that He gave us. Adam wasn’t a Jew or a Gentile, he was just a man God made out of dirt. I believe nothing makes our Creator more pleased with a creation than when the created uses the creative energy He gave us for a positive purpose.

Does God forgive us if we misbehave – exhibit negative energy? By Grace, yes… but that isn’t the point, is it? It was our Creator who told Moses, “Love thy neighbor AS THYSELF.” Analyzing those words, He was saying “You cannot give what you do not have.” Logic tells me the same thing and has equal application in all faiths.

Conservatives think loving their neighbor – being their brother’s keeper – means teaching the poor and downtrodden to fish. Liberals believe love means giving the poor and downtrodden a fish. Which definition of love is right? To judge truthfully, one must look at the long-term results of each act… teaching and giving.

When we teach someone to fish – when we train a person to work and be productive – it has a long-term effect on the recipient’s life. Properly taught and considerately planned, it provides life purpose and a career and of being able to support a family and send kids to college. When we give someone a fish day after day, what do we do? We teach people to be dependent on something outside of them – and that stifles their creative energy. We motivate laziness. Even worse, we motivate the recipient to lose the important drive to get out of bed each morning with the zest required to find meaning and purpose (of which happiness is made) in the day ahead.

In my early 20s, I was married to a police officer who, unknown to me, was involved in the Denver police scandal. One series of events fatalistically set off another series of events. I was destined to learn more about life in 1961 and 1962 than I wanted.

On November 1, 1960, a woman came through a stop sign and hit my car in the driver’s door. I was driving and was seven months pregnant. The car was flipped and ended up pointing South when I had been going North. No x-rays could be taken because of the pregnancy. I didn’t learn until the 1990s that I’d broken my pubic bone.

I carried the baby full term, was in hard labor for three days and felt fine after the birth. About two weeks after I went home, I fell on the floor in pain… the pubic bone. I was back in the hospital but everyone assumed I’d fully recovered from the accident and so no x-rays were ever taken. Two months later, Joe was arrested and his name (and mine) was on the front pages of the Denver newspapers. Horrible years followed.

I learned that the system of justice I’d been taught in school was non-existent. I learned that District Attorneys abuse their power and play cruel games that have little to do with justice or honor. Everything I had been taught to believe in was stripped from me. Looking back, it was one of the most positive experiences of my life and I thank God for what I learned during those years.

Joe went to prison – 52 Denver police officers went to prison. He was just a minor player who had caught guys in places and, after reporting the first incident to his Sergeant and receiving threats thereafter, kept quiet. I quickly learned to fight the system that was supposed to be there to protect people against power abuses. I had a job working as a legal secretary but had to have surgery (damage from the accident) and had no sick leave. So, I snuck out of the hospital two days after the surgery and returned to work. My parents had just divorced after 32 years and there was no family support system in place. With Joe in prison, I was the provider. I caught pneumonia and had to go on welfare. At the time, I could type 92 words per minute and I could write. My education would be achieved and paid for by me over the coming years.

The purpose of this long-ago story is to tell you one of the most valuable lessons I have learned in life. Though I was only on welfare for three months, I learned that the cost of something for nothing is human dignity. Society cannot remove the dignity people find when they live a purposeful existence and then expect them to behave like dignified human beings.

It was at that point in my life I became a conservative. I was unaware that’s what I was, but that’s what I was. I learned that teaching someone to fish is a far more loving way to extend a charitable hand than is giving someone something for nothing.

The giving of the free fish makes givers feel good about themselves – but is that how we define love of neighbor? No. It isn’t. No mature, sane person defines love in this way. The giver of the fish probably won’t admit it, but providing the fish is an exercise in power… and love isn’t an exercise in one ego dominating another ego.

What about the word “charity?”

To be charitable is to be kind. I would repeat the meaning of love and merely ask: Is it kinder to give your neighbor or your brother a fish? Or is it kinder to teach him to fish? Which has the best long-term impact on the person’s life? Which offers the best potential for growth?

How do you define “freedom?”

It seems to me that “freedom” has its root in the right to own personal property – which includes owning one’s own body… the avoidance of slavery. If you are free to own property, you must have the accompanying right to define its use. If you cannot use property as you wish, do you really own it?

If you choose to move into a neighborhood controlled by a homeowner’s association, you agree to use your property in a manner acceptable to the majority of association members. Cities implement zoning laws to make sure no one builds a porn theater next to your home, which not only devalues the property but may also represent a danger to your children. If a person doesn’t like the rules and regulations imposed by the association or the city or the county, they must move. It is a form of group sovereignty… it is democracy at work: Majority rules. What’s the old saying? “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner.”

It’s true that we’re all sovereign individuals… until we walk off of our own property and onto what is owned by the entire community – sidewalks, streets, parks, etc. Then, we become part of a sovereign group with a different set of rules. Because we don’t all think alike, to maintain order group rules are needed. Again, the majority rules.

When we go further from home – when we use a state highway, for example – we become part of a larger sovereign group. To maintain social order, we must broaden our definition of the word “sovereign,” and the meaning of “freedom” and “sovereign” change yet again. But the basics don’t change, do they? We have a Constitution that tells government its limits. In a Republic (which our forefathers gave us), government’s job is to ensure that when sovereign individuals accept the rules set down by the democratic process of majority rules, no rights as defined in our Bill of Rights or our Constitution are violated. Most people believe these documents define our rights rather than serving as the watchdog of lost individual sovereignty. It tells government that God, not government, is the grantor of our right to pursue life, liberty and happiness.

In late December, Congress passed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). It decimates the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

A majority of Republicans voted for the NDAA (which validates my concern that Democrats want to get us to one world government via socialism, Republicans via fascism). The official Russian international radio broadcasting service. Voice of Russia, compared the Act to legislation passed by the Third Reich.

If you’re unfamiliar with this legislation, don’t be. The NDAA gives the President authority to detain, via our armed forces, any person "who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners," or anyone who commits a "belligerent act" against the U.S. or its coalition allies, under the law of war, "without trial, until the end of the hostilities authorized by the [AUMF]." The text also authorizes trial by military tribunal, or "transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin," or transfer to "any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity." An amendment to the Act that would have explicitly forbidden the indefinite detention without trial of American citizens was rejected by the Senate. (NOTE: AUMF means Authorization for Use of Military Force.)

It is interesting to note that “terrorism” has not by law been defined. NDAA, then, allows the President to define who a terrorist is and to have the military arrest him/her and “disappear” them to a foreign country. It wasn’t too long ago that law enforcement in more than one state defined a potential terrorist as someone who had bumper stickers that were pro-Constitution.

That’s why it’s important to define our words more carefully and know what words like “freedom” mean.

________________________________________

Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall began her career in 1956 as a journalist with the Wyoming Eagle in Cheyenne. During her 20 years (plus) as a banker and bank consultant, she wrote extensively for The American Banker, Bank Marketing Magazine, Trust Marketing Magazine, was U.S. Consulting Editor for Private Banker International (London/Dublin), and other major banking industry publications. She has written seven non-fiction books about banking and taught private banking at Colorado University for the American Bankers Association. She has authored seven banking books, one dog book, and two works of fiction (about banking, of course). She has served on numerous Boards in her community.

Barnewall is the former editor of The National Peace Officer Magazine and as a journalist has written guest editorials for the Denver Post, Rocky Mountain News and Newsweek, among others. On the Internet, she has written for News With Views, World Net Daily, Canada Free Press, Christian Business Daily, Business Reform, and others. She has been quoted in Time, Forbes, Wall Street Journal and other national and international publications. She can be found in Who's Who in America, Who's Who of American Women, Who's Who in Finance and Business, and Who's Who in the World.

Web site: http://marilynwrites.blogspot.com
E-Mail: marilynmacg@juno.com

CELEBRATING TRUTH: THE BIRTH OF CHRIST

2011-12-28T18:07:00.002-07:00

By Marilyn M. Barnewall
December 25, 2011
NewsWithViews.com

How many times in my 74 years have I asked myself “What is the real meaning of Christmas?”

I know this day we celebrate the birth of our Lord, Jesus Christ. Any Christian knows that. But what is the meaning of His birth? We celebrate meanings, not events. Does God’s gift of His only son, Jesus Christ, represent the love and peace and giving exemplified in our modern world? As my article last week suggested, our social environment in America 2011 is anything but loving, peaceful and charitable.

Here’s a quote from my book, When the Swan’s Neck Breaks (Xulon Press, July 2008):

“Nothing is black and white because powerful people are removing our unchanging principles. They are re-defining freedom.”
Alex cleared his throat before speaking. “You’re saying the reason for all of the confusion in both political parties is caused because politicians are removing the unchanging principles that have anchored American society for a few hundred years.”
Meredith looked at Alex, then Jake, before responding. “What I’m saying is that the only way to move America from capitalism to communism is to re-define words like freedom, faith, education, sovereignty, independence, competition… all of the words you mentioned in your presentation, Alex. Those words represent the unchanging principles on which America was founded. It makes it possible to ignore the Declaration of Independence and Constitution of the United States… which provides our most important unchanging principle: Freedom.”

What has this to do with the meaning of Christmas and the birth of Christ?

“They” have not only re-defined freedom, faith and the other words used in the quote from my book to exemplify how “they” are moving us towards socialism and communism. They have also been hard at work re-defining the meaning of “Christmas.”

Why are changes to our belief structure so easily accomplished? “They” have subtly made these changes because very few people pay attention to the definitive value of the words they use. “They” are surprised when Americans react to things like removing the words “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance. It startles “them” when we say we won’t shop in their stores if the best they can muster is “Happy Holidays,” rather than “Merry Christmas!” (and mean it). Because “they” are able to change the way so many words are used and how so many expressions are stated, “they” don’t see certain lines Americans draw in the sand. Who are “they?” That’s for another article. This is about Christmas – and “they” are about anything but celebrating the birth of Our Lord.

You can’t really blame “them” for their surprise when we refuse their demands because we let them get away with changing the meaning of words throughout the year. Every now and then, “they” get a little ahead of themselves with their “get rid of God” political objectives. You see, one of the basic needs of changing a Republic to a Democracy (which they have successfully done) is to remove clear access to God as each individual perceives God… to deny freedom of religion. That change began when the ACLU began protesting crèche scenes of the Holy Family and showing the Cross on public property at Easter and removing prayer from schools… when they changed freedom of religion to freedom from religion. We let them get away with it instead of raising so much hell that they would not try again. The actions that followed got us to socialism… but to complete the circle and get to full-fledged communism, God must be removed from the things we celebrate – like Christmas. Well, they will likely allow a government-approved version of religion… it is an opiate for the masses, after all. They move us towards totalitarian rule via things like airport security that makes clear we are nothing more than animals who, if we want to fly on an airplane, must subject ourselves to a depraved system designed to make us aware that government holds so much power over us it can subject us to vile treatment… and we must smile and say “thank you.”

Thus, the question of what we’re celebrating – what we honor – every December 25th is very important. If we honor the birth of Christ, we must honor the truth of what we have allowed our society to become because if we do not honor truth, it is impossible to honor Christ.

John 14:6 …I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me."
John 8:31-32 … So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.
John 17:17 Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.
Job 34:12 Of a truth, God will not do wickedly, and the Almighty will not pervert justice.
John 1:17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

As Job points out (above), court decisions would not be perverted if God was the force behind them. The birth of Christ is the birth of truth… at least it is if Christ is to be believed. He is the one who told us “I am and way, the truth, and the life.” He tells us that no one can get to the Father except through Him. In other words, if we avoid truth, we cannot get to the Father. So, it is truth we embrace on December 25th because without it, we have nothing… least of all, Him. He is Truth.

There are certain things truth does not do. For example, it does not implement a divide and conquer philosophy because to do so dishonors truth. When we honor truth, political realities do not motivate compromise because to compromise truth with lies or omissions of truth creates an environment in which truth cannot live. Politicians will tell me that life in the legislature cannot exist without compromise… they would never get any laws passed. Well, now, looking at the laws that have been passed the past few years, that would not be all bad, would it? Most of us would rather have no new laws if the intent behind the law must be compromised to get it passed.

Truth does not extend the olive branch that says the Rule of Law exists while allowing Wall Street banksters to defraud investors and taxpayers (and here’s a good example of compromised, bad laws: Gramm, Leach, Bliley which did away with Glass Steagall; and, Barney Frank’s and Christopher Dodds’ regulatory reform). In other words, if what we honor every December 25th is truth, we have a responsibility to remove those who are lie mongers and we must fight to make sure the truth tellers stay in office and work to get more of them elected. The problem is, most people can’t stand to hear the truth… so politicians often do not tell it! What does that tell you about what those who lie to us celebrate at Christmas? It sure isn’t the birth of truth!

In this world of ours, truth is elusive. We appear to have a Republican truth and a Democrat truth; we have a liberal truth and a conservative truth. Liberal truth is quite the opposite of conservative truth. Republican truth versus Democrat truth… well, both change on any given day as each is reliant on changing the rules of the game being played at any given time... and truth is not a game. There are numerous definitions of “truth” in different religions. Does truth vary? Or, is the finding of truth based on a clear definition of the words we use when we write and speak? That’s a conversation for next week, perhaps.

It takes no character for a nation to function as America now does. Apathy requires no character. Lies, deceit, treachery, and fraud require no character. Turning from God requires no character. Truth, however, requires character. It requires discipline and thought and perhaps the deepest level of understanding of which we humans are capable.

So, when I wish you truth for 2012, I wish you life and a love of the gift of life that is born of truth. The good news is this: If our almost Godless society exists because we allow it, it can be done away with because we disallow it. All it takes is standing up for truth and rejecting the lies that slip so easily from the lips of those who would rule us rather than set us free.

That would truly bring joy to the world!

I wish you Truth for the coming year – because without it, there is no love, there is no meaningful faith or peace or charity or any of the things we hold dear… especially at Christmas time. These are the things that make us a unique people in the world – things that make us Americans (in the only nation founded on Christian principles). Without Truth, there is no Christ or Savior… as He told us. If you accept the current lie-filled standards of Washington, D.C., of Wall Street, of Main Street, stop pretending you are celebrating the birth of Christ on December 25th. What you celebrate is a day off of work, the exchange of greeting cards, the exchanging of gifts, and a big holiday meal. Stop lying to yourself that you are celebrating the birth of our Lord… the birth of Truth.

If we reward truth, we will see more of it. If we reward lies, we will see more of them. It’s our choice.

Merry Christmas!

________________________________________

Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall began her career in 1956 as a journalist with the Wyoming Eagle in Cheyenne. During her 20 years (plus) as a banker and bank consultant, she wrote extensively for The American Banker, Bank Marketing Magazine, Trust Marketing Magazine, was U.S. Consulting Editor for Private Banker International (London/Dublin), and other major banking industry publications. She has written seven non-fiction books about banking and taught private banking at Colorado University for the American Bankers Association. She has authored seven banking books, one dog book, and two works of fiction (about banking, of course). She has served on numerous Boards in her community.

Barnewall is the former editor of The National Peace Officer Magazine and as a journalist has written guest editorials for the Denver Post, Rocky Mountain News and Newsweek, among others. On the Internet, she has written for News With Views, World Net Daily, Canada Free Press, Christian Business Daily, Business Reform, and others. She has been quoted in Time, Forbes, Wall Street Journal and other national and international publications. She can be found in Who's Who in America, Who's Who of American Women, Who's Who in Finance and Business, and Who's Who in the World.

Web site: http://marilynwrites.blogspot.com
E-Mail: marilynmacg@juno.com

HOW IN THE HELL DID WE GET HERE?

2011-12-18T18:58:00.000-07:00

By Marilyn M. Barnewall
December 18, 2011
NewsWithViews.com

Those were the first words my friend, Ambassador Lee Emil Wanta, asked aloud when he was thrown into a Swiss dungeon in Lausanne on 7 July 1993: “How the hell did we get here?”

Who was “we?” He asked the question of the Lord, Jesus Christ whom Wanta knows is always with him. Only someone with strong faith could have survived the experiences visited on Lee by those who want to tear down our Republic and replace it with a socialist empire. They needed the $27.5 trillion he had amassed over the years in his numerous Title 18 Section 6 corporations while reporting directly to President Ronald Reagan. (For the many readers who send me email asking for updates about Ambassador Wanta, you can find them here.)

How the hell we got here is a good question. Every American needs to ask it at this moment in our history. Before an honest, intelligent answer can be given, however, an honest, intelligent definition of “here” is required. How did we get… where is here? What does “here” represent? How do we define it?

How did we get here – a nation where the primary objective of our public school system is graduating students who can barely read, are taught practically nothing about critical thinking skills -- logic – and who don’t have a clue about what the Constitution of the United States of America says, let alone means – but who have plenty of sex education classes? Why do our kids know so much about political correctness and sex and so little about honor, truth, and how real capitalism (rather than the currently practiced debt capitalism) works? Young people taking part in Occupy America make it very clear that they know and understand nothing about capitalism (though they are totally right in rejecting the Federal Reserve System’s debt capitalism).

How did we get here -- a nation where the majority of people look to government to give them something for nothing, where taxpayer money is “loaned” to corporations that have contributed huge amounts to the current president’s political campaign to build green energy projects destined to fail – and taxpayers pay for this private sector failure?

How did we get here – Americans who belittle those who earn what they have and who reward those who think the world owes them whatever they want and all they have to do to deserve it is to ask.

How did we get here – a nation of people who convince themselves they are happy but who are so unhappy with their lifestyle choices they have to escape real life with drugs and alcohol?

How did we get here – dependent upon television, computer games, movies, and other “do-nothing” forms of entertainment? When did so many people get addicted to being entertained rather than finding entertainment in accomplishment?

When did our churches begin placing so much emphasis on God serving humanity rather than humanity serving God? When did He become the Great ATM in the Sky? When did the “purpose-driven” life place physical world wants and needs above spiritual evolvement? Whatever happened to the lessons of Job? Why are our churches not taking a leading role in telling the people the truth about what is happening within our political system – when did they become more concerned with their non-profit tax status than with the truth of the corruption running so rampant throughout both political parties?

When did we become so complacent about physical or eternal life that we found abortion acceptable as a primary form of birth control? When did sex and its logical result, pregnancy, become the purview of the United States Congress? When did it become a legal rather than a moral issue? It is more than apparent that government is incapable of a moral solution to any problem. An empty well can provide no water. And so we ask: How the hell did we get here?

When did we, as a society, decide men were insignificant in the lives of their children or that children really don’t need a father – which, of course, led to the equally skewed idea that it is justified to have children out of wedlock (because “I want a baby” or “I need a baby for personal fulfillment” -- with no thought given to the primary needs of the baby – which includes two parents)? Will young women ever again understand that when it comes to having a baby, what the woman wants is secondary to what the baby needs? To view it otherwise is to admit a greater love of self than of the baby the woman desiring pregnancy says she wants to love. Anyone who doesn’t understand that to love someone means placing that someone’s needs above your own isn’t mature enough to bring a child into the world.

Perhaps another question along that same line is: When did society decide it was acceptable for men to impregnate women, married or unmarried, and walk away from financial, social and psychological responsibilities for the life he helped create? When did men become so emasculated and irresponsible that they lost pride in supporting their own children? In evaluating the result of this behavior, it’s not difficult to understand why men receive so little respect as male parents and why television commercials make them look like idiots. Many of them are. They have allowed and approved their brethrens’ desertion of their children with no peer group penalty. No message goes from one male to another that “you don’t play if you can’t pay” and if you don’t pay you become a Pariah in the world of other males. Men hire child deserters so they can create more deserted children; they socialize with them, play football and golf with them… men (and women) support the enemy of a civilized society. When society wants more of a certain behavior, it’s not hard to get. All you must do is reward a specific behavior and you will get more of it.

When did we decide being educated about what’s happening in our world was more important than doing something about it – for taking a sufficiently strong stand against it to prevent it from happening at all – or again? When is the last time you carried a petition and got signatures to get an issue on the ballot? When is the last time you involved yourself in the candidate selection process, rather than just “voting for the candidate the Party sponsored?” And people wonder why the entire system is corrupt! If you don’t do these things yet expect political honesty, you don’t understand the concept of “Power corrupts…”

How the hell did we get here – a business community taken over by Don Corleone and his buddies in the organized crime business? Wall Street investment bankers perpetrate fraud in open (not even subtle) ways and there are few demands that anything be done about it. Why do people keep money in the too big to jail banks that caused our current economic crisis? Do they not realize they are ‘sleeping with the enemy’? If everyone removed their money from these giant institutions (which have no loyalty to the American people) they wouldn’t be too big to fail any longer, would they? That doesn’t take a genius to figure. So if you are one of those who still bank with a giant of Wall Street, you must approve of their behavior and the economic fraud they represent – or your money and other assets wouldn’t decorate the vaults belonging to crooks.

We had Enron, WorldCom and Bernie Ebbers (25 year sentence for him; five others were convicted), Bernie Madoff (150 year sentence), and numerous others we haven’t even heard about because the media chooses not to report their stories. Now we have Jon Corzine, former U.S. Senator, former Governor of New Jersey, and a man with a memory so poor (according to his Congressional testimony) he has absolutely no idea how client funds got mixed with company money – at least $1.2 billion of client investment funds lost and likely never to be seen by the legitimate owners again. According to investment analyst Jim Willie, the amount may be closer to $5 billion and the establishment of MF Global, Corzine’s company, may have been a planned scam… a way to in 2007 create a deposit base to pay for the silver shorts at J.P. Morgan Chase. How did J.P. Morgan cover its silver shorts? We never heard… the media is very selective in the stories it covers.

Don Corleone obviously owns the media, too.

We have an attorney general whose concern for human life has been clearly exhibited by his insistence that he was in no way involved in decisions regarding the Fast and Furious scam. It doesn’t dawn on anyone that whether he knew about it isn’t the issue. The issue is: Is the Attorney General responsible for knowing about provocatively dangerous Department of Justice programs like Fast and Furious? This scam was put together so liberals/socialists could purposely sell guns to Mexican drug cartels to gain support for major gun control legislation in America. It was supposed to be a covert attack on the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms, but they got caught (thanks to the gun dealers involved). Don Corleone and his Families have never had any concern about the U.S. Constitution and hold the Rule of Law (obviously) in total contempt!

Do you get it? All of the problems that everyone marks off as errors of an inexperienced President who has never worked in the private sector are not the result of mistakes and errors in judgment. It’s all been planned – and once you look at everything from the perspective of a long-term plan implemented one step at a time rather than mistakes made by a novice politician, it begins to make sense. As long as you think our current circumstances result from errors committed by an inexperienced President and his Merry Band of Marxist Czars, you will just shake your head and wait for the next election – and nothing will really change. Take a second look at the leading Republican presidential candidates and figure out why conservatives are already saying they will not “pull another McCain” (they won’t hold their noses to vote for another losing moderate again).

There is one lesson we should have learned… but I think few people have: Capitalism does not work without the Rule of Law (which is why we see so little of it in our courtrooms these days).

We got “here” through apathetic complacency and by turning our backs on God and Country while allowing our elected leaders to ignore the U.S. Constitution and the Rule of Law.

Perhaps the more significant questions is: How do we safely get the hell out of ‘here’?

Reserved________________________________________

Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall began her career in 1956 as a journalist with the Wyoming Eagle in Cheyenne. During her 20 years (plus) as a banker and bank consultant, she wrote extensively for The American Banker, Bank Marketing Magazine, Trust Marketing Magazine, was U.S. Consulting Editor for Private Banker International (London/Dublin), and other major banking industry publications. She has written seven non-fiction books about banking and taught private banking at Colorado University for the American Bankers Association. She has authored seven banking books, one dog book, and two works of fiction (about banking, of course). She has served on numerous Boards in her community.

Web site: http://marilynwrites.blogspot.com
E-Mail: marilynmacg@juno.com

The Wanta Chronicles, the Covert Economic War

2011-09-26T00:31:00.002-06:00

Saturday, September 24th, 2011 Posted by Veterans Today
Classified: The Wanta Chronicles, the Covert Economic War

AUTHORIZED COVERT ECONOMIC WAR ON THE SOVIET UNION AND THE 9/11 ATTACK

BUSH ON 9/11, BARKSDALE AFB, VERY MUCH IN CONTROL....BEFORE THE ATTACK

Editor’s notes: Among the documents and extensive narrative here is the story of the most classified operations since World War II. Herein is also included a broad history of a vast international criminal conspiracy at the heart of the American government. The stories begin with the criminal prosecution of former Reagan intelligence coordinator, Lee Wanta.

Charges allege that the 9/11 attacks were planned and executed in order to cover fiancial crimes. These crimes and their background is covered in this document.

Understandings of the mechanics of the 9/11 attack itself are largely taken from the Commission Report.

These now prove to differ as much from the truth as the other aspects of the 9/11 Commission report that this document challenges.

[Pub.L. 97-200, 50 U.S.C. 421 - 426] …. [1] to intentionally reveal the identity of an agent whom one knows to be in or recently in certain covert roles with a U.S. intelligence agency, unless the United States has publicly acknowledged or revealed the relationship.

REVEALED IN DANE COUNTY COURT TRANSCRIPTS : - STATE OF WISCONSIN CIRCUIT COURT DANE COUNTY
BRANCH 2
STATE OF WISCONSIN,
PLAINTIFF,
CASE No. 92 – CF – 683

vs.

LEO E. WANTA,
DEFENDANT.…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

DATES : MAY 8, 9, 10, 11, 1995 ………………………………………………………………………………………………

ALLEGED TAX CHARGES : FAILURE TO PAY CIVIL INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT, OF $14,129.00 RELATED TO DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE CONTINUING AND LAWLESS INSISTANCE THAT DEFENDANT OWED CIVIL STATE TAX ASSESSMENTS_FYI 1982, 1988, AS A RESULT OF HIS DEEPCOVER COVERT ACTIONS DURING AUTHORIZED STING OPERATION – INVOLVING CERTAIN TARGETED INDIVIDUALS, ALLOWING THE STATE OF WISCONSIN – DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE’S FALSE AND SPURIOUS ACCUSATIONS TO BE FRAUDULENTLY LEVIED AGAINST SAID DEFENDANT.

THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE WAS FULLY AWARE THAT DEFENDANT WAS NOT THE OWNER OF SAID TARGETED CORPORATIONS, REFERENCING COURT RULINGS :

1. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN, ORDER, C. A. 84-C-359, JOHN W. REYNOLDS, CHIEF U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE, 7th day of Sept, 1984;
2. STATE OF WISCONSIN, CIRCUIT COURT, WAUKESHA COUNTY, CASE No. 83-CV-452, ROBERT T McGRAW, 4th day of April, 1985;
3. STATE OF WISCONSIN, APPEAL TRIBUNAL DECISION, HEARING NO. 84-40912FG, DECISION 5-11-84;
4. STATE OF WISCONSIN, APPEAL TRIBUNAL DECISION, HEARING NO. 84-40913FG, DECISION 5-11-84.
A. THE STATE OF WISCONSIN – DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE HAD FULL WORKING KNOWLEDGE, THAT DEFENDANT THROUGH HIS FAMILY ATTORNEY, THOMAS A. WILSON, ON JUNE 3, 1992, ISSUED ATTORNEY CHECK NO. 6992, IN THE STATE DEMANDED AMOUNT OF $14,129.00 IN FULL COMPROMISE OF THE FALSE ALLEGATIONS, STATE ACCEPTED IN FULL COMPROMISE AND SETTLEMENT – REFERENCING BANK NOTATIONS : -

4311 02983

STATE TREAS OF WIS.
DEPT OF REVENUE
1ST WI NATL BANK
MILWAUKEE, WI

4311 02983
STATE TREAS OF WIS.
DEPT OF REVENUE

1ST WI NATL BANK
MILWAUKEE, WI
075000022
JUN 24 92
PAID0000012703
06-24-92
097 DOR1033 624924493D $14129.

B. STATE OF WISCONSIN – DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE FEBRUARY 18, 1999 “THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE HAS NO RECORD OF A DELINQUENT TAX`ACCOUNT ISSUED TO LEE E. WANTA, SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER 3XX-XX-XXX6, FEDERAL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER DPP#04362 [DIPLOMATIC PASSPORT]. C. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE KANSAS CITY, MO 64999 APRIL 23, 1991 LTR 2358C TAXPAYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER : 3XX-XX-XXX6 TAX FORM : 1040 TAX PERIOD : DEC 31, 1988 “BASED ON OUR INFORMATION, YOU ARE NOT LIABLE FOR FILING A TAX RETURN FOR THIS PERIOD. IF OTHER ISSUES ARISE, WE MAY NEED TO CONTACT YOU IN THE FUTURE. YOU DO NOT NEED TO REPLY TO THIS LETTER. DOROTHY O. SMITH, CHIEF, COLLECTION BRANCH”

ON LETTER HEAD :

D. PUNDER, VOLHARD, WEBER & AXTER

DENNIS ULLMAN, ESQ.
STATE OF WISCONSIN
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
265 W. NORTHLAND AVE.
APPLETON, WI 54911

FRANKFURT am MAIN

24 MAY 1994

486.0094.92.05.B-tep

HANS LANG, YOUR INVESTIGATION IN RESPECT OF LEO E. WANTA

DEAR MR. ULLMAN,

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TELECOPY OF APRIL 13, 1994. UNFORTUNATELY, WE HAVE NO INFORMATION ABOUT THE MONEY TRANSFERS TO AUSTRIA WHICH YOU MENTIONED.

UPDATING YOUR INFORMATION IN RESPECT OF THE CIVIL LAW SUIT AGAINST MR. KURT – PAUL BECKER AND HIS BUSINESS ASSOCIATES, I ENCLOSE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE FRANKFURT COURT OF APPEAL OF MAY 5, 1994 WHICH CONFIRMS THE JUDGMENT OF THE FIRST INSTANCE GRANTING MR. LANG’S CLAIM IN THE AMOUNT OF US$500.000. THE DEFENDANTS HAVE THE RIGHT TO APPEAL TO THE FEDERAL SUPREME COURT.

FOR REASONS OF PROFESSIONAL CURIOSITY RATHER THAN FOR THE IMMEDIATE CONCERNS OF MR. LANG, I SHOULD BE PLEASED IF YOU CAN KEEP ME INFORMED ON THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURES AGAINST MR. WANTA, PERHAPS BY SENDING ME A PAPER CLIPPING ON OCCASION.
ARNDT STENGEL.

JR COLLECTION AGENT DENNIS ULLMAN, TESTIFIED THAT NAMED DEFENDANT WAS AN ASSOCIATE OF THESE GERMAN INDIVIDUALS, WHEN HE ABSOLUTELY KNEW THAT THIS STATE DEFENDANT WAS WITH THE US DEPT OF TREASURY – UNITED STATES CUSTOMS SERVICE – DEEPCOVER AS THESE KNOWN INDIVIDUALS WERE ATTEMPTING TO SMUGGLE ELECTRONIC MEMORY CHIPS FROM USA TO EUROPA, AND PLANNED FOR ACTUAL DELIVERY TO YONGBYON, NORTH KOREA. DEFENDANT WAS DOMICILED IN WIEN, AUSTRIA AND SINGAPORE, AND FULL FIELD REPORTS WERE SUBMITTED TO RAC W…… L…..S , SA233MS, SA32NV, S-31-IANO [ INTERNAL AFFAIRS NEW ORLEANS ], ET AL.

COLLECTION AGENT D ULLMAN KNEW AT ALL TIMES THAT CIA COUNSEL [CAL] J E…S [DIS-BARRED] WAS HOLDING THE TARGET’S US$500.000 IN HIS MITSUI BANK [CAL] ACCOUNT,

{PLEASE NOTE : STATE AGENT ULLMAN KNOWINGLY IGNORED IN HIS TESTIMONY THAT DEFENDANT HAD NOTIFIED HIS USG SUPERIORS, AND DISBARMENT PROCEEDINGS PER USG OFFICIAL FILINGS TO CAL SUPREME COURT, AND WERE CLEARLY DOCUMENTED THAT THE SMUGGLER’S FUNDS WERE NEVER IN CUSTODIAL/PERSONAL CONTROL OF NAMED DEFENDANT }, [ FUNDS WERE EVENTUALLY TRANSFERRED TO THEIR PRC - PEKING CUSTODIAL BANK ACCOUNT, AND SUBSEQUENTLY WAS RETURNED TO THE GERMAN TARGETS [ MEMORY CHIP SMUGGLERS ] , KURT-PAUL BECKER AND LOTHAR ELSASSER, ET AL. – AND- NEVER REMITTED TO SAID STATE NAMED DEFENDANT, AS FALSELY ALLEGED ….

E. INVESTIGATIVE OPERATIONS CONTINUED IN S.E. ASIA – AS TO SISTER PLANT ” WETROOM ” [ NAMED STATE DEFENDANT FORWARDED ENGINEERING DRAWINGS/SPECIFICATIONS DIRECTLY TO US CUSTOMS SERVICE - RAC - TN OPERATIONS, ET AL ] AS WELL AS, MANUFACTURING PLANNING – FINANCING WITHIN THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE NAMED CORPORATIONS TO DEVELOP/TRANSFER SAID SISTER PLANT WITH NECESSARY MODIFICATIONS WITHIN YONGBYON, NK – UNDER STATE OF WISCONSIN DEFENDANT’S DIRECTION AND AUTHORITY, AS THIS CIVIL TAX CASE WAS CLEARLY SPURIOUS, AND LAWLESS, INTER ALIA.

ON LETTERHEAD OF F. V RAMAKRISHNAN & CO, ADVOCATES & SOLICITORS, COMMISSIONER FOR OATHS, NOTARY PUBLIC, VR/YLC/0824/92M, 16th MAY 1992,

M/S BACHMAN, CUMMINGS McKENZIE ,HEBBE, McINTYRE & WILSON, S. C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
211`EAST FRANKLIN STREET
P.O. BOX 1155
APPLETON, WISCONSIN
54912-1155

ATTN: MR THOMAS A WILSON

DEAR MR THOMAS A WILSON

RE : LEO EMIL WANTA

PARA 1
PARA 2
PARA 3

PARA 4 – UNFORTUNATELY, THE CHAIRMAN OF ANEKO CREDIT PTE LTD, MR KOK HOWE KWONG, HAS SUDDENLY PASSED AWAY LAST NIGHT AFTER OUR TELEPHONIC CONVERSATION. OUR CLIENT IS DIRECTLY INVOLVED WITH THE INVESTIGATION OF ANEKO CREDIT PTE LTD. HE HAS TO BE HERE FOR A WHILE TO ASSIST IN THE INVESTIGATION OF THE COMPANY.

PARA 5 – PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT THERE ARE FILES IN YOUR POSSESSION RELATING TO LEO AND ONE OF THEM IS CONNECTED WITH OR RELATED TO REAGAN/GEORGE BUSH CONSPIRACY REGARDING THE CONTRA WAR WHERE OUR CLIENT ALSO KNOWN AS FRANK INGRAM (FBI) PARTICIPATING AS AN UNDERCOVER AGENT INTO THE INVESTIGATION WITH THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT AND THE UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICES TO PREVENT THE DISCLOSURE OF THE UNAUTHORIZED US$ FUNDING OF THE CONTRA WAR AS DIRECTED BY THE THEN VICE PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH.

PARA 6 - PLEASE TAKE NOTICE -

DUE TO LAWLESS ACTIONS OF CERTAIN STATE OF WISCONSIN INDIVIDUALS THE FOLLOWING WRONGFUL DEATHS OCCURRED SERVING THEIR COUNTRY:

1. HIS EXCELLENCY, KOK HOWE KWONG – SINGAPORE

2. LINO BURYS – HONG KONG

3. FREDDIE WOODRUFF, TBILISI

JUST A QUALIFIED REMINDER

a. Rogers – Houston Memorandum

b. H. R. 3723 c. Title 18 U. S.C. Section 792

d. ” ” ” ” 35

e. ” ” ” ”

241, 242

f. ” ” ” ” 372

[ , or impede him in the discharge of his official duties, each of such persons shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six years, or both. ]

DIFFERENT TOPIC: (The following is an attempt to present in a compact form the alleged claims made by Dick Eastman, Tom Flocco, Vina K. Durham, Karl Schwarz and put together in an the article by E.P. Heidner dated 28th June 2008 to the effect that the September 11th attacks were intended to cover-up the clearing of the 1991 issuance of $240 billion in covert securities to fund an economic war against the Soviet Union during which “unknown” western investors bought up much of the Soviet industry. A crime presented by official sources as a “terrorist attack” and used as an excuse to attack Iraq.)

________________________________________

September 11

Initially the official designation of “terrorist attacks” made it difficult to discern a pattern. However if the destruction of the World Trade Centre, a segment of the Pentagon, four commercial aircraft and the loss of 2,993 lives is not considered as a “terrorist attack” but rather as a crime with specific objectives, there is a compelling logic to the pattern of destruction, not only of the buildings but of specific offices within each building.

If the attack on the Office of Naval Intelligence in the Pentagon was not random it is reasonable to assume that the planes that hit the World Trade Centre, and the bombs reported by various witnesses to have been set off inside the buildings 1, 6, 7, the basement of the Towers, the vault in the basement of the World Trade Centre were also deliberately targeted.

Why? What was it that linked these targets? The destruction of the contents of the basement of the World Trade Centre – less than a billion in gold, but hundreds of billions of dollars of government securities?

In addition why were specific brokers from the major government security brokerages in the Twin Towers eliminated? To create chaos in the government securities market?

To create a situation wherein $240 billion dollars of covert securities could be electronically “cleared” without anyone asking questions? Which happened when the Federal Reserve declared an emergency and invoked its “emergency powers” that afternoon.

There were three major securities brokers in the World Trade Center: Cantor Fitzgerald, Eurobrokers and Garbon Inter Capital. On the morning of September 11, Flight 11 hit the North Tower at 8:46 right below the floors on which Cantor Fitzgerald was situated.

Cantor Fitzgerald as the largest securities dealer in the US was probably the primary target. Shortly thereafter a massive explosion went off under the FBI offices in the North Tower on the 23rd floor, Garbon Inter Capital on the 25th floor, and in the basement of Tower 1.

The explosion caused the 22nd through 25th floors above to collapse into an inferno. Fires were reported on the 22nd floor at 8:47. Shortly, thereafter, at 9:03, Flight 175 hit the South Tower right below the floors on which Euro Brokers was situated.

In all three cases, the explosive, fiery destruction consumed the offices in the several floors above. At 9:37 Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, targeting one of the few offices that had been moved in the newly remodeled section of the Pentagon: the Office of Naval Intelligence, which had been investigating the financial transactions linked to the securities being managed by those security dealers in the World Trade Center that were targeted.

41% of the fatalities in the Twin Towers came from two companies that managed U.S. government securities:

Cantor Fitzgerald and Eurobrokers. 31% of the 125 fatalities in the Pentagon were from the Naval Command Center that housed the Office of Naval Intelligence.

39 of 40 Office of Naval Intelligence employees died. In the vaults beneath the World Trade Center Towers, any certificates for bonds were destroyed.

Building 7 was evacuated somewhere between 9:00 and 9:30. Fires and explosions spontaneously began at multiple locations inside the building prior to the collapse of either Tower.

This observation contradicts the official explanation that the fire started when objects from the collapsing towers caused the fires to ignite. The Building ultimately was destroyed in what many unofficial observers now believe was a controlled demolition. Building Seven housed several agencies critical to investigation of financial crimes.

In the midst of all this, Building 6 was destroyed by explosions from within. Building 6 was home to the U.S. Customs agency and the El Dorado Task force, which was responsible for coordinating all major money-laundering investigations in the U.S.

In the immediate aftermath of September 11, these groups would be redirected to investigate terrorist financing.

The Office of Naval Intelligence in the Pentagon, which sustained a direct hit from an airliner that day, was without a doubt, a target pinpointed for destruction.

The attacking aircraft went through intricate maneuvers in order to hit the west side of the Pentagon, The flight path approach shows that the attacking aircraft passed almost directly over the White House, bypassing what should be considered a primary target for a “terrorist attack” instead of a supposedly empty section of the Pentagon.

The planes that hit the South Tower also maneuvered in the last moments to hit their exact target.

On the same day, (September 11) the Securities and Exchange Commission declared a national emergency and for the first time in U.S. history invoked its emergency powers under Securities Exchange Act Section 12(k) and eased regulatory restrictions for clearing and settling security trades for the next 15 days. These changes would allow an estimated $240 billion in covert government securities to be cleared upon maturity (September 12th) without the standard regulatory controls around identification of ownership.

While most media reports defer to the U.S. government contention that Osama Bin Laden was behind these attacks, foreign media provided reports suggesting that the “real power” behind Al Qaeda was unknown.

As shall be seen, the financial power behind the attack is the same power that created these securities, and the same power as that which founded Al Qaeda.

The Background

In order to understand why the ongoing Federal investigations into the crimes funded by those securities needed to be ended or disrupted by destroying evidence in Buildings 6, 7 and 1, it is necessary to understand how the $240 billion in covert, and possibly illegal government funding, could have been created in September 1991 and also to know the background of 50 years of history of key financial organizations in the United States, where U.S. Intelligence became a key source of their off-balance sheet accounts.

The covert securities used to accomplish the original national security objective had ended up in the vaults of the brokers in the World Trade Centre, were destroyed on September 11, 2001, the day before they came due for settlement and clearing.

Either a key group of senior National Security officials, who had participated in the victory of the economic cold war in 1991, considered the deaths and destruction as ‘collateral” damage to hide the existence of the covert activities or the destruction constituted a cover-up of continued lawlessness by a fraternity or brotherhood of businessmen and criminals that has remained in the shadows ever since.

The Origins of the World Trade Centre Attack

Most historians track the history of September 11th to 1998 when Osama Bin Laden declared a fatwa or jihad against the U.S., and the terrorist “Hamburg Group” led by Mohammed Atta reportedly “offered” it’s services to Al Qaeda.

However, the history which defines the motives for the September 11 attacks goes much further back. The answers to the questions surrounding the cause of the WTC attack will be found in events during the presidency of George H.W. Bush and earlier.

Insight into the activities of that period are cloaked by the Executive Order of George H.W. Bush’s son, President George W. Bush, who on November 1, 2001 issued Executive Order 13233. As a result public records which might have shed light on the activities of 1990 and 1991 remain shielded from public access. Consequently the reconstruction of events from the late 1980s and early 1990s is based on news reports, books and articles.

What the public record suggests is that with the beginning of the first Bush Presidency in 1989, George H.W. Bush initiated a programme of covert economic warfare to bring about the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The name of this programme appears to be Project Hammer – a multi-billion dollar covert operation, whose investments remain shielded.

There is reason to believe that the plan was initially formulated by Reagan’s CIA Director, William Casey. Many of the programme operatives were probably engaged through official CIA and National Security channels.

However, as a result of the experience gained by the Bush cabinet and its private sector counterparts during the secretive Iran-Contra and Ferdinand Marcos gold operations, the execution of that programme would be accompanied by a new assumption that the use of covert and illegal funding for a policy not approved by Congress would remain acceptable.

The Source of the Funds

Numerous sources have documented that at the end of World War II, the treasury of the Japanese Empire was discovered in the Philippines by Edward Lansdale a member of the staff of General Charles Willoughby, who was General MacArthur’s chief of Intelligence.

Lansdale and Severino Garcia Diaz Santa Romana tortured Major Kojima Kashii, General Yamashita Tomoyuki’s driver, until he revealed the sites of the gold.

Then known as the “Golden Lily Treasure”, this mass of wealth had been accumulated by the Japanese over fifty years from the pillaging of Southeast Asia and China by its army and had been deposited in the Philippines due to the U.S. submarine blockade of Japan. Reports vary, but documents in the public domain suggest the recovered treasure was in excess of 280,000 metric tonnes of gold.

Lansdale briefed Assistant Secretary of War John J. McCloy about the findings, and a U.S. Cabinet-level decision was made to confiscate the gold and cover-up its discovery.

The gold would be added to the Black Eagle Trust fund which took its name from the Nazi Black Eagle stamped on the gold bars confiscated from the Reich and was the original source of funding for the trust.

Over the years, the significance of the Nazi gold would pale in comparison to the confiscated Japanese treasure. As the fund grew, it was distributed in private accounts across the globe in over 100 banks, and administered by General Earle Cocke.

Lansdale and Santa Romana were made responsible for recovery of the treasure. They fabricated a “Communist Revolution” by the Hukbalahak rebels in order to confiscate the land where much of the gold was buried, and proceeded to mine it.

The Yamashita gold would become the cornerstone of the Black Eagle Fund, from which many covert operations of the U.S. intelligence would be funded. Under international law the gold should have been either returned to the countries from which it was stolen (as was done with the Nazi gold), or should have been incorporated into the U.S. Treasury. The U.S. Government’s continued efforts to stifle news on this matter provides prima facie evidence that the confiscation of this gold was illegal.

The men responsible for initiating and executing the confiscation of Nazi and Japanese treasury gold represent the most senior Intelligence officers in the U.S. and Britain at the end of World War II, and the Cabinet of the President of the United States.

The financial institutions represented by these individuals would become the major financial banks in the world, along with the Swiss-German banks where they hid their gold.

Lansdale’s operation in the Philippines gave birth to most of the common features of modern covert operations for the U.S.Intelligence and initiated a bond between the US intelligence organizations and the Israeli intelligence.

He also set precedents for the Intelligence community to retain the services of organized crime on U.S. soil and to use drug running as a way of financing activities.

The covert operations funded by the Black Eagle Trust in the 1960s and 1970s became visible stains on the global image of the U.S. despite all efforts to keep them under cover.

In an effort to clean house, President Jimmy Carter would order the retirement of over 800 covert operatives. Many of these operatives would move into private consulting and security firms and be employed as subcontractors for covert operations. Thus began a loose association of private operatives that would be referred to as “the Enterprise” in the years to come. George H.W. Bush, having been CIA Director, had many acquaintances in this group, and would work with them to restore their influence and control over U.S. foreign policy and the foreign investment opportunities it created for their benefit.

Meantime Ferdinand Marcos, the pro-U.S. dictator of the Philippines, continued to discover even more of the buried treasure. and had started to sell it on the market during the 1970s with the assistance of Adnan Khashoggi.

US Intelligence operations had been siphoning off the gold for three decades. However in 1986 Vice President George Bush took over the gold from Marcos and the gold was removed to a series of banks, notably Citibank, Chase Manhattan, Hong Kong Shanghai Banking Corporation, UBS and Banker’s Trust, and held in a depository in Kloten Switzerland.

What happened to the Marcos gold after it was confiscated by U.S. agents in 1986 has never been reported, but throughout the early 1990s, the world gold market would be befuddled by the mysterious appearance of thousands of tonnes of gold which appeared to suppress the price of gold.

In South east Asia operations were financed through Nugan Hand Bank in Australia which would be one of the many banks used for transferring the Marcos gold from the Philippines into covert operations. Frank Nugan’s family ran the primary supply shipping operation between the U.S. Navy base in the Philippines and Australia.

Frank Nugan’s business partner, Peter Abeles, and Henry Keswick, together with Canadian businessman Peter Munk, would link with Adnan Kashoggi, Sheikh Kamal and Edgar Bronfmann in a series of operations which ultimately would evolve into Barrick Gold.

In 1992, George H.W. Bush served on the Advisory Board of Barrick Gold. The Barrick operation would create billions of dollars of paper gold by creating ‘gold derivatives’.

A major distribution channel for the sale of Barrick’s gold futures would be Enron. Enron would also become the vehicle by which oil and gas contracts from the former Soviet Union (vehicles for Soviet money-laundering) were processed.

Barrick, which has no mining operations in Europe, used two refineries in Switzerland: MKS Finance S.A. and Argor-Heraeus S.A. – both on the Italian border near Milan, a few hours away from the gold depository in Zurich.

The question that Barrick and other banks needed to avoid answering is: what gold was Barrick refining in Switzerland, as they have no mines in that region?

Barrick would become a quiet gold producing partner for a number of major banks, and its activities became subject to an FBI investigation into gold-price-fixing. The records on this investigation were kept in the FBI office on the 23rd floor of the North Tower which was destroyed by bomb blasts shortly before the Tower collapsed. The ultimate destination of the “Golden Lily Treasure”, and the source of the ‘loaned’ gold that flooded the market for 10 years has never been officially explained.

The records of many of those transactions disappeared when Enron collapsed and the trading operation and all its records were taken over by UBS, another major recipient of Marcos gold. The FBI was reportedly conducting an investigation into those transactions, and the investigation files were kept on the 23rd floor of the North Tower of the WTC.

A review of the personal accounts of September 11 now suggests that office was deliberately targeted with explosives prior to the collapse of the WTC.

Another key player in the Marcos gold was Banker’s Trust, which was taken over by Alex Brown & Sons, after Banker’s Trust floundered financially on its Russian loans in the mid 1990s. These Russian loans were facilitated by Enron, starting in August of 1993, and very possibly were part of the Project Hammer takeover of Soviet industry.

Amongst those brought into the picture by the involvement of Alex Brown was J. Carter Beese who was Executive Director of the CIA at the time of September 11. He was appointed by George H.W. Bush to the board of directors of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation in 1992. Since 1992, OPIC has provided more than $4.5 billion in finance and insurance to more than 140 projects in Russia. He was also Chairman of Riggs Bank and also President of Riggs Capital Partners.

Riggs controlled the famous Riggs-Valmet consultants who set up the international financial apparatus for the Russian oligarchs and rogue KGB allowing them to steal the Soviet treasury and destroy the Russian economy. Carter Beese’s death was reported as a suicide in 2006.

It appears that in September 1991, George H.W. Bush and Alan Greenspan did indeed finance $240 billion in bonds in a buy-out of the Soviet Union as part of a broader programme to attack the economy of the Soviet Union.

In addition President George H.W. Bush had initiated a number of related covert operations to take over certain sectors of the Soviet economy.

The covert business dealings with the Iranians and Israelis which originated with Kashoggi and Kimche in July 1980 in Hamburg under the October Surprise arrangement, would provide an opening to the Soviet KGB that would allow the U.S. to fund a coup against Gorbachev in 1991.

It would grow into a larger covert operation over the years, and be overshadowed by the larger Iran-Contra operation. Members of Bush’s covert intelligence cadre sold weapons to Iran, an avowed enemy of the U.S., and illegally used the profits to continue funding anti-Communist rebels, the Contras, in Nicaragua.

The entire Iran-Contra operation almost fell apart in 1986 and became public when the Nicaraguan government shot down a U.S. plane carrying weapons to the Contra rebels However the Iran-Contra team continued to violate the law even while being investigated by Congress.

Emboldened by the lack of consequences for subverting the U.S. constitution and breaking international law during the Iran-Contra scandal, the Bush administration group known as “the Vulcans” planned a bigger drive to crush Soviet Russia.

The programme also seems to have lined the pockets of the individuals that executed this policy, at US taxpayer expense. This was done to the tune of the $240 billion dollars in covert and allegedly illegal bonds, which appear to have been replaced with Treasury notes backed by U.S. taxpayers in the aftermath of September 11.

The Vulcan’s Covert Economic War on the Soviet Union

In 1988, Riggs Bank, under the direction of Jonathan Bush and J Carter Beese, would purchase controlling interest in a Swiss company named Valmet.

In early 1989, the new subsidiary of Riggs called Riggs-Valmet would initiate contact with a group of KGB officers and their front-men to start setting up an international network for moving money out of the former Soviet block countries.

In the first phase of the economic attack on the Soviet Union, George Bush authorized Leo Wanta and others to destabilize the ruble and facilitate the theft of the Soviet/Russian treasury. This would result in draining the Russian treasury of between 2,000 to 3,000 tonnes of gold bullion, ($35 billion at the time).

This step would prevent a monetary defense of the ruble and thus destabilize the currency. The gold was ‘released to Singapore’ in March of 1991, as facilitated and purchased by Leo Wanta, and signed off by Boris Yeltsin’s right hand man.

The majority of the leaked reports from the CIA and FBI suggest the theft of the Russian treasury was a KGB and Communist party operation, but what those reports omitted was the extensive involvement of Boris Yeltsin, the U.S. CIA and the U.S. banking industry.

In November 1989 George H.W. Bush appears to have arranged for Alton G. Keel Jr, a minor player in the Iran-Contra scandal to go to work at Riggs Bank, which would become the controlling owner of a small Swiss bank operation known as Valmet.

The Riggs-Valmet operation, would become the ‘consultants’ to the World Bank and to several KGB front operations run by future Russian oligarchs Khordokovsky, Konanykhine, Berezovsky and Abromovich.

These soon-to-be Russian oligarchs had been set-up as front men by KGB Generals Aleksey (Alexei) Kondaurov; and Fillipp Bobkov, who previously reported to Victor Cherbrikov, who worked with Robert Maxwell, a British financial mogul, an Israeli secret service agent, and a representative of U.S. intelligence interests, who had been introduced to George Bush in 1976 by Senator Tower for the sole purpose of using Maxwell as an intermediary between Bush and the Soviet Intelligence.

Maxwell assisted Cherbrikov in selling military weaponry to Iran and the Nicaraguan Contras during the course of the Iran Contra deals, and made hundreds of millions of dollars available to Cherbrikov’s Russian banks.

These two would bring a previously unknown politician and construction foreman named Boris Yeltsin from the hinterlands of Russia to the forefront of Russian politics through providing 50% of Yeltsin’s campaign funding.

In the second phase, there were two major operations: the largest was coordinated by Alan Greenspan, Oliver North, and implemented by Leo Wanta, George Soros and a group of Bush appointees who began to destabilize the ruble.

They are accused of fronting $240 billion in covert securities to support the various aspects of this plan.These bonds were created (in part or in whole) from a secretive Durham Trust, managed by ex-OSS/CIA officer, Colonel Russell Hermann.

This war chest had been created with the Marcos gold.

Shortly before the attempted coup of 1991, Maxwell met Kruchkov on Maxwell’s private yacht. Shortly afterwards, Maxwell died mysteriously on his yacht while Senator Tower died in a plane crash under suspicious circumstances in April of 1991.

In the meantime, Riggs Bank was quickly solidifying banking relations with two of the old Iran-Contra scandal participants: Swiss bankers Bruce Rappaport, and Alfred Hartmann. Through this group George Soros opened a second front assault on the ruble.

It is at this stage of the operation that three more groups would be brought into the plan by Rappaport and Hartmann: The Russian Mafiya, the Israeli Mossad, and the Rothschild family interests represented by Jacob Rothschild.

Soros and Rappaport would ensure that the Rothschild financial interests would be the silent backers for a number of the undisclosed deals. The Rothschild interests would also be seen on the board of directors of Barrick Gold.

In the fourth phase of the secret war, the Enterprise worked on several fronts to take over key energy industries. On the Caspian front of this economic war, James Giffen was sent to Kazakhstan to work with President Nazarbayev in various legal and illegal efforts to gain control of what was estimated to be the world’s largest untapped oil reserves – Kazak oil in the Caspian.

The illegal flow of money from the various oil companies would reach a number of banks. These same oil interests would engage Marc Rich and the Israeli Eisenberg Group, owned by one of the Mossad’s key operatives, Shaul Eisenberg, to move the oil. (The Eisenberg Group would at some point own almost 50% of Zim Shipping, which mysteriously and inexplicably moved out of the World Trade Center a few weeks before the September 11 attacks.)

Like the other events linked with Project Hammer, the coup was all about the money. The coup began the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the beginning of the reign of Boris Yeltsin and his ‘family’ of Russian Mafia Oligarchs, and President Nursultan Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan.

In the final phase, a series of operatives assigned by President George H.W. Bush would begin the takeover of prized Russian and CIS industrial assets in oil, metals and defence. This was done by financing and managing the money-laundering for the Russian oligarchs through the Bank of New York, AEB and Riggs Bank.

A closer look at other activities leading up to these phases makes it clear that is was a U.S. orchestrated intelligence effort from the beginning. The economic war involved Gerald Corrigan of the NY Federal Reserve Bank, George Soros, an international currency speculator who was responsible for crashing the British pound a few years earlier, former Ambassador to Germany R. Mark Palmer, and Ronald Lauder-financier and heir to the Estee Lauder estate.

Palmer and Lauder would lead a group of American investors in an Operation called the Central European Development Corporation, and combine forces with George Soros and the NM Rothschild Continuation Trust.

This group ending up controlling Gazprom, the Russian natural gas giant, while the Riggs group ended up controlling Yukos, the oil giant. Ownership for both remains largely ‘hidden’ today, while its front men endure the hardships of the Russian wrath by spending time in prison.

Meanwhile, across the Caspian Sea, Bush had assigned a wide array of former Iran-Contra operatives to take a role in Azerbaijan.

Initially, he sent in the covert operatives Richard Armitage and Richard Secord who worked with their old colleague from the Mossad, David Kimche, and their old arms running colleagues Adnan Kashoggi and Farhad Azima to hire, transport, and train several thousand Al Qaeda mercenaries to fight on behalf of the Azeri freedom fighters!

Osama Bin Laden was reported to have been part of this mercenary force.

The September 11th Cover-up of the Black Eagle Trust and Project Hammer

Ten years later in 2001, these programmes had finally come back to haunt the U.S. policy makers. Most, if not all of these programmes appear to have stepped outside of the boundaries of the law.

As a result, investigative agencies from Britain, Switzerland, Russia, Kazakhstan and the Philippines were putting pressure on Congress and the U.S. Department of Justice to open up the accounts in the banks used to finance these covert activities.

Pressure was being put on the Swiss banking cartel to open its bullion records to public scrutiny. Full disclosure by these banks during an investigation would have resulted in a major exposure of U.S. Government complicity in some of the greatest financial frauds of the 1980s and early 1990s as well as 50 years of gold bullion theft by numerous U.S. and British government agencies.

Moreover, investigation into these accounts would disclose a National Security secret known as the Black Eagle fund, and virtually every covert operation since World War II. Bringing an end to these investigations and preventing this disclosure was the sole objective for the destruction of the WTC and Pentagon.

These investigative and legal pressures began to accumulate in 1997, and in February 1998, Osama Bin Laden declared his fatwa, and Atta started planning the September 11 attacks.

With the bonds out in the market, they had sat for ten years, like a ticking time bomb. At some point, they had to be settled – or cashed in, on September 12, 2001. The two firms in the U.S. most likely to be handling them would be Cantor Fitzgerald and Eurobrokers – the two largest government securities firms in the U.S.

The federal agency mostly involved in investigating those transactions was the Office of Naval Intelligence. On September 11 those same three organizations: the two largest government securities brokers and the Office of Naval Intelligence in the US took near direct hits.

What happened inside the buildings of the World Trade on September 11 is difficult, but not impossible to discern. The government has put a seal on the testimony gathered by the investigating 911 Commission, and instructed government employees to not speak on the matter or suffer severe penalties, but there are a number of personal testimonies posted on the internet as to what happened in those buildings that day.

Careful reconstruction from those testimonies indicates the deliberate destruction of evidence not only by a targeted assault on the buildings, but also by targeted fires and explosions. In the event that either the hijacking failed, or the buildings were not brought down, the evidence would be destroyed by fires.

Even more revealing would be the actions of the Federal Reserve Bank and the Securities and Exchange Commission on that day, and in the immediate aftermath. As one of many coincidences on September 11, the Federal Reserve Bank was operating its information system from its remote back-up site rather than it’s downtown headquarters.

The SEC and Federal Reserve system remained unfazed by the attack on September 11. All of their systems continued to operate. The two major security trading firms had their trade data backed up on remote systems.

Nevertheless, the Commission for the first time invoked its emergency powers under Securities Exchange Act Section 12(k) and issued several orders to ease certain regulatory restrictions temporarily.

On the first day of the crisis, the SEC lifted “Rule 15c3-3 -Customer Protection–Reserves and Custody of Securities,” which set trading rules for the certain processes. Simply GSCC was allowed to substitute securities for the physical securities destroyed during the attack.

Subsequent to that ruling, the GSCC issued another memo expanding blind broker settlements. A “blind broker” is a mechanism for inter-dealer transactions that maintains the anonymity of both parties to the trade. The broker serves as the agent to the principals’ transactions.

Thus the Federal Reserve and its GSCC had created a settlement environment totally void of controls and reporting – where it could substitute valid, new government securities for the mature, illegal securities, and not have to record where the bad securities came from, or where the new securities went – all because the paper for the primary brokers for US securities had been eliminated.

This act alone, however was inadequate to resolve the problem, because the Federal Reserve did not have enough “takers” of the new 10 year notes.

Rather than simply having to match buy and sell orders, which was the essence of resolving the “fail” problem, it appears the Fed was doing more than just matching and balancing – it was pushing new notes on the market with a special auction.

If the Federal Reserve had to cover-up the clearance of $240 Billion in covert securities, they could not let the volume of capital shrink by that much in the time of a monetary crisis.

They would have had to push excess liquidity into the market, and then phase it out for a soft landing, which is exactly what appears to have happened. In about two months, the money supply was back to where it was prior to 9/11.

It was the rapid rotation of the securities settlement fails in the aftermath of September 11th that appears to have allowed the Bank of New York and the Federal Reserve to engage in a securities refinancing that resulted in the American taxpayer refinancing the $240 billion originally used for the Great Ruble Scam.

The reports published by the Federal Reserve argue that the Federal Reserve’s actions increasing the monetary supply by over $300 billion were justified to overcome operational difficulties in the financial sector.

What appears to be the case is that the Federal Reserve imbalances reported on three consecutive days in the aftermath were largely concentrated at the Bank of New York, which is reported to represent over 90% of the imbalance, suggesting the Bank had been the recipient of massive fund transfers, and unable to send out transfers.

This supposedly was due to major communication and system failures.In fact, none of the Bank of New York’s systems failed or went non-operational.

The Wall Street Journal reported:

“There is every reason to believe activities in the Bank of New York in the aftermath of September 11th are worthy of suspicion….. At one point during the week after September 11, the Bank of New York publicly reported to be overdue on $100 billion in payments.”

It suggests that certain key unknown figures in the Federal Reserve may have been in collusion with key unknown figures at the Bank of New York to create a situation where $240 billion in off balance sheet securities created in 1991 as part of an official covert operation to overthrow the Soviet Union, could be cleared without publicly acknowledging their existence.

These securities, originally managed by Cantor Fitzgerald, were cleared and settled in the aftermath of September 11th through the Bank of New York. The $100 billion account balance bubble reported by the Wall Street Journal as being experienced by the Bank of New York was the tip of a three-day operation, when these securities were moved from off-balance-sheet to the balance sheet.

The above gives an idea of the intricate activities both to perpetrate and then to cover the crime, which was then used under its “terrorist attack” label as an excuse for the attack on Iraq.

STATE BANKS: Our Most Important Survival Tool

2011-08-28T00:30:00.004-06:00

By Marilyn M. Barnewall
August 28, 2011
NewsWithViews.com

In a speech I give about state banks, I begin by showing 20 slides. Each displays an overhead view of a city. Each city is covered with little red dots. Each dot represents a home in foreclosure… a broken dream for an American brother and/or sister.

Some of those slides were used in a recent article I did about home foreclosures and why so many people who have never missed a house payment are being told to either cough up more collateral for their mortgage loan or the bank will “call the loan” (require payment in full).

In my speech, I use the slides to emphasize the incompetence of the Federal Reserve System and as evidence of why the monetary policies of this private corporation (owned by and for bankers) has failed and why responsibility for monetary policy needs to be returned to the Congress of the United States of America where the Constitution firmly placed it.

Do I trust the Congress more than I trust Ben Bernanke? No. But I do trust the Constitution and respect the structure it put in place for our monetary policies and currency… for our Republic.

My slide presentation begins with Boise, Idaho. One in every 21 homes is in foreclosure in Boise. Several slides of cities in Florida are shown – Tampa, Port St. Lucie, Deltona, Naples – and some California cities like Sacramento, Bakersfield, Riverside and others. All of these cities have more homes in foreclosure than Boise does. There are two slides from Senator Harry Reid’s home state of Nevada – Reno (1 out of every 16 homes is in foreclosure) and Las Vegas (one out of every 9 homes is in foreclosure). Nevadans just re-elected Reid to his Senate seat. As the old saying goes, we get the government we deserve.

The Constitution (Article I, Section 8) quite clearly gives the right to borrow money on the credit of the United States to the Congress, not to a private corporation called the Federal Reserve. It gives to the Congress, not a cartel of bankers called the Federal Reserve, the right to coin money, regulate its value and that of foreign coins, and fix the standard of weights and measures.

The Federal Reserve Act was passed by the Congress in 1913. Thus, it took that private corporation (which, in reality, is nothing more than a middleman… a wholesaler of taxpayer currency) – 98 years to cause all of those little red dots, each representing a foreclosed home in an American city. The Fed has, unlawfully in my view, been in charge of our monetary policy for almost 100 years.

I suggest that this is one hundred year birthday we should not celebrate. It is a celebration we should abort… and I mean that in the worst kind of way.

The United States is $15 trillion in debt. We are spending $1.50 for every $1 in revenue we take in. That is unsustainable. Since every dollar that is printed is 46 cents in debt, it should be called a half-dollar, not a dollar. Printing a dollar bill that is almost 50 percent in debt before the ink dries may provide a new definition of counterfeiting.

The Federal Reserve recently underwent a partial audit that shows it made $16 trillion zero interest secret loans to American and foreign banks and businesses. You’d recognize the usual Wall Street bankster names… e.g., Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan Chase, Citigroup, etc. The foreign banks included some of the biggest in the world… Deutsche Bank, Royal Bank of Scotland, and others. While the Fed was making these zero interest loans (for which U.S. taxpayers are on the line), 6.5 million American homeowners were suffering through delinquent and foreclosed mortgages mostly caused by lost jobs resulting from a rotten economy – created by Federal Reserve policies.

The disastrous policies that have caused these personal nightmares give the American people all the necessary reasons required to demand we take back control of our banking system. We must tell this wholesaler of debt and money that whatever services it provides (other than screwing the people) are no longer needed.

Give authority over our banking system to individual states so the people have more control over their financial futures. When state banks are properly run, both the people and the government prosper… which is the way it’s supposed to be.

If a state implements a new, state-owned financial system, do we need to pay attention and make sure the state doesn’t turn state banks into political toys… follow in the Fed’s footsteps? You’re darned right we do! Had citizens been doing their job this past 98 years, the Federal Reserve wouldn’t have become the biggest financial abuser in world history! We need to watch anything that’s political to keep it from servings its own interests rather than those of the people!

What is a state bank?

There is only one state-owned system of banking in the country and it’s in North Dakota. That state has owned and operated its own system of banking for the past 93 years. So, when I write and talk of the benefits we can expect from implementing a state bank, it’s based on the experience of North Dakota’s bank, not on guess work or estimates.

As of July 2011, the unemployment rate in North Dakota is 3.3 percent. With a population of between 650,000 and 700,000, the North Dakota State Bank has, during the past ten years, paid the State Treasurer more than $325 million from bank profits. These funds keep the tax burden low which, in turn, encourages… what? Business and job growth! That’s one reason unemployment is so low in North Dakota. Think what states with larger populations and very high rates of unemployment – like Michigan – could do!

In 2009-2010, the worst American economy in recent history, North Dakota’s government had it largest surplus in history. The payroll growth in the private sector (not the public sector) during that time frame was 5.2 percent. The payroll growth of Texas placed it second at 2.6 percent. Maybe Governor Dalrymple should be running for President instead of Rick Perry?

When I speak publicly on this subject, people suggest that the North Dakota economy is so successful because of the Bakken oil project where an oil formation lies underground in a shale rock across western North Dakota, northeast Montana, and into Canada’s Saskatchewan Province. The barrels per day went from 3,000 in 2005 to 225,000 in 2010.

There’s no doubt Bakken has enhanced the North Dakota economy, but it’s not what causes the positive economic results. There are almost as many people in Alaska as North Dakota – and Alaska pumps about twice as much oil – unemployment in Alaska is 7.7 percent. Montana and Wyoming extracted far more gas than North Dakota, but neither maintained a continuous budget surplus since our economic crisis began in 2008. North Dakota has.

States with a lot of minerals weren’t initially hurt as badly as other states when the economy turned south. But other states haven’t reduced taxes. North Dakota has. It reduced income and property taxes by $400 million. Thinking of all of those little red dots on my speech slides… North Dakota also has the lowest foreclosure rate and lowest credit card default in the nation.

North Dakota has had no bank failures during the banking crisis, either. It has only one thing not available in other mineral rich states: a state bank.

From 2007 to 2009, the Bank of North Dakota added to the state’s coffers almost as much money as oil and gas tax revenues did.

So, that’s what you can expect from a state bank. Why does having a state bank make such a huge difference? Because the state’s money and banking reserves are maintained within the state and those funds are invested in local communities. And, in addition to a state bank providing needed administrative functions, it serves as a correspondent bank for the independent banks on North Dakota street corners.

There are two or three questions I get asked when I speak publicly about this subject. The most frequently asked question is “Does having a state bank mean that the state runs the banks people do business with?” No. It doesn’t. That would be a socialist system – and state banks are anything but that! The state runs the state bank; individual investors run the commercial banks on Main Street… just like they do now.

A state bank is an administrator which charters the banks that do business in the state (and by doing so, largely controls credit quality). It acts as a correspondent bank for the banks it charters. A “correspondent bank” provides credit services to small, independent banks which places them in a more competitive position with large banks. When a small bank gets a loan request too large for it to make, such a loan is referred to a correspondent bank and becomes a “shared” loan. Without a state bank, independent banks must refer their loans to the big banks – which is one reason they got too big to jail.

I mentioned earlier that North Dakota keeps all state revenues in the state. In other states, a large percentage of those funds are sent to the Federal Reserve – which places them in money center banks in New York. State banks keep those funds in the state and use them to benefit the people.

Some economists estimate that this one difference can turn a state’s economy around within one year.

I started writing about the issue of state banks about two years ago. Since then, numerous states are legislatively investigating how to implement one: Washington, Oregon, California, Montana, Illinois, Florida, Hawaii, Virginia, Maryland and Massachusetts are among them.

Another question audiences ask is: If we own a state bank, will we need to create our own state currency? The answer is no. However, a state bank does provide a needed distribution system for a state currency should a state decide it needs to create one. Why would a state need to create its own currency? If the federal system fails, so too will America’s currency (and with it, the national banking system). To distribute any currency, an organized system of banking is required. There are many questions about state currencies, but that is another article.

The other question asked regards state sovereignty.

Several states have legislatively declared their right to be sovereign states. They include: Alabama, Nebraska, Rhode Island, Wyoming, Washington, Indiana, Kentucky, Georgia, Kansas, Missouri, Mississippi and Maryland.

Remember this about sovereignty. It is impossible to have a sovereign state without having control of your state’s monetary system. To achieve that, you need a state bank. As to the arguments about the legality of sovereignty declarations, I leave that to the lawyers. I’m a banker and what I know is this: If a state declares sovereignty without first having a state bank in place, there will be economic chaos. The bank comes first; sovereignty, second.

We face difficult times ahead. I believe state banks are a key that makes it possible for Americans to maintain every possible lawful alternative to solve the problems headed our way.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Barnewall is the former editor of The National Peace Officer Magazine and as a journalist has written guest editorials for the Denver Post, Rocky Mountain News and Newsweek, among others. On the Internet, she has written for News With Views, World Net Daily, Canada Free Press, Christian Business Daily, Business Reform, and others. She has been quoted in Time, Forbes, Wall Street Journal and other national and international publications. She can be found in Who's Who in America, Who's Who of American Women, Who's Who in Finance and Business, and Who's Who in the World.

Web site: http://marilynwrites.blogspot.com

E-Mail: marilynmacg@juno.com

ECONOMY: THEY CAN FIX IT IF THEY WANT

2011-08-18T00:21:00.002-06:00

PART 2

By Marilyn M. Barnewall
August 14, 2011
NewsWithViews.com

There are many ways to improve the economy. Our Congress – people we elected – moan and groan saying they can’t do anything about national monetary policy or make the marketplace user friendly for job creation. That is untrue. They have control… what they don’t have is the cojones to exercise it. For example, many experts believe the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 is illegal.

On what is this argument about the legitimacy of the Federal Reserve System based?

Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution says that “The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.” And here’s where it gets interesting. The Constitution says the Congress has the power “To borrow Money on the credit of the United States.” Oops. How did a private corporation called the Federal Reserve inherit that responsibility? Section 8 also says the Congress “shall have Power… to coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures.” Since the Federal Reserve, a private corporation, does these things… isn’t it unconstitutional?

Well, politicians and lawyers will argue and tell you that the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 makes it legal for the Congress to turn its monetary responsibilities as described in the Constitution over to the Federal Reserve.

Here’s an easier question for you to answer: In 1970, how old did an American citizen have to be to vote? Answer: 21. How did they lower the constitutional requirement that you had to be 21 to vote… how did 18 year olds get the vote? On June 22, 1970, then-President Richard Nixon signed a law making the voting age 18 in all federal, state and local elections. The States of Oregon and Texas challenged the law. The Supreme Court declared unconstitutional those parts of the law requiring states to register 18-year olds for state and local elections. Justice Hugo Black said: “I would hold that Congress has exceeded its power in attempting to lower the voting age in state and local elections.”

That Supreme Court ruling, then, meant states had to provide separate voting rolls for people between ages 18 and 21. It basically determined the Congress had the right to tell 18 year olds they could vote in federal elections, but states had the right to determine how old someone must be to vote in state elections. Special ballots created for those between the ages of 18 – 21 would create an election nightmare; so, on March 10, 1971, the Senate voted 94-0 in favor of passing a Constitutional amendment to guarantee the voting age would be no higher than 18 in all elections. On March 23, 1971, the House voted 401-19 in favor of the proposed amendment. The amendment was sent to each of the states and the minimum number of states ratified the proposed legislation – and the Constitution of the United States added Amendment XXVI, allowing 18 year olds to vote. Since I don’t know anyone (other than bankers who profit from the policies of the Federal Reserve System) who wouldn’t vote to do away with the Federal Reserve System, this alternative is available to the Congress. All they need is for a state legislature or two to challenge the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and get the challenge to the Supreme Court. It would be interesting to see what today’s “living document” Supreme Court would do when faced with a 1970’s Court decision that comes down on the side of states’ rights.

A Supreme Court decision exists that says the Congress overstepped its bounds – or, as Justice Black said, “has exceeded its power” – by passing a law that applied to state and local elections. Many people suggest (myself included) the Congress “exceeded its power” by passing the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 because that law extends beyond the federal to the state level. How does it extend beyond the states to the federal level? Just one example: To be a “national bank” in Oregon or Texas (or in any state), a bank is required to be a member of the Federal Reserve System. Any state, at any time, can challenge the power base of the Federal Reserve System as it is exercised at the state level. So state legislators could change things too – if they wanted – just as Oregon and Texas successfully challenged the 1970 law signed by President Nixon giving 18 year olds the right to vote. Just because a President signs a Congressional Act doesn’t make it lawful. If it violates the Constitution of this country, it is not lawful and becomes what is called “fruit of the poisoned tree.”

As I have said in my columns many times, the Federal Reserve System is not part of the federal government. It is a private corporation (a cartel – like OPEC)… the only one in America that is exempt from both federal and state taxes. Well, General Electric (GE) doesn’t pay much in taxes, but that’s not because of an exemption. That’s because of loopholes – and that makes one scratch one’s head when one thinks about Obama’s key economic advisor, Jeffrey Imelt, Chairman and CEO of GE. When one rewards bad behavior (by honoring one guilty of it with a Presidential appointment), one should expect more bad behavior.

The point is, if the Congress or State Legislatures want to get rid of the Federal Reserve, they can… just like Texas and Oregon got rid of the 18 year old voting rights bill that was imposed on them by the United States Congress. I don’t know anyone who would vote to support keeping the Federal Reserve System… maybe Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke. The states forced the issue with Congress, they won, and an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was required to legalize the 18-year old vote at state and local elections. The same charge of Congress exceeding its power when it transferred constitutional authority to the Federal Reserve System can be made by any state legislature… and a Supreme Court precedent exists.

A lot of people think the Congress is being dominated by the banksters… especially the investment banks on Wall Street. If that’s true, the Congress can regain control. Do away with the Riegel-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994. Bring back the old McFadden Act which prohibited interstate branch banking. Give the too big to jail guys time to divest themselves of the interstate branches and decentralize all of that misbegotten banking power. McFadden protected us for many years from banks becoming too big to jail. The point is there are things that can be done to eliminate the power abuses of the Federal Reserve System —if the Congress wants to do them. There are things that can be done to put the Congress back in control of our banking system and our monetary policy. States can implement a state-owned system of banking… the best possible example I can think of to decentralize the power of the Federal Reserve.

Until 1980 when the Monetary Control Act was passed, the Glass Steagall Act protected Americans by preventing commercial banks from giving investment advice or selling stocks and bonds. Glass Steagall prevented investment banks – Wall Street brokers, not commercial bankers – from making loans or taking deposits. These two key financial transactions credit and investments (especially relative to new product development on the investment side), like oil and water, do not mix. When they are mixed, it creates a moral hazard that can result in economic meltdown. We had a perfect example of that in 2007-08 and are still trying to find our way out of the economic abyss that was created – some say intentionally (me among them) – for us. There are too many potential conflicts of interest for a compatible marriage bed between these two functions.

In a NWV article April 25, 2010, titled Moral Hazard Ahead: Beware, I defined “moral hazard” as the mingling of commercial and investment banking. I stand by what I said in that article – and in over a year since its publication, those words have proven themselves true.

If Washington really wanted to force the too big to jail banks to return to serving the people rather than servicing them, they would eliminate the Monetary Control Act of 1980 and re-implement Glass Steagall. It would repeal Gramm, Leach Bliley, a/k/a the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 which was the death thrust to Glass Steagall. Congress has the power to change things… if it wants.

Congress likes to play like it’s not in control… it absolves them from the problems they create (they think). But Congress holds the reins of power. There are only two possible reasons why the Congress has passed such utterly stupid regulations and allowed such weak regulatory oversight of the investment banking industry – the industry which caused most of America’s economic trauma: 1) They want to bring the economy of the United States to its knees and move forward with George Herbert Walker Bush’s “New World Order;” or, 2) Those who were stupid enough to get us into this mess aren’t smart enough to understand their complicity in causing this mess and have no idea how to get us out of it.

We can only assume that if the Congress isn’t taking action, it’s for one of three reasons: 1) They don’t understand America’s monetary system and how financial institutions function sufficiently to cast votes that impact or change the system; 2) They are more focused on their political careers than on the economic health of the nation they have taken an Oath to serve; or, 3) They want the system to fail. The number three choice would certainly explain the ongoing over-spending that has brought the United States very, very close to total economic collapse.

The tribal wisdom of the Dakota Indians, passed on from generation to generation, says that, "When you discover that you are riding a dead horse, the best strategy is to dismount."

Instead of listening to the wisdom of that voice from the past, we have a political administration that prefers appointing a committee to study the horse. It wants to provide more funding to help increase the dead horse’s performance.

We need to clean the House (and the Senate) in 2012.

For part one click here.

ECONOMY: THEY CAN FIX IT IF THEY WANT

2011-08-14T00:11:00.014-06:00

By Marilyn M. Barnewall
July 31, 2011
NewsWithViews.com

Watching Congress create a fear-based crisis over the debt ceiling limit this past week has been anything but entertaining. It’s like watching someone with one foot nailed to the floor run in circles, thinking because he/she is moving, it represents progress.

It’s interesting that whenever “they” want to achieve something major… whether it’s the Patriot Act or war in the Middle East or an enemy called “terrorists” that will unify the nation… they use fear as the primary motivator. Fear is one of the strongest. The only thing stronger is faith.

The entire process reminds me of an end-around run. The President, as quarterback, hands the ball off to John Boehner (wide receiver) who passes – but the ball is intercepted by Harry Reid (pass defender) – who changes the direction of the play. When anyone gets close to a touchdown, the President moves the goal posts and the game remains scoreless… but the cheering squads on the sidelines keep chanting the message of one team or the other. Barry and Harry’s team shout “Look out you senior wrecks, come August there will be no checks!” The Boehner team’s cheerleaders tell the people “Listen not to Barack’s demagoguery, your check will come because of our choreography!”

And that’s how political football is played… with your money and mine, of course. It is shameful that the security of the elderly was a playing card in this disgusting deck.

There is a core problem causing our economic woes and everyone ignores it either out of insufficient insight into what is required to get us out of this mess, or because someone thinks it’s a good idea for the American economy to fail. It reminds me a bit of taking your car to a poor mechanic to make it run properly. He can fix the tires, the windshield wipers, change the oil, check the water and cooling fluids, and a myriad of other things – but he doesn’t know a damned thing about the engine. How much help will that mechanic be when your car has serious problems?

Washington is filled with economists and lawyers… they understand our problems from a theoretical perspective. If you move “Piece A,” it will impact “Pieces B and C” this way. They look at the economy like a chess board and understand investment banking in its relationship to the game. They know little or nothing about commercial banking – which is the engine of a capitalist economy. We can thus say the mechanics of our economy tinker, they don’t repair. They are the poor mechanics who got us into the mess – and it requires greater minds than those that caused the problems to solve them.

There are things that can be done to turn the economy around and none of them are even under consideration. For example:

The hardest hit middle class Americans have taken during the past four years is in primary residential real estate. Whether you realize it or not, the lost value of real estate impacts everything else. It is the way our economy is structured – and is largely responsible for credit drying up (which is largely responsible for no business growth – which is largely responsible for no job creation).

The economy is not going to turn around until a firm floor is put under the residential real estate market. It can be done – but elected officials and bureaucrats must understand how commercial banks work. And, they do not.

Most secured loans utilize as collateral a second trust deed on the borrower’s residence. I’m not just talking about mortgage loans; I’m talking about home improvement loans or vacation loans or college (non-federal student) loans, etc. In the early 1990s and while Alan Greenspan was Federal Reserve Chairman, the Fed kept lowering the cost of funds. It encouraged people to re-finance their mortgages. The first time you ever heard of a personal line of credit called a residential credit line was in the early 1990s. People were encouraged to take out a residential credit line, which placed a second trust deed on their primary residence as collateral. In fact, the only way to get this personal line of credit was by putting a lien on the property – usually a second mortgage behind the first lien holder.

Until recently – just before the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy, coincidentally – when you bought a home, you had to put 20 percent down. Lehman was keeping its head above water by using liar loans from mortgage companies it owned – lenders that specialized in making them. It did that so it could create mortgage-backed derivatives. It – along with Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley and others – almost bankrupted the world. In fact, the jury is still out on whether they succeeded.

Get ready, because here comes some banker lingo… it can’t be said any other way. When we used to buy a home and made a 20 percent down payment, it resulted in an 80 percent collateral margin on the loan. In other words, the collateral value of the home plus the down payment gave the bank a 100 percent collateral position. Here are some numbers that may help:

Home purchase price: $200,000
Down payment, 20%: 40,000
Balance/Mortgage: 160,000 -- 80% of home value, 1996

Bank regulations used to require an 80 percent margin be maintained on home loans – whether it is evaluated against a first or second trust deed. Today, that regulation is used selectively.

In 2007, the housing market began its steady decline. By 2010, the above home was re-appraised at $150,000. OMG! You are out of margin! When the FDIC or Comptroller of the Currency auditors come to your bank, your loan will be graded, even though you haven’t missed or been late with a single payment! Regardless of your faithfulness in making payments, the collateral is out of margin. It is an unsafe loan. This is a legitimate claim, by the way.

Chances are, your bank has a large number of such loans because using a borrower’s home has always been the preferred form of loan collateral in the commercial banking industry. Residential real estate has increased in value annually for generations so the risk was minimized… until 2007. Suddenly your bank finds itself on the regulatory watch list because it has too many loans that are out of margin. An otherwise healthy bank is threatened with closure. Some more numbers:

Loan balance: $150,000 (after ten years of mortgage payments)
2010 Home value: 150,000 (after the real estate market drop).

There is no margin. To be in margin, an additional $30,000 must be added to the bank’s collateral position.

For the bank to have enough personal collateral from you, $30,000 of good assets must be added to bank’s collateral basket. Most people don’t have that amount sitting around to give the bank as collateral. The bank will soon tell the borrower to bring $30,000 more in assets to put the loan back in margin or the bank will be forced to call the loan and foreclose on your property. The auditors are screaming at the bank because of the margin lapse. They have to do something.

“But I’m not behind in a single payment!” you say, certain the bank won’t foreclose on your home loan just because of some bank regulation. If you’ve been thinking that all of the home foreclosures in process are caused by people who bought a house that was too expensive for them, think again. If you think they’re all people who aren’t making their house payments, think again. If you think the banks aren’t lending money because they don’t have money to lend, thing again. What they don’t have is access to a reliable form of collateral… like your house. Since the residential real estate market is still in a downward spin (and no one in Washington is doing anything intelligent to stop it), what asset does the middle class have available to provide the bank for collateral? Answer:

None. No collateral, no loan access.

That explains why your local bank may be in trouble even though most of its loans are not (and thus it is a great takeover target for banksters). This also explains why banks aren’t lending: Without a healthy real estate market, they don’t have a solid collateral base. Too, their personnel’s time is spent dealing with loan margin problems or foreclosures. Only so much can be done in a single day by the same number of people.

Real estate is impacting jobs? Remember, 70 percent of all jobs in America come from independent business… middle class people who own homes and often use them as collateral for business loans are independent business owners.

And now you know why there are no new jobs: There are no homes with reliable dollar value available as loan collateral. Independent business owners can’t hire people. The economy, of course, has some impact on independent business growth because fewer people have money to spend on goods and services. And, there are banks that loaned too much money to contractors who were building new homes and got caught in the housing crunch… and bankers are notoriously bad at handling work-out loans in a way that benefits everyone.

I’m not an economist; just a commercial banker with God-given common sense. My common sense tells me the best way to put a floor under the falling real estate market has nothing to do with the $600 billion the Federal Reserve System plans to inject into the economy this fall. It will do about as much good as the TARP and TALF funds did (read: little to none – it’s the engine that needs help, not the windshield wipers or oil filter – and a limited number of people will have remarkable investment opportunities). If TARP funds had been used to stabilize the housing market rather than bailing out investment bankers who perpetrated fraud on the public, we would be in serious economic recovery by now. Our economy wouldn’t continue to waver between recession and depression.

Ben, rather than throw that $600 billion into greedy hands that do nothing to solve the nation's economic problems, create a real estate stabilization fund. When a bank's mortgage loan (either first or second trust deed) gets out of margin, guarantee that portion of the loan that is out of margin… in the example given above, $30,000. This gets the Comptroller of the Currency (or FDIC) auditors off of the banks' back (which you could do anyway, if you so chose), and it gets the bank off of the backs of consumers who have sacrificed in many ways to repay their mortgage loans and who have a good repayment track record.

This would not apply to new loans… it's not a something for nothing vote-getting kind of deal – which will automatically kill it before it gets started. It's a program designed to put a floor under the housing market to prevent it from falling any further and to stabilize it. It's not a loan. It's a guarantee. Thus, the $600 billion you plan to throw into the greedy hands of the already rich will result in few loan losses. If you really want to save the economy, stabilize the real estate market.

To top that information off, here’s a press release from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, held for release until Friday morning, July 29, 2011:

“Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and property located in the United States -- increased at an annual rate of 1.3 percent in the second quarter of 2011, (that is, from the first quarter to the second quarter), according to the "advance" estimate released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the first quarter, real GDP increased 0.4 percent.”

In other words, the President of the United States has lied to us about recovery. He has been telling us that though the economy is slow to recover, it is recovering. How can an economy “recover” when 99.6 percent of the economy did not grow? It cannot!

Now, if a little old lady who lives at the base of a big mountain in the countryside can figure that out, why can’t all of those economists in Washington, D.C.?

Below are pictures – each red dot in each picture represents broken hearts, shattered dreams, broken homes, and Americans who have had their false sense of security ripped from their formerly unrealistic view of life. They used to think things like “This is America; we’ll recover.” Or, “Everything is in God’s hands; I just have to trust Him.”

They have learned the lesson that taking no action to stop fraud when it occurs is accepting fraud as the standard. They now know that everything is in God’s hands, but we are expected to protect and defend what His hands have so graciously given us.

I apologize for ending an article with such an emotional display of heartbreak as those exhibited below in pictures from Google Mapping.

1. Boise, Idaho -- 1 in 21 homes in foreclosure

2. Sarasota, FL -- 1 Home in 21 Foreclosed

3. Tampa, FL -- 1 in 20 homes in foreclosure

4. Sacramento, Calif. -- 1 in 19 homes in foreclosure

5. Bakersfield, Calif. -- 1 in 17 homes in foreclosure

6. Reno, Nevada -- 1 in 16 homes in foreclosure (Home of Senator Harry Reid)

7. Miami, FL -- 1 in 14 homes in foreclosure

8. Phoenix, AZ -- 1 in 14 homes in foreclosure

9. Cape Coral, FL -- 1 in 12 homes in foreclosure

10. Las Vegas -- 1 in 9 homes in foreclosure

Tell them all – the President, the Vice President, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve System, the Secretary of the Treasury, your U.S. Senators and Representatives – tell them all to stop lying to the American people!

________________________________________

E-Mail: marilynmacg@juno.com

GOLD FRINGED FLAGS...

2011-07-17T00:57:00.000-06:00

By Marilyn M. Barnewall
July 17, 2011
NewsWithViews.com
...“The gold-fringed flag only stands inside military courts that sit in summary court martial proceedings against civilians.”
The U.S. Constitution is a “Let’s Pretend” document without the Rule of Law.
Last week, Jeffrey Imelt, CEO of General Electric (GE) and a member of Obama’s Economic Advisory Council with specific responsibility for job creation, told businesses to stop sitting on their cash and begin hiring people. Imelt is a particularly offensive man whose only real talent is manipulating government programs to benefit his company at taxpayer expense.
In an article I wrote last week for another publication (Link here) explaining why this administration is impotent when it comes to job creation, I said:

“In our crisis economy, there is no “other people’s money” available from taxpayers, stockholders, partners or investors. Thus, the union thugs, corporate executives, administrators, and others who don’t understand risk management – those with whom you’ve surrounded yourself – can’t solve the problem. They only know how to succeed using other people’s money… and the state of the world economy dictates that there is no more ‘other people’s money.’ Well, there is – but you will let the world starve before you make the source known.”
There is so much corruption in our business community, it makes me ill.
One example: In 2007, GE, the world’s largest industrial company, was one of the biggest beneficiaries of funds set aside to rescue banks. Is GE a bank? No, but what does that matter?
GE has a company called General Electric Capital, one of the world's largest and most diverse financial operations. GE Capital makes loans for commercial real estate, aircraft leasing and issues credit cards for stores like Wal-Mart. If categorized as a “banking company,” it would be the seventh largest bank in America. Because GE Capital is not a bank, it did not qualify for TARP funds under the Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program (TLGP) funds. TLGP is a Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) program designed to guarantee unsecured bank, thrift and holding company debt, thus strengthening confidence in the banking system. GE didn’t qualify for the program – but close to $80 billion was funneled through two small financial institutions into GE’s corporate coffers.
You see, GE Capital owned an FDIC-insured savings and loan and an industrial loan company in Utah. These two very small financial institutions made up only three percent of GE’s total asset base… but gained qualification to the TARP funds from the Obama administration under a loophole. Special privileges had to be manipulated through the system, but it was done quickly and, with Imelt in charge of NBC News, a GE company, publicity was contained.
Anyone who buys a General Electric product is supporting a company that has become one of the most skilled tax avoiders in America. In 2010, GE set aside a mere 7.4 percent of its $5.1 billion U.S. profits to pay taxes. Actually, it paid practically nothing.
How do things like this happen? How do American taxpayers get nailed to the wall over and over and over again? I go back to my opening statement: The U.S. constitution is a “Let’s Pretend” document without the Rule of Law.
I’m always ‘preaching’ about finding the core problem rather than being continually diverted by issues about which we can do nothing. This is a prime example. The core problem appears to be our court system. There are some interesting facts you should know about the American Flag, for instance. What does that have to do with our court system? Read on…
President Dwight David Eisenhower signed Executive Order 10834 on August 21, 1959. It is printed in the Federal Register at 24 F.R. 6865, pursuant to law, and says: “A military flag is a flag that resembles the regular flag of the United States, except that it has a yellow fringe border on three sides.”
Every nation in the world accepts The Law of the Flag. Basically, it designates the rights under which a ship owner who sends a vessel into a foreign port functions and provides notice to those who enter into contracts with the ship master that he will use the Law of the Flag he flies to regulate contracts. The Law of the Flag regulates the laws under which contracts entered into will be governed. (See Ruhstrat v. People.)
In other words, Admiralty Law says that when a ship flies a Spanish flag, if you sign a contract with the Captain of that ship, any agreements or contracts the Captain signs will fall under Spanish law unless otherwise specified.
Further, there is a doctrine called “four cornering” a flag. According to usatherepublic.com, “By the doctrine of ‘four cornering’ the flag establishes the law of the country that it represents. For example, the embassies of foreign countries, in Washington D.C., are ‘four cornered’ by walls or fencing, creating an ‘enclave.’ Within the boundaries of the ‘enclave’ of the foreign embassy, the flag of that foreign country establishes the jurisdiction and law of that foreign country, which will be enforced by the Law of the Flag and international treaty. If you enter an embassy, you will be subject to the laws of that country, just as if you board a ship flying a foreign flag, you will be subject to the laws of that flag, enforceable by the ‘master of the ship’ (Captain).”
So, when you enter your local courtroom and find a yellow-fringed flag, you may want to seriously question under what laws people who appear in that courtroom are being tried: The U.S. Constitution? Or, the U.S. Military? Or, Maritime Law? Or, the Uniform Commercial Code (corporate law)?
Admiralty law tells us that when you see a flag, you need to understand that in areas where a flag is “four cornered,” you are being told which laws dominate that space. We are governed by the laws of the country the flag represents. According to President Eisenhower, gold-fringed flag tells us we are under the rules and regulations of the military force that flies the flag.
FLAG Martial Law; "Pursuant to 4 U.S.C. chapter 1, §§1, 2, & 3; Executive Order 10834, August 21, 1959; 24 F.R.6865; a military flag is a flag that resembles the regular flag of the United States, except that it has a YELLOW FRINGE border on three sides. The president of the United States designates this deviation from the regular flag, by executive order, and in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief.
FLAG Martial law; "Ancient custom sanctions the use of the fringe on regimental colors and standards, but there seems to be no good reason or precedent for its use on other flags." The Adjutant General of the Army, March 28, 1924, (1925); 34 Ops. Atty. Gen. 483, 485.
According to many Internet sites espousing expertise involving Flags, courtrooms that display fringed flags behind a judge is a military courtroom. Such a courtroom tries cases on the basis of military law, not constitutional law, not common law, not civil law, and not statute law. According to Army Regulations, (AR 840-10, Oct. 1, 1979.) "the Flag is trimmed on three sides with Fringe of Gold, 2 1/2 inches wide," and "such flags are flown indoors, ONLY in military courtrooms."
The gold-fringed flag only stands inside military courts that sit in summary court martial proceedings against civilians. These courts are partially governed by local rules, but more especially by "The Manual of Courts Martial", U.S., 1994 Ed., at Art. 99, (c)(1)(b), pg. IV-34, PIN 030567-0000. A judge who sits ‘under’ a gold or yellow fringe flag becomes the ‘captain’ or ‘master’ of that ship or ‘enclave’ – or courtroom? That judge has the absolute power to make the rules as he goes. The gold or yellow fringe flag warns that you are leaving your constitutional rights outside the four walls in the room where such a flag is “cornered.”
Is this why so many judges are appointed and not elected by the people? Federal judges are appointed by the President, the national military commander in chief. State judges are appointed by Governors, the state military commanders. Are judges appointed because the courts are military courts and civilians do not ‘elect’ military officers?
Under martial law, you are presumed guilty until proven innocent. That would certainly explain many court decisions, wouldn’t it?
Article IV, section 3, of the Constitution of the United States of America says “…no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State.” So – why have the judges of State and Federal courts been allowed to erect foreign ‘enclaves’ within our public courthouses under a foreign flag with yellow fringe? The soil on which these courtrooms are built belongs to each of our states. Does this make sense to you? It doesn’t to me. It only makes sense if the states are viewed as territories, rather than states.
There are other theories – that Maritime Law gives the legal system the right to treat people as corporate assets, for example – but all of the theories come to the same conclusion: Any courtroom with a fringed flag behind the judge should be highly suspect relative to the law under which people are tried.
Your job on Monday (“should you accept it” – for Mission Impossible fans): Visit your local courtrooms and take a picture of the flag in each. Be sure the pictures document where the flag is located – is it behind the presiding judge? The odds are very high that the flags in your courtrooms are fringed with gold. Is this an indication that the courts in your state function under Maritime Law? Probably. I have for years looked for reason in the decisions coming from American courtrooms – and as strange as it sounds, this makes a lot of sense and explains a lot of crazy decisions that have nothing to do with constitutional law.
This opens doors of lawful activity for Tea Party Groups… for all citizens, actually. Rather than protest – or sit quietly by doing nothing – take pictures of your courtrooms. Visit the links provided regarding flags and what they mean. Raise enough money to place a full-page ad in your local newspaper and publish the photos with a story. Educate the rest of the electorate as to why our courts allow corporate and government fraud and why the law seems to be interpreted differently for individuals than it does for people like Jeffrey Imelt, GE, and the politicians who support scumbags like him.
When you add judges whose Oaths of Office are not properly filed (see my NewsWithViews article) as constitutionally required by the state and the federal government, you will understand why taxpayer rape is being condoned by our legal system.
And here’s the second project for you – should you accept it, of course. Find the names of your judges – city, county and state. Call your county clerk and ask where the Oaths of Office for city and county judges can be found. Call your Secretary of State to find where each state judge’s filed Oath of Office is located (including the state supreme court). These are public documents. You are entitled to copies of them. When you find a judge whose Oath of Office is not on file, ask for a signed statement to that effect.
Bear in mind that when judges do not have a legitimately FILED Oath of Office, every decision that person has made while on the bench is illegitimate. Most state constitutions say a public official without a FILED (not just taken, but legally filed) Oath of Office is viewed as if the office requiring the Oath has been “vacant.” Find the exact wording of your state’s constitution (look under Oaths of Office) regarding filed Oaths. Publish in your advertisement about court flags what the Constitution says along with the names of any judges who do not have one on file. Remember, district attorneys and federal judges and prosecutors take Oaths of Office, too.
We citizens can do much to clean up the mess we allowed “them” to make – and the cleaning job must begin locally! Remove “their” base.
References:
1 - Sovereign Family of the World
2 - Gold Fringed Flag
3 - Get that Gold Fringe off my Flag
© 2011 Marilyn M. Barnewall - All Rights Reserved
________________________________________
Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall began her career in 1956 as a journalist with the Wyoming Eagle in Cheyenne. During her 20 years (plus) as a banker and bank consultant, she wrote extensively for The American Banker, Bank Marketing Magazine, Trust Marketing Magazine, was U.S. Consulting Editor for Private Banker International (London/Dublin), and other major banking industry publications. She has written seven non-fiction books about banking and taught private banking at Colorado University for the American Bankers Association. She has authored seven banking books, one dog book, and two works of fiction (about banking, of course). She has served on numerous Boards in her community.
Barnewall is the former editor of The National Peace Officer Magazine and as a journalist has written guest editorials for the Denver Post, Rocky Mountain News and Newsweek, among others. On the Internet, she has written for News With Views, World Net Daily, Canada Free Press, Christian Business Daily, Business Reform, and others. She has been quoted in Time, Forbes, Wall Street Journal and other national and international publications. She can be found in Who's Who in America, Who's Who of American Women, Who's Who in Finance and Business, and Who's Who in the World.
Web site: http://marilynwrites.blogspot.com
E-Mail: marilynmacg@juno.com

FRIENDS, AMERICANS, COUNTRYMEN, LEND ME YOUR EARS

2011-07-03T01:10:00.000-06:00

By Marilyn M. Barnewall,
July 3, 2011
NewsWithViews.com
I come not to castigate the American government, but to wish you a Happy July 4th! There are things you can do to save your nation from those who rule… and it only takes a few minutes and a little work!
When we say “I’m an American,” is it just words? Does it qualify us to barbecue hamburgers on July 4th while we forget our obligations as citizens?
“I’m an American” means: “I am responsible for the well-being of my nation.” Citizenship comes with responsibilities.
What does “responsible” mean? According to a recent plethora of politicians from both political parties, it means you admit your mistakes… because you got caught. Does “being responsible” mean admitting the obvious truth when you’re caught telling a lie?
Being “responsible” is being accountable. Please tell me where anyone is being held accountable for the things being done to tear our nation to shreds? Please tell me why the American people are so afraid to hold their elected officials responsible for the rending? It must be fear of reprisal (or a FEMA camp future) – or apathy or laziness. Stupidity is a possibility.
To those who see what’s wrong but do nothing because they are afraid, I say this: If you do nothing to stop government abuse, your future will be far more fearful than anything that will happen to you today for actively trying to stop the abuse.
What is responsibility? It is accountability. What is accountability? Is it admitting culpability? Is it apologizing? Accountability is being “held to account.” It is “being made to pay an appropriate price for the infraction perpetrated.”
Our elected officials have a terrible price to pay for their part in destroying the best – the only – nation created under God. A lot of Americans who have done nothing to stop the destruction have a terrible price hanging over their heads, too.
A 2006 story from Elbert County, Colorado, graphically points out what happens when people do not do what’s necessary to protect their freedoms. Jennifer Brooke lived in Elbert County… in Kiowa, Colorado.
I say “lived” because on the last day of November 2006 she was killed. Let me rephrase that. She was viciously killed. A friend, Bjorn Osmunsen, 24, was attacked when he went to look for her.
Within minutes of Brooke’s violent death, next door neighbor Lynn Baker was attacked. His turn came when he stepped outside the door of his home. He said he thought he was going to die. He almost did. Baker was fortunate to have a son, Cody, who heard his screams for help.
Cody is a teenager with a pretty cool head. When he heard his father’s screams, he picked up a shotgun as he ran to see what was wrong. Thank God he didn’t have to stop and unlock it from a gun case or Lynn Baker would be dead, too.
Cody shot the attackers, killing two and distracting the other long enough for his father to climb inside his pickup truck.
Question: What do Spartacus and bull terriers have in common? The answer: “Both are famed, historic gladiators.”
Bull terriers were born to fight. They can be rather insensitive to pain and when they bite it is very difficult to make them let go. They have jaws of tremendous strength. The breed was created to have courage and to be fearless gladiators.
Everyone who owns an American pit bull terrier will come to the breed’s defense because of what I write here today. People do not like the truth when it impacts the price of a puppy. Breeders of these pets always defend them... and it’s true they can be wonderful dogs. Well, they are wonderful dogs in the hands of the right human companions. Unfortunately, too often people who seek out this dog are fear-motivated and looking for protection – the wrong owner for this dog. Not just anyone can raise and train a pit bull. They can, however, be the greatest protectors in the world when taught by a strong hand. Properly bred and trained pit bulls are reliable and they love to please.
Improperly bred and improperly trained, they can be killers.
The fact of the matter is, on the last Sunday of November 2006, Jennifer Brooke was torn to shreds by a pack of American pit bull terriers.
The attack that killed Brooke was not the first time these particular animals had attacked. One of the pit bulls had mauled a neighbor earlier and officials say the dogs were well known in the rolling ranch land near Kiowa, southeast of Denver.
"The people in the area had their own emergency phone network to warn each other if the dogs were loose. If the dogs were loose, they didn't go out," Rattlesnake Fire District Chief Dale Goetz said.
Does that sound a little like what Americans today do regarding their political system? They call one another and go to meetings to become informed – kind of an “emergency network” to warn each other about dangerous dogs to avoid? “Stay inside. Stay safe.”
Everyone in the Kiowa area knew the dogs were dangerous. Many people were part of the “emergency phone network” to which Chief Goetz referred – those who called neighbors to make sure they stayed inside when the dogs were out. Unfortunately, Jennifer was working outside when the call came.
These who wanted to avoid the unpleasantness of confronting a neighbor over her dangerous dogs and who thought a telephone warning was sufficient protection bear some responsibility. Were they Christians? A lot of people who hide from their responsibilities are. What does “I am my brother’s keeper” really mean? Does it mean giving a tyrant free rein to destroy what he or she wants while potential victims sit locked safely in their homes making telephone calls about staying indoors? No. Being your brother’s keeper means loving your brother more than you fear upsetting an irresponsible neighbor who owns vicious dogs.
In the arena of government, being your “brother’s keeper” means the same thing. It does not mean waiting for God to work a miracle while something of great meaning to Him is destroyed… whether that “something” is a nation or a fellow human being. God has given us what we need to solve man-made political and legal problems. It’s called “the United States Constitution.” When our Constitution is honored, it protects us from owners of mad dogs as well as government gone mad.
One person can’t change things? I have a good example to the contrary. After giving a speech at a Save America convention a couple of weeks ago, I was approached by a young woman who wanted to ask me about another public speaking engagement. I told her to give me a call. She is one of the most interesting people I’ve ever met.
This young woman, a para-legal and private investigator, has helped a husband and wife file RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) charges against 16 judges (city, county, and state) who either have not taken – or did not properly file – their oaths of office. Article I of the Colorado Constitution says:
“Section 8. Oath of civil officers. Every civil officer, except members of the general assembly and such inferior officers as may be by law exempted, shall, before he enters upon the duties of his office, take and subscribe an oath or affirmation to support the constitution of the United States and of the state of Colorado, and to faithfully perform the duties of the office upon which he shall be about to enter.
“Section 9. Oaths where filed. Officers of the executive department and judges of the supreme and district courts, and district attorneys, shall file their oaths of office with the secretary of state; every other officer shall file his oath of office with the county clerk of the county wherein he shall have been elected."
Section 10 of Article I goes on to say that any person elected or appointed to any office who refuses or neglects to qualify within the prescribed time results in the office being deemed vacant during the time the person held it.
This young woman read the laws of her State Constitution. Good grief! What a burden! Know the laws by which your elected officials must live? Of course you can’t do that! You don’t have time! And if that’s your attitude, you need to stop complaining about how bad things are. You’re part of the problem.
How many judges and other public officials in your county do not have properly filed oaths of office? How hard is it to visit your county clerk or secretary of state with a list of judges’ and district attorney’s names in hand, asking for a copy of a filed oath of office?
Colorado Section 9 of the State Constitution tells me any officer of the executive department or judge of the supreme and district courts and district attorney who does not have a properly filed oath of office has no standing to make any decisions. The decisions of judges, district attorneys, court-appointed lawyers, etc., who haven’t properly filed their oath must be vacated because they were non-existent – their position was “vacant” – when the decision was made. The same requirements exist for the federal judiciary.
Do people check to ensure a judge has legal standing to foreclose on their home before moving out? Probably not. No wonder they call us “sheeple.” As the saying goes, "A nation of sheep breeds a government of wolves."
Until the 1980s, RICO charges were seldom filed against anyone who wasn’t Mafia. In the 1980s that changed. Civil claims can be brought by any person injured in their business or property by reason of a RICO violation. If a person succeeds in establishing a civil RICO claim, judgment in the amount of three times actual damages plus costs and attorneys’ fees will be received.
As for Jennifer Brooke’s death, the owner of the dog who killed her admitted responsibility. Because she responded so “responsibly,” homicide charges were not brought. A judge heard the case, not a jury.
Who was it that said “those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither”? Oh, yeah. One of those old guys who fought and founded America.
He was right.
© 2011 Marilyn M. Barnewall - All Rights Reserved
________________________________________
Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall began her career in 1956 as a journalist with the Wyoming Eagle in Cheyenne. During her 20 years (plus) as a banker and bank consultant, she wrote extensively for The American Banker, Bank Marketing Magazine, Trust Marketing Magazine, was U.S. Consulting Editor for Private Banker International (London/Dublin), and other major banking industry publications. She has written seven non-fiction books about banking and taught private banking at Colorado University for the American Bankers Association. She has authored seven banking books, one dog book, and two works of fiction (about banking, of course). She has served on numerous Boards in her community.
Barnewall is the former editor of The National Peace Officer Magazine and as a journalist has written guest editorials for the Denver Post, Rocky Mountain News and Newsweek, among others. On the Internet, she has written for News With Views, World Net Daily, Canada Free Press, Christian Business Daily, Business Reform, and others. She has been quoted in Time, Forbes, Wall Street Journal and other national and international publications. She can be found in Who's Who in America, Who's Who of American Women, Who's Who in Finance and Business, and Who's Who in the World.
Web site: http://marilynwrites.blogspot.com
E-Mail: marilynmacg@juno.com

AGENDA 21 EQUALS NATIONAL SUICIDE

2011-06-19T00:47:00.001-06:00

By Marilyn M. Barnewall
June 19, 2011
NewsWithViews.com
As you read this article, keep these words in mind:

“No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post factor law, or Law impairing the obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.” -Article 1, Section 10, The United States Constitution
.
That Section of the Constitution prevents membership of states, cities and counties in an organization called International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI)… but I’ll bet many readers of this article live in a city, town, or county that belongs to ICLEI because ICLEI has more than 600 active members throughout the United States. Those members are cities, counties, and states, not individuals.
To see if your city, county or state is a member of ICLEI, click here.
If your state is spending your tax dollars to violate Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution to pay for membership in ICLEI, you need to do something about it. The Constitution says no state should enter into an alliance with a group devoted to supporting international policies unfriendly to America.
Many readers have not yet heard of Agenda 21, also known as Sustainable Development, though NewsWithViews.com columnists Tom DeWeese and Dr. Michael Coffman, two of the nation’s journalistic experts on the topic, write of it. In a recent article, DeWeese provided some quotes of individuals involved with ICLEI. This should explain ICLEI’s philosophy quite clearly:

“Individual rights will have to take a back seat to the collective.” -Harvey Ruvin, Vice Chairman, ICLEI. The Wildlands Project.
“We must make this place an insecure and inhospitable place for Capitalists and their projects – we must reclaim the roads and plowed lands, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness tens of millions of acres or presently settled land.” -Dave Foreman, Earth First.”
The entire DeWeese article can be found here.
If you haven’t been reading about Agenda 21, you’d better start… unless you dislike owning private property or prefer city living to a more rural country setting. Maybe you own a small farm or orchard. If you do and aren’t aware of Agenda 21, you are probably unwittingly participating in the demise of your own lifestyle.
Perhaps you’re more familiar with the name “George Soros” than with “ICLEI.” Well, guess who funds parts of ICLEI? In 1997, Soros’s Open Society gave ICLEI $2,137,415 to support its Local Agenda programs. This same Soros group – Open Society – has destabilized and overturned several nations… Yugoslovia in 2000, Georgia in 2003, and Ukraine in 2004. Bringing a mere American city or county to his way of socialist thinking points out how well Soros has schooled himself in the communist philosophies of Antonio Gramsci who said to seek out the emotionally ill and socially abused to achieve global government objectives. Even Mussolini feared the power of Gramsci’s philosophies and had him imprisoned.
ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability USA is devoted to cities and counties engaged in sustainability, climate protection, and clean energy initiatives. They represent, among others, the Greenies of the world – those wanting to eliminate any job having to do with fossil fuels (it doesn’t bother them that international economies still rely on fossil fuels; “People will adjust,” is their mantra – “Many people will die while they are adjusting” is my mantra). ICLEI followers recently met and decided that rocks and weeds should have equal rights with humans. It takes the word “anthropomorphic” to a new level.
The Rio + 20 meeting that is upcoming in 2012 celebrates the 20 year anniversary of Agenda 21, created in Rio in 1992. Yes. Most of the unwanted changes in your American lifestyle result from decisions made and included in Agenda 21. The words “sustainable development” came from that meeting… and ICLEI to which many of your communities belong is devoted to those very changes you hate. And your tax dollars are paying for the destruction of your values and your prior lifestyle.
Why do you allow it?
The Soros plan uses operatives to infiltrate countries. They talk about things that sound SO humanitarian – clean air, good schools, saving the forests, making our water clean … everything any sane person responds to positively. He insists on an “independent media” (meaning one that broadcasts news and views that supports his communist philosophy), and works to destabilize the nation by manipulating business and finance – his destruction of the Bank of England serves as a good example (and he’s working overtime on our banking system).
His current attempt to destroy both the dollar and the euro is another. The last phase of the Soros strategy is to take to the streets with activists… we’ve seen that with the Wisconsin union protests – Wisconsin Democrat legislators hiding in Illinois during activist demonstrations.
One of the things ICLEI supports is sustainable management of “open spaces.” They don’t bother to tell you that as of this moment the “open spaces” they want is private property belonging to people who live there. The plan is to herd the current residents on that land into major metropolitan centers – your state’s biggest cities – and off of the land those people own. Monsanto can do a much better job of farming their genetically altered fruits and vegetables than family famers can, after all.
ICLEI helps communities plan how to use the newly vacated/stolen land – they figure out who will use it, and how. They want no human footprints in rural areas. They achieve this objective through highly-regulated land use. The ICLEI open spaces plan merges nicely with what Barrack Obama and Joe Biden call “high-speed rail” programs. For over two years, I have questioned why they call what are obviously rapid transit programs “high-speed rail.” The more I understand about the Agenda 21 plan to remove people from the land and move them into buildings – pack ‘em and stack ‘em condos, as they’re called -- the more I understand about Obama’s “high-speed rail” boondoggle. There will be no cars on the streets – there will be no room for them (and the “Green” version of cars is so costly, those who work for a living can’t afford them, anyway).
There will be the ideal “Green” environment where rocks and trees enjoy the same rights human beings do. You can walk, ride a bicycle or take mass transit to work… from your multi-story condominium.
The “social engineering” of communism confiscates land and homes for agriculture. Don’t take my word for it. Read the history of Russia. The communists forced people to move into multi-storied apartments and they commuted by bicycles or public transit – which, of course, creates the need for rapid transit programs (Obama likes to call them “high-speed rail” so it sounds like he’s trying to compete effectively with China).
The idiots from the United Nations who created Agenda 21’s Sustainable Development plans in Rio in 1992 believe that what they offer is “smart growth plans.” The Environmental Protection Agency is very involved and can deny grants to states and cities and impose other penalties on those that reject their offers… again, a violation of States Rights.
Agenda 21 will be 20 years old in 2012. George H.W. Bush (and 177 other world leaders) agreed to it in 1992. Bush Senior was the first world leader to use the words “New World Order” – and America hasn’t been the same since. I don’t trust a single thing the man did while serving as Director of the CIA, the Vice President, or as the President.
The U.S. Senate rejected the Agenda 21 Treaty, but Bill Clinton signed Executive Order #12858, creating a Presidential Council on ‘Sustainable Development.’ This effectively pushed the UN plan into America’s large, churning government machine without the need for any review or discussion by Congress or the American people.
The American people need to elect a Congress that will put some reins on Executive Orders. What the Congress willingly avoids, Presidents pass through the power of Executive Orders. That, in turn, effectively by-passes all of the Constitutional protections put in place by our founding fathers relative to the balance of power between the judicial, the executive and the legislative branches of government.
How does Agenda 21 impact you? If you’ve purchased a new washing machine, you’ve already had some experience with it. The new eco-friendly washers provide too little water and clothes don’t get washed (or rinsed) well. If you want a decent washing machine, get one now because soon, thanks to ICLEI programs, you’ll be stuck with the eco-friendly variety - just as you've been stuck with phosphate-free laundry detergent and toilets that don't flush. Or, perhaps you live in a part of the country that already has energy intrusion capacity. This neat ICLEI program – destined to be a hit with all – allows your local utility company to determine the temperature in your home through "smart grid" technology. If it’s too warm, they can turn your thermostat down; if too cool (by their standards, not yours), they can turn the air conditioning down.
These things aren’t “coming soon.” They are happening “now.” What do you do about it? Get a petition signed preventing cities and counties in your state from spending your tax dollars on ICLEI membership. Go to the City Council or County Commissioner meetings and give your elected officials hell for violating your constitutional rights!
Living a bare-bones, waste not-want not, "sustainable" lifestyle entails having your life and the lives of your loved ones micromanaged through an internationally governed system of laws and mandates purportedly designed to ensure the equitable redistribution of wealth, but which, in truth, will totally destroy our Republic and our U.S. Constitution and all the protection it was designed to give to the American people.
As the old saying goes (my saying): Nothing is going to change as long as you sit on your butt.
© 2011 Marilyn M. Barnewall - All Rights Reserved
________________________________________
Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall began her career in 1956 as a journalist with the Wyoming Eagle in Cheyenne. During her 20 years (plus) as a banker and bank consultant, she wrote extensively for The American Banker, Bank Marketing Magazine, Trust Marketing Magazine, was U.S. Consulting Editor for Private Banker International (London/Dublin), and other major banking industry publications. She has written seven non-fiction books about banking and taught private banking at Colorado University for the American Bankers Association. She has authored seven banking books, one dog book, and two works of fiction (about banking, of course). She has served on numerous Boards in her community.
Barnewall is the former editor of The National Peace Officer Magazine and as a journalist has written guest editorials for the Denver Post, Rocky Mountain News and Newsweek, among others. On the Internet, she has written for News With Views, World Net Daily, Canada Free Press, Christian Business Daily, Business Reform, and others. She has been quoted in Time, Forbes, Wall Street Journal and other national and international publications. She can be found in Who's Who in America, Who's Who of American Women, Who's Who in Finance and Business, and Who's Who in the World.
Web site: http://marilynwrites.blogspot.com
E-Mail: marilynmacg@juno.com

DEAD BODIES, DECEPTION AND HONOR

2011-05-29T00:12:00.011-06:00

By Marilyn M. Barnewall
May 29, 2011
NewsWithViews.com

Members of the military snapped to attention and saluted as they pushed my stepfather’s flag-covered body down the hallways to the morgue of the local Veteran’s Administration Hospital. His sacrifices for his country ended on March 23, 2011.
Chester Roy Brown (later changed to Roy Chester Brown) was his name and he was born January 5, 1920. Roy’s early years were spent in a Denver orphanage. He enlisted in the Army and was wounded in flight as a bombardier gunner over Europe. He loved his country. Roy’s burial was with military honors. Local veteran volunteers made sure the appropriate flags were waving softly in the breeze and that a 21-gun salute rang out over my peaceful Grand Valley that day. He would have been proud. I certainly was.
My annual Memorial Day article last year began by talking about how President Barack Obama went to Europe just before Memorial Day (2009) and apologized for America being American – and upset a lot of us. The history of Memorial Day is in that article and you can find it here.
On Memorial Day 2009, I wrote an article for European friends – about Obama apologizing for his country. At the time, I wanted to clarify how Americans feel about our nation (since the man elected to the Presidency seems unable). You can find that article here.
As I write this 2011 Memorial Day article, our President has just made an utter fool of himself (and embarrassed our country) while toasting – or, perhaps better said, attempting to toast – the Queen of England. Everyone stood and he began talking – and when “God Save the Queen,” the British National Anthem, began playing, he continued talking. “To the Queen…” he finally said, raising his glass. No one else moved – including the Queen. They were standing at attention for their country’s National Anthem.
In Ireland, Obama-ites didn’t even prepare well enough to know the Presidential Limo (fortunately it was the false flag limo) couldn’t “get over the hump.” He can’t travel without embarrassing his country. If this man doesn’t understand that he’s surrounded by idiots, he’s not smart enough to be President of the United States.
Those who have followed my articles over the years know that my Memorial Day articles always include photos of military cemeteries around the world, listing the number of our young men and women who made the ultimate sacrifice while fighting on foreign soil. The photos below are offered with the greatest respect for the sacrifices made.
But I want to say something first.
I believe the most damning thing one human being can do to another is use for personal gain the honest sacrifices made for our nation by others. Too many politicians try to enhance their personal images by linking themselves to the brave exploits of others. For example, according to an article in Veterans Today, the May 1, 2011 death of Osama (Usama, if you prefer) bin Laden was his second, not his first, death.
Gordon Duff is a Marine veteran who served in Vietnam. He is Senior Editor at Veterans Today. His career has included extensive experience in international banking along with such diverse areas as consulting on counter insurgency, defense technologies or acting as diplomatic officer of UN humanitarian groups.
Duff wrote a stinging article about the Obama Administration’s use of the “death” of Osama bin Laden. He points to the negative impact this event will eventually have on members of our military. He questions the death by pointing out that the CIA validated bin Laden died on December 15, 2001. I found the article of particular interest because a friend, Lee Wanta, is quoted. Many readers write to me with questions about Ambassador Wanta and they may find his insights of interest.
From Gordon Duff’s May 5th article bin Laden’s second death (link here):
“Either way, there is one victim for certain and that is the members of the military services of the United States who will be judged, not by the real facts but rather the political machinations of the increasingly bizarre stories released to the press on a daily basis.” …
“Worse yet, senior CIA officials from the Reagan/Bush I era claim bin Laden was and always continued to be “rock solid” as an American intelligence agent until his death, or at least one of his deaths.”
“STRANGE CIA TWISTS – INTERVIEW WITH EMIL LEE WANTA 5/15/2011"
“Emil Lee Wanta (Note: The correct name is Lee Emil Wanta, a natural born American citizen; history here – MB), the White House official designated to repatriate Stinger missiles still in Afghanistan and Pakistan after the Soviet withdrawal, first met ‘Tim Osman,’ the CIA code name for Osama bin Laden in 1989. Wanta, along with William Casey and Bill Colby (CIA Directors) made up the ISA (Intelligence Support Agency), a group tasked with eliminating rogue intelligence operations, CIA and others that had sprung up resulting from operations in Central America and the Af-Pak theatre.

“REDACTED WANTA MEMO"

“Wanta was originally named by Reagan as Inspector General of the Department of Defense, eventually slated to take over as Defense Secretary from Casper Weinberger (later convicted during Iran Contra and pardoned). That appointment was blocked by Secretary of State George Schultz.
“Wanta, then working out of Vienna, was approached by Osama bin Laden, the CIA’s prime intermediary with both Saudi Arabia and resupply operations in Afghanistan, with replacing Stinger missiles claimed to have been expended in combat with both Soviet forces and those of the Afghan government. Wanta describes his meeting with ‘Tim Osman,’ Osama bin Laden’s ‘working identity,’ along with James Chi, the then station chief in Islamabad.
“‘Stinger missiles had been found for sale in the Peshawar arms bazaar, offered to any and all takers. The first order of business was to recover these weapons before they fell into the hands of real terrorists, those not in the employ of the CIA.’
“Wanta and Chi put out a ‘buy order’ and repurchased several missiles for cash. They then met with bin Laden. They confronted bin Laden with the fact that some of the missiles they recovered bore the serial numbers of units listed by bin Laden as ‘expended.’ Bin Laden then indicated that the remainder of the Stingers were stored in Peshawar." (Note: Pakistan -- MB.) “‘Bin Laden was very specific on how he was to be paid and more specific on how unpleasant things would get if money wasn’t forthcoming.’
“Payment was arranged directly to bin Laden who had the missiles loaded on trucks. Bin Laden is described as in traditional garb, shod in sandals and very unkempt. Meetings were held in English.
“The bin Laden Stinger inventory, 116 missiles, were flown into Frankfurt, Germany and turned over to Customs and Treasury there. Secretary of State Schultz complained that the use of Germany in this transaction violated the prerogative of Secretary of State and filed a formal complaint.” (Brief break in the Veteran’s Today story.)
(BARNEWALL NOTE: Ambassador Wanta mentioned bin Laden to me long before Obama’s attack on the Pakistani “bin Laden compound.” He said bin Laden died at Tora Bora on December 15, 2001. As the plane carrying the Stinger missiles was en route to Frankfurt, the agents Wanta wanted on the ground to take possession of the missiles weren’t available. He believed a double-cross could be in the making. The plane, originally scheduled to deliver the missiles at Frankfurt Main, Germany, was diverted by Lee Wanta, mid-flight, “from Frankfurt Main to Wien” (Vienna, Austria). He immediately flew the agents he wanted to Vienna to meet the plane. Air traffic control along with State Department diplomats were put off balance by the mid-flight change of destination, but the Chancellor of Austria assisted and the plane landed safely in Wien, the missiles were recovered.)
(Back to the Veteran’s Today article:) “Wanta reports that bin Laden was considered the CIA’s most trusted and reliable asset. That relationship continued, part of the complex interaction between the Bush family, the bin Laden family and their son, Osama bin Laden. At no time was Osama bin Laden ever considered ‘rogue’.” (End of Veterans Today article quote.)
In his article, Duff raises a most interesting – or, damning – question: Is the reason for the mysterious “at sea” burial of Osama bin Laden necessary because his body had been frozen for ten years? Duff’s article quotes numerous Intelligence Operatives.
There is no excuse for a Commander in Chief to willingly put troops at risk for no reason other than to gain polling points. Gordon Duff has credibly raised an issue that, if true, is a slap in the face to the brave men and women we honor this Memorial Day weekend… people who, by law, must respect any orders given by the President of the United States as “Commander in Chief.” This must be investigated!
Article continues after the pictures.

1. The American Cemetery at Aisne-Marne, France; 2,289 American soldiers buried here

2. The American Cemetery at Ardennes, Belgium; 5,329 American soldiers buried here

3. The American Cemetery at Brittany, France; 4,410 American soldiers buried here

4. Brookwood, England American Cemetery; 468 Americans soldiers buried here

5. Cambridge, England; 3,812 American soldiers buried here

6. Epinal, France American Cemetery; 5,525 American soldiers buried here

7. Flanders Field, Belgium; 368 American soldiers buried here

8. Florence, Italy; 4,402 American soldiers buried here

9. Henri-Chapelle, Belgium; 7,992 American soldiers buried here

10. Lorraine, France; 10,489 American soldiers buried here

11. Luxembourg, Luxembourg; 5,076 American soldiers buried here

12. Meuse-Argonne; 14,246 American soldier buried here

13. Netherlands, Netherlands; 8,301 Americans buried here

14. Normandy, France; 9,387 American soldiers buried here

15. Oise-Aisne, France; 6,012 American soldiers buried here

16. Rhone, France; 861 American soldiers buried here

17. Sicily, Italy; 7,861 American soldiers buried here

18. Somme, France; 1,844 American soldiers buried here

19. St. Mihiel, France; 4,153 American soldiers buried here

20. Suresnes, France; 1,541 American soldiers buried here

This partial count of American soldiers buried at these European cemeteries totals 104,366. This does not include Arlington and all of the other veterans’ cemeteries around America, Europe and elsewhere. Many, like my stepfather, are buried in private cemeteries. God bless them all.
What can you do to more actively support your military?
Visit militarytimes.com and remember the 57 American soldiers killed in the Middle East last month and that each has a name and a family. To date, there are 6,013 Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom casualties confirmed by U.S. Central Command. You are able to watch your evening news – or, perhaps better said, your evening indoctrination session – because of these soldiers.
Find out about Project Hope. Over 1,000 WWII vets die every day. We speak English rather than German or Japanese today because of these men and women. Project Hope is made up of people – like my friends, Kent and Rose – who accompany elderly WWII veterans so they can visit the Memorial built for them in Washington, D.C. Most are frail and require assistance – it is a wonderful project!
"You will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you make good use of it." John Quincy Adams.
© 2011 Marilyn M. Barnewall - All Rights Reserved
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall began her career in 1956 as a journalist with the Wyoming Eagle in Cheyenne. During her 20 years (plus) as a banker and bank consultant, she wrote extensively for The American Banker, Bank Marketing Magazine, Trust Marketing Magazine, was U.S. Consulting Editor for Private Banker International (London/Dublin), and other major banking industry publications. She has written seven non-fiction books about banking and taught private banking at Colorado University for the American Bankers Association. She has authored seven banking books, one dog book, and two works of fiction (about banking, of course). She has served on numerous Boards in her community.
Barnewall is the former editor of The National Peace Officer Magazine and as a journalist has written guest editorials for the Denver Post, Rocky Mountain News and Newsweek, among others. On the Internet, she has written for News With Views, World Net Daily, Canada Free Press, Christian Business Daily, Business Reform, and others. She has been quoted in Time, Forbes, Wall Street Journal and other national and international publications. She can be found in Who's Who in America, Who's Who of American Women, Who's Who in Finance and Business, and Who's Who in the World.
Web site: http://marilynwrites.blogspot.com
E-Mail: marilynmacg@juno.com

BANKSTERS, PRANKSTERS AND SANDY HELL HOLES

2011-05-25T14:17:00.003-06:00

By Marilyn M. Barnewall
May 22, 2011
NewsWithViews.com
As I write this, Saturday, May 21, 2011, it is Armed Forces Day… a day too many people who say they appreciate our military all too often forget. This isn't the topic of my article, but it raises an interesting question, asked below.
The following paragraphs came from Lt. Col. (Ret.) Bob McConnell, the guy who should be my Congressman and who publishes a newsletter with information you can trust. Both Col. McConnell and I spoke at the Pueblo (CO) Liberty Action Tea Party group on May 12th.
"Today is Armed Forces day," Col. McConnell's newsletter told me. "President Truman created the holiday in 1950. It marked the conclusion of one of the hardest battles of his presidency. The deeply entrenched and proudly separate War Department and Navy Department had been combined into one Department of Defense. This is a classic story of how the feds solve a problem. Post-war hearings in Congress were chaired by none other than Senator Lyndon Johnson. Great military leaders including Ike, Nimitz, Halsey, and Bradley testified that the Army and the Navy needed to learn to talk to each other so there would be no more Pearl Harbors. The goal was to train and fight as one team. Pressure, compromise and intrigue were all part of the deal. It included the mysterious death (a theme which continues in DC until the present day) of the first Secretary of Defense, the former Secretary of the Navy, James Forrestal. Was Forrestal's death suicide, or not?"
An interesting question: After you read the material below, is America in its currently dysfunctional state of fraud and corruption (with no Constitutional Rule of Law) worth the lives of our young? If not, what are we going to do about it?
CORRUPTION NUMBER ONE:
Anyone who watches the news has heard about the rape charges filed against Dominique Strauss-Kahn, former director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and rumored to be the French Socialist Party's favorite to replace Nicolas Sarkozy as President of France. Beyond the sensationalist rape charges, however, are you aware of why this is an important story?
Dominique Strauss-Kahn (DSK, as he is called by the mainstream media) should be better known for ulterior motives involving the globalization of American, European and Japanese banks – but thanks to our well-paid-under-the-table media, he is not known for that.
DSK was born 25 April 1949 and on 28 September 2007 became Managing Director of the IMF. He resigned on 18 May 2011 after the rape allegation was made. On 14 May 2011, shortly after noon, a hotel maid in her early 30s says she entered Strauss-Kahn's Sofitel Hotel suite In New York City to clean it and that DSK came out of his bathroom naked, ran after her, and attempted to forcibly have intercourse with her. Other forced sex acts not involving intercourse occurred and DSK was arrested, then released on a $1 million bail plus a $5 million bond guaranteeing he not leave the State of New York. He now resides in an apartment where he remains, under guard.
The Rest of the Story:
Under the aegis of the IMF, Strauss-Kahn made known as early as December 2009 his new international currency plans to use a "Green Energy Fund" (most Tea Party members recognize this as code for the United Nation's Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development) to fight climate change in low-income nations around the world. The funding for "Green Energy" would come from the IMF's own printable money – special drawing rights - starting at the equivalent of $ 100 billion. You heard me right. The IMF wanted to print its own money to fund "Green Energy." There's something green here and it's called IMF envy of American currency.
Strauss-Kahn said an expanded role for special drawing rights (which enabled the IMF to print its own currency) could help stabilize the international monetary system. Sure it could! To shorten a long story, this was a Soros-friendly socialist method of destroying the U.S. dollar, a topic discussed at Bretton Woods II which was sponsored by George Soros the first week of May 2011. The IMF action was part of "the China plan" to replace the U.S. dollar with a "basket of currencies" and to absorb the Federal Reserve into the IMF (as I reported in an article a month ago).
Between 2009 and the current time, several IMF plans were presented to replace the dollar as the international currency of trade – which, in turn, would send the U.S. economy over the edge of a cliff. It hovers there daily (some days I think it's beyond recovery).
There are a lot of questions to be answered about this "story." Why did DSK go to New York instead of flying directly to Berlin from Washington where he was scheduled to meet with Chancellor Merkel of Germany? Was he perhaps in New York meeting with the Too Big to Jail Banksters he so graciously assisted with unlawful and otherwise fraudulent acts?
Why did Strauss-Kahn leave his cell phone in his hotel room – a resource any investigator would find of great interest. New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman currently has a Grand Jury investigating Wall Street irregularities. Why did the maid enter an occupied room to clean it – especially when it was known the occupant would be checking out that day? Considering his wealth, why was Strauss-Kahn imprisoned at Riker's Island? Why wasn't he held at the local police precinct jail until arraignment the morning after his arrest? Very strange!
Dominique Strauss-Kahn was very involved with Hank Paulson, former Secretary of the Treasury when the Too Big to Jail Banks failed. He wanted to dissolve the U.S. dollar and he wanted a global currency controlled by the IMF. And there is no doubt that Strauss-Kahn is a major player in trying to bring down the U.S. dollar. He's up to his armpits in a plan designed to absorb the Federal Reserve System and the central banks of Europe and Japan into the International Monetary Fund. This has been obvious since politicians around the world began supporting compatible international banking regulations. As I have said many times, once a world economy is established, creating world government is child's play.
So, perhaps the most interesting question to ask is: Was Strauss-Kahn led into his merry adventure by those trying to save the United States – or by those who are trying to destroy it? Or, does this just exemplify the dwindling sexual prowess of an aging man who confuses power of job with individual power? Is this an "I did it because I could" power story gone awry?
The plan has failed – this time. They'll be back. But eventually someone is going to be held accountable. I also said, long ago, that George Soros moved too fast with his socialist agenda after the 2007 derivatives/real estate bubble burst at Lehman Brothers. Soros was raised in communist Hungary under the old Soviet system. Perhaps that makes it make it difficult for him to evaluate the impact Americans have when they've had enough political corruption, do things like start Tea Party groups, and set about changing things – including who represents them.
Perhaps Mr. Soros will eventually need to answer to those who provided his original funding to de-stabilize America's economy.
MORE CORRUPTION… and it is huge.
Everyone shakes their head about the lack of Wall Street prosecutions when so much evidence exists as to the unlawful conduct of so many people. Well, a 650-page report has just been released by a Senate Subcommittee on Investigations.
Oklahoma Republican Senator Tom Coburn and Michigan Democrat Senator Carl Levin serve as co-chairs and their recently-released report provides evidence of a Wall Street crime spree.
Senator Levin has requested federal prosecutors to review the possibility of bringing perjury charges against Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein, along with present and former employees who gave Congressional testimony last year. Hopefully, Levin will be more successful than his past history evidences in getting more than a slap on the wrist for Wall Street Investment Banksters.
After a two-year investigation, Senator Levin says Goldman Sachs lied to clients regarding securities investments tied to real estate deals. The fraudulent behavior by Goldman Sachs focuses on collateralized debt obligations (CDOs).
What is a CDO?
In the old days, we had prime bank guarantees which had maturities of ten years plus one or 20 years plus one and paid 7.5 percent interest annually. All of the yields were based on credit card interest rates which were, generally, 18 percent. Investors bought prime bank guarantees and they, the investors, earned 7.5 percent. The bank made money by selling the credit card debt to investors and, in the process, reduced its potential for loan losses. CDOs – or collateralized debt obligations – replaced prime bank guarantees. Today CDOs may contain high yield bonds or credit card loans, aircraft loans, car loans – yes, even mortgage loans. Investment banks buy different types of loans from financial institutions at a discounted rate and mold them together, layer upon layer (tranches), into CDOs.
Why do you need to know this?
Because this is core of the problem. It is the venue used to try and bankrupt your country – and, concurrently, to turn you, the American taxpayer, into a slave for a handful of elitists. If you're going to be – had – I hope you want to know by whom and why.
It gets back to the need to stop letting issues divert you and solve the problems that enable and allow the issues in the first place. What we are discussing here is problems, not issues.
A year ago, Goldman Sachs CEO Blankfein denied under oath that his company had taken "short" positions against the housing market – you remember mortgage-backed derivatives that drove our real estate values into the tank? He testified: "Much has been said about the supposedly massive short Goldman Sachs had on the U.S. housing market.
The fact is, we were not consistently or significantly net 'short the market' in residential mortgage-related products in 2007 and 2008. We didn't have a massive short against the housing market and we certainly did not bet against our clients."
I see what Senators Coburn and Levin mean by "perjury."
Here we go with another term the average person doesn't understand. "Shorts." No. It's not something clean a man puts on after a shower; not in the world of investment banking.
When one invests in "shorts," one bets something is going to take a loss. If I think the price of silver is going to drop, I'll buy silver shorts – like Bear Stearns did, for example. Only silver didn't go down, it went up, up, up. When Bear Stearns failed and was purchased, the silver shorts were inherited by J.P. Morgan Chase. JPMC was facing a multi-billion dollar loss until about two weeks ago – and, like magic, silver began dropping in value. Now there's something to look into, Senator Levin.
A point needs to be made here because it references information I have presented to you before and which can now be clearly seen to have been not only important, but critical.
Well over a year ago, I wrote a series of three articles about Ambassador Lee Emil Wanta. In that series, I referenced the offers he made to the Bush Administration to purchase Lehman Brothers and, later, Bear Stearns.
As you may recall, Lehman Brothers had become one of the largest financers of mortgage loans in the nation when, a year or so earlier, it owned mortgage companies that wrote over $100 billion in sub-prime and liar loan mortgages. That way, the company could package worthless derivatives and sell them worldwide. It was one method Lehman Brothers used to save its neck from the financial chopping block. It needed a huge number of mortgages to put into derivatives so they could be sold and Lehman Brothers could financially survive another day. This was a major portion of the derivative base, sold internationally, that went sour and sent real estate values down the tubes globally. The United States real estate market isn't on its way to recovery even yet as a result of this unlawful activity.
Had President George W. Bush given Wanta access to his own funds – funds the Court had decided were his and that were being unlawfully withheld from him by the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department – he could have, as he offered to do, bought Lehman Brothers. An audit would have been required. The audit would have identified the problem – and that is damning evidence of a cover-up at the highest levels, not just on Wall Street but in Washington, D.C. That audit could have saved all of us years of economic deprivation.
The same is true of Bear Stearns. Ambassador Wanta offered to buy that company – all he needed was access to his own money. It was, however, being otherwise used… perhaps hypothecated and invested by the investment banks and government agencies that hold it in accounts in his name. Again, the audit he would have required would have identified the silver shorts problem… but when you're involved up to your neck in something unlawful, you can't let someone find the problem.
Lee Wanta offered to buy these companies in writing… I have a copy of the offer. He was ignored. (I also have a copy of his offer to buy Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae who are still bleeding us dry!)
But back to my story about Goldman Sachs…
In essence, Goldman Sachs bought loans from financial institutions, put them into CDO investment products, made sales commissions selling them -- and shorted the investment. In other words, Goldman Sachs bet against the success of its own product -- but that didn't keep them from selling it to everyone else.
In one product called "Timberwolf," Goldman Sachs invested 36 percent in shorts on a billion dollars, part of this CDO's assets. Over one-third of the company's investment in its own product was that it would fail. And Blankfein said they had no remarkable "short" position in the real estate market? They not only had a significant short position, they shorted their own product! Perjury, indeed!
Goldman Sachs made $330 million on the shorts at, according to the Senate report, "the direct expense of the clients to whom Goldman had sold the Timberwolf securities."
Bear Stearns was failing and Goldman Sachs agreed to buy back $300 million of the Bear Stearns investment in Timberwolf – but at 96 cents on the dollar. It was a loss at a time the Bear couldn't afford one.
There is no doubt it takes time to tear down the rot that appears synonymous with "Wall Street" today.
I know this article is hard for most people to read. It's difficult to learn new terminology so you can follow what's happening – and it's hard to write about complex financial issues in limited space.
Is it important for you to know these things? As I say in my Introduction to my new book, Flight of the Black Swan, it's only important if you don't want your children and grandchildren to be slaves to the criminal elites of the world.
These are only two incidents of many that occurred this past week.
The question I asked in Paragraph #4: Is this a nation for which young people should be sent to die on foreign soil so our politicians can engage in nation building and investors can prosper in black gold – oil? The poppy (opium) crop was bringing Afghanistan $8 billion a year when we began opposing the Taliban in that nation. According to reports, it now brings in $93 billion a year.
You have your answer to the question. I have mine. And that's the way it should be.
© 2011 Marilyn M. Barnewall - All Rights Reserved
________________________________________
Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall began her career in 1956 as a journalist with the Wyoming Eagle in Cheyenne. During her 20 years (plus) as a banker and bank consultant, she wrote extensively for The American Banker, Bank Marketing Magazine, Trust Marketing Magazine, was U.S. Consulting Editor for Private Banker International (London/Dublin), and other major banking industry publications. She has written seven non-fiction books about banking and taught private banking at Colorado University for the American Bankers Association. She has authored seven banking books, one dog book, and two works of fiction (about banking, of course). She has served on numerous Boards in her community.
Barnewall is the former editor of The National Peace Officer Magazine and as a journalist has written guest editorials for the Denver Post, Rocky Mountain News and Newsweek, among others. On the Internet, she has written for News With Views, World Net Daily, Canada Free Press, Christian Business Daily, Business Reform, and others. She has been quoted in Time, Forbes, Wall Street Journal and other national and international publications. She can be found in Who's Who in America, Who's Who of American Women, Who's Who in Finance and Business, and Who's Who in the World.
E-Mail: marilynmacg@juno.com

MATURITY AND MOTHERHOOD

2011-05-08T01:09:00.000-06:00

By Marilyn M. Barnewall
May 8, 2011
NewsWithViews.com
Mother’s Day defines the word “change.”
Once a young woman has a baby, everything changes… from her most basic bodily functions to her life priorities. Mothers learn that the child, not themselves, is the center of the universe. Mothers change their priorities with an eye to making the world a better place. As mothers, women grow and mature… usually.
Motherhood is a reflection of God’s universal laws. One of the most basic is: All things live to maturity, level off and die unless injected with new life and new blood. The world and society are no exception. Universal law applies to everything and everyone.
And that’s the topic for this special day: living, maturing, and injecting the world with new life and new blood.
Do you ever stop and think about who’s running the country these days? I don’t refer here to specific people – like Barack Obama or Joe Biden or Valerie Jarrett. I refer here to a group.
Think back… go back to the 1960s. The Hippies carried, sang or preached a message. Do you remember what it was? They wanted to burn down the rotten establishment. They sang “Come Together.” And then the joke of life occurred (age) and they became the establishment they wanted to tear down. The very thought of all those little grubs turning into establishment hacks makes me laugh! But it’s not funny. Not really.
They weren’t all wrong, you know. They saw early on the rot that had already begun to permeate our government, corporations and institutions of “higher learning.” I use quotes because I know too many young people who graduate from high school and university today who are more indoctrinated than educated.
Some, like Bill Ayers and his fellow former Weather Underground terrorist wife, Bernardine Dohrn, told the world to "Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that's where it's really at." There are a lot of ways to kill rich people… including taxing them to death. The Ayers of the world figured out the best way to destroy this Great Nation: Instead of blowing up government buildings from the outside, they figured out how to do it from the inside.
They created progressive liberalism so closely affiliated with socialism.
Reality is a dangerous place to live your life if you’re a person who really can’t do much of anything. With reality comes risk. Why? Because to change anything means risking what you have today for something better… the only way to change things.
Some people’s fight or flight buttons got permanently turned to “flight” at a very young age. When risk presents itself, they view it as something that must be “taken” – like a nasty dose of medicine. They do not understand that most people are comfortable viewing risk as something to manage. It usually requires hard work, but the learning experience is very fulfilling.
When the concept of risk intimidates you, the natural result is to avoid doing things. It’s the only way to avoid risk. So the sign carriers from the 1960s became the “I never really learned to do anything, but I’m very smart and can advise anyone about how to do just about everything” people.
And that’s the group of people now running our government and our economy. Think about it. What does a “community organizer” do? He organizes things. How do things get organized? The organizer tells other people what to do. Has he ever done the things he’s recommending? Oh, good heavens no! He has, however, been taught by a very intelligent socialist professor – like Professor Bill Ayers – how to solve problems.
One of the reasons we live in an age of administrators, one of the reasons President Obama can’t seem to make a decision without a committee of educated people who really have never done anything in life like run a business and thus can’t “do things,” is because the era of the 1960s is upon us. The anti-establishment people who never really learned to do things – especially they never learned to manage risk – now hold the reins of power. If anyone questions the truth of that statement, I urge them to look at the business experience of the Obama Cabinet and other advisers. Totally inexperienced – except they learned to be administrators and organizers. They learned from a text book, you see, to tell others what to do and how to do it. It matters not that they don’t know what they’re talking about and have never done anything but advise others.
And that’s why this administration is so far out of touch with the American people. In no place on earth are there citizens that provide so much “know how.” In Obama’s world, people provide “know who” and “know what.” They really do not understand the concept of “know how.” They’ve never done much other than tell others what to do. That’s their line of work. No wonder the President doesn’t understand how to create jobs in the private sector! No wonder Dr. Ben Bernanke understands economics but not the importance of day-to-day commercial banking!
I figured out a long time ago that my purpose in life was to find my purpose in life. It was to determine what I was capable of and to set out to achieve it. I took risks and I thrived on it… most people do. Were there failures along the way? You bet there were! There were also some pretty significant victories. Both stimulated personal growth. I learned. I matured. One of the biggest lessons I learned is that failure taught me nothing about how to succeed. Doing something wrong often teaches us little or nothing about how to do it right.
And that’s what worries me most this Mother’s Day about the political and economic situation that faces this country I so love.
Most people think the greatest loss that comes from communism is the loss of property and freedom. Both are great losses. But the greatest loss is what happens to the creative drive when it is overly protected from the reality of “doing things.” The imagination becomes lazy because under socialism, no imagination is required. Imagination is required to “do things” or to invent or change today’s horror into an American Dream. That’s why for so many years we led the world in innovative thought and discoveries.
When government takes over the responsibility for cradle to grave care, telling you where you can live, what your career will be, when you can have medical care and who will give it to you – even when you will die – you have no need to find solutions. Your creative drive dries up. Your imagination is stifled and suddenly it’s difficult to perform creative acts. It becomes impossible to conceive of a loving God because before faith imagination must do its job… and before imagination must come the freedom to imagine.
That is a significant thought to keep in mind as the importance of Mothers is honored today. Government is not a worthy mother and it never will be a good replacement.
When people talk about freedom, they frequently don’t think of what the word really means. They think of it in terms of freedom of religion or freedom to live where they want or to be rewarded for the 80-hour weeks they worked to build their own business. But before faith can be generated within us, we must first be able to imagine the concept of God… of a Creator. That’s why God can only be worshipped as a matter of choice in a free nation. Our forefathers and mothers were willing to lay down their lives so we could have freedom. We may have to make similar decisions. One thing motherhood teaches us is that the only real security lies inside of each of us, not in government.
That is what makes the battle for freedom worthwhile. No matter what else you do, do not let the administrator and organizer do-nothings change you to their form. Do not think for one moment things will remain relatively the same under a socialist form of government because they will not. The greatest change will be in the character of the people living in this country. We’ve already lost a lot of that battle and our young people suffer the lack of character that results.
It’s true that the rate of productivity in America has increased, but that’s because of technology, not creative energy. As the former has gone up, the latter has gone down. Productivity is dependent upon our ability to do things, not tell others how to do something we’ve never done.
Productivity is dependent upon business owners having confidence that the freedom to be creative will be here not just next year, but ten years after that. If not, a lack of confidence will prevent the risk of investment dollars in business and job growth.
And that is why this Administration cannot stimulate business and job growth.
It’s like having a child. You are no longer the center of the universe – which implies a certain growth that motivates humility. We certainly have not seen this kind of maturity – the kind that results in humility and realizing one’s smallness in this vase universe – in the White House for some time.
In the end analysis, the greatest gift government can give to honor Mothers this day is an environment free of government administrators and organizers who have never really achieved anything in their lives and whose bothersome presence prevents free enterprise from making the world a better place to be.
All things live to maturity, level off and die. Motherhood usually helps achieve maturity. So, too, does the Presidency. Nothing, however, is certain in life.
© 2011 Marilyn M. Barnewall - All Rights Reserved
________________________________________
Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall began her career in 1956 as a journalist with the Wyoming Eagle in Cheyenne. During her 20 years (plus) as a banker and bank consultant, she wrote extensively for The American Banker, Bank Marketing Magazine, Trust Marketing Magazine, was U.S. Consulting Editor for Private Banker International (London/Dublin), and other major banking industry publications. She has written seven non-fiction books about banking and taught private banking at Colorado University for the American Bankers Association. She has authored seven banking books, one dog book, and two works of fiction (about banking, of course). She has served on numerous Boards in her community.
Barnewall is the former editor of The National Peace Officer Magazine and as a journalist has written guest editorials for the Denver Post, Rocky Mountain News and Newsweek, among others. On the Internet, she has written for News With Views, World Net Daily, Canada Free Press, Christian Business Daily, Business Reform, and others. She has been quoted in Time, Forbes, Wall Street Journal and other national and international publications. She can be found in Who's Who in America, Who's Who of American Women, Who's Who in Finance and Business, and Who's Who in the World.
E-Mail: marilynmacg@juno.com

ROLLING STONE TO CAUSE ROLLING HEADS?

2011-04-17T00:12:00.000-06:00

By Marilyn M. Barnewall
April 17, 2011
NewsWithViews.com
There was good news Wednesday about a state reclaiming a bit of its independence and doing its part to keep unqualified political candidates off of ballots. Arizona’s Senate passed a Bill requiring political candidates to prove they meet lawful requirements to run for the office sought. The Bill has been sent on to the House for a vote. It’s out of Committee and is a work in progress. There is no doubt that The Donald raising this issue brought it to the attention of state legislators – hopefully in more places than Arizona.
It has also been a week of disconcerting news. In fact, if you’re depressed, you might not want to continue reading. There’s no way to sugar coat depressing news – but it contains information people need to know.
There is word on the street that Secretary of the Treasury, Timothy Geithner, has approved plans for the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to absorb the Federal Reserve System with an eye to the IMF becoming a global central bank. A “basket of currencies” (which includes the Chinese renmenbi/yuan) is to be created to replace the dollar as the international currency of trade. Plans are for “the basket” to become America’s new currency.
Is it true? There’s no way to confirm the rumor. The same spark that lit the fire under the rumor also suggests it will not be long in coming. If true, I believe it is an act that borderlines Treason. I’m no lawyer, but it seems to this citizen of the United States that my Constitution (which defines government’s limitations) says the only authority for currency and coinage in this country is the United States Congress. I have a sovereign right to an American currency as determined by the United States Congress, and some jerk-o Treasury Secretary who can’t remember to pay his taxes doesn’t have the standing to rewrite the Constitution at will.
The Congress broke the constitutional bond regarding its responsibility for our currency and monetary policy when it created the Federal Reserve System and handed over to a private corporation what the Constitution says only the Congress has the right to do. I wonder if Congress set a precedent in 1913 when it approved the Federal Reserve Act. By rejecting its responsibility to manage currency, coinage and monetary policy, did Congress pave the road for individual states to reject their constitutional obligation to rely on the federal government for currency, coinage and monetary policy? Can states create their own currency? One could certainly make a good argument for – or, against – it. If one person to a contract violates the agreement, can the other party be bound by it? It’s a good question.
Too, news of the Fed’s extreme abuse of Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (TALF) funds also came out this week. TALF was passed by the Democrat Congress and it became effective in April 2009. This misfit of taxpayer abuse totally belongs to the Democrat-controlled Congress and the Obama Administration.
According to Matt Taibbi in a three-article series in Rolling Stone, scheduled to appear in the April 28, 2011 issue, staffers in the U.S. Senate and House are “pouring over 21,000 transactions and discovering a host of outrages and lunacies…”
Fed Chairman Bernanke, et al, sent billions in TALF funds to banks from Mexico to Bahrain to Bavaria (and Libyan banks borrowed 70 times) while our own banks were suffering liquidity shortages. Billions more were sent to Japanese car companies that compete with Made in American auto manufacturers. Citigroup and Morgan Stanley got more than $2 trillion each. The most shocking thing is that billions more were made available to millionaires and billionaires with offshore addresses – the Cayman Islands, the Isle of Man, etc. – places where wealthy Americans seek to shelter financial secrets.
A company named Waterfall TALF Opportunity got $220 million – a small amount by comparison to the billions and trillions made available to foreign car companies and banks in nations where our military fights battles with foreign governments. As for Wall Street brokerage houses… the tales Taibbi tells made me ill.
In the case of Waterfalls TALF Opportunity, its primary investors are Christy Mack (wife of John J. Mack, Chairman, Morgan Stanley) and Susan Karches (widow of Peter Karches, former President, Morgan Stanley’s investment banking division). As I said, Waterfalls got $220 million from Dr. Ben and his Mad, Mad, Money Machine called the Federal Reserve System – the pretender of a “central bank” that is supposed to be run on behalf of America’s monetary interests.
According to Taibbi, “Neither woman appears to have any serious history in business, apart from a few philanthropic experiences. Yet the Federal Reserve handed them both low-interest loans of nearly a quarter of a billion dollars via a complicated bailout program that virtually guaranteed them millions in risk free income.”
Taibbi points to Susan Karches’ economic experience in finance as dabbling in thoroughbred racehorses. Yet, she and her friend, Christy Mack, started their company with an investment of $15 million – which, it appears, immediately qualified them to receive $220 million from the Federal Reserve. They used the Fed’s money – your money and my money – to buy student loans and commercial mortgages. Taibbi says “The loans were set up so that Christy and Susan would keep 100 percent of any gains on the deals, while the Fed and the Treasury (read: the taxpayer) would eat 90 percent of the losses.” Does that sound like a simple transaction someone who “dabbled in thoroughbred racehorses” could put together without very informed help from an insider?
To really understand the total lack of respect for the American people by the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Dr. Ben Bernanke, and Secretary of the Treasury, Timothy Geithner, you need to read Taibbi’s article. It exemplifies disrespect for how hard most Americans work for their money and the burden irresponsible taxation places upon them. It also exemplifies literal contempt. This behavior is a mere echo of their laughter at Americans who are dumb enough to trust them. They see the people’s lack of understanding of the system of banking and finance as an opportunity to commit fraud.
I wrote an article two weeks ago about the need to ask the right questions to ensure against being “disinformationalized.” Several questions come to mind. First, isn’t it interesting that the second story so perfectly sets the stage for the first? It almost makes you want to say “Yes! Let the IMF take over the Fed! They deserve their fate and the fires of Hell are waiting! Throw the Fed into the fire!”
It’s hard to argue against that statement – but we must consider the results of having the IMF absorb the Federal Reserve System as part of a Global Central Bank and loss of the United States Dollar as the international currency of trade (which would put this economy over the edge and America, as a nation, into third world status from which it may never re-emerge). Having the IMF absorb the Federal Reserve System isn’t the only solution – and it is a far cry from being the best one!
For years I have told readers that George Herbert Walker Bush’s New World Order would be achieved by establishing a world economic system that can be easily morphed into world government. The IMF absorbing the Federal Reserve System is just one step along that path. Long ago, in News With Views, I wrote about the games the big boys play – and this is one of those games… only it isn’t a game. It’s deadly serious!
I believe there was a long-term socialist plan to Obama’s ascension to the Presidency; a plan to kidnap the government of the United States of America. I believe it began when Barack Hussein Obama/Soetoro went on a trip with his Pakistani college roommate using what was probably not an American Passport. He visited his mother in Indonesia, and met her boss, Peter F. Geithner… the father of Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner. Geithner senior was President of the Ford Foundation Asia and oversaw the work of Obama's mother, Ann Dunham, who developed what are called microfinance programs in Indonesia. I have copies of speeches given by Ann Dunham for the Ford Foundation during the year Obama visited her. Until his return from this trip, Obama was a not-too-good-student in a small California college. After this trip, the record says he moved to Columbia University (no students there at the time remember him) and then went to Harvard (where he headed The Law Review – but never really wrote anything). What happened during that trip to make such a huge change in the life of a man named Barack Hussein Obama/Soetoro?
The first story – the rumor that the Fed will be absorbed by the IMF and we Americans will have a new, international currency thrust upon us without constitutional authority – is somewhat ameliorated and softened by the second story – finding out just how corrupt the Federal Reserve System and our Treasury Department have become – and how apparent it is that neither Bernanke or Geithner give a tinker’s damn about the people of this country. We need to pay attention and ensure the IMF stays international and away from America’s financial roots. This TALF audit of the Federal Reserve that enlightens how America as a nation got $14 trillion in debt justifies a full and comprehensive investigation with “full disclosure” of the results – with handcuffs to follow.
There is ample evidence of the abuses… that’s been a matter of record since Professor William Black, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Missouri – Kansas City, testified before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Financial Services, April 10, 2010. If you want to read the expert witness testimony of Professor Black (who headed the investigative efforts of the savings and loan scandal and knows how to recognize a crime when he sees one), here’s a link to what he told Barney Frank’s Committee in 2010. Black has long questioned the lack of arrests in the list of fraudulent Wall Street events of 2007 that caused the near failure of the strongest economy in the world.
If President Obama had the slightest desire to save the American populace from the trials and tribulations that are coming, he would pay Ambassador Lee/Leo Emil Wanta the $4.5 trillion that was lawfully wire transferred to his accounts at Bank of America by the People’s Bank of China in May of 2006. The money disappeared down a Federal Reserve dark hole and the Ambassador has been fighting to gain access to it ever since. According to Judge Gerald Bruce Lee in a Richmond Federal District Court Decision, the money is Wanta’s. The Ambassador wants to use $1 trillion of his personal funds to build a national high-speed rail system. It would create two million new jobs with full benefits, put a floor under the ever-increasing rate of unemployment that, in turn, would put a floor under the fallen and still falling real estate market – and that, dear reader, would put the economy on the road to recovery.
© 2011 Marilyn M. Barnewall - All Rights Reserved
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall began her career in 1956 as a journalist with the Wyoming Eagle in Cheyenne. During her 20 years (plus) as a banker and bank consultant, she wrote extensively for The American Banker, Bank Marketing Magazine, Trust Marketing Magazine, was U.S. Consulting Editor for Private Banker International (London/Dublin), and other major banking industry publications. She has written seven non-fiction books about banking and taught private banking at Colorado University for the American Bankers Association. She has authored seven banking books, one dog book, and two works of fiction (about banking, of course). She has served on numerous Boards in her community.
Barnewall is the former editor of The National Peace Officers Magazine and as a journalist has written guest editorials for the Denver Post, Rocky Mountain News and Newsweek, among others. On the Internet, she has written for News With Views, World Net Daily, Canada Free Press, Christian Business Daily, Business Reform, and others. She has been quoted in Time, Forbes, Wall Street Journal and other national and international publications. She can be found in Who's Who in America, Who's Who of American Women, Who's Who in Finance and Business, and Who's Who in the World. Web site: http://marilynwrites.blogspot.com E-Mail: marilynmacg@juno.com

BALLOT BLUES: SAY “BYE-BYE” OBAMA

2011-04-10T01:02:00.000-06:00

By Marilyn M. Barnewall
April 10, 2011
NewsWithViews.com
Can you imagine what will happen to this nation if Barack Hussein Obama is re-elected President in 2012? Don’t think because he’s not at the top of the conservative Hit Parade that it’s impossible for him to win in 2012, because he could.
Republican legislators around the country can prevent it – but are sitting on their hands. Why?
According to Wikipedia, after the 2010 elections, 30 States have Republican-dominated legislatures. After Obama’s nomination at the 2008 Democrat National Convention in Denver, there was evidence of manipulation of the statements signed – notarized statements claiming he was qualified – but no proof of qualification was provided to validate those claims. The Denver Post ran a series of articles on the irregularities. Nothing was done to correct what appear to be intended errors.
One problem conservatives have is assuming because they wouldn’t doctor a document to make an untrue statement to promote an illegal act, others won’t either. It should be obvious by now that liberal progressives will say and do whatever it takes to achieve their ends. They are believers in the philosophy that the end justifies the means.
My recent articles have been about the ways in which American Patriots can do something other than inform themselves about problems we, as a nation, face. Being informed is step one. Doing something is step two. I’ve said that any steps taken must unify us as a nation and must be lawful. We don’t want to resort to the “bring the system down to change the system” socialist strategy. That’s a great way, through weaknesses inherent in any system, of opening the door to a government takeover by power brokers… the Soros kind.
The best way to ensure Barak Hussein Obama/Soetoro doesn’t get re-elected is to keep him off the 2012 ballot. If it’s against the law for him to be on the ballot in several states, Democrats will be hesitant to nominate him. That’s the simplest, easiest and least risky way to prevent another four years of Obama. Frankly, as I look at the economy, I’m worried about getting through the summer without a total financial fall off the cliff. I pray our financial system lasts until 2012.
How do we keep Obama off the ballot?
In states where Republicans dominate the legislature, pass a law requiring that all candidates who run for state or national office provide proof of their eligibility to hold that office. If it is unlawful for Obama’s name to appear on the ballot in several states because proof of qualification to be President is not provided, it would be very difficult to win a national election. Force him to provide that damnable Birth Certificate to get on the ballot in your state.
As I recall, a few States put some form of this legislation in Committee to “study it.” That’s a little like volunteer work (worthy though it is): It takes time and is often forgotten. It’s time for step two: Action. Get those proposed Bills out of Committee and put them before the legislature! What are you waiting for? Another four years of Obama disaster?
Could it possibly be that easy?
I’ve asked myself how such a law might be challenged and how the courts would decide. One question makes me think it would be difficult legislation to reverse. How could a State Supreme Court or the Supreme Court of the United States deny citizens the right to uphold both State and Federal laws that define requirements to run for political office? If such a law was overturned, it would set a precedent that suggests no law is valid… that no laws on the books are enforceable. Though that appears to be more truth than fiction as fewer and fewer people follow a moral code of ethics or think they can choose at will the laws they will obey, it’s a different matter for judges to write into law that which violates law.
What are the qualifications to become President of the United States?
Age and Citizenship requirements - US Constitution, Article II, Section 1
“No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.”
And thus the “Birth Certificate” issue becomes important.
A great many Americans have questioned the validity of Obama’s citizenship. Most readers know the numerous points on this issue: “My grandson was born in a Kenyan hospital” and “There is a difference in ‘Certificate of Live Birth’ and ‘Birth Certificate’.” Etcetera and many more etceteras follow. In Hawaii, a Certificate of Live Birth can’t even be used as proof of age to get a driving license. The issue didn’t really become hot until Donald Trump decided he might run for President and began talking about the questions surrounding Obama’s qualifications. He has talked about the Birth Certificate, about the two million dollars spent to avoid providing one ¬ and suddenly the mainstream media couldn’t ignore it any longer.
If Donald Trump never becomes President of the United States, by bringing this issue to the forefront (where it should have been years ago) he has served his nation well. We owe him thanks.
Even the most listened to radio talk show host in the country was in trouble with his listeners this week for having rejected the Birth Certificate issue for more than three years. One of Rush Limbaugh’s callers pointed out that had he or Glenn Beck taken this issue up before the election, the American people might not have had to suffer through these years of an incompetent and socialist governing style.
Angela, a caller from Missouri: "The fact of the matter is that his citizenship has been a suspicious issue from the very beginning and not one high Republican or you has ever really tried to nail him on this issue, and if it does turn out that he is not a true citizen, then I think all of you should hang your heads in shame because of all the destruction our country has had to suffer ever since he was elected, in spite of being the fraud that we know he probably really is."
Rush countered by pointing out that half of the country voted for “the guy.” He talked about the media hype and the tricks played to garner votes for Obama. Rush suggested that today it’s 2011 and said ”we are living in the midst of this guy destroying the economy and going back and talking about a birth certificate right now is not the most effective way of stopping this guy.” Rush went on to tell Angela that he doesn’t deal with what-ifs. “If,” he said, “is for children. And we’ve got certain things that are the reality of the day that have to be dealt with, pure and simple, and that’s where I am on this. No more and no less. There’s no magic wand that can get Obama unelected.”
Though I agree with Angela that had anyone taken this issue public before the election, Obama would likely have not been elected, Rush is right, too. He’s right when he points out that if Obama was disqualified from holding office after more than two years of serving in office, it would cause chaos to “wipe clean” every law, every bill paid, everything that has been done by this administration… decisions involving our military would be put at question, for example. Afghanistan and Libya would try to hire John Edwards to sue the U.S. because the American people didn’t vet a Presidential candidate well enough and he became an illegal President who gave military commands that killed a lot of people and did billions of dollars worth of damage to their countries. Rush is right. It would be a mess. Think it through.
But it won’t create a mess to keep Obama off of the 2012 ballot by making him prove that he either is or is not qualified to hold the office of President of the United States. Our State legislators can do that with the simple law mentioned above. In fact, Rush made my point for me when he said: “The focus needs to be on making sure he's not reelected.”
The Constitution very clearly says that to be President of the United States a person must be at least 35 years of age. There is only one document that proves someone’s real age: A Birth Certificate. Not a Certificate of Live Birth; a Birth Certificate. A state law requiring all candidates to prove their qualifications to run for office and requiring a Birth Certificate as proof of age would solve that problem nicely.
Many Tea Party members are tired of just being educated about the problems. Many are tired of being asked to contribute to groups that do little or nothing. This is a perfect project for people who truly want to help their nation. It costs little or nothing to write a letter to your State Representative or Senator and demand legislation that prevents questions about candidate qualification from ever occurring. It takes little time to drive to your elected officials’ local offices and do a little lobbying. This is an easy issue to explain. There are no complex legal insights required.
All you have to say is: “I want you to introduce legislation (or support existing legislation) that requires all candidates for all political offices to prove they are qualified to hold the office they seek. All political offices have certain requirements. Make sure everyone who runs for office in this State proves he or she is qualified to hold that office!”
If you’re really creative, you will call your local Secretary of State and find out what the qualifications are to hold various elected positions within your State. You will arm yourself with knowledge and you will use it to win a major victory.
It’s peaceful, lawful – and very American to beat them at their own game.
© 2011 Marilyn M. Barnewall - All Rights Reserved
________________________________________
Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall began her career in 1956 as a journalist with the Wyoming Eagle in Cheyenne. During her 20 years (plus) as a banker and bank consultant, she wrote extensively for The American Banker, Bank Marketing Magazine, Trust Marketing Magazine, was U.S. Consulting Editor for Private Banker International (London/Dublin), and other major banking industry publications. She has written seven non-fiction books about banking and taught private banking at Colorado University for the American Bankers Association. She has authored seven banking books, one dog book, and two works of fiction (about banking, of course). She has served on numerous Boards in her community.
Barnewall is the former editor of The National Peace Officers Magazine and as a journalist has written guest editorials for the Denver Post, Rocky Mountain News and Newsweek, among others. On the Internet, she has written for News With Views, World Net Daily, Canada Free Press, Christian Business Daily, Business Reform, and others. She has been quoted in Time, Forbes, Wall Street Journal and other national and international publications. She can be found in Who's Who in America, Who's Who of American Women, Who's Who in Finance and Business, and Who's Who in the World.
Web site: http://marilynwrites.blogspot.com
E-Mail: marilynmacg@juno.com

COMMIES, CRIMES, AND CHASE

2011-04-03T00:44:00.000-06:00

By Marilyn M. Barnewall
April 3, 2011
NewsWithViews.com
A man who had access to the White House on at least four occasions and a former official of one of the country’s most-powerful unions, Service Employees International Union (SEIU), detailed a secret plan to “destabilize” the country.
Steven Lerner, the “man with access,” thinks it’s a cool way to redistribute wealth and make changes in government. He spoke at a closed session at a Pace University Forum last weekend.
As many readers know, Glenn Beck got a transcript of that meeting and disclosed that Lerner, using community organization groups, planned a stealth attack to destroy J.P. Morgan Chase, put the stock market in ruins, and weaken the grip elitists have on America’s economy. That’s what Lerner said was the objective.
Lerner admits that unions and community organizations are all but dead. He says $17 trillion has been stolen from the middle class and the only way to get it back is through the redistribution of wealth. That is his stated goal. He plans to organize a mass attack on mortgage loans, among other things. He says this can destabilize the stock market – perhaps bring on a crash – and when people stop making mortgage payments, they get to live in their homes for a year, rent free – well, sometimes they do. Lerner says if he can get enough people to do this, it will overwhelm the system which will fall down. He’s right. That has a grain of truth. He doesn’t mention the horrible credit rating those who stop paying their mortgage will have for life, but… hey, it’s for the “greater good.”
He says social chaos and the destruction of the financial system will isolate what is rapidly becoming an American oligarchy (a government in which power is vested in few people) of elitists and, if the banks and the stock market fail, it will cause them to lose access to the only thing that gives them power: Money. This also holds a partial grain of truth.
Maybe you’ve heard of the Clowen - Piven Report. It’s a “Strategy to End Poverty” which also supports the Democrat Party by supporting liberal progressive programs. Attending Lerner’s meeting was Frances Fox Piven. It’s her strategy to create chaos that results in insurrection and an ungovernable system: financial, legal, and social. The underpinning of Clowen - Piven is to destabilize our banking system. Gee! What a coincidence! Lerner wants that, too!
Lerner’s plan calls for a demonstration on Wall Street in May and particularly targets J.P. Morgan Chase. He wants protests at the bank’s Annual Shareholder meeting. After that, he wants people to stop paying their mortgages. He says if he can bring Chase down, the entire banking system will collapse.
He specifically says such an attack will benefit the labor unions but the unions can’t be seen taking part in and organizing it. Instead, it must be run by community organizations.
He promises if we get rid of elitists, the poor and the middle classes will be in clover. Everything will be as it should (in a good, communist government – he leaves that part off). He says that we have an entire economy built on debt – and he’s right. What we have in America today is not capitalism. It is debt capitalism and it was carefully planned as part of America’s demise.
This article may sound like it’s about Steven Lerner, but this article is about you. It’s about the need for your common sense to prevail as unions come closer and closer to failure and as community organizers get weaker and more desperate. As Tea Party Groups become stronger, the others fight for their existence. We saw that in “a little piece of Madison, WI.”
How can you learn to identify misinformation and disinformation when it’s being fed to you?
Lerner says: “We are not broke; there is plenty of money.” He says: “They have money – we need to get it back.” Lerner is accurate when he says the thing elitists fear most is disruption and uncertainty. What he doesn’t tell you is what the middle class and those living in poverty most fear. Give it a moment’s thought. What happens when chaos rules?
The streets are unsafe – and most people fear placing their children in danger. Not having enough food is another fear – a logical one. How do you get safely to and from the supermarket? Better yet, how do you get safely from the supermarket’s front door to your car carrying groceries? When people don’t have enough to eat, violence accompanies chaos. Not being able to get warm or cool or have access to clean water are other fears. Public utilities and services may become part of the attack against society.
Steven Lerner is formerly of SEIU – he was accused of stealing large sums of money from SEIU and is no longer employed by them. His message: “We must destroy the financial system that supports the elitists… and if we get rid of J.P. Morgan Chase, the rest will follow…” His meaning: “We must get rid of the middle class so the two class system needed by an oligarchy can thrive.” That’s what your questions and answers of this kind of rhetoric should tell you.
This case study is a perfect example of how the Marxist theory of using a grain of truth and building lies around it fools a naive public into believing what is said. Not only does the plan not achieve the promise, it achieves victory for the group the public thought it was fighting: the elitists.
Offer the public something it wants, tell them what you are doing will achieve that objective, and implement a plan that will achieve precisely the opposite of what the public wants. Liberals have for years put forth class warfare in every way they could. “Let’s find a way to get rid of ‘them’ because ‘they’ aren’t part of ‘us’.” And the moment any citizen of this nation allows their definition of another citizen to be anything but “American,” a “they” and an “us” is created.
The public has a responsibility to ask common sense questions before biting off more than it can chew – like electing an inexperienced man to the Presidency of the Greatest Nation on Earth because he says he wants “change” and then being angry at him because he’s an empty suit – which was apparent to anyone who bothered to look.
As citizens, we must all employ common sense.
Common Sense Rule #1: You cannot achieve one thing by doing something that promotes its opposite.
Common Sense Rule #2: Ask questions. Ask tough questions. Ask the right questions. For example (in the Lerner case, above):
Who is more likely to have their wealth spread in bank accounts around the world? The poor, the middle class, or the very wealthy? The obvious answer: The very wealthy.
Another example:
Who is better able to afford to live through a total breakdown of America’s economic system? The poor, the middle class, or the very wealthy? Answer: The very wealthy.
Yet another:
Who has the money to leave one country that is thrown into the chaos of economic breakdown – the violence, the hunger, the lack of medical care – and temporarily move to another country? The poor, the middle class, or the very wealthy? Answer: The very wealthy.
And another:
What makes an oligarchic state (the rule of a few over the many) possible? Answer: A two-class system – the poor and the wealthy. It needs to get rid of the middle class.
And, finally:
What will the result be if what Steven Lerner recommends is implemented? Answer: A two-class system consisting of the poor and the wealthy.
So who won this ballgame? This middle class that would no longer exist certainly didn’t win. The losers let their class envy make them patsies in the games big boys and girls play. They let themselves be led to the slaughter by a Judas Goat. Society will be structured to accommodate an oligarchy if Steve Lerner’s plan succeeds.
Another example of misinformation:
A report was released on March 28th showing consumer spending increased in February by more than 7 percent.
If you’ve been watching the unemployment rate (which is higher than “they” say) or the mortgage foreclosure mess, or the rate of inflation (which is higher than they say), it’s doubtful you’ll believe consumer confidence motivated the spending increases. You’ll ask some intelligent citizen questions about why consumers spent more money last month.
For example: Did the cost of a product we require every day increase last month? Could that increased cost have jacked-up consumer spending? If you ask that question and remember how much more you’re paying for a gallon of gas, go to the head of the class! Food costs also inflated. More than half of increased spending was caused by higher prices on needed daily products: gasoline and food. We consumers are going further into debt, just as the government wants, but not because we are confident about our economy – so you can put that piece of misinformation – that the economy is moving forward – to bed. Statistics also say pending home sales increased a bit over 2% from January – but if you seek the truth it can be found in the statistics. Pending home sales are still down 9.3% from a year ago. So, is the economy improving as they say it is? Or, is this a sales job?
There is no doubt a war of misinformation/disinformation is promoting class warfare designed to divide and conquer – get Americans to stand against other Americans. That ought to tell you for what reason or objective the war is being fought: For your mind and the support it gives them if they can make you part of their coalition. You’re just a number to them. Steven Lerner wouldn’t be making plans to destroy the economy if he could do it without enlisting the help of an uninformed citizenry. So prepare yourself. Ask questions!
What you’re seeing and hearing is hype… smoke and mirrors provided by snake oil salesmen. People are desperate and want to believe anything that sounds like a way out.
There’s only one way out: Truth. Find it.
© 2011 Marilyn M. Barnewall - All Rights Reserved
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall began her career in 1956 as a journalist with the Wyoming Eagle in Cheyenne. During her 20 years (plus) as a banker and bank consultant, she wrote extensively for The American Banker, Bank Marketing Magazine, Trust Marketing Magazine, was U.S. Consulting Editor for Private Banker International (London/Dublin), and other major banking industry publications. She has written seven non-fiction books about banking and taught private banking at Colorado University for the American Bankers Association. She has authored seven banking books, one dog book, and two works of fiction (about banking, of course). She has served on numerous Boards in her community.
Barnewall is the former editor of The National Peace Officer Magazine and as a journalist has written guest editorials for the Denver Post, Rocky Mountain News and Newsweek, among others. On the Internet, she has written for News With Views, World Net Daily, Canada Free Press, Christian Business Daily, Business Reform, and others. She has been quoted in Time, Forbes, Wall Street Journal and other national and international publications. She can be found in Who's Who in America, Who's Who of American Women, Who's Who in Finance and Business, and Who's Who in the World.
Web site: http://marilynwrites@blogspot.com
E-Mail: marilynmacg@juno.com

"INSIDE JOB" - CONTRIVED CRISIS

2011-03-25T00:50:00.000-06:00

By Marilyn M. Barnewall
March 25, 2011
NewsWithViews.com
A Film for All Seasons
Regardless of how little or how much you think you understand the current financial crisis, make plans to see the movie ‘Inside Job’ while it is still playing in theaters – or, the DVD is now available (see below). The film will mesmerize, horrify and stun you as it explains what caused the pain and suffering through which so many Americans have lived.
‘Inside Job’ begins with New York’s skyline scrolling across your movie screen – and then proceeds to take on the bankers behind the financial crisis. It is an excellent explanation of the terrorist attack against America’s economy, featuring research and extensive interviews with financial insiders, politicians, journalists, and academics.
The term ‘inside job’ is defined as a crime committed by a person holding a position of trust. The film was written, directed and produced by Charles H. Ferguson, who describes his movie as reflective of "the systemic corruption of the United States by the financial services industry and the consequences of that systemic corruption."
On the downside of the film, as a commercial banker, I find it offensive that Ferguson doesn’t distinguish between investment banks like Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, and J.P. Morgan Chase – the troublemakers – versus the First National Bank of Main Street. Most non-bankers don’t understand the difference – but when you’re filming a movie to inform the public, it’s usually a good idea to get informed. It was the unlawful acts of investment banks that caused the crisis, not those of your community’s commercial banks.
In this movie, you will find risk taking, impulsive decisions involving trillions of your tax dollars, cocaine, prostitution – and that’s just one day on Wall Street. When, in an interview, Ferguson is asked, “Why wasn’t a more intense investigation undertaken?” his answer is the only logical one: “Because they might find the culprits.”
‘Inside Job’, won the Cannes Film Festival and a 2010 Academy Award for Best Documentary. After watching this film, American taxpayers can declare themselves winners of the “Sucker of the Year” Award in just about every category of economic ignorance. This film offers a harsh dose of truth to those who prefer to ignore it. You will see the greedy reality of intentional fraud perpetrated by politicians and too big to jail banksters.
Ferguson’s film is supported by interviews with Nouriel Roubini, Barney Frank, George Soros, Eliot Spitzer and others. But the mega achievement of ‘Inside Job’ is the voice of Jason Bourne – oops, I mean, actor Matt Damon (who plays Jason Bourne in the Bourne film series). Damon narrates while viewers watch investment bankers and the American government begin the takedown of the Goose that has always laid America’s Golden Eggs. It is a chilling film and one that has made many viewers angry.
‘Inside Job’ stabs deeply, exposing extensive and unethical conduct (including obvious and shameful conflicts-of-interest) of many professors of economics. The movie is particularly hard on Frederic Mishkin, a Federal Reserve governor until August 2008 and now a professor at Columbia University. According to the film, Mishkin co-authored a fraudulent paper titled "The Stability of Icelandic Banks." Iceland’s economy failed. Mishkin didn’t make known the Iceland Chamber of Commerce’s $124,000 payment to him to write the paper. I’d call that a “conflict of interest.”
As you watch, the moderator lists the elements of Mishkin’s conflicts of interest to John Campbell, the chairman of Harvard's Department of economics. Campbell is speechless, truly at a loss to explain this kind of unprofessional behavior. He is obviously bewildered when asked about potential professorial conflicts-of-interest in his own economics department at Harvard.
In his ‘Inside Job’ interview, George Soros says: “Chuck Prince famously said we have to dance until the music stops. Actually the music had stopped already when he said that.” Prince is the former CEO of Citigroup. Soros is also called upon by Ferguson to comment on the Glass Steagall Act… strange, having a known communist comment on the single most important piece of legislation passed to protect American consumers after the Great Depression.
The film focuses on change within the financial services industry. The first two articles I wrote for NewsWithViews.com in October 2008 present the history of the banking industry. I recommend reading them before watching ‘Inside Job’ to help keep things in a proper perspective. You can find them here and here.
There is no doubt, as the film clearly says: deregulation preceded the evolvement of complex investment products – like derivatives – and there is no doubt that derivatives increased risk-taking within the investment banking community. Why was it allowed? Good question.
There is also no doubt that as new products were introduced into the marketplace, regulations designed to prevent conflicts of interest and risk-taking were required. As the history of banking proves, all of the consumer protections put in place after the Great Depression were removed, not just the past ten years on which ‘Inside Job’ focuses. The worst of deregulation occurred twenty and thirty years ago. Our 2007 crisis is, I believe, a planned event that had to be set up long ago for it to occur.
One of the things ‘Inside Job’ points out is the prevalence of the revolving door between corporations and government. It has given America a full house of Goldman Sachs employees who were heavily involved in policy-making positions leading up to the current economic chaos. Financial regulators should not be able to leave a government job and be immediately hired by investment banks (where knowing how to beat the regulators at their own game results in multi-million dollar incomes).
Reviewers of ‘Inside Job’ all comment on what a bold move Matt Damon made when he agreed to narrate this film. I think not. I believe ‘Inside Job’ has a strongly biased, anti-capitalism tone. It’s an excellent film… but all of those progressives and liberals didn’t get in the movie by accident. Damon is anything but pro-capitalism. His public political statements place him to the far left – even left of Barack Obama. ‘Inside Job’ gives the Big Screen’s ‘Jason Bourne’ the reason he needs to bash the candidate for whom he so strongly campaigned. To Matt Damon, socialism has not yet been achieved and for that he blames Obama.
In public, Matt Damon has taken Obama to task, saying he’s “disappointed in the health care plan and in the troop buildup in Afghanistan.” In ‘Inside Job,' Damon takes Obama to task for surrounding himself with “those who pushed deregulation.” I’ve written articles about this topic, explaining that politicians who want more power (or a power structure change) ignore existing regulation. I repeat: They ignored existing regulations after deregulation occurred. Why?
Anyone who understands banking knows that if regulations aren’t enforced, major problems will result. The expected crash from not enforcing regulations occurred in 2007 and everyone yelled for “more regulation!” And, the politicians got the power they needed to cover up the unlawful behavior that caused the crisis in the first place. In reality, had the 2007 regulations in place been enforced, the crisis would not have occurred. Though this film focuses on deregulation, it pays little attention to regulations ignored – a far greater cause of the crisis than deregulation of the ten years on which “Inside Job’ focuses (that’s why I see a hidden agenda).
Informed viewers of the film will accept the truths presented, learn from them, and will recognize the somewhat subtle, liberal attack against capitalism. Informed viewers realize we have not had ‘capitalism’ in this country for many years and that when someone blames ‘today’s’ capitalism for our economic ills, they don’t understand what capitalism really is. Or, they do understand and want to get rid of it.
‘Inside Job’ correctly points out that there was no push on the feds to pursue any criminal cases against executives on Wall Street, but doesn’t report that two years before the financial crisis began, the FBI informed Congress about the dangers of derivatives, liar loans, sub-prime loans, and the inability of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to monitor the products Wall Street was so aggressively pushing. How did the liberal Congress reward the FBI? It cut its investigative staff by over half. The film does not point this out, preferring to place more blame on corporate America than on politicians.
When watching ‘Inside Job’, you will know immediately that you aren’t in Michael Moore’s fairy tale land watching his comedy, ‘Capitalism: A Love Story.’ This film is smart. It brings to light heretofore unpublicized facts. Be careful you don’t get lured into the ‘capitalism has failed’ trap. Capitalism didn’t – and has not – failed. Like our political parties, it was taken over by an oligarchy of thieves.
You can watch a ‘trailer’ of ‘Inside Job’ here. Or, you can listen to Dylan Ratigan (MSNBC) interview author, director, producer Charles Ferguson here. I found the DVD at Amazon.com for $14.99. It’s worth that – and more. The film was made on location in the United States, Iceland, England, France, Singapore, and China.
In his New York Times review of ‘Inside Job’, Paul Krugman says:
“I think this film will stay with us; when you ask how the even worse crisis of, say, 2015 happened, the fact that these people got away with it will loom large.”
Krugman is right – probably one of the few times I will agree with him. The fact that Bernie Madoff’s butt is the only one sitting in prison is evidence of the total lack of a Rule of Law in America.
© 2011 Marilyn M. Barnewall - All Rights Reserved
________________________________________
Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall began her career in 1956 as a journalist with the Wyoming Eagle in Cheyenne. During her 20 years (plus) as a banker and bank consultant, she wrote extensively for The American Banker, Bank Marketing Magazine, Trust Marketing Magazine, was U.S. Consulting Editor for Private Banker International (London/Dublin), and other major banking industry publications. She has written seven non-fiction books about banking and taught private banking at Colorado University for the American Bankers Association. She has authored seven banking books, one dog book, and two works of fiction (about banking, of course). She has served on numerous Boards in her community.
Barnewall is the former editor of The National Peace Officer Magazine and as a journalist has written guest editorials for the Denver Post, Rocky Mountain News and Newsweek, among others. On the Internet, she has written for News With Views, World Net Daily, Canada Free Press, Christian Business Daily, Business Reform, and others. She has been quoted in Time, Forbes, Wall Street Journal and other national and international publications. She can be found in Who's Who in America, Who's Who of American Women, Who's Who in Finance and Business, and Who's Who in the World.
Web site: http://marilynwrites@blogspot.com
E-Mail: marilynmacg@juno.com

DECENTRALIZING THE CENTRALIZED POWER OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE

2011-03-22T00:35:00.000-06:00

STATE BANKS

By Marilyn M. Barnewall
March 20, 2011
NewsWithViews.com

"It is time to declare economic sovereignty from the multinational banks that are responsible for much of our current economic crisis. Every year we ship over a billion dollars in Oregon taxpayer dollars to out-of-state and multinational banks in the form of deposits, only to see that money invested elsewhere. It's time to put our money to work for Oregonians." --Bill Bradbury, former Oregon Senate President and Secretary of State, quoted in The Nation.
One of the hottest topics in the world of banking is State Banks. Oregon, Washington and Maryland have recently joined Illinois, Virginia, Massachusetts, California, Florida and Hawaii in evaluating the wisdom of implementing a “State Bank.” Governors of these States need to be careful because there is a great deal of disinformation on the subject suddenly appearing in a variety of places… it almost looks like a George Soros stealth attack.
States that have passed legislation involving sovereignty and the right for their State to coin its own currency, or are making trade in gold and silver lawful (as Utah just did), will have problems implementing such legislative promises until a system like the one that has been in existence for 92 years in North Dakota is created. North Dakota owns its own State Bank. Maybe that’s why, according to a recent Gallup poll, unemployment there is 3.8 percent and the job market is the best in the country (and the state’s population growth is up 5 percent). The jobless rate around the rest of the country has sky-rocketed and high-taxes in union-dominated States like New York, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Ohio cause lost population.
“State Banks” is a tricky topic for even experienced bankers because the response often is: “We’ve had state-chartered banks in our state for a hundred years.” And, they have.
A State Bank and a state-chartered bank are quite different. The only State in this country that has a State-owned bank is North Dakota – and it has 92 years of successful experience. In the middle of one of the worst economic downturns in American history, the Bank of North Dakota in 2009 helped the State of North Dakota generate the largest budget surplus in that State’s history.
Because North Dakota owns its own banking system, it has been able to target-market its loan programs to fit the needs of local borrowers rather than being forced to abide by the “one size fits all” views of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and other federal regulators. It has also been able to maintain control over its real estate markets and escape much of the foreclosure treachery that seems so prevalent in the rest of America. Indeed, Bank of North Dakota (BND) doesn’t need the services of the FDIC because the State insures the funds of North Dakota depositors. Thus, when too big to jail banksters make stupid loans, the people of North Dakota don’t feel the pinch that results. They have their own State Deposit Insurance Corporation (SDIC). They have no need for the FDIC. Any independent bank that has been audited by the FDIC in the past two years understands the mischief these folks can create in an otherwise good, sound bank.
One of the primary advantages of a State Bank is that profits go to State Treasurers, not the federal government. The concept keeps taxpayers' money working within the State in which it is generated. Property taxes, state income taxes, sales taxes and all fees for services go to the State Bank. Right now, tax revenues from other States go into an account' held by the Bank of America which makes money off of our taxes. And I wouldn’t suggest that the Bank of America is the safest place for your money or mine.
Bank of North Dakota keeps the money inside that State and the profits – the Bank paid 30 percent of its income to the ND State Treasurer – help reduce tax burdens. The profits from the bank are returned to its shareholders: the people of the State of North Dakota.
How does a State Bank function?
Perhaps the simplest way to describe State Banks is to say they are a mini-Federal Reserve and a mini-FDIC. A State Bank can perform all of the same functions the Fed does: check clearing, monetary policy (for the State rather than the Nation), etc. At the moment, the Bank of North Dakota uses the Fed’s check clearing and other services. The point is, it doesn’t have to; it has alternatives.
Just as the Captains and the Kings of the federal financial world approve or deny bank charters across the nation, a State Bank approves or denies State Bank Charters. A State-owned bank doesn’t mean the State is running the banking system in lieu of independent banks. Quite the contrary is true. The State approves Bank Charters for the independent businessmen and women who run local banks in their communities. The State, not the federal government, audits the banks. The individual banks remain independent… they must comply with State laws just as banks in the other 49 states must comply with federal laws, but they are individually-owned, independent banks.
What happens to the big banks that are currently chartered to do business in States other than North Dakota?
The big banks keep doing business. They are merely chartered by the federal authorities, not the State authorities. A bank may not be chartered by both. A bank that carries the name “First National Bank” is, generally, going to be chartered by the feds. A bank that carries the name “First Colorado Bank” will likely be chartered by the State of Colorado.
And therein is a point of confusion. The State of Colorado currently charters independent state banks… as do most of the other 49 states. But, since the State of Colorado does not have a banking system owned by the State, the state-chartered banks must go to the federal government for check clearing, monetary policy, deposit insurance, etc. In other words, they are tied to the federal government because the feds are the only ones that make needed services available.
That, in turn, explains why the Federal Reserve System – which is a private corporation (a cartel, like OPEC), not a federal agency – holds so much power over how business and finance are conducted in this country. It also explains why, when State Sovereignty and State Currency legislation passes, these things cannot really be achieved – if the States passing such laws do not have a State Bank before they start printing or minting their new currency, or before they declare Sovereignty.
To have a successful new currency, regardless of whether it is gold and silver or paper printed by the State and backed by resources within the State, a distribution system must be in place. What do you carry with you when you go shopping? A one-ounce gold coin worth $1,400+ these days (and the cost of gold will increase as inflation does)? How does the local grocery store make change? How does a national bank suddenly begin dealing with payments that come to it in both federal government currency (the dollar) and State currency? The questions involving everyday financial behavior are an article in their own right.
The same is true of Sovereignty. Some States have passed legislation declaring their right to declare Sovereignty from the federal government. How can they become Sovereign when they don’t have a monetary distribution system in place that is independent of the federal government? Answer: They cannot.
This is an article about State Banks and not Sovereignty, but a few things need to be made clear. To declare Sovereignty, a State must declare they are Sovereign, AND be recognized by other nations and/or states as having sufficient power and wealth to be Sovereign. Without its own system of banking, how can your State be recognized by others as Sovereign? It cannot. It is impossible.
Legislators, it seems, think their State can declare Sovereignty and continue with day-to-day business as usual. The government (which they have rejected and seceded from) will continue to let that State use its currency? I don’t think so. The government will continue to provide banking services… to clear checks and insure bank deposits? I don’t think so.
What a State-owned bank does is provide alternatives. It provides profits to the taxpayers of the State. It controls inflation because it doesn’t have to tolerate New York’s or New Jersey’s or California’s – or Wisconsin’s – irresponsible over-spending (all of which become a part of national monetary policy via the national banking system).
Probably the best way to end America’s economic crisis is to have each State implement its own State Bank. It’s the only way to provide a distribution system that benefits citizens of individual States and not money center banks in New York City (or Charlotte, NC). It’s the best way to remove the authority of the Federal Reserve System – a private corporation that makes a profit from every dollar it “lends” the U.S. Treasury (and the ‘loans’ are usually the result of faulty economic decisions of the Federal Reserve System). It’s a non-violent, civil way of getting rid of the Fed… and those elected to office at the national level don’t seem to have the stomach for it.
The Federal Reserve is nothing but a wholesaler of American money – and I don’t mean wealth, I mean money. The people hurt most by Federal Reserve decisions are the middle class and the poor. We sure haven’t seen the Wall Street banksters suffering much, have we?
How is a State Bank funded? There is a way… the money is available via existing funds identified by experts in Certified Annual Financial Reports (CAFRs) published by every state… but that’s another article for another day. It would require no loans and definitely no dollars from taxation.
I do offer a word of caution.
The State Bank concept has already been identified by groups of socialists around the country as a means of giving the State the same power to commit fraudulent over-spending the federal government has enjoyed for so many years. These groups want to utilize State Banks to make “free loans” to cities and counties to build any project the cities, towns and counties want. They want to create a fiat currency like the one that has ruined our national economy. Quite simply, a “fiat currency” is one that has nothing backing it to give it value other than the federal or the State’s legal right to force taxpayers to pay for whatever amount they want to spend.
State Bank Charters must be carefully written to prevent such actions. If a State creates a paper currency, citizens must demand that the currency be backed by a commodity in which the State is rich – in Colorado, for example, uranium, oil shale, natural gas, etc.
And that, too, is another rather long article yet to be written on this subject. It’s complicated, but simple once understood. In my opinion, it is the strongest leverage Americans have to save their capitalist system and reject the slavery of socialism.
© 2011 Marilyn M. Barnewall - All Rights Reserved
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall began her career in 1956 as a journalist with the Wyoming Eagle in Cheyenne. During her 20 years (plus) as a banker and bank consultant, she wrote extensively for The American Banker, Bank Marketing Magazine, Trust Marketing Magazine, was U.S. Consulting Editor for Private Banker International (London/Dublin), and other major banking industry publications. She has written seven non-fiction books about banking and taught private banking at Colorado University for the American Bankers Association. She has authored seven banking books, one dog book, and two works of fiction (about banking, of course). She has served on numerous Boards in her community.
Barnewall is the former editor of The National Peace Officer Magazine and as a journalist has written guest editorials for the Denver Post, Rocky Mountain News and Newsweek, among others. On the Internet, she has written for News With Views, World Net Daily, Canada Free Press, Christian Business Daily, Business Reform, and others. She has been quoted in Time, Forbes, Wall Street Journal and other national and international publications. She can be found in Who's Who in America (2005-10), Who's Who of American Women (2006-10), Who's Who in Finance and Business (2006-10), and Who's Who in the World (2008).
Web site: http://marilynwrites@blogspot.com E-Mail: marilynmacg@juno.com

Beyond the Road Less Traveled

2011-03-07T18:40:00.001-07:00

By Marilyn M. Barnewall
March 6, 2011
NewsWithViews.com
In 1978, M. Scott Peck’s book, The Road Less Traveled, led readers to the realization that delaying gratification – planning for pain to precede pleasure – helped create decent human beings. It was, perhaps, the only “decent way to live,” he said.
The Road Less Traveled stayed on the New York Times Best Seller list for 10 years… not 10 weeks or 10 months, but 10 years! If that does not speak of the hunger people have for understanding and the need to seek truth, I don’t know what does.
To evaluate the behavior of others, we must see beyond the obvious to the subtle, beyond what people say to what they do. That’s one of my sayings… I like to write sayings. It forces me to put my thoughts into short, understandable sentences.
One of Scott Peck’s other books is People of the Lie, (Simon and Schuster, 1983). The Road Less Traveled is a nice book. People of the Lie is not a nice book.
Who are people of the lie? If I had to describe them in a way other than Peck did, I would say, they are friendly sociopaths. They are people who lie to themselves about their lives, their faith, their beliefs, their achievements, their children, their parenting skills… just about anything significant. They rationalize ongoing bad results by convincing themselves their motives are pure. In case you don’t recognize this behavior, it is the basis for collectivism (or, as it is better known, communism and socialism) – the collective. Or, that sentence we so often hear, “it serves the greater good.” They live in dark places where the Light of Truth has never eased the night of their existence. They honestly do not recognize their rationalizations as lies. They live in synthetic, unreal worlds.
In People of the Lie, Peck defines evil as “malignant energy.” It is such a creatively honest definition of the word. Evil is a growing, negative, energy force... like cancer. And, like cancer, it is just as life-threatening. At this very moment, the life of America as a nation is threatened by People of the Lie.
To study anything, someone must make judgments and determine if an item fits the parameters of the research. We often hear that we should not judge others. Perhaps that’s why no one has ever done a scientific study of evil. Peck points out that “Christ told us ‘judge not lest ye be judged’.” When people make that comment, they take what Jesus really said out of context. It is the first defense people use against those with a Christian conscience. They quote the Bible with just a bit of a twist… from their perspective they simplify it (at least that’s what they say they do). Have you noticed how easily they do the same thing to our Constitution?
Christ went on to say: “Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam from thine own eyes; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote from thy brother’s eye.” In other words, we are to judge, but before we do so we are to honestly look within ourselves for the truth and at our own faults. We are to empty ourselves of our own prejudices to judge carefully.
It is fairly easy to look at abortion and determine it is evil… it involves human life and death. It is far more difficult to look at illegals pouring across our borders and see it for the evil it is. People seldom focus on a topic long enough to connect the dots between the number of Americans killed or raped by illegal aliens. They don’t connect the dots with our open border and the increased drug culture… a form of living torture that makes water boarding look like child’s play. Yes, Charlie Sheen really believes all of those grandiose things he says about himself. He lives in darkness but thinks he is the only one living in the light. People don’t connect the increased cost of hospital and medical care with the number of illegals who use emergency rooms like primary care physicians… or the number of people who may have died because doctors must stitch up a gang-related knife wound before getting to an elderly person’s heart attack.
The need to have government take care of you from cradle to grave is a disease that is made up of 1/3 inadequacy complex, 1/3 over-compensating ego for the inadequacy, with both leading to a sick need for the remaining 1/3: Power to fend off monsters under the bed.
M. Scott Peck is a psychiatrist – not my favorite professionals. I believe one learns nothing about positives by studying negatives (which is what most “mental health” experts do). In other words, I believe studying the mentally ill teaches us nothing about the mentally healthy. We learn about the mentally healthy by studying mentally healthy people! No one does that. I’m not sure we can even agree on who is mentally healthy, these days.
All of this leads to a question. It’s an important question.
How do those of us who choose to live our lives seeking the truth (rather than feel good answers to daily challenges) solve the problems created by those who prefer living around rather than through life? How do we solve the Charlie Sheen problem of those who live in synthetic worlds? Sheen’s behavior, at least, is caused by drugs… a form of mental illness, no doubt. Liberal and progressive behavior has no such excuse.
Yet, those who are Remnants are given the responsibility by God to try and save as many of the others as possible. It isn’t done by ignoring them – which conservatives have done the past 50 years (if you define the primary problem Tea Party Groups face, that’s it). If we hadn’t ignored them, they wouldn’t have gotten so much power.
We won’t solve the problems by condemning them. It’s our job to lift them up… make them better. Condemnation makes no one better. Judging someone and condemning them are two different things. Education is a possible solution… until one looks at teachers in Wisconsin getting their “Mary’s sick and can’t work” doctor excuses so they can protest having to pay their own way in life and relieve the burdens of middle class taxpayers who support their inability to teach anyone anything. If that weren’t a true statement, Wisconsin schools wouldn’t be rated 44th in the country.
We need to stop focusing on people and look instead at problem resolution. I would suggest that a lot of people focus on issues, but have no clue as to the base problem that needs to be solved. So priority #1 is to clearly define the problems.
In The Road Less Traveled and Beyond, Scott Peck defines the word “Kenosis.” The goal of the kenotic process is that of an empty vessel. His theory suggests the best way to define America’s problems is to empty ourselves of our preconceived notions of what this nation really is… to become Born Again Americans. To do that requires us to empty ourselves of our beliefs and visit the halls of history to get the facts.
What does the Constitution say? What does the Bill of Rights say? What do the words used in each document mean? It’s clear they gave us a Republic, not a Democracy. What’s the difference between the two? Do you know? If not, why not? Are you insulted every time someone calls America a ‘great democracy’? I am.
It’s past time for us to answer these questions. It’s past time to take satisfaction because we’re informed about our problems. It’s time to do something about them. It must be peaceful, lawful, and non-violent. It must be an exercise in American unity!
Here are four things, which, if implemented, would, I believe, initiate the solutions we need:
1. Implement State Banks. This removes the power base of the Federal Reserve which, it appears, is behind much of the evil in America, from wars to Wall Street. As long as states are tied to the federal financial system, they cannot declare sovereignty or create their own currency. They can legislate their right to do both, but cannot implement such legislation without the distribution provided by State Banks (not to be confused with state-chartered banks). Be sure any currency created is backed by a commodity of value and is not a fiat currency (with nothing supporting it but taxation of the people to repay government debt).
2. Remove at the ballot box Federal Statute Rule 6 (g), which puts the Grand Jury system in the hands of government. It is the intended fourth leg of government – the leg that gives Americans the right to call Grand Juries and present evidence without a judge or prosecutor controlling what is presented. If the people could call Grand Juries (as intended), elected officials would tread much more carefully before violating their Oath of Office. Legislators forced Rule 6 (g) on us. Put it on the garbage heap of history.
3. Make English the official language of your State. Missouri did. They have no illegal alien problem… no public assistance forms are printed in Spanish.
4. Become actively involved in candidate selection. Voting is important – provided the candidates for office are honest and informed. If they are committed to Party rather than People, it’s an exercise in destroying America.
These solutions don’t require huge demonstrations and protests. They require thoughtful groups of people who get together, study problems (rather than argue about issues), and get petitions that can change the balance of power signed and on the ballot.
We need to replace legislators who support Green jobs, open borders, Agenda 21’s sustainable development projects, and Wall Street brokerage houses. We can waste energy fighting anti-American issues… or, replace the people who support them with those who do not.
© 2011 Marilyn M. Barnewall - All Rights Reserved
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall began her career in 1956 as a journalist with the Wyoming Eagle in Cheyenne. During her 20 years (plus) as a banker and bank consultant, she wrote extensively for The American Banker, Bank Marketing Magazine, Trust Marketing Magazine, was U.S. Consulting Editor for Private Banker International (London/Dublin), and other major banking industry publications. She has written seven non-fiction books about banking and taught private banking at Colorado University for the American Bankers Association. She has authored seven banking books, one dog book, and two works of fiction (about banking, of course). She has served on numerous Boards in her community.
Barnewall is the former editor of The National Peace Officer Magazine and as a journalist has written guest editorials for the Denver Post, Rocky Mountain News and Newsweek, among others. On the Internet, she has written for News With Views, World Net Daily, Canada Free Press, Christian Business Daily, Business Reform, and others. She has been quoted in Time, Forbes, Wall Street Journal and other national and international publications. She can be found in Who's Who in America (2005-10), Who's Who of American Women (2006-10), Who's Who in Finance and Business (2006-10), and Who's Who in the World (2008). Web site: http://marilynwrites@blogspot.com E-Mail: marilynmacg@juno.com

PHANTOM JOBS AND BULLET TRAINS

2011-02-27T00:20:00.001-07:00

By Marilyn M. Barnewall
February 27, 2011
NewsWithViews.com
Everyone is suddenly talking about it. Thomas Sowell wrote an article, Bill O’Reilly talked about it on “The Factor,” the Washington Post wrote about it, Fox News got it wrong… everyone is talking about President Obama’s high-speed rail program and the Governors who are rejecting it.
I enjoyed being ahead of a large number of journalistic notables when I began writing about high-speed rail (HSR) over a year ago. What little-known journalist wouldn’t enjoy beating the big guys? But what’s more significant to me is the lack of factual data being published on this subject today – and the lack of journalists who see why HSR is so important to the Democrats/liberals. HSR and the jobs it promises will serve as one of the 2012 campaign issues. It’s so obvious it almost takes my breath away.
Most of the good and famous journalists and editorialists writing about high-speed rail appear innocent of any clear definition of the subject – including O’Reilly. That’s politically correct for what I would otherwise say: “They don’t know what they’re talking about!”
High-speed rail – or Bullet Trains like they have in France, Germany, Japan, China, the United Kingdom, et al – go from 150 to 222 miles per hour (mph). Rapid rail moves at from 75 to 150 mph and light rail is used to provide transportation between the hearts of our cities to suburbia at speeds of less than 75 mph.
In other words, when Joe Biden talks about riding high-speed rail trains from Delaware to Washington, D.C. frequently (and loving it), he’s talking about riding Amtrak’s Acela train. It averages about 70 mph and hits a top speed of 150 mph.
What does that tell you about Vice President Biden’s mode of transportation? And, what does it tell you about the Vice President’s knowledge of high-speed rail? Look at the definitions above. He’s using rapid rail and calling it high-speed rail – but doesn’t know enough about the subject to differentiate between the two. Or, perhaps he does and his political reasons outweigh his ability to be truthful about it.
This also tells you that Amtrak must have no idea of what high-speed rail is – they have no experience with real, live, high-speed rail – or they would quietly correct Vice President Biden to prevent him from looking foolish to those who know better. The same is true of President Obama and his “know nothing about high-speed rail” Secretary of Transportation, Ray LaHood. Yet, according to Biden, Amtrak (which has no experience with HSR) is serving as the Vice President’s source of expertise to build Bullet Trains in America. If a little old lady living on the side of a hill in Western Colorado can find these things out, you’d think the highly paid research staffs of major news outlets could! They must not be looking very hard!
This is a case of liberals convincing people that they will create jobs on the one hand, while knowing that there is no money in the other hand to build HSR – so the jobs will never materialize. It provides insight into what Democrat Campaign 2012 will be based on: Republicans (who refuse to irresponsibly further bankrupt the nation by accepting funds to build rapid rail systems liberals call high-speed) will be positioned as anti-job creation. Was the money there to create the jobs in the first place? No, but to liberals that doesn’t matter. Promises and intentions are what count.
We have four very courageous Governors taking flak right now because despite what they knew would be nasty publicity intended to stir the insecurities of the masses into hateful opposition to their necessary actions they did the right thing, anyway.
We are so anxious to criticize (it appears) when politicians do wrong. We sit down immediately and write letters of complaint. Have you sat down, however, and written a letter to any of the four Governors who are willing to risk their political popularity to do the right thing? If not, please do. If you want politicians to do the right thing, support them when they do. It doesn’t matter that they aren’t the Governors of your state. What matters is that they are doing the right thing for America! They are behaving morally and responsibly.
What we are seeing in Madison, WI, is a mini-debut of what is to come. In Madison, we have teachers whose salaries (including benefits) average $89,000 to $100,000 a year for working about nine months annually. Wisconsin is one of the most highly taxed states in the nation. In return, they get teachers whose efforts result in placing Wisconsin 44th in the nation in education.
What was it Jesus called the moneychangers on the steps of the Temple? “Oh, ye hypocrites!”
Wisconsin’s Governor, Scott Walker, deserves a medal for the businesslike way in which he is handling bad examples for children in the form of teachers who get their phony “I’m sick” letters signed by lying physicians on street corners. He also has legislators too cowardly to report for duty, fight their fight, and accept the will of the people who put Republicans in office last election. The really sick thing about all of this is that two years ago, then Democrat Governor Jim Doyle told Wisconsin public employee union members that thousands of them would have to be terminated because of budget shortfalls. There was absolutely no response. No protests, no doctors on corners handing out sick leave slips (who should lose their licenses to practice medicine), and no union objections. “Oh, ye hypocrites!”
And yet, they continue to protest. Ohio Governor John Kasich is facing similar problems with budget shortfalls in that Great State. He rejected federal funds to build a rail system in Ohio that has nothing to do with HSR. The feds wanted to pour dollars into Ohio to provide a rail system that would take longer to get from Cincinnati to Cleveland via Columbus than the rail system that was in place 50 years ago. Kasich analyzed the long-term costs to Ohio taxpayers and rejected the offer. Will Governor Kasich have the required starch in his shorts to stand as solidly against union demands as Governor Walker has so far exhibited? It’s the core problem, after all. Kasich positions himself as being pro-union because he lives in a highly unionized state. So does Governor Walker!
As for Governor Scott in Florida, his state was singled out at Obama’s 2010 State of the Union address as receiving funds to build HSR between Tampa and Orlando (85 miles apart). As I pointed out in a HSR article after that speech a year ago, HSR Bullet Trains are designed for long distances, not short hops. A Bullet Train would hardly get up to speed before having to slow to stop in 85 miles. That was, from its inception, a rapid rail project for which taxpayers would be charged high-speed rail prices. A boondoggle!
New Jersey Governor Chris Christie stopped one of the most taxpayer unfriendly and costly projects in the country when he ceased the building of a HSR tunnel between New York City and New Jersey. Like Governor Kasich, he evaluated the long-term and ongoing tax costs to his state and his people and said “no.” He, too, takes a lot of mainstream media heat over this wise decision.
As I have said numerous times, government’s HSR program is a boondoggle! It has been all along. Until the demonstrations in Wisconsin came up, I failed to see the reason. Now, it’s pretty clear.
Here’s how liberal minds function. Liberals take one of their greatest weaknesses – in this case the inability to create new jobs because they don’t understand how capitalism works – and put their opponents in the position of rejecting costly programs that create new jobs – at least, in theory. That way, their opponents cannot use their weakness against them. If a Republican candidate for office says anything about the Democrat inability to create jobs, all of the high-speed rail jobs that would have been created had Republicans not rejected the federal dollars for the program will be thrown in their face. That’s how liberals think. It doesn’t matter to liberals that no money was available to fund the high-speed rail programs and the jobs would have never been created. What matters is that they had the intention of providing jobs. How do we fight that kind of intellectual dishonesty? The way the governors of four states are doing it: Head-on.
Save me from liberal intentions! Please! For readers – particularly Tea Party leaders – who will have candidates in the 2012 elections, prepare to deal with this issue because it is the main course on liberal campaign tables. Too, we might want to keep in mind the fact that governors who accept these funds are making it impossible for State government to function independently of Washington. It’s a rather scurrilous way for the feds to stave off declarations of State Sovereignty, isn’t it?
One of the oldest HSR projects in the country was that of California. Again, it was a case of “promises, promises!” No funds were forthcoming and Governor Schwarzenneger went to Shanghai last September to beg for money from China.
Here are the names and addresses of the four Governors who are doing the right thing for their states and our Great Nation. If you’ve got any citizen starch in your Fruit of the Looms, drop them a line and say, “Thanks; we needed that and appreciate your courage!”
Office of Governor Chris Christie
STATE OF NEW JERSEY
PO Box 001
Trenton, NJ 08625
Office of Governor John Kasich
STATE OF OHIO
Riffe Center, 30th Floor
77 South High Street
Columbus, Oh 43215-6117
Office of Governor Rick Scott
STATE OF FLORIDA
The Capitol
400 S. Monroe St.
Tallahassee, FL 32399-0001
Office of Governor Scott Walker
STATE OF WISCONSIN
115 East Capitol
Madison WI 53702
Note: Additional information on high-speed rail.
© 2011 Marilyn M. Barnewall - All Rights Reserved
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall began her career in 1956 as a journalist with the Wyoming Eagle in Cheyenne. During her 20 years (plus) as a banker and bank consultant, she wrote extensively for The American Banker, Bank Marketing Magazine, Trust Marketing Magazine, was U.S. Consulting Editor for Private Banker International (London/Dublin), and other major banking industry publications. She has written seven non-fiction books about banking and taught private banking at Colorado University for the American Bankers Association. She has authored seven banking books, one dog book, and two works of fiction (about banking, of course). She has served on numerous Boards in her community.
Barnewall is the former editor of The National Peace Officer Magazine and as a journalist has written guest editorials for the Denver Post, Rocky Mountain News and Newsweek, among others. On the Internet, she has written for News With Views, World Net Daily, Canada Free Press, Christian Business Daily, Business Reform, and others. She has been quoted in Time, Forbes, Wall Street Journal and other national and international publications. She can be found in Who's Who in America (2005-10), Who's Who of American Women (2006-10), Who's Who in Finance and Business (2006-10), and Who's Who in the World (2008).

SPEECH PLANNING AND GREAT EXPECTATIONS

2011-02-24T21:33:00.000-07:00

By Marilyn M. Barnewall
February 6, 2011
NewsWithViews.com
No one seemed to notice it but me. Maybe I’m getting old. Or, maybe the media is.
Charles Krauthammer – who never misses anything – missed it.
Brit Hume of Fox News missed it.
Sean Hannity of Fox News missed it.
Shepard Smith missed it, too. So did Juan Williams.
Michelle Bachman missed it – but she came closer to actually giving it than the person charged with the responsibility.
Congressman Paul Ryan from Janesville, Wisconsin, missed it, too.
And, Barack Hussein Obama certainly missed it.
What did I get that everyone else seemed to miss?
I missed input from President Barack Obama on the State of the Union in his State of the Union address. Maybe I’m still groggy from anesthesia.
Instead of discussing the dangers posed by America’s debt, or possible solutions for the mortgage foreclosure frauds running rampant throughout our court system (please note my non-use of the words “system of justice”), or the war in Afghanistan – or the state of anything – the President filled the airwaves with words like “I’ve ordered … I’m willing … I am prepared … I will veto … I know … I urge … I’m proposing … I disagree … I would” and a lot of other words were placed after the pronoun “I.”
Good grief! Is Washington totally bereft of decent speech writers? Does anyone in this White House understand good communications? Based on performance to date, a very good case can be made that no one in White House communications – including the Press Secretary – has any insight into what constitutes effective communications.
When planning a speech, what is the primary objective?
Gee, knowing the topic one is expected to speak about used to be at the top of my priority list. When someone requested me to give a speech, it was because they had a topic they wanted explained to an audience. They invited me because I was qualified to give that explanation. The media seemed to be looking for a well-delivered speech designed to motivate people. Bill O’Reilly certainly was looking for that.
Maybe someone needs to remind the media that a President’s State of the Union address is supposed to be about the State of the Union – and it’s on how well that topic is covered their speech reviews should focus.
It is called “State of the Union” for a reason. It is on this night the President of the United States is supposed to tell the citizens of this country the problems faced by the nation and the impact the problems had on the Union during the past year.
Let’s see how gently this can be put. The subject of a sentence defines what the person who says or writes the sentence considers the most important part of the sentence. When the word “I” is the subject of so many sentences, the speaker obviously considers “I” the most important. If he didn’t, the word “I” would not be the subject of so many sentences.
The President’s sense of self importance rather than compassion and respect for the people of the United States came through loud and clear. The media didn’t catch that, either.
But Obama is supposed to look, and sound, like a leader. How can he do that without making the word “I” the subject of his sentences? By making “the people” the subject of his sentences and expressing his leadership as a part of the sentence sub-structure. He says “The people want” rather than “I want.” He says “The people deserve” rather than “I urge…” and completes the sentence by saying “…and as their President, I intend to support them by doing the following things.” Such a sentence makes “The people” the subject – the most important element of what’s being said – not the President. Take a look at the text of this speech and count the number of times the word “I” is used!
This is called “Communication 101.” This administration needs someone who passed the course – and took at least one semester in sales and another in marketing – to help write this man’s speeches. President Obama sounds like a narcissist of the first order (and may be – but the job of his “people” is to keep him from sounding like one).
Obama began the “meaningful” part of his speech by saying: “At stake right now is not who wins the next election -- after all, we just had an election. At stake is whether new jobs and industries take root in this country, or somewhere else. It's whether the hard work and industry of our people is rewarded. It's whether we sustain the leadership that has made America not just a place on a map, but the light to the world.”
If we are a light to the world, why has Obama found it necessary to apologize for America whenever he steps onto foreign soil?
He referred to jobs numerous times in his speech. Creating jobs is a hot button issue with the American people – and with unemployment over 9 percent (and most of us believe it’s far higher than that), it should be. He should have provided statistical data on this subject and given his projections for improving it. The truth is, liberal democrats don’t have a clue about how to create jobs because to do so requires government to get out of the way and let independent businesses (not multi-nationals whose loyalties lie with providing jobs to the least expensive labor pool in the world) grow and hire people.
“These steps we've taken over the last two years may have broken the back of this recession…”
Yes. He had the – nerve – to say that. He didn’t even flinch when he said it. Broken the back of this recession? What gall! It will make all of the people who have been illegally foreclosed against and all of those who are still unemployed hopeful, I suppose, to know President Obama has “broken the back of the recession.”
The only thing worse than Barack Obama’s failure to understand how to define and give a speech that explains the State of the Union is the media’s inability to perceive and report the failure.
For example, he could have told us:

1. “I have issued 733 waivers for Obama Care…” (more than 500 granted in December – but that wasn’t made public until the day after his State of the Union “address,” a/k/a his opening 2012 campaign speech). “The waivers exempt recipients from the increased costs of health insurance” (which means the rest of us will pay higher insurance premiums so those with waivers can be exempted from the higher costs). Nothing new there… a vigorous redistribution of wealth continues.
2. Those who are receiving waivers for enforced Obama health care mostly include unions, businesses, cities that support him politically (like Detroit – where unemployment exceeds 25 percent), states that have either proven to be loyal or which he needs for reelection – Massachusetts, New Jersey, Ohio, and Tennessee. Democrat Senators Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana have already received payment for the Obama Care support of their votes.
3. The new Republican Governor of Wisconsin, Scott Walker, rejected President Obama’s offer of funds for a high-speed rail line between Madison and Milwaukee. Why? First, because what is planned isn’t high-speed rail. It’s rapid transit. Second, because Governors in other states have discovered the offers are designed to gain voter support by promising (rather than providing) jobs. Otherwise, why was former Governor Arnold Schwarzenneger in Shanghai a couple of months before the New Year asking the Chinese for funding and assistance in building California’s high-speed rail project? Why did Governors in Florida, New Jersey, and Ohio also reject or suddenly question the offer of federal funds to build high-speed rail? (Maybe because there are no federal funds?) After President Obama’s 2010 State of the Union speech, I wrote about the high-speed rail boondoggle and I wrote about it again last fall. In spite of union activist interruptions at his Inauguration, Governor Walker said “We’re going to focus on things we can afford.” He promptly rejected the phony financing backed by collateral consisting of worthless mortgage-backed derivatives. Good grief! Even Bill O’Reilly did a 15 minute segment last week on why high-speed rail needs to be done by private investors!
4. Remember the 2009 and 2010 State of the Union addresses given by President Obama? In both years, he recommended government spending be frozen for a period of three years. The Democrats controlled both the Senate and the House during those two years. It’s funny how Harry and Nancy just ignored the President. This year, though, he said “I want to freeze spending for five years.” Of course, since he gave his 2009 and 2010 speeches, the budget Obama now wants to freeze is 84 percent larger – and growing every day. Since the Republicans want to take a hatchet to spending, the budget will not be frozen, it will be cut.

We, the People, deserve to know what’s going on with regard to the BP oil spill – what is the status of offshore drilling? In what prison cell is Secretary of the Interior Salazar languishing because his lax offshore drilling policies (which have never been called before Committee) caused broad-based human suffering? Too, we deserve to know the status of the Afghanistan conflict. As of the date of the State of the Union speech, 27 American servicemen had been killed during 2011.
There are many things we deserve to know, but there are few that will be willingly revealed. If I ever hear the word “transparency” associated with this man’s name again, I will barf. He can’t even be transparent in a State of the Union speech where he’s supposed to be transparent.
As an aside: Thanks to so many of you who took the time to write and wish me well during my recent surgical “experience.” Your prayers were the greatest gift you could have given and were most gratefully accepted. God bless all of you. To answer the question many of my readers are asking, Flight of the Black Swan is completed and will soon be published in final format. At the moment, a pre-publication version has been printed. For those of you who use Kindle to read e-books, it is available at Amazon.com.
© 2011 Marilyn M. Barnewall - All Rights Reserved
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall began her career in 1956 as a journalist with the Wyoming Eagle in Cheyenne. During her 20 years (plus) as a banker and bank consultant, she wrote extensively for The American Banker, Bank Marketing Magazine, Trust Marketing Magazine, was U.S. Consulting Editor for Private Banker International (London/Dublin), and other major banking industry publications. She has written seven non-fiction books about banking and taught private banking at Colorado University for the American Bankers Association. She has authored seven banking books, one dog book, and two works of fiction (about banking, of course). She has served on numerous Boards in her community.
Barnewall is the former editor of The National Peace Officer Magazine and as a journalist has written guest editorials for the Denver Post, Rocky Mountain News and Newsweek, among others. On the Internet, she has written for News With Views, World Net Daily, Canada Free Press, Christian Business Daily, Business Reform, and others. She has been quoted in Time, Forbes, Wall Street Journal and other national and international publications. She can be found in Who's Who in America (2005-10), Who's Who of American Women (2006-10), Who's Who in Finance and Business (2006-10), and Who's Who in the World (2008).

THE PACK, THE PEAS AND THE NATIONAL ANTHEM

2011-02-24T21:14:00.003-07:00

By Marilyn M. Barnewall
February 9, 2011
NewsWithViews.com
The Super Bowl game was great – what a joy to watch Aaron Rodgers so effectively replace Brett Favre and come into his own! Favre once said he wasn’t taking Rodgers under his wing and that Rodgers would have to figure it out on his own. It wasn’t his job, Favre said, to mentor Rodgers.
It’s probably a good thing that Favre went diva on this issue because Aaron Rodgers managed to do something Favre has never done: Win the Most Valuable Player award for the game. Perhaps Favre could stand a little mentoring from Rodgers? Many people don’t know that Rodgers is the Packers’ Team Captain, too.
Though the game was enjoyable, the more football game halftimes I watch, the more convinced I am that people who plan these things have no common sense. And, though I heard the pre-game show about the history of our Declaration of Independence was excellent (I missed it), the pre-game singing left a great deal to be desired.
It’s usually Super Bowl halftimes that disgust me. This one didn’t do anything to impress or entertain me, but it wasn’t as tasteless as the Janet Jackson boob-mobile in 2004. This year, the most disgusting thing was Christina Aguilera’s butchering of our National Anthem.
I once sang for a living with the Air Force Academy Dance Band when it played at the Lowry Air Force Base Officer’s Club on weekends (before the Academy moved to Colorado Springs). I understand the difference between being a song stylist and a crooner. Even more important, I understand the difference between singing a hymn or an anthem and a pop tune. Our National Anthem is a hymn. I don’t know about you, but I’m sick and tired of hearing pop singers stylize the National Anthem of this Great Nation in an attempt to make it sounds like “them.”
Aguilera did more than stylize our nation’s song. She forgot the words! Ms. Aguilera sang “Whose broad stripes and bright starts through the perilous fight. What so proudly we watched at the twilight’s last gleaming.” The actual lyrics: "Whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight. O'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming."
During rehearsals, Aguilera cut off the rehearsal without singing the song all the way through. It was the way she wanted it and she saw no reason to rehearse the entire song. What a perfect example of why professionals do complete dress rehearsals… to prevent this kind of mistake.
Regardless of the cause, I’m tired of having singer/stylists think that because they have been asked to sing the National Anthem before an important event, they should turn it into pop music. That’s like taking the Lord’s Prayer and singing it to Bee-Bop-Ah-Lu-La.
So, dear Ms. Aguilera and every other warbler in the world, when you sing a song that represents the heart of a nation, remember that it is not intended to sound like it represents you and your singing style. Aguilera has a beautiful voice and had she sung the National Anthem as it was written it would have been wonderful. I don’t want to start an event by remembering a singer’s style. I want a National Anthem which memorializes my country.
NOTE TO FRUSTRATED, EGOCENTRIC SONG STYLISTS: Put your ego in your purse (or back pocket) and understand the honor that has been bestowed upon you when you are asked to open an event by singing America’s National Anthem. It would also be a good idea to make sure you know the words to the song before you butcher them in front of one of the world’s largest television audiences.
NOTE TO BIG EVENT PLANNERS (ESPECIALLY SUPER BOWL PLANNERS): Please ask the person who is retained to sing America’s National Anthem to sing it as written, not as interpreted. Most Americans don’t give a rat’s ass about how singers interpret the Anthem. The song vibrates in the hearts of patriotic Americans everywhere. They want to hear it sung to their vibration, not the singer’s.
As for half-time, one of the things Super Bowl entertainment is known for is innovation. Black Eyed Peas has been doing pretty much the same thing on television the past few months as it did during the half-time show. The entry onto the field was good, but Black Eyed Peas doesn’t carry the kind of reputation in the music biz sufficient to carry such a large event. Their lyrics were clichéd and tired and they were sung to unyielding beats, often in a rap style exhibiting little singing talent.
Who do Super Bowl planners think comes to these games? What do they think the average age of the person is who has the money to buy Super Bowl tickets and advertised products? I haven’t done a statistical analysis of it, but the average age is far older than people who are attracted to Black Eyed Peas.
Dallas Cowboy General Manager Jerry Jones surprised me. I thought he would ensure that the new state of the art Arlington, TX-based home of the Cowboys that hosted Super Bowl XLV would make sure the world’s spotlight on Dallas would cast a positive shadow. Jones is a personable guy who is Chairman of the NFL Network Broadcast Committee, a member of the Management Council Executive Committee, the Special Committee on League Economics and the Pro Football Hall of Fame Committee. Jones has served two prior terms as a member of the NFL's Competition Committee as well as a stint on the Business Ventures Committee. He has all of the experience and contacts to produce a first rate Super Bowl production – but didn’t.
One interesting question is: Why do advertisers tolerate it?
Here are some tips for all of the people who plan athletic event shows and those who spend advertising dollars on them.

1. People are more easily led gently into purchasing products than being shocked or entertained by an ad.
2. If your company has been an advertiser of big event athletics, you might want to check more closely the content of half-time shows. Do you think I forget my distaste for what advertising dollars make possible? Re-think it. I don’t forget.
3. Americans view sports as healthy competition. They do not like it mixed with morally questionable performances like Janet Jackson in 2004, or programs that are out-of-touch with the average age of attendees and viewers.
4. Which group is most likely to be at home watching the Super Bowl on a holiday? Which market segment tends to have money in its pockets? If you said “over 45” – those most offended by a lack of taste (and is the most patriotic market segment) – you are right. If you said parents who want to enjoy spending holiday time with their children you are also right. Wow. Was that hard to figure!
5. What is it parents with children and friends most enjoy sharing? Simple things like pride in country and community, and/or a sense of togetherness (which reflects the make-up of most Super Bowl parties).
6. Last, but not least, the purpose of advertising is to primarily get people to remember your company’s name and products. The young people writing ads today don’t seem to understand that. They think using shock or entertainment to get people to watch is the name of the game – and half of the time I don’t know what product is being advertised after watching the ad.
7. You have to have a “hook” to do entertainment advertising. There will never be a better Super Bowl ad than the Budweiser Clydesdales lining up in the snow to play football. People knew it was Budweiser because the Clydesdales ARE Budweiser. The horses were the “hook.” If your product doesn’t have a famous hook like the Clydesdales (or, from ancient history, the White Knight for Ajax Cleanser), forget entertainment ads. Focus on your company name and the product!

Why do the people who plan these events show so little common sense? Why do advertisers tolerate such a lack of good judgment in how advertising dollars are spent?
It makes little or no sense that big company advertising dollars are directed at the market segment with the least amount of cash to buy their products. It makes no sense that advertising dollars don’t sell a company’s name and the product being advertised.
Let me plan the Super Bowl half-time next year. Please.
I’ll get one of the Big Bands to play Jimmy Dorsey and Glenn Miller and other songs from the World War II era. Or, I’ll find the right group to play hits from movies from various eras… running film clips while the music plays. Tie what’s playing on stage to past Super Bowl competitions. So much could be done here!
Camera tricks using vague copy to present your message are advertising losers. Get yourselves some Clydesdales if you want to do cute ads people will remember and associate with your company’s products. Look at the numbers, for heavens sake! The returns advertisers get for their bucks are going down. Does that tell you anything?
A good rule of thumb: When planning entertainment for a national event, celebrate America (and please, get someone who can sing the National Anthem so I can sing along with her/him in my heart – and please make sure the singer knows the words).
Celebrate the things Americans share in common: Americana.
© 2011 Marilyn M. Barnewall - All Rights Reserved
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall began her career in 1956 as a journalist with the Wyoming Eagle in Cheyenne. During her 20 years (plus) as a banker and bank consultant, she wrote extensively for The American Banker, Bank Marketing Magazine, Trust Marketing Magazine, was U.S. Consulting Editor for Private Banker International (London/Dublin), and other major banking industry publications. She has written seven non-fiction books about banking and taught private banking at Colorado University for the American Bankers Association. She has authored seven banking books, one dog book, and two works of fiction (about banking, of course). She has served on numerous Boards in her community.
Barnewall is the former editor of The National Peace Officer Magazine and as a journalist has written guest editorials for the Denver Post, Rocky Mountain News and Newsweek, among others. On the Internet, she has written for News With Views, World Net Daily, Canada Free Press, Christian Business Daily, Business Reform, and others. She has been quoted in Time, Forbes, Wall Street Journal and other national and international publications. She can be found in Who's Who in America (2005-10), Who's Who of American Women (2006-10), Who's Who in Finance and Business (2006-10), and Who's Who in the World (2008).