Jump to content

Theme© by Fisana


The American Dream is a Hollywood lie

  • Please log in to reply
666 replies to this topic

#1 wurm



  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts

Posted 05 December 2013 - 12:19 PM


  • 0

#2 ??!!??


    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5289 posts

Posted 12 December 2013 - 10:47 AM


Edited by Hansel, 19 December 2013 - 08:14 AM.

  • 0

#3 Zharkov


    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 35008 posts

Posted 12 December 2013 - 03:13 PM

As Bloomberg reports, the American people know what’s going on:

    The widening gap between rich and poor is eroding faith in the American dream.

    By almost two to one — 64 percent to 33 percent — Americans say the U.S. no longer offers everyone an equal chance to get ahead, according to a Bloomberg National Poll. And some say the government isn’t doing much to help.


    The lack of faith is especially pronounced among those making less than $50,000 a year: By a 73 percent to 24 percent margin, they say the economy is unfair. Even 60 percent of those whose annual income is $100,000 or more bemoan the absence of a fair deal while 39 percent say everyone has an equal shot to advance.

    In recent weeks, public attention to the rich-poor gap has mounted.

As the new Bloomberg poll shows, Americans are split on whether or not the government should do more to reduce inequality.

But the deeper issue is that bad government policy is largely responsible for soaring inequality.

In other words – whether you are for redistribution of wealth or against it – we should all be for stopping destructive government policies which are stealing from the lower and middle classes and throwing money at the super-rich.




American workers know that their government parasites are feeding off their pay check - what they don't understand is how incredibly pointless this huge expense can be...and here is only one, tiny, example:


“Obama’s expected 10-minute speech at Nelson Mandela’s memorial will cost taxpayers at least $500,000 per minute.”

    That’s not counting any cakes and coffee he and his inner circle consume aboard Air Force One during the 18,000-mile round trip to Johannesburg, via Dakar, in Senegal.

    The 28-hour two-way flight will cost $5 million because the four-engined Boeing 747 costs roughly $180,000 an hour to operate, according to a May 2012 report by the Congressional Research Service.

    The cost includes jet fuel and subsequent maintenance of the aircraft’s engines, electronics and hotel-class facilities.

    Obama has been accompanied by the First Lady, Attorney General Eric Holder, national security advisor Susan Rice and confidante Valerie Jarrett.

In addition to Obama and his entourage aboard Air Force One, the government sent along the presidential security detail – armed guards, bullet-proof limos, and other equipment – on a far less luxurious C-17 cargo lifters based out of Andrews Air Force base. Cost: $23,811 per hour.

  • 0

#4 Zharkov


    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 35008 posts

Posted 12 December 2013 - 03:28 PM

Income inequality is a natural outcome in a free economy, but in America, the government deliberately suppresses the most ambitious people by heavily taxing them to remove accumulations of surplus capital in the private sector and then government officials waste that tax money by spending it on themselves....and here are more examples...


When Joe Biden and his staff took a trip to London, the hotel bill cost U.S. taxpayers $459,388.65.

Joe Biden and his staff also stopped in Paris for one night.  The hotel bill for that one night came to $585,000.50.

When Biden and his staff visited Moscow for two days in 2011, the total hotel bill came to $665,445.00.

The U.S. government is spending approximately 3.6 million dollarsa year to support the lavish lifestyles of former presidents such as George W. Bush and Bill Clinton.

According to Roll Call’s annual survey of Congressional wealth, the super wealthy in Congress just continue to get much wealthier even though they are supposedly dedicating their lives to “public service”…

    Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas) is the richest Member of Congress for the second year in a row, reporting a vast fortune that in 2011 had a minimum net worth surpassing $300 million for the first time.

    McCaul is followed by Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), who reported a minimum net worth of $198.65 million, and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), who reported a minimum net worth of $140.55 million. The two lawmakers swapped places since last year’s list.

    The lawmakers who round out the top five, Sens. Mark Warner (D-Va.) and Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), also flipped positions from 2010 to 2011, with Warner’s reported minimum worth rising about $9 million to $85.81 million and Rockefeller’s minimum worth rising slightly to $83.08 million.

Amazingly, the 50th most wealthy member of Congress has a net worth of 6.14 million dollars.

At this point, more than half of those “serving the American people” in Congress are millionaires.

In one recent year, an average of $4,005,900 of U.S. taxpayer money was spent on “personal” and “office” expenses per U.S. Senator.

Once they leave Washington, former members of Congress continue to collect huge checks for the rest of their lives…

Edited by Zharkov, 04 April 2015 - 03:56 AM.

  • 0

#5 Zharkov


    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 35008 posts

Posted 12 December 2013 - 03:51 PM

The Internal Revenue Service spent $50 million to hold at least 220 conferences for employees between 2010 and 2012.

The conference spending included $4 million for an August 2010 gathering in Anaheim, Calif., for which the agency did not negotiate lower room rates, even though that is standard government practice, according to a statement by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which requested the report.

Instead, some of the 2,600 attendees received benefits, including baseball tickets and stays in presidential suites that normally cost $1,500 to $3,500 a night. In addition, 15 outside speakers were paid a total of $135,000 in fees, with one paid $17,000 to talk about "leadership through art," the committee said.

"I am absolutely appalled at the apparent waste of taxpayer dollars on frivolous conferences," said Rep. Harold Rogers, R-Ky., chairman of the House Appropriations Committee. "It seems we have a new misstep every day at the IRS."


The federal Treasury expects to collect a record $2.712 trillion in taxes on Americans and U.S. business this year, shattering the 2007 high of $2.5 trillion in taxes.



Did I mention the wars?


How's that "democracy" working out in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, and other various little African nations?    Those wars are no benefit to the average American.   They benefit multinational corporations who sell arms and oil.


Trillions of dollars down the military-industrial complex drain, some of which is fed back into Congress as "speaking engagement fees", "book deals", "campaign contributions", etc.   That is their real paycheck.   That's how they get rich on a public servant's paltry salary.    Our tax money is not even covering their daily expenses.


Does anyone really believe that Hillary Clinton ever says anything worth $500,000?   But that's about what they paid her for one speech.  Ronald Reagan got $2 million for one speech in Japan - and that was after he was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease!


America has a corrupt, dirty government.   And that's why the "American Dream" can be found only in Hollywood movie scripts.

Edited by Zharkov, 04 April 2015 - 03:58 AM.

  • 0

#6 Zharkov


    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 35008 posts

Posted 13 December 2013 - 03:10 PM

And Their Hopelessly Corrupt Conflict Of Interest:...they may as well be on the payroll of a foreign nation -

Lawmakers who oversee government surveillance programs receive millions from intelligence companies.

Every member who sits on the committees that oversee government intelligence operations has received campaign contributions from the top twenty largest intelligence companies in the United States, according to a new report.

Every single member on the committees received campaign contributions from the largest intelligence companies in the U.S. performing services for the the government.

A report from Maplight, a nonpartisan research organization that reveals money in politics, highlights the donations from political action committees (PACs) and individuals from the intelligence services companies to these members. The report shows donations amount to over $3.7 million from 2005-2013.

Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (D- Md.), the highest ranking Democrat on the House committee, received the most amount of money. He was given $363,600 with $124,350 of this coming from a single company — Northrop Grumman. As the Center for Public Integrity notes, Rep. Ruppersberger’s Maryland district includes the NSA. He is also a member of the “Gang of Eight” and receives extremely detailed intelligence reports that many other members do not receive.

The second highest amount was given to Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D- Md.) who received $210,150. Sen. Mikulski also happens to be chairwomen of the Senate Appropriations Committee — a committee which allocates federal funds to a majority of government programs, including intelligence.

Rep. Frank LoBiondo (R-N.J.) was given $205,345 — he is the second highest ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee.

Rep. James Langevin (D- R.I.) received $200,850 from intelligence companies’ PACs, top executives, and lobbyists. Langevin is the second highest ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Intelligence Subcommittee.

L-3 Communications, Lockheed Martin, CACI International, GTCR Golder Rauner L.L.C., SAIC Inc, Mission Essential, and Booz Allen Hamilton are among the top companies to contribute to committee members.


Edited by Zharkov, 04 April 2015 - 04:00 AM.

  • 0

#7 Zharkov


    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 35008 posts

Posted 17 December 2013 - 02:22 AM

My college Social Studies professor, a hyper dude who worked three jobs and lived off a quarter of his income so he could save the rest to build a children’s hospital, broke society down into nine categories.


He referenced the typical lower, middle, and upper classes and then separated each of those categories further into lower, middle, and upper sub-sections. And he explained that the odds were slim that any individual would move more than two of the nine categories, up or down, in his lifetime.


Someone from the lower-lower class, for example, he told us, couldn’t expect to move beyond the upper-lower class. Someone from the middle-middle class wasn’t likely to move up beyond the lower-upper class. This was depressing to me. At the time, I fell probably into the upper-lower-class category. I was working full-time to pay for my college education, hoping that that investment would put me on track to move up further than the middle-middle class. That was my American Dream.


A recent study now indicates that even the level of mobility my Social Studies professor talked about is no longer likely in the United States. The American Dream has become a myth.


The likelihood of someone today moving up the economic ladder in the United States is about the same as that in the U.K., Pakistan, and France. Surprisingly, France has the best score among those four countries.


We all grew up believing that it was very possible in the Land of the Free/Home of the Brave/Land of Opportunity to break out of being poor to become middle class or to go from middle class to upper class. The unfortunate reality today is that this just isn’t the case. The new study cites education and family stability, especially, as contributing factors for why this is so.


I don’t have solutions for the challenges facing the United States. But I do have a solution for you and me:

Recognize that the “American Dream” isn’t dead. It’s just been relocated.


My life overseas these past near-two decades has, in fact, allowed me to jump more than two rungs up the economic ladder. I’ve done what most Americans dream of doing. I’ve rolled up my sleeves. I’ve worked hard. I’ve kept at it. And I’ve reinvented my situation as a result.


On a recent trip to the States, I took my wife and kids to see the neighborhood and the house where I grew up in Phoenix, Arizona. It looks much the same today as it did back then. And nothing like the place where I’m raising my family today.

My family and I are enjoying the payoff of a long investment in the American Dream. We’re just doing it outside America.


I’m not telling you this to boast. I’m just a guy from Phoenix. An ordinary guy from Phoenix. What made it possible for me to reinvent my life entirely was my early realization that I wasn’t going to be able to do what I wanted to do if I stayed where I was.

So I relocated.

If I can do it, you can do it, too. And the upside is big.


Lief Simon



  • 0

#8 Zharkov


    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 35008 posts

Posted 18 December 2013 - 04:49 PM

According to a recent survey by the Pew Research Center, just 33% of Americans think their children will have a better life than they did. On the other hand, 62% believe their children will be worse off.

They’re likely to be right. 


The typical American family has seen its real income (adjusted for inflation) fall for 5 consecutive years now, and it earns less in real terms that it did in 1989.

The Brookings Institution, meanwhile, calculates that real incomes for working-age men in the US have fallen by 19 per cent since 1970.

(Of course, if you’re fortunate enough to be a member of the super-rich who, thanks in large part to central bankers driving up asset prices, saw their real incomes rocket by 20% in 2012.)

In Europe things look even more dire.  Just 28% of Germans think their children will be better off than they were.  In the UK it’s 17%, in Italy 14%, and in France just 9%.  

In Britain, research by the Financial Times shows that those born in 1985 are the first cohort to suffer a living standard worse than those born 10 years before them.  

Contrast this gloomy picture with China, where 82% think their kids will have it better than they did. In Nigeria, the number is 65%. In India, 59%.  

It’s blatantly obvious that the West is in decline. [Z: A deliberate result of actions by our governments]
And most people seem to understand this.

But this isn’t a bad news story. Wealth and power has constantly shifted throughout history.
Five hundred years ago, it was the West that was rising and Asia in decline.
Today it’s the exact opposite.

As Jim Rogers has said so many times before, if you were smart in the 1700s, you went to France. If you were smart in the 1800s, you went to England. And in the 1900s, you went to the US.

Today, it’s the developing world. That’s where the long-term opportunity is-- Asia, Africa, and South America.

What’s happening in the developing world is nothing short of remarkable. One billion people are being pulled from the depths of poverty into the middle class... bringing with them untold possibilities for business, employment, and investment.

That’s one of the reasons why I travel so much, and why I spend so much time in Chile. I’m constantly amazed at the tremendous opportunities I come across in this country (which is still largely off the radar of most people).

It’s also what I encourage my students to do each summer at our entrepreneurship camps—seek out opportunities in countries that are rising suns, not setting suns.

If you have children, this is a great direction to influence them. Encourage them to learn another language, travel, and apply what they want to do to how the world is going to be in the future.

As Wayne Gretzky said, skate to where the puck is going to be.

[Z:  In America, the government stole the puck - and we have an excess of hocky sticks,]

Until tomorrow,
Simon Black
Senior Editor, SovereignMan.com


Edited by Zharkov, 04 April 2015 - 04:01 AM.

  • 0

#9 vladzo


    Registered User

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 16824 posts

Posted 08 January 2014 - 06:49 PM

to wurm ::::


this is more of a HOT topic than you seem to realise.


there is another "american dream"; it is to destroy and conquer russia. this dream is the background reason that the yankee culture denies the end of the cold war, and continues to support international terrorists. such as the boston and volgograd bombers.


may i be asking you a question, mister wurm.


??? what do you think about the recent terrorism in volgograd ???



  • 1

#10 Colombo


    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1094 posts

Posted 12 January 2014 - 07:24 PM

Well, if I'm going to belong to a forum with my new Internet account, Pravda forums is my number one choice, but it's been ages since I was active here.  George W. Bush was still in office last time I posted here.  So I started by looking for a forum topic that should interest me and might even allow me to make a meaningful contribution from time to time.  The idea that the fabled "American dream" is just Hollywood hoopla, is just such a topic.  The American dream was always a propagandist's invention, though I also believe there was a time when there was a universal desire to make the dream real.  But now the American dream has remorphed back into the pure propaganda from which it was spawned.

  • 1

#11 Zharkov


    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 35008 posts

Posted 28 January 2014 - 09:33 PM

Obama's State of the Union speech on 1/28/2014 will again try to sell "The American Dream" to the public, and he knows very well that it is all a lie.  


You can't grow a business when the government taxes away over 50% of the profits and leaves the owners with barely enough money to pay their employees.


Americans can't run a business when foreign banks reject opening bank accounts for American citizens.


Americans can't run a business when their own banks won't allow funds to be sent by wire overseas.


The new American Dream:  That the earth will open and swallow the entire federal government while they are listening to the liar-in-chief.

Edited by Zharkov, 04 April 2015 - 04:03 AM.

  • 0

#12 Zharkov


    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 35008 posts

Posted 10 April 2014 - 11:08 PM

Another facet of modern life in America:


Flood of Laws Turns Unwitting Citizens Into Criminals

The criminalization of daily life continues to mount as more new statutes land on the books and lesser offenses get prosecuted, often making law-abiding citizens unwitting offenders and clogging jails over minor infractions, according to a new report.

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)'s recently released report, "Criminalizing America: How Big Government Makes a Criminal of Every American,"  analyzed how the growth of legislation is turning citizens who didn't have criminal intent into lawbreakers.

"Every year, federal, state, and local lawmakers needlessly spend millions of taxpayer dollars incarcerating hard-working Americans who had innocent intentions," the study said.

"While some criminal laws and sanctions are certainly necessary to preserve safety and ensure justice, many laws ensnare individuals who unknowingly violate vaguely written criminal statutes. This places a tremendous economic burden on state budgets and threatens the lives and liberties of every American, while doing little to protect public safety," the report said.

Cara Sullivan, who directs ALEC's Justice Performance Project, said the study found the over-criminalization issue was growing.

"Our states are spending over $50 billion a year on corrections. We now incarcerate at the highest rate in the world," Sullivan told Newsmax.

The growth is due to sentencing laws and the explosion of criminal statutes, with a register of more than 4,500 federal crimes along with 300,000 federal regulations that also carry criminal sanctions, Sullivan said.

"Many of these laws are necessary, but as the government has expanded, so too do the statutes on the books," she said.

While some crimes are based on inherently wrong actions — rape, stealing, murder — another class of crimes has risen up to clog the system with such offenses as jaywalking and building without a license, for example, adding to a web of bureaucracy, often because people committing these crimes don't realize that what they are doing is illegal.

"American business owners and individuals are increasingly susceptible to finding themselves on the wrong side of the law," Sullivan said. "I think there is also a mentality of policymakers to legislate away problems. If there's a problem, let's make a law."

The Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C., last year released an ebook entitled "USA vs. You: The Flood of Criminal Laws Threatening Your Liberty," that included 22 examples of over-criminalization.

Among the cases cited by the Heritage report:

• An 11-year-old girl ran afoul of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service for nursing back to health a woodpecker that had been mauled by a cat. An agent delivered a $535 ticket and threatened the girl with a year in prison for violating the Migratory Bird Treaty Act before the case was dropped.

• A father and son were jailed for 21 months after beginning to build a home near the water and bringing in sand for the foundation. The Environmental Protection Agency said the dry property was a "wetland," and that the men violated the Clean Water Act even though they had obtained the needed local permits.

• A 40-year-old Florida man was arrested and faced five years in jail for violating the state's Air and Water Pollution Control Act after releasing a dozen helium balloons in what was meant to be a romantic gesture for his girlfriend.

• A lobster importer went to jail for more than six years for using plastic instead of cardboard in shipping even though the method passed muster with Food and Drug Administration inspectors. Instead, by not complying with a Honduran regulation, the man was tried in the United States under the Lacey Act, which makes it a felony to violate a foreign nation's law while importing flora or fauna into the United States.

The Heritage report also outlined the case for intent as an integral component of criminal activity.

"In many criminal laws, the 'guilty mind' requirement has been removed or weakened. This means people can go to prison regardless of whether they intended to break the law or knew their actions were in violation of the law," the Heritage report said.

In the past, Heritage noted, crimes were composed of two components, "mens rea" and "actus reus" — a guilty mind and a bad act. But now, statutes bypass the "mens rea" issue, putting the blame on those who "need not know that his or her conduct is illegal in order to be guilty of the crime."

William Shepherd, an attorney and former chairman of the American Bar Association's criminal justice section, says "what we really want is smarter justice that makes our communities safer."

"We need to prioritize those who need to be prosecuted and use smart, evidence-based approaches to the punishment of those who have been convicted," Shepherd, a former Florida prosecutor, told Newsmax.

Shepherd noted the case of John L. Yates, a Florida commercial fishing captain, who in 2010 was convicted by a federal jury for tossing undersize grouper from his boat.

Federal agents from the National Marine Fisheries Service had boarded the Miss Katie in the Gulf of Mexico and accused Yates of violating the law by keeping 72 fish they had determined were too small to harvest, and later accused him of destroying some of the evidence after recounting the catch.

The fisherman, who was 59 when his case first began, faced 20 years in federal prison after being found guilty of disposing of the fish. Yates went on to serve just 30 days, but continued to profess his innocence and his case remains on appeal.

His prosecution angered many, including Shepherd, who filed an amicus brief supporting Yates' appeal on behalf of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. Shepherd thinks Yates' conviction was a misuse of the intention of law, but also part of a larger issue of growing over-criminalization.

Shepherd says that members of Congress and state legislatures must take time to think about the impact of the criminal laws they are going to pass.

Often, the intent gets distorted, he said, noting that no one could have predicted that the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which regulated corporate reporting standards, would have an impact on Yates, as a commercial fisherman.

Yates was prosecuted and convicted for destruction of documents or tangible objects, "and fish are, in fact, tangible objects," Shepherd said of the government's rationale.

"Congress, who voted on Sarbanes-Oxley, didn't think it would impact Mr. Yates as a commercial fisherman," Shepherd said. "It's the courts having the courage to limit laws to the text of the law and hold prosecutors accountable for only prosecuting the law and not extending into enforcement, into ways Congress hasn't intended."

Shepherd said he is heartened that over-criminalization has finally appeared on Congress' radar screen.

The Over-Criminalization Task Force was established in May 2013 to develop ways to improve the current criminal justice system, and in February was reauthorized for a six-month extension by the House Judiciary Committee.

Shepherd testified before the first hearing of the task force last year, noting the "damage done to the lives of those incarcerated and their families."

Shepherd told the panel that "flooding the landscape with duplicative and overlapping statutes" makes it "impossible for the lay person to understand what is criminal and what is not."

"The result is an overburdened, expensive, and often ineffective criminal justice system."

Shepherd told Newsmax how he once he talked to Florida lawmakers in a discussion of updating criminal street-gang statutes.

"They said, 'We have so many inmates in custody on traffic violations, I'm not sure we are going to have the budget justification for putting these criminal gangs in prison,'" Shepherd said.

"Traffic is not trafficking. These are driving offenses — suspended licenses, drunk driving, vehicular manslaughter," Shepherd said, decrying the situation "when you don't have room for gang members because you have too many people jailed on suspended licenses."


  • 0

#13 Zharkov


    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 35008 posts

Posted 25 April 2014 - 08:05 PM

Thousands of new laws are enacted every year in America because we have not only one government, not two governments, not even three governments, but a total of four levels of government PLUS hundreds of sub-level agencies authorized to make laws by themselves.  


We have a giant federal government, massive state governments, large county governments, and city governments, and each level of government has its own separate agencies, all of whom make rules and regulations.   Over time, everything has become illegal without government permission - fishing, hunting, travel by automobile, even travel by horse carriage (Amish in Pennsylvania have to buy licenses for their horse wagons, for example).


If you are lucky enough to avoid contact with any of these governments and their agencies, you will discover a little bit of freedom, at least before they find you.   If they do discover you, you will be spending a lot of time filling out paperwork, answering questions, attending meetings with them, even if you just want to be left alone.   In America, the snitch capital of the world, nobody will leave you alone for very long.  

Edited by Zharkov, 04 April 2015 - 04:04 AM.

  • 0

#14 Zharkov


    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 35008 posts

Posted 01 May 2014 - 08:50 PM

The heavy hand of the IRS seizes innocent Americans’ assets

By George F. Will

Terry, who came to Michigan from Iraq in 1970, soon did what immigrants often do: He went into business, buying Schott’s Supermarket in Fraser, Mich., where he still works six days a week. The Internal Revenue Service, a tentacle of a government that spent $3.5 trillion in 2013, tried to steal more than $35,000 from Terry and Sandy that year.

Sandy, a mother of four, has a master’s degree in urban planning but has worked in the store off and on since she was 12. She remembers, “They just walked into the store” and announced that they had emptied the store’s bank account. The IRS agents believed, or pretended to believe, that Terry and Sandy were or conceivably could be — which is sufficient for the IRS — conducting a criminal enterprise when not selling groceries.

What pattern of behavior supposedly aroused the suspicions of a federal government that is ignorant of how small businesses function? Terry and Sandy regularly make deposits of less than $10,000 in the bank across the street. Federal law, aimed primarily at money laundering by drug dealers, requires banks to report cash deposits of more than $10,000. It also makes it illegal to “structure” deposits to evade such reporting.

Because 35 percent of Schott’s Supermarket’s receipts are in cash, Terry and Sandy make frequent trips to the bank to avoid tempting actual criminals by having large sums at the store. Besides, their insurance policy covers no cash loss in excess of $10,000.

In 2010 and 2012, IRS agents visited the store and examined Terry’s and Sandy’s conduct. In 2012, the IRS notified them that it identified “no violations” of banking laws. But on Jan. 22, 2013, Terry and Sandy discovered that the IRS had obtained a secret warrant and emptied the store’s bank account. Sandy says that if the IRS had acted “the day before, there would have been only about $2,000 in the account.” Should we trust that today’s IRS was just lucky in its timing?

The IRS used “civil forfeiture,” the power to seize property suspected of being produced by, or involved with, crime. The IRS could have dispelled its suspicions of Terry and Sandy, if it actually had any, by simply asking them about the reasons — prudence, and the insurance limit — for their banking practices. It had, however, a reason not to ask obvious questions before proceeding.

The civil forfeiture law — if something so devoid of due process can be dignified as law — is an incentive for perverse behavior: Predatory government agencies get to pocket the proceeds from property they seize from Americans without even charging them with, let alone convicting them of, crimes. Criminals are treated better than this because they lose the fruits of their criminality only after being convicted.

Sandy remembers her father exclaiming, “Aren’t we in the United States? We did nothing wrong.” They did something right in discovering the Institute for Justice’s activities against civil forfeiture abuse. IJ, a libertarian defender of property rights and other American premises, says that what was done to Terry is done routinely across the nation — indeed, it was done almost simultaneously to the owner of a gas station near Schott’s Supermarket who deposited his cash receipts whenever he could get to the bank, typically every few days.

Civil forfeiture proceeds on the guilty-until-proven-innocent principle, forcing property owners of limited means to hire lawyers and engage in protracted proceedings against a government with limitless resources just to prove their innocence. Says IJ:

“To make matters worse, forfeiture law treats property owners like random bystanders and requires them to intervene in the lawsuit filed by the government against their property just to get it back. That is why civil forfeiture cases have such unusual names, such as United States v. $35,651.11 in U.S. Currency — the case involving Terry and Sandy.”

In what it probably considered an act of unmerited mercy, the IRS offered to return 20 percent of Terry’s money. Such extortion — pocketing others people’s money — often succeeds when the IRS bullies bewildered people not represented by IJ, which forced the government to return all of Terry’s and the gas station owner’s money.

IJ’s countersuit seeks an injunction to prevent such IRS thefts and extortions. Meanwhile, earnest moralists might consider the possibility that Americans’ distrust of government is insufficient.


  • 0

#15 Zharkov


    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 35008 posts

Posted 04 June 2014 - 05:49 PM

The American Dream is out of reach

By Tami Luhby 

The American Dream is impossible to achieve in this country.

So say nearly 6 in 10 people who responded to CNNMoney's American Dream Poll, conducted by ORC International. They feel the dream -- however they define it -- is out of reach.


Young adults, age 18 to 34, are most likely to feel the dream is unattainable, with 63% saying it's impossible. This age group has suffered in the wake of the Great Recession, finding it hard to get good jobs.


Younger Americans are a cause of great concern. Many respondents said they are worried about the next generation's ability to prosper.


Some 63% of all Americans said most children in the U.S. won't be better off than their parents.



  • 0

#16 Zharkov


    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 35008 posts

Posted 04 June 2014 - 08:07 PM

America Killed the Start-Up

By Ted Baumann, Offshore and Asset Protection Editor


In my travels (over 60 countries and counting) I’ve seen firsthand just how important myths can be to a country’s self-image. Many people in Africa and the Middle East, for example, are convinced that their “national origins” can be traced back thousands of years, despite the fact that their countries are less than a hundred years old.

A critical part of America’s national mythology is the notion that we’re a country of entrepreneurs — or would be, if only government would get out of the way. We hear this myth all the time.

It’s true, there’s a lot of entrepreneurship in America, but it isn’t the kind the purveyors of our national mythologies tell us it is ... it’s a more sinister kind, the kind that is leading the U.S. to economic collapse.


When politicians praise “entrepreneurship,” they inevitably conjure up the image of a mom-and-pop operation that does well, creating jobs and wealth in its local community.

But that sort of entrepreneurship is almost dead in America — killed by a combination of structural changes, anti-competitive behavior and systemic favoritism towards big business. In its place we have the “new entrepreneurialism” — people applying their smarts to undermine free markets for profit, and getting favors from government at all levels.

Consider the evidence. Annual start-ups as a share of U.S. businesses fell from nearly 15% in the late 1970s to around 8% in 2011. The proportion of firms aged five years or younger has dropped steadily over the past three decades, from around 50% in the early ‘80s to about 35% in 2012. The number of jobs created by these new firms has fallen accordingly.


See larger image


See larger image

Older and larger businesses are doing better relative to younger and smaller ones. Why, and what’s the likely impact for people like you and me?

Most people understand why high-volume retail chains like Wal-Mart or Starbucks have killed smaller competitors: volume. But construction and manufacturing start-ups have also declined precipitously. The same is true for doctors, accountants, and even artisans, who increasingly end up working for big conglomerates rather than for themselves.

That suggests there’s something other than volume and economies of scale that favor big firms and undermine entrepreneurship. What could it be?

The Barriers to Entrepreneurship

The most important issue is lack of demand. There’s little point in starting a business if your potential customers are cutting back on their spending. But there’s also the issue of access to capital.  Once, the laid-off could borrow against home equity to finance a new business. But after the housing bust far fewer people have equity in their homes.

Of course, there’s plenty of other equity capital out there — but it’s concentrated in the hands of corporations and institutional investors. Small start-ups with modest returns aren’t worth their while. So, the finance that's available tends to go to big established firms. The policies that favor this situation — like bank bailouts — are geared to the interests of big Wall Street banks.

Then there’s the appalling financial obligations facing young people. College-educated 20- to 34-year-olds are the group least likely to start a business. That’s because in the first five years, the average new entrepreneur pays student loans and taxes totaling almost half his or her income. It’s just not worth risking a start-up under those circumstances.

By contrast, entrepreneurship among the least-educated remains significantly higher, precisely because they don’t have student loan debt to worry about. Again, a special favor for the student loan industry — an act of Congress that makes student debt non-dischargeable — is the culprit.

The next barrier is rising health care costs and the skewed U.S. health insurance system. Soaring costs and unfair tax subsidies for employer-provided health insurance make it more attractive to work for a big company than working for a start-up. This also puts small companies at a disadvantage in hiring. 

Soaring student debt and health care costs reflect government interventions that tend to undermine entrepreneurship. But as the Obamacare saga showed, big firms are able to manipulate government to create more direct barriers to competition. Large companies often support regulation because they know they can get “job-creating” exemptions, and have deeper pockets to challenge enforcement. And regulation imposes fixed costs that are far easier for larger corporations to bear. Learning the arcana of disability law, for example, requires the same amount of time and expense for one employee as for one thousand.

Finally, consider the subsidies that government showers on large firms who employ lots of low-skill workers. Wal-Mart, for example, gets $8 billion annually in indirect subsidies and tax breaks. The former includes $6.2 billion in food stamps, subsidized housing, and Medicaid benefits for its employees. It also includes millions in investment subsidies from state and legal governments. On the flip side, 18% of all food stamp money is spent at Wal-Mart — about $14 billion of the $80 billion food assistance budget in 2012. Wal-Mart just loves food stamps.

I’m not suggesting a minimum wage increase. But business models based on high volume and low-wage labor typically employ lots of easily-replaceable unskilled part-time workers. If one of them is too hungry to work productively, they can just be fired and replaced. That just won’t work for a small businessperson relying on energetic and committed employees to get a start-up off the ground.

No Future Here

The dynamic at work is clear: as the U.S. economy has matured, advantages have accrued for the existing players. Some of those advantages are structural, but many are political, the result of a kind of entrepreneurship that concentrates on rigging the game. They stop newer firms from challenging entrenched ones. Subsidies, bailouts, and lobbyist-written industry rules protect the big boys.

The U.S. economy is headed for collapse.

Some American firms are doing just fine, profiting from our decline, but the barriers that restrict real entrepreneurship are detrimental to our economy.

But it IS possible to escape from this America … to countries where true entrepreneurship is still honored in practice, not just in rhetoric.

Kind regards,
Ted Baumann
Offshore and Asset Protection Editor



The US tax system is the "hitman" that killed America.


Nobody can earn a better lifestyle when the tax percentage exactly equals whatever money remains after business and living expenses.   But that is exactly how it works out in practice.    The money which people once saved to start their own business is now taken away from them in taxes, so they save almost nothing.   The result -  they start no new businesses.   They barely survive, and many do not even survive.   Many become homeless, in extreme poverty, because everything was taken away in taxes and penalties.


What the US government has become, the financial monster it has evolved into, the black hole of American dreams, is a genetic freak that will eventually die from it's own obesity.   And when it does, it will take a lot of families down with it.   The end of this game is coming closer every day because the US government is now devouring the remaining wealth of its own people.

Edited by Zharkov, 04 June 2014 - 08:11 PM.

  • 0

#17 Zharkov


    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 35008 posts

Posted 05 June 2014 - 10:57 PM

Dinesh D’Souza’s dire warning: Americans ‘are being prepared for a political and financial shakedown’

In connection with the release of his new book “America: Imagine a World Without Her,” we conducted an interview with bestselling conservative author and filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza.

In the interview, we covered such topics as the left’s disingenuous championing of the “little guy,” the twisted historical narrative being taught in schools today, illegal immigration, the man who shaped the dastardly tactics of both the current…and if the left gets their way, future president, D’Souza’s upcoming movie and much more.

The transcript of our interview, conducted via phone, can be found below. The interview has been modified for clarity and links.

In your book, you take on the left on their own terms, focusing on those at the bottom of society, or as the left describes it, looking at “history from below.” Why did you choose to go that route?

    “I’m willing to argue that the left is actually attacking ordinary people.”

D’Souza: The left is very successful at appealing to the principle of justice, and justice for the man lowest down. Sometimes, as conservatives, we miss the force of that. We reply by chanting “Liberty!” But we have to remember that justice is a key principle. Right, the Pledge of Allegiance: “With liberty and justice for all.” So we can’t ignore justice, and what I do in the book and film is to engage the left on its own terms. I go “Ok, let’s really look at whether or not America has been good for the common man.” Forget about the rich guy, he’s going to do well everywhere. Let’s judge a society by the kind of life it makes available to the ordinary fellow. So I’m willing to argue that the left is actually attacking ordinary people.

Let me give an example of what I mean. The left says that the wealth of America is stolen. So here’s the first question: Who stole it? Was it the one percent? Now if we look at American history, who are the people who moved West and displaced the Indians? The immigrants. Who are the people who benefited from slavery? Well everybody who bought a cotton shirt. Who are the people who defeated the Mexicans in the Mexican War? Ordinary immigrants and settlers.

So the point is that the critique of America is not one that is aimed at wealthy aristocrats who had beautiful cottages or mansions on the East Coast. The progressive critique is an attack on the immigrants themselves – it’s an attack on people like me. And so, what I’m doing here is making a defense of the ordinary American against these malicious charges that are leveled by the left, which are untrue and the prelude to shaking us down economically.

You frame that thesis, ironically enough, around two Frenchmen, Alexis de Tocqueville and Michel Foucault. Can you expound upon the dichotomy represented by these two men — and the “spirit of 1776″ versus that of 1968?

D’Souza: Yeah, we see the “spirit of 1776″ and 1968 by looking at two French guys, both of whom came to America at very different times. Tocqueville came in the early 19th century, and what he saw was the American founding principles in action, basically half a century after they had been put into effect. And what Tocqueville noticed was that America was a very entrepreneurial society, America was a society where people rely very little on the government, and America is a society deeply infused with Christian values. So Tocqueville saw, if you will, conservative America. Now, fast-forward 150 years when Michel Foucault came to America in the 1970s. And what he liked about America – he, like Tocqueville, grew to love America — but he loved America because he saw America as a mecca of gay liberation. The things that Tocqueville saw about America, like its entrepreneurship or its Christianity, Foucault hated. He hated that America. But what he liked is a different America, that he saw in the Castro district of San Francisco, which he called “laboratories of sexual experimentation.” So these are really two different Americas. In Foucault, you get just a glimpse of a different kind of America that progressives might prefer to the principles of 1776.

In moving from the 1776 ethos to that of 1968, you speak to Saul Alinsky’s playbook. And one of the things you say, and something that I hadn’t seen elsewhere, is that Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” effectively are derived from the same playbook as that of the devil, which kind of explains why he dedicated “Rules for Radicals” to Satan. Can you expound upon that?

D’Souza: Well, something strange is going on here because Alinsky was obviously not a Christian; in fact, he was an atheist. So why would an atheist dedicate a book to Lucifer? I think to discover the answer, you have to pay careful attention to what Lucifer represents in the Western tradition. So I did a close reading of Milton’s “Paradise Lost,” and you begin to see how Lucifer operates. First of all, Lucifer is a master of organizing resentment, and so is Alinsky. Lucifer is also a master at making G-d the bad guy. So even though Lucifer rebels against G-d, even though G-d justly expels Lucifer from Heaven, Lucifer goes, “G-d, you’re a tyrant. I don’t have to follow you. I want my own kingdom.” So Lucifer practices, you may say, demonization against G-d. And finally, Lucifer is a liar. He is a master of dishonesty and deceit.

Now, Alinsky adopted these Luciferian techniques, and so, for example, Alinsky openly advocates deceit. He tells the radicals of the ‘60s, “You know you people are middle class, but you hate the middle class, you hate middle class values, and that’s very good. But what you should do is pretend to be a friend of the middle class, pass yourself off as middle class, and use your position in the middle class to rub raw the sores of discontent. Try to radicalize the middle class by feigning or pretending to share their values.” And I think here, we begin to see the Obama and even the Hillary playbook, which is to say the ways in which Hillary and Obama both started out as Bohemians or Hippies, and then quickly adopted the Alinsky-ite approach of as Alinsky says “dressing square:” Seeming very respectable, being very self-disciplined, and ultimately pretending to be a friend of the middle class, whose values you are trying to undermine.

You talk about the prospect of a Hillary presidency, and obviously, as you know, Hillary follows the same playbook – she wrote her thesis on Alinsky. If Hillary were to be elected, that would potentially mean 16 years of an Alinsky-ite practitioner in the White House. What does that mean for the American who is at the bottom?

D’Souza: Well it took 200 years to build America, and it’s not easy to unmake America, even in two presidential terms. You need more time, and you also need a powerful movement behind you. Now, Obama I believe is a global redistributionist. Most Democrats think he’s a domestic redistributionist, and he is. But he also wants to redistribute wealth away from America and to the rest of the world.

Now, to answer your question – what does this mean for the little guy – well, remember that the little guy in America is rich by world standards. If you made a global division of wealth, the guy at the bottom in America would be in the top quintile, the top fifth of affluent people in the world. So if you’re a global redistributionist, you recognize, or you believe that even the poor guy in America has got to pay because if we’re going to have global redistribution, wealth has to be transferred even away from the American poor toward even poorer people in other countries.

And so I think what we’re going to see under progressive rule is the impoverishment of America across the board. And as for the guy a the bottom, he’s going to discover that there are floors below the ground floor in America – there’s a basement that he hasn’t yet experienced and that will not be pleasant to live in.

    “I think what we’re going to see under progressive rule is the impoverishment of America”

And I presume that global redistribution of wealth also has with it a global redistribution of power, not just as a result of the loss of wealth, but also on foreign policy. Would you agree with that?

President Obama bowing to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. (Image Source: The Gateway Pundit)

D’Souza: Yes. And I would agree that the redistribution of power is not due to Obama’s incompetence, or his lack of knowledge of where the Crimea is, or the fact that he doesn’t know that the Taliban mean business. He knows all that. He wants American power to shrink so that the power of China, India, Brazil, and Russia can rise. The latest exchange of the American soldier for the Taliban guys, with Obama, you know grinning and giggling, while people who have been shooting at Americans chat on the phone is just a small window into this man’s psyche. We’ve elected him to protect, preserve, and defend the interests of the United States, but the best that can be said is that he interprets those completely differently than most Americans.

    Obama wants American power to shrink so…the power of China, India, Brazil, and Russia can rise

In doing research for this book, you take on all of the leftist conceptions of colonialism, theft, plunder, and all the rest of it. Was there any historical episode or commonly accepted view that, through your research, you found to be most strikingly wrong, or that even surprised you?

D’Souza: Well, I think that what I’ve found striking is the highly selective view of history that is routinely taught, not only in the colleges, but also in the schools. This is a view that trolls through American history, isolates a half-dozen or so facts, pulls them all together, and then passes that off as a narrative of American shame. Most of our young people think that is history. What they don’t realize is that this is an account that jumps over whole decades, even centuries, and leaves out huge episodes of America, which is the Industrial Revolution, the spreading of the railroads, the great entrepreneurial and innovation history of America, the First and Second great spiritual awakenings, which transformed the country.

    Americans are being prepared for a political and financial shakedown

Most of our young people don’t know a heck of a lot, if anything, about these things, but they certainly know about Harriet Tubman and Rosa Parks, so they’ve actually got a highly manipulated view of history, a kind of programmed narrative of American shame, and the reason for that is that they are being prepared for a political and financial shakedown. So in other words, if you want the federal government to come to Americans and take their stuff, and you want to prevent Americans from objecting, you’ve got to try to convince them that their stuff isn’t theirs in the first place: that it’s been stolen, that their ancestors stole it, that if history had been fair, they wouldn’t have this big house and this nice couch and this big-screen TV and this nice car. So the government has every right to confiscate it because it’s not really yours.

As an immigrant to this country, sadly it seems that you’re fighting harder to defend and protect her — even at great personal risk — than most native-born Americans. You talk about our vehicle of wealth creation as being what separates us from the rest of the world, in part. But more than capitalism, isn’t it our moral system and the Judeo-Christian heritage, which informs and sustains the American experiment, that really makes us pre-eminent as a nation, and which is what attracted you here in the first place?

D’Souza: Absolutely. America was never built on the idea that prosperity was its own justification. The prosperity is a means, the abundance is a framework for people to enjoy the American Dream. And the American Dream is not just a dream about individuals, it’s a dream about individuals and families and community and faith and country, and even making the world a better place. America was always intended to be an example to the world. So, I would not argue that our free-market system is the only distinctive thing about America. Certainly when Jefferson sat down to write the basis of human dignity and human equality, he located it in the Creator, so there is a transcendent basis for rights in America, and that comes right out of our Judeo-Christian foundation.

You also talk in the book at length about our experience and the history with Mexico and the United States, and you discuss the appeal of America for immigrants, and how, as confirmed by works which I’m sure your familiar by folks like Thomas Sowell and Amy Chua, certain immigrant groups have come to America and outperformed everyone else within a generation or two generations. Your personal background is obviously consonant with such a history. What is your view on illegal immigrants in America, specifically Mexican illegal immigrants?

D’Souza: Well, I’m very pro-immigrant. And I’m very pro-immigration. But I have no sympathy for illegal immigration. We are a nation of laws, and we are a nation that has a system for taking in immigrants. And it’s a very generous system: we take in about 800,000 legal immigrants a year. Every country has the right to decide what the rules are, and what kind of immigrants it wants. And we’ve done that. We have laws to do that.

Now, the illegal immigrant is the guy who is, in his very first act of coming to America, showing a disregard for that law. Now, I don’t fault the motive of poor people in other countries who are trying to improve their life, but sorry, we do have a set of rules that you need to follow, and there is in fact a line or a queue. So if you try to jump the line and swim across the Rio Grande, you are not playing by the rules. So, on the one hand, my book is a strong defense of America as reflecting the restless, entrepreneurial, hardworking, creative ethic of the immigrants, while at the same time, I would not have sympathy for people who want to come here by flouting the rules.

    “I’m very pro-immigration. But I have no sympathy for illegal immigration.”

How can America overcome the spirit of 1968 in light of the dominance of the left in all of our cultural institutions, be it academia, the media, etc? And is there anything that gives you optimism that America will in fact repudiate the progressive ethos?

D’Souza: I believe that the alternative to the progressive ethos, which is a well-reasoned and well-articulated conservatism is an extremely attractive political alternative to the mess that we are in now. It needs to be effectively defended, and it needs a political leadership class that is able to present it as an alternative, come election day. I think that one of the problems on the Republican side is that the Republicans tend to huddle and say, narrowly, “How can we take back the Senate?,” not recognizing that that is only one corner of the battlefield; and that the left has been making a long march through the institutions of education, Hollywood, the media, the mainline churches, so while conservatives are fighting in one corner, the left is shifting the goalposts of the culture and making certain political issues like gay marriage irrelevant by the time they actually come up for a political vote. Part of what I want to do in this book and then in the film is to raise people’s awareness of the whole battlefield. I think if we are aware of it, we can start fighting and winning in territory that has been, I think, very foolishly conceded to the left.

Given what’s happened with the indictment, do you have a message to other dissenters in light of the personal trials and tribulations you have gone through for challenging the government? And related to that, is the country not already, to some degree, fundamentally transformed, when you do have the selective application of the law in terms of targeting political opponents?

D’Souza: I think that with Obama, we’re seeing new lows and new aberrations that did not occur before. I mean it’s to me inconceivable that the Bush administration would go after Michael Moore in that way, or even that Clinton would unleash the IRS against his opponents. Carter certainly would never dream of doing such a thing. So, we’ve in a sense turned a corner in American politics, and I’m worried about it because to some degree politics is a game of adversaries, and if they do it to you, I’m sure there are Republicans who are taking note who say “Well, wait till we have a chance to do it to them.” So we don’t want the politics of putting your critics into handcuffs. It’s a very troubling way for a country to operate.  In fact, it’s the way third world countries operate, where they use the army or the police to go after their opposition. We have been thankfully spared from that kind of politics here in America. So, I think if people knew that’s what was going on, there would be a revolt about it.

One of our problems today is that our press has in a sense gone limp. In other words, what’s happened is, we don’t really have a normal press that is a check on the government. The mainstream media has become, in a sense, an extension of the Obama administration and is covering for him. They won’t report information damaging about him, and they are sycophantic to a fault toward the White House. Now Obama knows this, so it encourages people to abuse power when they know that they’re not going to be held accountable. So I think we are at a perilous moment of American politics, but my hope and prayer is that it is a moment, and this is not the new normal.

    “The mainstream media has become…an extension of the Obama administration

If you could speak to President Obama about your indictment or any other issue, what would you say to him?

D’Souza: That’s an interesting question. I’ve never been quite asked that before. Some people said after 2016, wouldn’t it be interesting if you could sit down with Obama and explore in a friendly but probing way, the ways in which your life and his life — which are outwardly so similar – we’re both people of color, we’re about the same age, we graduated college in the same year – how your experiences could be so different. I think that part of it is the fact that I am an immigrant who sees America from the outside. Obama is (or claims to be) actually a native-born American, but one that has bought into this idea that America is a force for evil in the world. And so while I am trying to preserve and strengthen America, he is trying to contain America to reduce its oppressive footprint in the globe.

    “While I am trying to preserve and strengthen America, he is trying to contain America.”

What can Americans expect to get out of your upcoming movie that they might not see from this book alone?

D’Souza: The book is the intellectual spine of the film, and so the book supplies, if you will, the argument. Movies are not fundamentally about argument. Movies are about showing, rather than telling. Movies are about also an emotional experience that enables you to experience America.

So I can do things in the movie — there are things in the book that I can’t possibly do in the film. There’s information, data, footnotes in the book that you won’t get in the film. But on the other hand, the film gives you an experience that is very different from, and in fact impossible to get, from a book.

For example, in the book, I can quote people on the left, but in the film, you’ll see them. And the film gives space to some of the most pungent critics of America to rail against America, and then I take them on. So I don’t do the Michael Moore buffoon thing. I don’t jump on my critics before they have a chance to speak, or misrepresent what they have to say, or wake them up when they’re sleeping. I let these people talk, I let them have their point of view, and then I turn the camera around if you will, and begin to ask, “Is this point of view valid?”



  • 0

#18 Zharkov


    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 35008 posts

Posted 06 June 2014 - 02:58 PM

George Soros won’t go to prison for taking his money out of the bank, but you could, if you are not very careful.

We should all be more a little more than nervous when Soros, in the first quarter of 2014, removed his money from three megabanks.

“Rick” wrote to me following the publication of yesterday’s article with some very pointed concerns and questions. Here is his response:

    “Ok, the idea of removing your money from the bank for me is a joke! I have a substantial amount in 3 different accounts. It’s VERY difficult to remove more than $8,000 or $9,000 at a time without extreme scrutiny from the IRS and the DEA. Plus, the banks will tell you that frequently they don’t have enough on hand to give you even $8,000. If you close your account, guess what? They give you a check, NOT cash! So you have to go to another bank WITH A CHECK once more!

    So, how does one remove their money from the bank without causing  major transaction reports to be filed with the government about your banking activities????

    Dave, thus, please give us tips on how to remove substantial amounts of cash without incurring the wrath of the government, and how to take out large amounts of cash to begin with, as the banks discourage taking out more than $1,000 to $3,000 dollars in any given transaction.”

At first glance, Rick appears to be correct. The odds are stacked against all average depositors. With all that is available to read on this topic, it is mind boggling regarding how few people are preparing to act to preserve what assets they have remaining by not removing their money from the bank. Because you have put your money in the bank, you no longer own your money.

The courts have ruled that once you deposit your money in the bank, the bank owns your money. You virtually are paid no interest for the hard earned money that you place in the bank. And if inflation is only at a modest 5% rate, your hundred thousand dollars is worth only $95,000 after one year. In a decade, your real buying power is reduced by about 50%. And where did the other 50% go? Because of fractional reserve banking, the biggest money scam in history, the banks can take $10,000 and turn it into at least $90,000 by doing absolutely nothing but adding some zeroes after your name, on a computer scree, and then loaning out the money, at interest, while you are paid a minuscule interest rate. This practice adds to the inflation rate and further erodes your savings.

All of the above, dictates that we should all take our money out of the bank. Why do I risk starting a run on my former and biggest holder of my money, Bank of America, by withdrawing my money and presuming that many fellow depositors will read this and rush to withdraw their money too? The very biggest reason to is because they pay me near zero interest. Also, even if there is an infinitesimal chance Bank of America will not repay me in full, whenever I ask, switches the cost-benefit conclusion from stay to flee.

The biggest reason to take your money out of the bank is because it has absolutely no protection. The FDIC has only about $25 billion in its deposit insurance fund, which is mandated by law to keep a balance equivalent to only 1.15% of insured deposits. If a banking collapse were to be on the near horizon, the banksters are not going to notify you because they would not want to incite a bank run. With only 1.15% of all deposits being insured by the FDIC, your money would be left vulnerable and only the elite would be warned as they quietly transfer their money to a safer haven. How do I know this? Because this is exactly what my research discovered on the money movements preceding the Gulf oil spill, as it was revealed that on the morning of the explosion, Goldman Sachs issued a “put option for preferred insiders” in Transocean (the owner of the Deep Water Horizon oil rig) and the elite had their stock profit margin guaranteed while everyone else took a financial bath! This is the undeniable pattern of the global elite.

Additionally, your bank account has been collateralized against the derivatives debt.

The bankruptcy reform laws stemming from the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2005, derivatives counter-parties are given preference over all other creditors and customers of the bankrupt financial institution, including FDIC insured depositors. This gives what the experts call “super priority” in terms of the line of succession from which to collect bankruptcy monies. Bank of America has conspicuously co-mingled their derivatives debt with your savings account and as such they have every legal right use your money to cover their debt. Oh, they would never do that you say?  I have bad news for the uninformed, they already have done that very thing. In the MF Global debacle, the reason that MF Global  customers lost their segregated account funds was because the MF Global debt load was caused primarily because of their derivatives debt which, under bankruptcy laws, gave derivatives claimants super-priority in the bankruptcy proceedings. In short, you do not matter.
Times Have Changed

Taking what was your money out of the bank is no longer a matter of walking up to your friendly teller with a withdrawal slip and the teller cheerfully honors your request and you calmly exit the bank with your money in tow. In fact, your teller is trained to look for certain indicators in any cash withdrawal of any significance.

As you move to withdraw the bulk of your money, there are three federal banking laws that you should be cognizant of, namely, Cash Transaction Report (CTR), a Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) and structuring. Before proceeding with the planed withdrawal of your money, I would strongly suggest that you read the following federal guidelines as it relates to CTR’s as produced by the The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). All the federal regulations contained in this article are elucidated in this series of federal reports.

Before withdrawing your money, there are three regulations to be concerned with:

CTR (Currency Transaction Report)

Federal law requires that the bank file a report based upon any withdrawal or deposit of $10,000 or more on any single given day.The law was designed to put a damper on money laundering, sophisticated counterfeiting and other federal crimes.

To remain in compliance with the law, financial institutions must obtain personal identification, information about the transaction and the social security number of the person conducting the transaction.

Technically, there is no federal law prohibiting the use of large amounts of cash. However, a CTR must be filed in ALL cases of cash transaction regardless of the reason underlying the transaction. This means your cash transaction will be on the radar.


Structuring and SAR

There will undoubtedly be some geniuses whose math ability will tell them that all they have to do is to withdraw $9,999.99 and the bank and its protector, the federal government will be none the wiser. It is not quite that simple. Here are a few examples of structuring violations that one should be aware of:


1. Barry S. has obtained $15,000 in cash he obtained from selling his truck. He knows that if he deposits $15,000 in cash, his financial institution will be required to file a CTR. Instead he deposits $7,500 in cash in the morning with one financial institution employee and comes back to the financial institution later in the day to another employee to deposit the remaining $7,500, hoping to evade the CTR reporting requirement. Barry should have used multiple accounts to conduct this transaction.

2. Hillary C. needs $16,000 in cash to pay for supplies for her arts and crafts business. Hillary cashes an $8,000 personal check at a financial institution on a Monday. She subsequently cashes another $8,000 personal check at the bank the following day. Hillary is careful to have cashed the two checks on different days and structured the transactions in an attempt to evade the CTR reporting requirement. Hillary should have made irregular deposits on staggered days.

3. A married couple, Bill and Hillary, sell a vehicle for $12,000 in cash. To evade the CTR reporting requirement, Bill and Hillary structure their transactions using different accounts. Bill deposits $8,000 of that money into his and Hillary’s joint account in the morning. Later that day, Hillary deposits $1,500 into the joint account, then $2,500 into her sister’s account, which is later transferred to Bill and Hillary’s joint account at the same bank. Again, Bill and Hillary should have used multiple banks.

The aggregate total of the three transactions totals more than the $10,000 threshold, therefore, a SAR would be filed by the bank and you would be the subject of a federal investigation as all three of the above cases clearly violate the federal banking laws related to structuring. It is a federal crime to break up transactions into smaller amounts for the purpose of evading the CTR reporting requirement. In these instances, the bank is required to file a SAR which serves to notify the federal government of an individual’s attempt to structure deposits or withdrawals by circumventing the $10,000 reporting requirement.

Structuring transactions to prevent a CTR from being reported can result in imprisonment for not more than five years and/or a fine of up to $250,000. If structuring involves more than $100,000 in a twelve month period or is performed while violating another law of the federal government, the penalty is doubled.


Civilian asset forfeiture laws - Enforcement

Much like the enforcement of our tax laws, the federal government’s enforcement of its banking laws as it relates to CTR’s, SAR’s and subsequent structuring is quite draconian. Civilian asset forfeiture laws come into play. The government can seize your bank accounts while it determines if a crime has been committed.


The government can literally seize your assets in perpetuity without an order of the court.

Of course, you could try and sue but you will be up against the deep pockets of the federal government and the case could take years. By the time your case is decided, the financial banking crisis that you are so desperately trying to avoid by withdrawing your money, could be over.  So, proceed with caution.

If you ever become the target of a federal investigation, do not, under any circumstances, allow yourself to be interviewed by federal officials without an attorney present.

In many cases, people go to jail and pay huge fines, not because they have committed a federal crime, but because federal officials state that they have lied or misled them. And if you do not have an attorney present, it is your word versus the federal government. This is how the federal government sent Martha Stewart to prison.  


(Zharkov:  Best advice - exercise your right to remain silent, and simply reply, "I decline to comment.")

What to Do

The best way to avoid getting your money caught in the bank in the midst of a bank run would be to not let the lion’s share of your money ever cross the bank. Do not allow your employer to direct deposit your check to the bank. Keep some cash at home by taking out a large portion of the money you receive from your employer. Don’t  put cash in a safety box because the courts have also ruled that the banks own your safety boxes.   

(Zharkov:  Also, if you die, your safety deposit box is sealed by the bank until the court appoints an executor or administrator of your estate and the IRS audits its contents, so never keep a Will or any other important document in a safety deposit box.)

Use electronic transfers to buy into a mutual funds and also use checks to buy silver coins from several different companies

Open multiple banking accounts ranging from the big five megabanks to your local credit unions. You could withdraw much smaller amounts until the sum total of your accounts is greatly diminished and is in your possession. To open the accounts, simply write a personal check from your home bank. Of course, in these cases, the bank could hold the check for 15-30 days.

Use checks and case to pay all of your debts.

Prepay your taxes and some other obligations with checks. Make sure you only pay safe entities. Your local government is not going to disappear, even in a depression. Therefore, you can prepay property taxes.  

(Zharkov - no, you cannot prepay property tax in America because property tax increases every year according to legislation, inflation, and reassessments, so the exact amount cannot be predicted accurately each year.   The government may take your money but they will also send a notice of default and penalty for any unpaid increased amount due.)

Find a safer bank than the mega banks. Use credit unions as they are one level removed from the Federal Reserve.  .

Please add to the list with your comments.


I predict the Federal Reserve will steal your money by faking a cyber attack In fact, last year, FEMA and DHS actually practiced for this event on October 23rd and 24th of last year.

To people like “Rick” you probably will not be able to save everything, but rest assured, you can still save something to live on. The time to have acted was yesterday.

I can anticipate what some of you are now thinking, because I have thought the same thing!  If all of us attempt to take even just a portion out of the bank, the Federal Reserve and their servant, the federal government, will move to stop all cash withdrawals. Won’t that kind of move serve to expose the criminality of the Federal Reserve and the federal government for all to see? Awareness is the first step to action and we have the ability to force several issues out on the open at this time.


  • 0

#19 Zharkov


    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 35008 posts

Posted 11 June 2014 - 04:34 PM

‘I want to leave US forever’ – The story of a Stateless man

Posted by EU Times

Mikhail Sebastian is the most famous stateless person in the US. Born in the former Soviet Union, Sebastian sought asylum in the US in the early 1990s, but was denied.


The US could not deport him because Armenia-the successor state in whose territory Sebastian was born-did not recognize his citizenship, leaving him stateless.


After a four-day New Year’s vacation to American Samoa in 2012, Sebastian was barred from reentering the mainland United States by immigration officials, who claimed he had self-deported. It took nearly 14 months for Sebastian to gain permission to return to his home in Los Angeles, and this occurred only after extensive interventions by lawyers, government officials, human rights advocates, and university groups, as well as a social media campaign via Twitter, Tumblr, YouTube, and CNN iReport. My goal is opposite. I want to leave the US forever. What happened? I became victim of neo-Marxist radical feminist domestic violence industry.

Eric Holder states that the US has the best justice systems. Based on what? Incarceration rates are the highest in the world. I have been everywhere in the US except Alaska. I cannot say Americans are the most evil people, but a huge part of the US population deserve a PhD in stupidity (a few facts to prove it:


1.   The reelection of Obama,


2.   Google "congressman Hank Jonson (D-Georgia) who says that Guam could tip and capsize",


3.   Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) on a visit to JPL, asked if Mars Pathfinder had taken an image of the flag planted there in 1969 by Neil Armstrong, she also believes North and South Vietnam still exist,


4.   Charles Schumer (D-New York) he thinks the three branches of government are the US president, the US Congress, and the Senate.


How many more pinheads running US and what is the IQ of the people who vote for them?

People get away with lying in court daily. A widely known example is the Duke La Cross case where accuser the women has not received one bit of punishment. Dire injustice is occurring across the US. Laws enacted to protect the victims of the vile crime of domestic violence are being abused by citizens as well as law enforcement, in this process innocent men’s lives are destroyed.

Burden of proof is being thrown out and the simple word of the accuser is being taken without question, many times without the accused even being allowed to speak. I’ve been victimized in the State of Washington. Not enough I spent 11 months in solitary confinement and 22 months in immigration detention, now I cannot even leave the US. I’m formerly a citizen of the USSR; I understand that life is some time not fair and I’ve given up pursuing justice. Millions of people try to get into America, and millions more try to avoid deportation, I am just trying to get out. I have a 4-year old son in Russia who needs his father not just a human wallet overseas. In December of 2013, I talked face to face with the Russian Consul in Seattle. I had been told that if I could obtain official paperwork from ICE containing my name, immigration status and picture, the Russian Consulate would grant me a visa to go to Russia and in time would be able to get Russian citizenship.

Here is quote from an email between a USA representative (District 7) and US immigration authorities, “USCIS electronic records indicate that Mr. Decyatnik was ordered removed from the United States on February 26, 2002. It appears that Mr. Decyatnik has no immigration status in the United States. USCIS cannot issue official proof of non-status.” How stupid is this, if INS can’t remove me, just give me travel documents and I will leave on my own. In my opinion, common sense was dead in the United States a long time ago in domestic affairs or international relations it reminds me of Alice in Wonderland.


  • 0

#20 Zharkov


    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 35008 posts

Posted 14 June 2014 - 04:02 PM

Your Child Has No Future If They Stay In the U.S.

The famous singer, Kenny Rogers, used to sing to his audiences that “you had to know when to hold’em and know when to fold’em”. Holding to this philosophical notion, your children will be faced with the dilemma of deciding when it would be best to fold’em and leave the country for greener pastures because economic opportunity in the United States is evaporating with over half of America approaching third world living conditions.

The American Middle Class Is An Endangered Species

Although the United States is still one of the top of wealthiest nations, the Credit Suisse Global Wealth Report notes that the middle class in the U.S. ranks only 19th in global median wealth. Even the globalist-serving CNN states that the middle class home ownership rates in Europe are far higher than they are in the United States. The U.S. middle class is falling behind in every major economic indicator, according to this new report.

The average American wage was $56,080 at the end of the 20th century. Only twelve years later, it had slipped to $51,017. The average American’s net worth is an impressive $301,000. Only Switzerland, Norway and Australia have average net income rates higher than the United States. However, the middle class is not sharing in the prosperity as the average United States middle-class person is only worth about $44,000. Less than half of Americans can afford to own a home. Over a third of all American workers make more than $20 per hour. This is called wealth redistribution and your children have had their economic future mortgaged through the scheme known as wealth redistribution. Where is the money going? According to the report, America has 42% of the world’s millionaires.

As bleak as the Credit Suisse Report may be, it only tells part of the story.
 It Does Not Even Pay to Go to Work

Wayne Emmerich found that the family breadwinner who works only one week a month at minimum wage makes 92% as much as the breadwinner  grossing $60,000 a year. Welcome to the world of welfare!

Emmerich’s stats demonstrate that by working only one week a month, one can save a lot of money in child care expense. But topping the list is Medicaid, which is accessible to minimum wage earners and the program has very low deductibles and co-pays. In short, by working only one week a month at a minimum wage job, a minimum wage earner is able to get total medical coverage for next to nothing courtesy of you and me, as we are the only people left who are seemingly paying taxes.

The middle class is not as lucky as the $60,000 breadwinner pays out approximately $12,000 per year in health insurance costs with an addition $4,500 in co-pays. And if anyone in the part-time minimum wage earning family is disabled, SSI pays out an additional $8,088 per year. When one begins to calculate the expenses incurred by a typical breadwinner making $60,000 per year, compared to the part time minimum wage worker, coupled with minimum wage earners tax supported federal bailouts for these freeloaders, the poor have more discretionary income than those who pay the taxes that run the country! And if the part time minimum wage worker is willing to cheat and participate in the underground economy, they will have significantly more discretionary income than their hard-working $60,000 per year counterpart who actually works for a living. In short, if you are a full-time employee making above minimum wage, you are paying for your own economic demise. The numbers here suggest that we’d be better off staying home and living off of the labors of what’s left of the middle class.

At this point in time, about half of all recent college graduates are working at job that do not even require a college degree.

The number of Americans in the 16 to 29 year old age bracket with a job declined by 18 percent between 2000 and 2010. Incomes for U.S. households led by someone between the ages of 25 and 34 have fallen by about 12 percent after you adjust for inflation since the year 2000. In the United States today, 317,000 waiters and waitresses have college degrees. One poll discovered that 29 percent of all Americans in the 25 to 34 year old age bracket are still living with their parents. Overall, approximately 25 million American adults are living with their parents according to Time Magazine.


 No Land of Opportunity Here

America is no longer the land of opportunity as the United States is not even in the top ten. In fact, the United States only ranks 20th in terms of overall gross pay! Young adults who are degreed and/or skilled in fields such as engineering or information technology skills, are really wasting their time by working in the United States. Eight of the world’s ten highest-paying countries for information technology (IT) managers are in Western Europe, according to a new survey by Mercer Human Resource Consulting. The survey found that Swiss managers are paid the most, followed by those in Germany and Denmark. In fact, IT management is another field where U.S. workers fail to crack the top ten in income, the United States ranks 14th in IT management compensation. Even debt ridden Spain, and the downtrodden countries of Italy and Greece pay their IT managers more than what Americans earn on average.


    In short, for most industrious Americans, it no longer pays to go to work. This system is catapulting our country towards an economic Armageddon.

Welfare pays and pays well, until the government turns off the faucet. Then we will have a revolution inspired by the 150 million Americans who can longer support themselves. We have all speculated on how a revolution will begin, well now you know why the foreign mercenaries are training on our soil and the fact DHS has acquired 2.2 billion rounds of ammunition and 2700 armored personnel carriers, every federal agency is arming to the teeth and the police are being militarized by DHS. They are waiting for the proverbial excrement to hit the fan. What do you think Obama’s “Myra” account is for? Why are banks installing capital controls which are making it increasingly difficult to get your money out of the banks? They know what’s coming even if you don’t!


Do you remember the scene in the movie Hunger Games in which it was illegal to hunt your own food?


In Mesa, Arizona, the city government is trying to make it illegal to grow your own food by adopting several Agenda 21 mandates. The Mesa city government has tried to pass this law a total of three times! Now what does the movie Hunger Games and Mesa, Arizona have in common? Both scenarios demonstrate why the government demands total dependence. For this reason, if Obama had his way, we would all be on welfare.

The bankster controlled government wants to control you through the control of food. The banksters are also buying up and privatizing water supplies. Look at what’s happening in places like Venezuela with water, this is our future! And when they decide to begin to depopulate through thirst and starvation, followed by the inevitable and subsequent revolution, most of you and yours will be exterminated on their terms.

The vast majority of us are living on borrowed time. Our children will not be able to escape their ultimate fate, but by relocating, they can delay the inevitable, for a short while.

Dave Hodges

Edited by Zharkov, 14 June 2014 - 04:07 PM.

  • 0

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Copyright © 2019 Pravda.Ru