02/27/20

When the World Bank is Corrupt, Anyone Care?

By: Denise Simon | Founders Code

Per the World Bank website:

The World Bank Group considers corruption a major challenge to its twin goals of ending extreme poverty by 2030 and boosting shared prosperity for the poorest 40 percent of people in developing countries. In addition, reducing corruption is at the heart of the Sustainable Development Goals and achieving the ambitious targets set for Financing for Development.

Corruption has a disproportionate impact on the poor and most vulnerable, increasing costs and reducing access to services, including health, education and justice.

Great right? There is even a video of ten steps to stop corruption.

Also on the website:

The United States was a leading force in the establishment of the World Bank in 1944 and remains the largest shareholder of the World Bank today. As the only World Bank shareholder that retains veto power over changes in the Bank’s structure, the United States plays a unique role in influencing and shaping development priorities.

Through the World Bank Group, the United States participates in addressing international development challenges of vital importance. The United States has a long history of generously supporting the World Bank Group’s mission and has been a champion of the International Development Association (IDA), the Bank’s fund for the poorest, which provides low-interest loans and grants to developing countries for education, health, infrastructure, agriculture, communications, economic and institutional development.

Why all the concern?

World Bank Has Expressed This Big Estimate About Indias ...

OCCRP: A paper the World Bank released on Tuesday shows that countries dependent on aid from the organization see increased flows into tax secrecy havens, suggesting that some of its funds is ending up in the wrong hands. The Economist reported last week that the development bank allegedly tried to conceal the findings by neglecting to publish the study, and that Pinelopi “Penny” Goldberg, its chief economist, would be stepping down just 15 months into her tenure.

Because of media reports connecting Goldberg’s resignation and the study, the World Bank issued a public statement, explaining that the paper had undergone “several reviews, and it was improved as a result,” before it was published on the organization’s website. The timing of when it decided to publish the paper has drawn scrutiny, however.

Stefano Feltri, an Italian journalist who reported on the censorship in Pro Market, a University of Chicago-based publication, confirmed to OCCRP that the article was first published on the personal website of Niels Johannesen, a professor of the University of Copenhagen and CEBI, who co-authored it.

The article was then published hours later, by the World Bank, he explained, also confirming this through screenshots he shared with OCCRP.

Goldberg’s reason for resigning is unclear. The Economist said: “After aid to a country spikes, money departs for offshore havens. And after a sensitive paper is spiked, Penny departs for New Haven.”

OCCRP has obtained emails sources say were sent out Feb. 5, before the study controversy went public, showing that she had voiced her intention of returning to her post as an economics professor at Yale University.

Her departure marks the Bank’s second consecutive chief economist who has stepped down — Paul Romer, who served previously, resigned after publicly denouncing the organization for its “politically motivated” methodology that criticized business practice Chile under its socialist president Michelle Bachelet.

“I don’t know what exactly happened,” said Johannesen, who was more focused on the findings of his paper, when asked by OCCRP whether he could provide clarity to the situation.

He said his paper uncovered what he called “leakages” of foreign aid, where the number of offshore transactions going to tax havens designed to hide the origin of the source goes up in aid-dependent countries. He said about 5 percent of aid appears to be flowing illicitly offshore.

“While we can only speculate, the study shows that aid might itself be eroding institutions,” he said.

The professor concluded that the “big task,” in response to the findings, would be “the further disciplining of tax havens, and strengthening anti-money laundering standards.”

*** For context: The World Bank is an international financial institution that provides loans and grants to the governments of poorer countries for the purpose of pursuing capital projects.[6] It comprises two institutions: the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), and the International Development Association (IDA). The World Bank is a component of the World Bank Group.

The World Bank’s most recent stated goal is the reduction of poverty.[7] As of November 2018, the largest recipients of World Bank loans were India ($859 million in 2018) and China ($370 million in 2018).

Remember India just signed a deal during President Trump’s visit to buy $3 billion in military equipment. And China has been buying/loaning money to countries to take over their cargo ports known as debt trapping while building the silk road initiative spending $900 billion.

Anyone asking any real questions on all this?

02/20/20

Wall Street and the Bolshevik Bernie Revolution

By: Cliff Kincaid

Michael Bloomberg’s fellow Democrats didn’t want to talk about how he has made his billions through an extremely successful computer program that analyzes global financial markets. His Bloomberg terminals represent innovations in financial technology that emerged in 1982 and have made him a billionaire. He has generated wealth for many people.

But he didn’t grasp the socialist hatred for successful people.

Led by a fake Indian, Senator Elizabeth Warren, his opponents used the politics of personal destruction against the only one on the stage who had started a business.

“I can’t think of a way that would make it easier for Donald Trump to get re-elected than listening to this conversation,” said Bloomberg about the socialist tone of the debate. “We’re not going to throw out capitalism…Other countries tried that. It was called communism, and it just didn’t work.”

He was even asked by one of the moderators if as a billionaire he should exist. “I can’t speak for all billionaires,” he said. “All I know is I’ve been very lucky, made a lot of money, and I’m giving it all away to make this country better. And a good chunk of it goes to the Democratic Party, as well.”

It looks like he has failed to buy the party. But there are many more contests to go. And he still has billions to spend.

His other zinger was directed at Senator Bernie Sanders, whose honeymoon was in the old Soviet Union. “What a wonderful country we have,” said Bloomberg. “The best-known socialist in the country happens to be a millionaire with three houses.”

While Bloomberg makes computer products that are useful to people, especially investors, Sanders is a professional politician who peaches hatred of business people who make it big in society. He attacks billionaires but is selective in his outrage. Billionaire hedge-fund operator George Soros, who manipulates and exchanges currencies, has escaped his wrath. Convicted of insider trading in France, his currency manipulations against the Bank of England damaged the British Pound and hurt the investments of ordinary people. With much of his wealth in the hands of tax-exempt foundations, he now says he supports Sanders’ proposal for higher taxes on the “wealthy.”

Bloomberg was supposed to be different. He actually worked hard and produced useful products. At the University of Maryland last year, in a commencement address, Bloomberg described how he started out on Wall Street and got fired. But he had an idea for what became the computerized Bloomberg terminals. “I had to build a new computer from parts you could just go buy from Radio Shack,” he said. “I had to write the code to run it. And I had to string telephone lines across the country to connect them, creating the first intranet. There were a million reasons why people told me: you can’t. But I sucked it up and assembled a small, young team that believed in the idea, and together we said: we will. And we did.”

Bloomberg’s main problem is that his money has gone to his head, convincing him that being a billionaire qualifies him to manage the affairs of the United States and the world. Through his massive financial “contributions,” he has major influence over such elite organizations as the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the Trilateral Commission. He works closely with the United Nations and funds groups such as Planned Parenthood. He opposes Second Amendment rights and says, “I do think there are certain times we should infringe on your freedom.” His wealth has led to a demand for power over others.

As we saw in Las Vegas, Bloomberg is not a socialist. But he has become something similar — a technocrat. These are people who believe their superior financial standing — and alleged superior intelligence — should qualify them as managers of our future. Like many technocrats, they admire Communist China’s method of controlling people.  “Xi Jinping is not a dictator,” says the candidate.

A truly frightening aspect of this attitude is what has occurred in Bloomberg’s news operation.

Bloomberg, who is worth over $60 billion, is not on the “Bloomberg Billionaires Index,” distributed by Michael Bloomberg’s news service. Out of deference to his status as the billionaire owner of the Bloomberg news service, his subordinates in the organization have left him off a factual listing of billionaires in America and around the world. That’s because Bloomberg News declares that its editorial policy is to not cover Michael Bloomberg, the founder and majority owner of Bloomberg L.P.

This is a dishonest approach to politics and makes his “journalist” employees into propagandists.

Before the Vegas debate, Bloomberg released a plan for Wall Street that included a financial transactions tax. He thought this would protect him from socialist attacks on his wealth. Instead, his fellow Democrats went after him on personal grounds.

Today, he’s under personal attack for comments about women and minorities, while his Wall Street tax has been exposed as affecting the stock trades of small investors with IRAs, Mutual Funds and pensions. It is also a back-door approach to a global tax. Indeed, a global financial transaction tax has been under discussion for many years among left-wing groups promoting more foreign aid or “action” on climate change. (Sanders also favors such a tax).

Bloomberg is a pathetic figure who could have rallied voters under a banner of capitalism and freedom. Instead, he is trying to make a socialist political party into a personal vehicle for a power grab. His “mini” nature is not his height but his own mythical status as a great political thinker. Still, on many issues, he and Bolshevik Bernie see eye to eye.

Whatever the future holds, he will undoubtedly pledge millions or even billions to the Democratic Party.

Antony Sutton wrote about this kind of relationship in his classic 1974 book, Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, documenting a link between certain financial and banking interests and the Bolshevik cause. This year, the target is America, and Bloomberg is apparently counting on backing from China, having collaborated with Beijing on an event titled the “New Economy Forum.”

In the same way that Barack Hussein Obama emerged as the favorite of Wall Street interests in 2008, Sanders could become their perfect front man in 2020. Such a scenario may require the same kind of financial meltdown that happened just six weeks before the 2008 presidential election. China could make that happen.

*Cliff Kincaid is president of America’s Survival, Inc. www.usasurvival.org

02/11/20

Meet the Billion Dollar Boondoggle Act

By: Denise Simon | Founders Code

It would be ironic if the report itself came in $1 billion over budget and five years behind schedule.

(Really? Behind schedule and over budget and it has to be $1 billion? Your thoughts?) It is a start however introduced by 2 Republicans, Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-WI8) and Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA).

What is a billion dollars? | Sam Diacont

Context

A number of taxpayer-funded projects are taking significantly longer or costing significantly more than originally projected. Prominent examples include everything from the current 2020 Census to NASA space missions, plutonium cleanup sites to New York City subway construction.

What the bill does

The Billion Dollar Boondoggle Act would require an annual public report detailing all federal projects that are running at least $1 billion over budget or at least five years behind schedule.

(That would likely include President Trump’s proposed border wall, for which U.S. Customs and Border Protection last week increased its original cost estimate up to $11 billion.)

The report would be compiled by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). It would feature such components as both the original and current estimated costs of the projects, and supposed explanations justifying the increased expenses or late arrivals.

The Senate version was introduced last February 26 as bill number S. 565, by Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA). The House version was introduced a month later last March 27 as bill number H.R. 1917, by Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-WI8).

What supporters say

Supporters argue the legislation allows for better management of misused and mishandled money allocated funded by American taxpayers.

“There are far too many taxpayer-funded projects that are billions of dollars over budget and years behind schedule,” Sen. Ernst said in a press release. The bill “will require the disclosure of the cost and timeline of these federal projects, bringing overdue accountability and transparency to the process, which will allow us to identify problems before they become a bottomless pit of taxpayer dollars.”

“Mismanagement of multibillion-dollar government projects should not be treated like business as usual,” Rep. Gallagher said in a separate press release. “It’s our job in Congress to be responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars, and this bill provides much-needed transparency of large-scale projects so we can get to the bottom of a problem before it becomes a bottomless pit of money.”

GovTrack Insider was unable to locate any explicit statements of opposition.

Odds of passage

The Senate version has attracted five cosponsors: four Republicans and one Democrat. It passed the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on November 6th and now goes for a potential vote by the full chamber.

The House version has attracted 12 cosponsors: eight Republicans and four Democrats. It awaits a potential vote in either the House Budget or Oversight and Reform Committee.

02/10/20

Trump Submitted His Budget

By: Denise Simon | Founders Code

The President officially submitted his budget proposal to Congress today, with a first-ever section on curbing waste, fraud, duplication, and abuse in the federal government.

Trump To Again Propose Slashing Foreign Aid In Budget | 88 ... 

Senator Schumer is already whining.

The budget calls for eliminating the following programs entirely:

  • National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health’s Education and Research Centers
  • Department of the Interior’s Highlands Conservation Act Grants
  • National Park Service’s Save America’s Treasures Grants
  • National Endowment for the Arts Endowment for the Humanities
  • Corporation for National and Community Service (including AmeriCorps)

The administration also identified several categories of government spending in desperate need of additional government oversight, including travel, employee conferences or workshops, subscriptions, marketing, entertainment, office refreshments and end-of-year “Use It or Lose It” spending. The chapter cites expenditures by 67 federal agencies from December 30-31, 2018 which totaled $97 billion and included more than $15 million worth of fine china, lobster, alcohol, recreational, musical, and workout equipment.

Yes, it’s budget day on Capitol Hill as we all return to semi-normalcy after spending the last four months consumed with impeachment. Both the House and Senate have hearings this week to discuss the president’s budget.

President Trump is proposing to balance the federal budget within 15 years, “shrink” the federal government and extend food stamp work requirements to Medicaid and housing programs in a $4.8 trillion spending plan being released Monday.

The plan would reduce spending by $4.4 trillion equally from discretionary and mandatory programs such as Medicare over the next decade.

The plan also includes $2 billion for the border wall, with officials saying the administration is approaching 80% of the money needed to finish the wall.

The president’s budget for fiscal 2021 would cut foreign aid by 21% and reduce the Environmental Protection Agency’s funding by 26% while targeting the Education Department for smaller cuts.

Among the agencies receiving spending increases would be the Department of Homeland Security (up 3%), the Defense Department (up 0.3% to $740.5 billion), NASA (up 12%) and the Department of Veterans Affairs (up 13%).

The Commerce Department budget would be cut by 37%. Officials largely attribute that reduction to completion of the census. The Department of Housing and Urban Development is slated for a cut of 15% in a proposal that includes $2.8 billion for homelessness assistance grants.

Spending for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention would be cut 9%, and $4.3 billion would be targeted for battling infectious diseases.

Overall, nondefense spending would be cut 5% to $590 billion, below the level the White House and congressional Democrats agreed to in the current two-year budget deal.

Mr. Trump also proposes to make permanent the tax cuts of 2017. Senior administration officials who gave a preview to The Washington Times and other news outlets said the election-year proposal is aimed partly at the perception that Mr. Trump hasn’t tried to curtail federal spending, with annual deficits rising to more than $1 trillion in his first term.

“We’re trying to make the case that the president cares about spending and has cared about spending,” a senior administration official said. “He’s been doing this since his very first budget. This is now the fourth budget. Many of these [spending] reforms have been in each and every one of them. We do need Congress. Congress has not been there.”

The plan also provides a stark contrast with leading Democratic presidential candidates’ campaign priorities, such as “Medicare-for-All” and free college tuition, which would likely require significant tax increases.

“We’re going to have a national election that will hopefully decide that Congress is going to be on the side of the American people along with other taxpayers who balance their family budgets,” the senior official said. “We’re making the argument that deficit reduction is really important.”

The plan to reach a balanced budget relies on an optimistic economic forecast of 3% annual growth, significantly faster than the 2.3% rate in 2019.

Officials said about half of the proposed savings over a decade would come from reforms or from eliminating programs deemed wasteful in entitlements such as Medicaid and Social Security. They said benefits won’t be affected and that the savings would come from cutting waste and from other savings such as lowering prescription drug prices under Medicare ($130 billion).

Savings of $292 billion would come from reforming Medicaid and other safety net programs, for example by eliminating improper payments to people who have died. Spending on Medicare and Medicaid would still increase.

“The president is proposing more mandatory savings and reforms than any other president in history,” an official said. “He does protect Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries in those programs; he totally meets that commitment.”

The president tweeted on Saturday, “We will not be touching your Social Security or Medicare in Fiscal 2021 Budget. Only the Democrats will destroy them by destroying our Country’s greatest ever Economy!”

In the past two years, Congress has provided only $2.65 billion for the border wall out of the $18 billion the administration said it needed. Mr. Trump declared a state of emergency in February 2019 to move money from military construction projects and counternarcotics programs to get more money. The administration has shifted $6.7 billion from those programs and plans to divert another $7.2 billion this year.

“We are in a pretty good place with regard to the main, most critical features of the wall being fully resourced as of right now,” a senior official said. “We will ask for another $2 billion just to keep the work going. We’re approaching 80% of the wall that will eventually be built being fully resourced.”

The proposal would save taxpayers $300 billion over 10 years by expanding the 20-hour-per-week work requirement for food stamp recipients to Medicaid and housing programs, plus expanding it in the food stamp program, officials said.

The administration said in a statement that part of the spending plan involves “shrinking the federal government to its proper size” by calling for overall reductions of about 2%.

Deficits have risen each year under Mr. Trump, who came into office criticizing former President Barack Obama for failing to get government borrowing under control and pledging that he would balance the budget himself in eight years.

When Mr. Obama left office, the annual deficit was down to about $585 billion after three consecutive $1 trillion deficits at the start of his presidency.

After Mr. Trump took office, the deficit rose to $665 billion in fiscal 2017. It climbed to $779 billion in fiscal 2018, which was 3.8% of gross domestic product. In 2019, it rose to $984 billion, or 4.6% of GDP.

The trend continued in the wrong direction in the first three months of fiscal 2020 as the deficit widened to $356.6 billion and was on pace to exceed $1 trillion by the end of the year.

The fiscal 2021 budget proposal would trim the deficit to $966 billion next year and eliminate annual deficits by 2035, a senior administration official said.

Mr. Trump threatened to veto a massive spending bill in March 2018 that he said included unnecessary extras added by Democrats. He said he acquiesced because the measure was vital to rebuilding the military, but he warned that he wouldn’t tolerate such wastefulness going forward.

“I will never sign a bill like this again,” Mr. Trump said.

He fought with Democrats into a government shutdown in late 2018 over funding for the border wall. In August, Mr. Trump struck a sweeping two-year spending deal with Democrats that lifted the nation’s borrowing limit through July 2021, raised spending by more than $320 billion and put off the next potential fight over spending until after the November elections.

That deal is projected to add nearly $2 trillion in debt over the next decade.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat whose troops have teamed up with Mr. Trump to increase deficit levels, said the president has no credibility on fiscal responsibility. They point to the 2017 tax cuts that passed with no Democratic votes.

“During the eight years of President Obama’s presidency, he reduced the deficit by $1 trillion,” Mrs. Pelosi said last week. “Instead, this administration … increased the national debt by $2 trillion.”

01/16/20

Can Hedge Funds Topple Trump?

By: Cliff Kincaid

President Donald J. Trump has a good conservative record, especially in regard to the courts, and he has strengthened the Armed Forces. His rallies are packed with supporters. But as we enter 2020, even some conservative Republicans in Congress seem scared to death. Debt is piling up and the Federal Reserve is propping up the economy through emergency loans. Some are asking: can hedge funds crash the economy?

George Soros isn’t the only donor to the Democratic Party who ran a hedge fund. A Democratic presidential candidate, San Francisco billionaire Tom Steyer, is a hedge fund manager who reportedly ran an offshore company advertised as a tax shelter.  One of the Democratic Party’s top donors, his fund invested in fossil fuel projects but he is now running on the dangers of “climate change” caused by fossil fuels.

Hedge funds can cause an economic downturn by targeting companies, countries, and currencies with short selling strategies.

With the debt and deficits high, such a threat is real. Conservative Republican Rep. Chip Roy refused to vote for the new $1.4 trillion spending bill, a “compromise” with House Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats, saying, “This bill borrows, and it borrows at a time when we can’t afford to borrow another penny. Our nation is $23 trillion in debt, now racking up more than $100 million of debt per hour.”

As part of the deal with the Democrats, Trump agreed to demands for paid maternity and family leave for 2.1 million federal workers, and his daughter Ivanka is pushing a similar nanny-state program for the nation as a whole, which could cost hundreds of billions of dollars. The Eagle Forum group founded by the late Phyllis Schlafly, a Trump supporter, called these plans a form of federal baby-sitting.

Always eager to up the ante, we can expect liberal politicians to propose legislation to guarantee paid vacations and holidays, in addition to debt relief and student loan forgiveness.

“In many ways,” says Frank Lasée, President of the Heartland Institute, “America is at a crossroads. Will our nation embrace a European-style welfare state, complete with cradle-to-grave entitlements and the taxes that go with them? Or will Americans demand more freedom in the form of fewer taxes, more school choice, and less oversight from Washington, D.C. bureaucrats? I am hopeful the latter will triumph.”

He cites the dangers in the Green New Deal and the Medicare for All plans. Another danger was documented in the book Wizards of Wall Street by businessman Zubi Diamond. An African immigrant who came to America and became a successful businessman, Diamond says that George Soros and other hedge fund short sellers can undermine nations, their economies and currencies, and the global financial system as a whole.

While Trump recognizes the socialist menace, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates that since his inauguration in January of 2017, Trump has signed legislation into law that will ultimately add $4.1 trillion to the national debt from 2017 to 2029. Setting a record, the Department of the Treasury reports that the federal government spent a record $1,163,090,000,000 in the first three months of fiscal 2020.

Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve is intervening with tens of billions of dollars in bailouts in an “interbank lending liquidity crisis.” Is this traceable to hedge fund speculators and currency manipulators betting behind-the-scenes on the decline of the U.S. economy?

To stave off this possibility, Trump has signed a “phase-one” trade deal with Communist China, promising relief for America’s farmers and manufacturers. In addition, the Trump Administration is preparing a new tax cut proposal.

In another move, Trump bowed to Pelosi and Big Labor in securing passage of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement on trade by inserting pro-United Nations elements into the pact. As a result, the USMCA establishes a regional North American bureaucracy, under the auspices of the U.N.’s International Labor Organization, to manipulate and enforce labor standards between the three countries.  The deal undermines Trump’s proclaimed opposition to globalism and enables the Democrats to claim they improved the agreement to benefit workers.

The good news is that Congressman Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) has reintroduced his bill, H.R. 204, the American Sovereignty Restoration Act, to halt all involvement of the United States with the United Nations. Trump could endorse the bill and rally conservatives behind it.

While the economy is strong, Trump’s social and cultural agenda has achieved mixed results.

On abortion, Trump has pleased conservative Christians. During the campaign Trump posted an eloquent 600-word statement that notes that he did not always hold the pro-life position, “but I had a significant personal experience that brought the precious gift of life into perspective for me.” He previously had said that “what happened is friends of mine years ago were going to have a child, and it was going to be aborted. And it wasn’t aborted. And that child today is a total superstar, a great, great child.”

This kind of conversion is desperately needed on homosexual rights. Trump Ambassador Richard Grenell led an embarrassing effort at the U.N. to force Christian nations into accepting homosexual rights.  It’s only a matter of time before conservative Christians take note of what Grenell is doing in the name of Trump. They won’t be happy.

At the same time, many members of the old “Just Say No” anti-drug Reagan coalition are increasingly frustrated by the Trump Administration’s failure to take action against Big Marijuana and the phony claims from the related “hemp” industry about the supposed medical benefits of CBD.

A petition asks Senator Mike Crapo, chairman of the U.S. Senate Banking Committee, to continue his valiant effort to stop the marijuana industry from getting access to the national banking system in order to launder its profits.

With the “progressives” taking advantage of every opportunity to broaden their anti-Trump coalition, including through an orchestrated impeachment campaign, the Trump Administration has some golden opportunities to reassemble powerful elements of the old Reagan Coalition.

From the perspective of the Trump campaign, a possible economic downturn, brought on by hedge fund short-sellers, should make expanding the base a matter of utmost urgency.

*Cliff Kincaid is president of America’s Survival, Inc. www.usasurvival.org

12/3/19

Gov. Newsom Takes Control of California Pension Fund

By: Denise Simon | Founders Code

$700 billion… the California governor wants full control of that for climate change programs, for road/transportation programs and to reduce vehicle miles traveled. Remember, the largest California boondoggle is the high-speed rail system that is likely the worst and most corrupt program across America.

Earlier this year, President Trump pulled nearly $1 billion of federal money for the high-speed rail project in California that was to connect Los Angeles to San Francisco and be completed by 2033. This rail system was to only cost $77 billion and now the project construction has been reduced substantially in size where the estimated costs are in the $20 billion range. The estimated costs have jumped from $77 billion to as much as $98.1 billion.

High-speed rail taking shape even as opponents seek to ...

The California Governor is still on the hook and he wants to have financial management over the state’s pension fund.

California Pension Fund Urged to Divest from Gun Sellers ...

In part: Newsom’s order directs the state’s Transportation Agency, pension funds and the department that manages government contracts to reconsider how they spend the public’s money with an eye toward investing in projects that could help Californians prepare for climate change.

The executive order “is the governor saying ‘I am prioritizing this in a mainstream way across the government. The state as a major investor and asset owner needs to take climate change really seriously,’” said Kate Gordon, director of the governor’s Office of Planning and Research.

The order references funds that taxpayers typically think of as restricted, such as money earmarked for road improvements and for pension systems that have a financial obligation to earn as much cash as possible to provide retirement security for millions of government employees.

Newsom’s order happened to follow Caltrans’ release of a report describing decisions to adjust funding for highway projects that had been pledged to the Central Valley. The timing created an impression that the Newsom administration was tinkering with taxpayer-approved transportation plans.

Newsom’s executive order won’t change the restrictions lawmakers placed in the 2017 law that levied new taxes and fees on fuel and vehicle registrations to pay for road repairs, according to the state transportation agency. That law is projected to raise about $5 billion a year for roadwork.

But, the executive order could lead the California agency to adjust its plans for other funds, steering money to public transportation and other projects in dense communities near jobs to “reduce vehicle miles traveled.”

Newsom’s administration estimates the state has about $5 billion a year in transportation funds that could be redirected to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. More details here.

Meanwhile, The Institute for Energy Research this past August took a hard look at the Green New Deal. After a careful study of the GND, there would be a required $10 tax increase on a single gallon of gas. Additionally, in order to eliminate gas-powered vehicles in favor of electric vehicles, gasoline prices would have to increase to $13 per gallon.

Consider the financial consequences to the nation’s economy and the cost of moving goods in the transportation sector…

The Green New Deal would cripple the U.S. economy by requiring carbon taxes ranging from $200 to $1000 per metric ton to spur replacement of current technologies in the transportation and electric generating sectors. If the United States were to implement carbon taxes of this nature, Americans would be devastated financially. And, given that the United States emits about 15 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions compared to China which emits 28 percent of the world total, U.S. reductions would have little impact on global atmospheric concentrations. According to China’s commitment to the Paris Climate agreement, the country will not begin to reduce carbon dioxide emissions until after the year 2030.

Most Americans would find $13 per gallon gasoline unacceptable. The impacts on households and businesses of all kinds would be enormous. A quadrupling of gasoline prices would plunge the U.S. economy into a deep recession. Policymakers should understand the consequences of their proposals.

While the impeachment process is going on in the House of Representatives, Speaker Pelosi was attending a UN climate change summit in Madrid. While there she declared that the United States was still in the Paris Agreement, in spite of President Trump exiting the United States from the non-binding agreement.

Gotta wonder where this is all going and where the collaboration is in the Pelosi orbit or that of Governor Newsom. Better ask some harder questions of those Democrat presidential candidates in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and beyond.

10/6/19

So you think Trump wants to get rid of the Fed?

By: Publius Huldah

Yes he does.  The Federal Reserve System is collapsing due to the inherent instability of a monetary system, not based on gold & silver, but on the Fed’s “right” to create “money” out of thin air1 which it then lends to the US Treasury (and is added to the national debt),2 in order to fund the federal government’s massive, grotesquely unconstitutional, and out of control spending.

This process of allowing the Fed to create “money” out of thin air with nothing behind it has been going on since 1933, when the promise (set forth in §16 of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913) to redeem Federal Reserve Notes in gold was revoked as to domestic holders;3 and culminated during 1971, when redemption of the Notes in gold to international holders was also suspended.4

Once the statutory promise to back Federal Reserve Notes with gold was rescinded, the sky was the limit on how much fiat “money” the Fed could create, lend to the US Treasury (and be added to the national debt), in order to fund still more massive, grotesquely unconstitutional, and out of control spending by the federal government.

Now we have reached the point where the federal deficits are so huge and increasing at such a furious pace that our entire fiat “money” financial system is coming apart.5

So what are we going to do about it?  Does Trump want to get rid of the Fed so we can return to the constitutional money system described in Point 2 below?

Trump may say that he wants to return to the gold standard;6 but the USMCA “Trade Agreement” he signed doesn’t do that.  The Globalists’ Plan, which is advanced by USMCA, is to ratchet up the fiat “money” system created by the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, from a national to a global level with a central bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) managing and enforcing an international monetary system.  And as Edwin Vieira, Ph.D., J.D., warned 8 years ago [here]:

“The true perversity of the present situation lies in the indication … that this scheme for a new supra-national monetary order will be sold to a doubting world by attaching some sort of “gold standard” to it….”

  1. The IMF and the international fiat “money” system

The IMF is an institution in the United Nations system.

The IMF has already created (it was done during 1969), out of thin air, an international fiat currency called “special drawing right” (SDR).  The stated purpose of SDRs was to increase liquidity in settling international accounts by making short term loans to member countries to cover their balance of payments, and other temporary financial problems.

USMCA Art. 33.1 shows that the IMF is to monitor our compliance with the IMF’s Articles of Agreement (please let that sink in).

  • Article III of the IMF Articles of Agreement provides that the IMF assigns “quotas” to members [that would include the United States], representing the amount the member must pay into the IMF [members may pay their “subscriptions” using their own unbacked currencies]; and in exchange, they get an equivalent amount of SDRs [also unbacked by any precious metal] issued by the IMF.
  • Article IV, Sections 1-3 of the IMF Articles of Agreement provide that the IMF is to manage the development of an international monetary system [to which we shall be subject]; and is to oversee the member countries’ [that includes the United States] underlying economic and financial conditions and policies in order to promote “sound economic growth” and “financial and economic stability”. i.e., the IMF is going to manage our economy.

USMCA Chapter 17. Financial Services harmonizes the Banking, Insurance, and Investment Practices of Canada, the United States, and Mexico.  This harmonization removes previously existing barriers to global regulation of those areas and to merging regional currencies into a global currency.7

As anyone who reads USMCA can see, the purpose of USMCA is to remove barriers to global regulation of all the areas covered by USMCA, and to advance development of a new global “money” system which will replace our collapsing Federal Reserve System.

Look at the Table of Contents for USMCA:  All those areas:  agriculture, textiles and apparel goods, customs administration, sanitary and phytosanitary measures, telecommunications, intellectual property (patents), labor (which includes immigration and gender & sexual orientation discrimination in the workplace), the environment,  etc., are to be made subject to global regulation.

And we exchange our fiat “money” for the IMF’s fiat “money”; the United States loses control over our monetary system; and the IMF, instead of the Fed, will manage the new monetary system – and our economy.

Trump may give grand speeches before the United Nations saying he opposes globalism and supports nationalism, but the USMCA “Trade Agreement” he signed moves us into global government.8

And the claim that USMCA is about getting favorable tariff agreements for the United States is the Biggest Lie since the Garden of Eden.

  1. What our Constitution provides about money

Our Framers created a Constitution which delegates only “few and defined” powers to the federal government.  This one page chart lists those powers.

Accordingly, except for national defense, our federal government doesn’t need much money to fund its constitutional powers.  So our Framers created a taxing system wherein the funds needed to operate the federal government were raised by the import tariffs and excise taxes authorized at Article I, §8, cl. 1, and by the apportioned direct assessments on the States authorized at Article I, §2, cl. 3.9

Congress is also authorized at Article I, §8, cl. 2, to borrow money on the credit of the United States; but our Framers intended borrowing money to be restricted to funding national defense.10

Our Framers also established a money system based on gold & silver:

  • Article I, §8, cl. 5: “The Congress shall have Power …To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin,…”
  • Article I, §10, cl. 1: “No State shall … coin Money; emit Bills of Credit;11 make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;”

Accordingly, during 1792, Congress passed an Act establishing a mint and set the standards for the amounts of gold and silver in our coins.  Congress took so seriously the purity of our coins that §19 of the Act provided the death penalty for debasement of coins.   During 1793, Congress passed an Act regulating the value of foreign coins.

A money system based on gold & silver and a limited taxing system were perfect for a federal government of “few and defined” powers.  Furthermore, such systems – if adhered to – would have prevented the emergence of the totalitarian socialist regulatory welfare state we have today.

  1. Why the Federal Reserve System was established

“…A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project…” James Madison, Federalist No. 10.

Why does Madison refer to paper money as an “improper or wicked project”?  Because, among other evils, paper money provides governments with access to unlimited amounts of credit – and that is what was needed to finance the totalitarian socialist regulatory welfare state we have today.

When the Progressives12 took over our Country during the early 1900’s, they needed lots of “money” to fund their unconstitutional regulatory and “welfare” schemes.  But the federal government didn’t have enough gold and silver coins to fund the regulatory welfare state they wanted.  So the Federal Reserve System was created in 1913 to set up a central bank – the “Fed” – which (thanks to fractional reserve banking) would have the power to supply the federal government with the “money” it wanted.13

So it was access to this credit which enabled the federal government to exceed its constitutional limits.

With this easy credit, the federal government was enabled to “buy” the States by giving them fiat “money” to implement unconstitutional federal programs:  State governments literally sold the retained powers of the States and the People to the federal government.  A particularly malignant example is U.S. Senator Marco Rubio’s “Extreme Risk Protection Order and Violence Prevention Act of 2019” (“red flag” law), which appropriates $20 Million for each of FY 2019-2023 to pay to States and Indian Tribes which pass the “red flag” legislation set forth in Rubio’s bill.  If a Respondent, whose arms have been taken from him in an ex parte hearing [i.e., a hearing Respondent wasn’t notified about until after the Order had been issued to seize his arms], wants his arms back, he must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that he does not pose a significant danger of causing personal injury to himself or others by having arms in his possession.

Rubio’s bill puts the burden of proof on the Respondent.  For eons in Anglo/American Jurisprudence, it has been the task of the government to PROVE GUILT.  But Rubio would reverse that and require Respondents to PROVE THEIR INNOCENCE. This is evil.

Rubio’s bill is also unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers delegated to the federal government; and it violates the “Privileges and Immunities clause of Article IV, §2; violates the 2nd Amendment; and violates the “due process” clauses of the 5th Amendment and §1 of the 14th Amendment.

How many States and Indian Tribes will surrender their Citizen’s Right to THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE by passing Rubio’s “red flag” law in order to get the “money” from the fed gov’t?14 

If we had preserved the monetary system set up by our Constitution, the federal government wouldn’t have been able to become the totalitarian monster it is today.  If you want a limited government, don’t give it unlimited “money”.

  1. What States can do

In Part 4 of his “A CROSS OF GOLD” series at sub point [3] and in Part 5, Dr. Edwin Vieira shows how States can protect their Citizens from disaster by setting up an alternative gold currency.

The Tenth Amendment Center has model legislation for States to take some steps in the right direction:  See THIS under the heading, “End the Fed from the Bottom Up”.

Open your eyes, Americans.  Time is running out.

End Notes:

1 See excerpt from testimony before Congress on Sep. 30, 1941 by the then Governor of the Fed.

2 Robert P. Murphy, Is Our Money Based on Debt?

3 HERE is the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.  §16 promised redemption of the Federal Reserve Notes in gold.  During 1935, §16 was amended to remove that promise:  HERE is the amendment, codified as 12 USC §411.

4 See 31 USC §5118.

5 The Fed Has Lost Control

6 The quiet campaign to reinstate the gold standard is getting louder

7 See Joan Veon HERE:

“Globalization is the process of breaking through the protective barriers designed to separate the nation-states from the world system. Between 1944 and 2008 [Bretton Woods I & Bretton Woods II] all the nation-state barriers have been removed with exception of the national regulatory laws governing financial institutions, insurance companies, mortgages, and Wall Street. The real purpose of BWII is to establish the framework for a global regulatory system.  This also presents the possibility of merging all regional currencies into a global currency.”  [italics added]  You can also see her video HERE.

8 See:  USMCA and the Quest for a North American Union  and The USMCA “Trade Agreement” violates our Constitution and sets up Global Government.

9 HERE is the Act of 1813 where Congress laid a direct tax of $3 Million upon the United States.  It shows how Congress apportioned the tax (based on population) as required by Art. I, Sec. 2, cl. 3.  (See page 93 of the linked pdf edition.)

10 In Federalist No. 41 (5th para up from bottom), Madison says:

“The power of levying and borrowing money, being the sinew of that which is to be exerted in the national defense, is properly thrown into the same class with it. This power, also, has been examined already with much attention, and has, I trust, been clearly shown to be necessary, both in the extent and form given to it by the Constitution. …”

11 Congress is not authorized to create paper money.  In “A CROSS OF GOLD”, Dr. Edwin Vieira says:

[at Part 2]: “…America’s Founding Fathers, realists all, denominated redeemable paper currency as “bills of credit”. They knew that such bills’ values in gold or silver always depended upon the issuers’ credit—that is, ultimately, the issuers’ honesty and ability to manage their financial affairs.…” [boldface added]

[at Part 3]: “…every form of “redeemable currency” put out through the Federal Reserve System is, by definition, a governmental “bill of credit”, which Congress has no authority to emit, directly or indirectly.” [boldface added]

When, in 1933, the promise to redeem Federal Reserve Notes in gold was repudiated, the federal government dishonored their “bills of credit”.  We should have listened to our Founding Fathers.

12 In the 1880’s, the Fabian Society was founded in England.  Fabians advocate a gradual transition to socialism [as opposed to violent revolution].  They also hold that the elite – and they are the elite – should run everything [as opposed to the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.]  In the early 1900’s, Fabians took over our Country – here they went by the name, “Progressives”.  Teddy Roosevelt & Woodrow Wilson were Progressives; and the Fabian socialist ideology has dominated our Country ever since.

13 For an education in the basics of the Fed, fractional reserve banking, and the creation of “money”, see Robert P. Murphy’s article at end notes 1 & 2; and Dr. Edwin Vieira’s fascinating explanations of these issues in his “A CROSS OF GOLD” series HERE.  Dr. Vieira also shows why we must not accept a new global fiat currency and central bank to replace the collapsing Federal Reserve System.

14 And all that money used to bribe States and Indian Tribes to pass Rubio’s “red flag” law, will be added to the national debt.