Adam Buczek: Why Pay Your Contractors When You Can Hide Behind Skirts

Adam Buczek, proprietor at the National Association of Mortgage Field Services (NAMFS) Regime Member Buczek Enterprises, has a problem. That problem is similar to many whom have childhood insecurities: Run for the skirts when the heat turns up. It’s the sandbox syndrome; when little Adam gets picked on mommy comes to the rescue. No wonder Adam froze like a deer in the headlights! Good ‘ol NFN screwed your sister and now your Company! What a yellow bellied coward! Here, let me put it in his wife, Amanda Burke Buczek’s, own words,

Dear Aaron/ D. Paul Williams,

The time has come for me to contact you and chat about your recent publications and our past experiences together.

I am writing to you as Adam Buczek’s wife. I no longer work in our company and I have not since soon after the birth of our son, three years ago. I feel partially responsible for the recent claims on your blog and honestly- putting my husband’s company on your radar to begin with.

A few months ago, I ran across an article on LinkedIn regarding people that I have worked with in the past in the industry. I couldn’t believe a lot of things I was reading, because some people that were written about, were very nice people in my opinion. I didn’t really understand why anybody would write about them, so I continued to click around on your site and read other blog posts. Apparently because I was on for as long as I was, and made so many clicks, it prompted you to think that someone was hacking your site. Is this correct? I’m just honestly trying to put the pieces together, and since you have been primarily in contact with Brian Drain, I thought for sure whatever ill intended thoughts you had would have been cleared up- and there was surely no intended harm or foul. After reading a lot of your writing, I did agree with some and understood your standpoint and why you have the views that you do regarding certain situations and industry trends.

I was motivated to write to you, candidly (because that’s the type of person I am) after reading the latest response from Brian Drain and your notes on the subject matter etc.

First and foremost, I myself have no say in what happens to BE or the decisions that are made. I do know- with full conviction- that Adam Buczek would never ever voluntarily quit or liquidate any business he owns. During this very hard time, we are doing absolutely EVERYTHING – including taking food from our childrens’ mouth to pay our contractors.. as you previously suggested. While I cannot comment on Amanda Buczek-Lewis’ (my sister in law) behalf, I will say that I know full well she has also done the same.

Adam has consistently gone above and beyond, out of his way, and around the corner to help any of our subs or employees in need. We have maintained healthy, working, PAYING relationships with many people and a lot of the people we work with have turned into very close family and friends. Brian mentioned this being the most difficult situation the business has endured, I’ll take it a step further and say that this is the worst pain my husband and I, my family, has EVER endured. We put everything we had into this business because we had the passion for it. We took advice, grew as requested by clients, changed business models, paid contractors faster than we were getting paid and never had any issues changing with the industry when in need. We have maintained the same lifestyle since we were straight out of college and are not the people to push for more, or be motivated by anything other than the success that comes from hard work.

Unfortunately for our current business model, this work is set up for corporations working with individuals- the way we started. Many clients do everything they can to cut invoices and hold pay as long as possible, this makes it almost impossible to cover a large area (which they want), continue to be able to pay subs on time and stay in business.

This is very long winded, I apologize. It is literally just touching on everything I want to say. This is not any effort to have you or anybody else feel sorry or badly for us or our situation. We are fighters and survivors and will do every single thing in our power to continue to do business, dig ourselves out of the hole, and pay the people that are owed. I wish there was more time to chat- or even that you initially contacted Adam to begin with. I truly don’t think anybody who has ever met him or spoke with him in length would have very many bad things to say about him.

My heart bleeds for poor Adam. What a bunch of simpering douche bags. Hey, Amanda NEWS FLASH: Buczek Enterprises OWES CONTRACTORS MONEY AND HAS DEFAULTED ON CONTRACTS! Let me back up, though. You posted in a LinkedIn Group I am not a Member of. Why not put your ovaries in check and give me a call?! It is apparent that little ‘ol Adam is too terrified to do it let alone pay his Contractors.

More on point, though, you have exposed Brian Drain. I HIGHLY RECOMMEND you go over all the back channel information which has flowed. While, on the one hand, you state you are not even close to being insolvent, that is not the impression that I have in writing. You see, when you people want to play with fire; when you want to pick a fight with the Devil, you had best know how to dance. So, I am presuming that it is now fair game to publish the ENTIRETY of the months of conversations between Drain and I?! How about the recordings as well?!!!

I cry a river of tears about your pompous and unruly children starving. NEWS FLASH: Buczek Enterprises owes money and NOT A SINGLE CONTRACTOR SIGNED ON WITH YOU TO FOOT YOUR INEPT MANAGEMENT’S BILLS! If your kids are hungry, it is due to the fact that Adam should have ran a better business. Quite bluntly, why not drive you and the kiddies down to Welfare and get some Food Stamps in one of THOSE MULTIPLE VEHICLES YOU F*CKING OWN!!! Hell, make it a family event! Oh, c’mon it could be real life changer! Get a 40 and roll some dope; grab some Brillo — hell, probably nothing new under the sun for folks like you, ‘eh?! Nothing but public restrooms in the future, huh?!

Look, Amanda baby, get back to the Barbie thing as in your hack Barbie Bu Couture or perhaps bury your head in your Chloe and Isabel drag queen line up.

You know, Drain did MORE FOR YOU PEOPLE than you will ever know. Brian Drain is a man with talent and class — something you and Adam “Hide Behind The Skirts” Buczek should take note of. Let me tell you what you have now: You bought yourself front row seats to a f*cking hog roast southern style. While Drain and his colleagues at Altisource had the matter sewn up, you come along with your 5 o’clock shadow looking, 3rd grade make up and lay waste to a ballet which was flowing smoothly. I mean did you think you f*ck people and everyone should just keep their mouths shut? Amateur hour.

So, tell Drain and his colleague that as soon as I finish my drain tile work on my Barn to House conversion — you see, some folks have to ACTUALLY WORK AND NOT MAKE A LIVING BY DEFRAUDING OTHERS — I am going to give them and you sweetie the 15 minutes of fame you are so demanding of.

27 Seconds After Publishing — Viral. Social Media Streaming to 28 Different Platforms in English and 13 Overseas

What Happens When You Don't Have A Social Media Policy

What Happens When You Don’t Have A Social Media Policy

fraud

Support Us Today!

8 Responses to "Adam Buczek: Why Pay Your Contractors When You Can Hide Behind Skirts"

  1. Ron Paul  March 21, 2014 at 02:37

    Federal Reserve Bank publications

    Points of Interest
    Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago
    Public Information Center
    P.O. Box 834
    Chicago, IL 60690-0834
    312-322-5111

    “Banks and Deposit Creation
    Depository institutions, which for simplicity we will call banks, are different from other financial institutions because they offer checking accounts and make loans by lending checkbook deposits. The deposit creation activity, essentially creating money, affects interest rates because these deposits are part of savings, the source of the supply of credit. Banks create deposits by making loans. Rather than handing cash to borrowers, banks simply increase balances in borrowers’ checking accounts. Borrowers can then draw checks to pay for goods and services. This creation of checking accounts through loans is just as much a deposit as one we might make by pushing a ten-dollar bill through the teller’s window. With all of the nation’s banks able to increase the supply of credit in this fashion, credit could conceivably expand without limit. When banks create checkbook deposits, they create money as well as credit since these deposits re part of the money supply.”

    Two Faces of Debt
    Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago

    Page 19, Paragraphs 3-5:
    “For an individual institution, they arise typically when a depositor brings in currency or checks drawn on other institutions. The depositor’s balance rises, but the currency he or she holds or the deposits someone else holds are reduced a corresponding amount. The public’s total money supply is not changed.

    But a depositor’s balance also rises when the depository institution extends credit either by granting a loan to or buying securities from the depositor. In exchange for the note or security, the lending or investing institution credits the depositor’s account or gives a check that can be deposited at yet another depository institution. In this case, no one else loses a deposit. The total of currency and checkable deposits-the money supply-is increased. New money has been brought into existence by expansion of depository institution credit. Such newly created funds are in addition to funds that all financial institutions provide in their operations as Intermediaries between savers and users of savings.

    But individual depository institutions cannot expand credit and create deposits without limit. Furthermore, most of the deposits they create are soon transferred to other institutions. A deposit created through lending is a debt that has to be paid on demand of the depositor, just the same as the debt arising from a customer’s deposit of checks or currency in a bank.”

    00:31:20

    PUBLIC DEBT: PRIVATE ASSET

    Debt as an Asset.

    We all know what debt is when it is our own—we owe money to someone else. On the other hand, it may not be so easy to understand that many of our financial assets are someone else’s debts. For example, to a consumer a savings account at a bank is an asset. However, to the bank it is a debt.

    The bank owes us the money that is in our account. We let the bank hold the money for us because it promises to pay us back with interest. The bank then uses our money to make loans and to invest in other debt, including the government’s.

    Like the savings account, most of us think of the $25 savings bond we received from grandma as a financial asset. However, it is also a debt our government owes us.

    Just as there must be a buyer for every seller in a sales transaction, for every debt incurred someone acquires a financial asset of equal value. Debt, then, is considered an asset of the creditor, and a claim against the assets and earnings of the debtor.

    In terms of the national debt, every dollar of the government’s debt is someone’s asset. Corporations, brokerage houses, bond-trading firms, foreign nationals, and U.S. citizens, both here and abroad, are all willing to loan money to the U.S. government. They view the loan as an investment, an asset that increases their wealth.

    00:32:50

    National banking corporations are agencies or instruments of the general government, designed to aid in the administration of an important branch of the public service, and are an appropriate constitutional means to that end. Pollard v. State, Ala 1880, 65 Ala 628. See, also, Tarrant v. Bessemer Nat. Bank, 1913, 61 So 47, 7 Ala App 285.

    00:35:00

    Note: An agent represents another person, by contract. An agency or instrument is actually a part of the organization it represents. It got its rights from the organization. In this case we are talking about the agency being an extension of the government.

    00:35:50

    FOIA as it applies to banks (same as govt)
    Asked for delegation of authority. Whether bank has delegation of authority.
    Treasury Delegation Order for Fifth Third Bank: 1. Pursuant to Section 265 of Title 12, USC 90, 12 USC 266, and 12 USC 1464K, the Secretary of the Treasury has the authority to designate financial institution to be depositories and financial agents of the United States.
    2. By signing this memorandum the depository warrants or promises that it meets the requirements stated in 31 CFR part 202 to be designated as a depository financial agent of the government.

    00:38:30

    A national bank cannot lend its credit or become the guarantor of the obligation of another unless it owns or has an interest in the obligation guaranteed especially where it receives no benefits therefrom. Citizens’ Nat. Bank of Cameron v. Good Roads Gravel Co., Tex.Civ.App 1921, 236 S.W. 153, dismissed w.o.j.
    Note: if you lend money to the bank, the bank does have a fiduciary interest.
    A national bank has no power to guarantee the performance of a contract made for the sole benefit of another. First Nat. Bank v. Crespi & Co., Tex.Civ.App. 1920, 217 S.W. 705, dismissed w.o.j.

    National banks have no power to negotiate loans for others. Pollock v. Lumbermen’s Nat. Bank of Portland, Or. 1917, 168 P. 616, 86 Or. 324.

    A national bank cannot act as broker in lending its depositors’ money to third persons. Byron v. First Nat. Bank of Rosenburg, Or. 1915, 146 P. 516, 75 Or. 296.

    A national bank is not authorized to act as a broker in loaning the money of others. Gro v. Cockrill, Ark. 1897, 39 S.W. 60, 63 Ark. 418. See, also, Keyser v. Hitz, Dist Col 1883, 2 Mackey, 513.

    Officers of national bank in handling its funds are acting in a fiduciary capacity, and cannot make loans and furnish money contrary to law or in such improvident manner as to imperil its funds. First Nat. Bank v. Humphreys, Okla. 1917, 168 P. 410, 66 Okla 186

    Representations made by bank president to proposed surety as to borrower’s assets, in connection with proposed loan by bank, held binding on bank. Young v. Goetting, C.C.A.5 (Tex.) 1926, 16 F.2d 248.

    Bank if liable for its vice president’s participation in scheme to defraud depositor by facilitating prompt withdrawal of his money. National city Bank v. Carter, C.C.A.6 (Tenn) 1926 14 F.2d 940

    A National bank receiving the proceeds of a customer’s note and mortgage with authority to pay out the same upon the first mortgage lien of real estate is acting in ultra virus and liable for breach of duty.

    00:33:21

    Who is the bank?
    Who has standing?

    00:42:15

    National bank is not authorized under national banking laws to lend deposited money on depositor’s behalf. Carr v. Weiser State Bank of Weiser, Idaho 1937, 66 P.2d 1116, 57 Idaho 599.

    Under this section, a national bank had no authority to enter into a contract for loaning money of a depositor kept in a deposit account through its cashier authorized by the depositor to draw thereon to make loans. Holmes v. Uvalde Nat. Bank., TexCiv.App. 1920, 222 S.W. 640, error refused.

    A bank has no right to loan the money of other persons. Grow v. Cockrill, Ark. 1897, 39 S.W. 60, 63 Ark. 418.

    A “deposit for a specified purpose” is one in the making of which a trust fund is constituted with respect to which a special duty as to its application is assumed by the bank. Cooper v. National Bank of Savannah, GA.App. 1917, 94 S.E. 611, 21 GA.App. 356, certiorari granted 38 S.Ct. 423, 246 U.S. 670, 62 L.Ed. 931, Affirmed 40 S.Ct. 58, 251 U.S. 108, 64 L.Ed. 171.

    Fund, deposited in bank for special purpose subject to depositor’s check, remains property of depositor. U.S. Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation v. Atlantic corporation, D.C. Mass. 1925, 5 F.2d 529, error dismissed 16 F.2d 27.

    ‘In the case of a special deposit, the bank assumes merely the charge or custody of property, without authority to use it, and the depositor is entitled to receive back the identical money or thing deposited. In such case, the right of property remains in the depositor, and if the deposit is of money, the bank may not mingle it with its own funds. The relation created is that of bailor and bailee, and not that of debtor and creditor.’ 3 R.C.L. 522, Tuckerman v. Mearns, App.D.C. 1919, 262 F. 607, 49 App.D.C. 153

    00:43:20 Modern Money Mechanics

    People would redeem their “deposit receipts” whenever they needed gold or coins to purchase something, and physically take the gold or coins to the seller who, in turn, would deposit them for safekeeping, often with the same banker. Everyone soon found that it was a lot easier simply to use the deposit receipts directly as a means of payment. These receipts, which became known as notes, were acceptable as money since whoever held them could go to the banker and exchange them for metallic money.
    Then, bankers discovered that they could make loans merely by giving their promises to pay, or bank notes, to borrowers. In this way, banks began to create money. More notes could be issued than the gold and coin on hand because only a portion of the notes outstanding would be presented for payment at any one time. Enough metallic money had to be kept on hand, of course, to redeem whatever volume of notes was presented for payment.
    Transaction deposits are the modern counterpart of bank notes. It was a small step from printing notes to making book entries crediting deposits of borrowers which the borrowers in turn could spend by writing checks, thereby printing their own money.

    00:47:00
    Concerning mortgages

    USCA
    Footnote 10, Promissory notes are only evidences of debt, and not debts themselves. Wheeler v. Sohmer, comptroller of the State of New York

    Question: Where’s the debt?

    The publications want you to believe that the note is payment. And they are enforcing them in court by calling them obligations.

    An obligation for one is an asset for another. The banks are calling notes obligations aka assets. Because a promissory note cannot be a debt, it also cannot be an asset. “The notes are but the evidence of debt.”…“The debt due, of which the notes are evidence, is property vested in the owner. Except, perhaps, where he has conferred authority upon someone else as his agent to loan, manage, receive, and collect the same for him, in such case it might be reasonably held that the situs of the property was the domicile of the agent.” Wheeler v. Sohmer, comptroller of the State of New York.

    In other words, the situs is the legal bond between you and the bank.

    We now know that notes are not debt. It can’t be a debt, it can’t be an asset. We know that they can’t use the depositor’s money. So, where does this money come from that they claim we owe them, and how did bank say they have the right to say we have an obligation?

    FRB definition: Money: Anything that serves as a generally accepted medium of exchange, a standard of value, and a means of saving and storing purchasing power.

    ENTS IN RENTAL HOUSING FOR FAMILIES OF MODERATE INCOME
    US CODE: TITLE 12,1747B. PREMIUM CHARGES; FEES FOR EXAMINATION AND INSPECTION
    TITLE 12 – BANKS AND BANKING/CHAPTER 13 – NATIONAL HOUSING/SUBCHAPTER VII – INSURANCE FOR INVESTMENTS IN RENTAL HOUSING FOR FAMILIES OF MODERATE INCOME
    US CODE: TITLE 12,1751A. OMITTED
    TITLE 12 – BANKS AND BANKING/CHAPTER 14 – FEDERAL CREDIT UNIONS
    US CODE: TITLE 12,1747D. EXCESS EARNINGS — USED FOR AMORTIZATION OF ORIGINAL INVESTMENT
    TITLE 12 – BANKS AND BANKING/CHAPTER 13 – NATIONAL HOUSING/SUBCHAPTER VII – INSURANCE FOR INVESTMENTS IN RENTAL HOUSING FOR FAMILIES OF MODERATE INCOME

  2. Ron Paul  March 21, 2014 at 02:39

    N.Y. UCC. LAW § 3–501 : NY Code – Section 3–501: When Presentment, Notice of Dishonor, and Protest Necessary or Permissible
    Search N.Y. UCC. LAW § 3–501 : NY Code – Section 3–501: When Presentment, Notice of Dishonor, and Protest Necessary or Permissible
    • Search by Keyword or Citation

    0 18

    (1) Unless excused (Section 3–511) presentment is necessary to charge secondary parties as follows: (a) presentment for acceptance is necessary to charge the drawer and indorsers of a draft where the draft so provides, or is payable elsewhere than at the residence or place of business of the drawee, or its date of payment depends upon such presentment. The holder may at his option present for acceptance any other draft payable at a stated date; (b) presentment for payment is necessary to charge any indorser; (c) in the case of any drawer, the acceptor of a draft payable at a bank or the maker of a note payable at a bank, presentment for payment is necessary, but failure to make presentment discharges such drawer, acceptor or maker only as stated in Section 3–502 (1) (b). (2) Unless excused (Section 3–511) (a) notice of any dishonor is necessary to charge any indorser; (b) in the case of any drawer, the acceptor of a draft payable at a bank or the maker of a note payable at a bank, notice of any dishonor is necessary, but failure to give such notice discharges such drawer, acceptor or maker only as stated in Section 3–502 (1) (b). (3) Unless excused (Section 3–511) protest of any dishonor is necessary to charge the drawer and indorsers of any draft which on its face appears to be drawn or payable outside of the states and territories of the United States and the District of Columbia. The holder may at his option make protest of any dishonor of any other instrument and in the case of a foreign draft may on insolvency of the acceptor before maturity make protest for better security. (4) Notwithstanding any provision of this section, neither presentment nor notice of dishonor nor protest is necessary to charge an indorser who has indorsed an instrument after maturity.
    – See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/UCC/3/5/3–501#sthash.LiOu6tZC.dpufUCC 3-501 requires a lender to “exhibit the note” when the lender makes demand for payment, and the borrower demands to see the note. Technically a demand for payment occurs every month, and it also occurs when a bank begins foreclosure proceedings.
    UCC 3-501 also requires a servicer to show authority to make a demand for payment, if it does not own the note, but is merely servicing it. In the event a noteholder or servicer or will not exhibit the note or perform other legal requirements when requested to do so by the borrower, this UCC section allows the borrower to discontinue payments WITHOUT DISHONOR until such time as the noteholder or servicer complies with all laws or contract provisions.
    Also helpful is UCC 3-309. UCC 3-309 requires the lender go through certain steps to prove up a note (make it enforceable) that is lost or destroyed. This is not easy for the lender to do, if one is willing to contest everything the lender does to try to prove up the note. This proof takes witnesses, who may not be able to say what the law requires, if the witnesses are thoroughly cross-examined. (Tip: Don’t let the lender get by with self-serving affidavits; take their
    witnesses’ depositions). Moreover, this section requires the lender to give adequate protection in the event the lender can make the lost note enforceable. That may be difficult for a lender that is under FDIC scrutiny and whose stock is in the tank.

  3. Ron Paul  March 21, 2014 at 02:43

    As global leaders struggle to rescue their nations from economic breakdown, the legitimacy of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency is under attack. Perhaps the problem lies with the Fed.

    A large part of the “super” in the American superpower is based on the modern creed of liberal democracy, which serves as the motor of free-market capitalism. And the lubricant that keeps this colossal machine humming at full speed 24/7 is the US dollar. So before we risk any conjectures on the future prospects of America’s versatile banknote, which presently serves as the ‘world’s reserve currency,’ perhaps we should know more about who controls it.

    In the Fed We Trust

    It usually comes as a shock to people – especially diehard Americans who place infinite trust in their sacred Constitution – when they discover that the US dollar is not a product of the American government. That’s right, fellow consumers, that crumpled wad of dollars in your pocket is the product of the U.S. Federal Reserve, and despite the very official title, is about as “federal” as Federal Express. The reality is that the U.S. Federal Reserve is a profit-making venture just like Wal-Mart, General Motors or McDonald’s.

    Yet the US Constitution clearly states (Article 1, Section 8) that one of the many functions of government is to “coin money, regulate the value thereof.” Indeed, this task was deemed so important that the Founding Fathers mentioned it ahead of the obligation to “raise and support armies.” The Constitution says absolutely nothing about outside parties being responsible for printing money or regulating interest rates.

    To quote Abraham Lincoln, the 16th president of the United States, “The privilege of creating and issuing money is… the supreme prerogative of government.”

    Today, a handful of blue-blooded American politicians (a very rare breed these days, it seems) are beginning to echo ol’ Abe on the very same issue.

    Ron Paul, the congressman from Texas who made an unsuccessful bid for the 2008 Republican Party presidential nomination, represents a growing number of Americans who want to see the Fed severely tamed, or put out of business altogether.

    “Congress created the Fed although it had no constitutional authority to do so,” Paul told his peers during a recent House investigative meeting. “We forget that those powers not explicitly granted to Congress by the Constitution are inherently denied to the Congress and thus the authority to establish a central bank was never given.

    “Congress… has essentially given up its oversight responsibilities over the Fed: there are no true audits; Congress knows nothing of the conversations, the plans, and the action-taking in concert with other central banks. We get less and less information regarding the money supply each year,” Paul continued.

    Incidentally, but certainly not insignificantly, Paul, despite his huge grassroots popularity, was deliberately snubbed by the American media on numerous occasions, including during a primetime debate on Fox News.

    “Despite his $20 million and 10% showing in new Hampshire polls, Fox News excluded Paul from its Sunday night republican debate,” wrote Andrew Malcolm in his Los Angeles blog. “So Paul gets 10% in Iowa and gets excluded, but Rudy (Giuliani) gets 4% and sits on the left end of the Fox Box desk. Hmmm.” (To see why CNN probably won’t be hosting another ‘College Week’ political program in the near future, click here ).

    How does the US media justify the outright snub of a proven politician (Paul has served 10 consecutive terms in the House of Representatives)? The answer is simple: Ron Paul is one of the few men who poses a threat to the powers that be: The U.S. Federal Reserve System.

    Top of the Pyramid

    It is no secret that the power to print money and set interest rates constitutes the greatest power of any government.

    “Let me issue and control a nation’s money,” commented international banker Amschel Rothschild, “and I care not who makes the laws.”

    Henry Kissinger reduced the almighty powers of the Federal Reserve to one line: “Who controls money controls the world.”

    Former chairman of the Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan, who served for 18+ years in his position, was asked by political talk show host Jim Lehrer: “What should be the proper relationship between a chairman of the Fed and the president of the United States?”

    “Well, first of all, the Federal Reserve is an independent agency, and that means basically that there is no other agency of government (including the executive office) which can overrule actions that we take,” Greenspan responded matter-of-factly. “So long as that is in place… then, what the relationships are don’t frankly matter.”

    In light of the above statements, it is safe to say that it is not US Commander-in-Chief Barack Obama who holds the reigns of real power in America, but rather Ben Bernanke, the chairman of the Fed.

    Indeed, last December’s Newsweek magazine proudly announced that Bernanke was the “fourth most powerful person in the world,” behind Barack Obama, Hu Jintao and Nicolas Sarkozy, but ahead of Gordon Brown, Angela Merkel and Vladimir Putin (fourth, fifth and sixth place in the Newsweek power list went to central bankers, Bernanke, Jean-Claude Trichet (EU) and Masaaki Shirakawa (Japan), as opposed to national leaders)!

    But there is another infallible maxim that also dictates our political life. “Power corrupts,” said Lord Acton, “but absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

    So guess who is in the hot chair today for (possibly) corrupting his absolute power? Yes, that’s right, Mr. Ben Bernanke, who appeared last week before the House Oversight and Reform committee to explain some irregularities in his office.

    At issue was the question of the Central Bank’s involvement in Bank of America’s controversial acquisition of Merrill Lynch.

    Shortly after the US housing markets tanked, Bank of America moved to acquire Merrill Lynch. However, once it became known (at least in financial circles) that the investment bank was suffering major losses, Bank of America CEO Kenneth Lewis balked on the merger. What happened next is the center of the congressional investigation.

    US lawmakers, armed with email correspondences taken from the Central Bank, argue that Bernanke overstepped his already-awesome authority by working behind the scenes to ensure that Lewis went ahead with the shotgun wedding.

    In one email, it appears that Bernanke threatened that the Federal Reserve would replace Bank of America’s management if Lewis decided to pull out of his planned acquisition of Merrill Lynch, or seek government aid to clinch the deal. Forcing bank mergers through outright coercion was never intended to be the function of the Fed. Bernanke, of course, denies any wrongdoing.

    “I believe that the Federal Reserve acted with the highest integrity throughout its discussions with Bank of America regarding that company’s acquisition of Merrill Lynch,” Bernanke told the committee members, while reclaiming the moral high ground by arguing that the Fed’s actions “averted a major financial crisis.”

    Nevertheless, US lawmakers are swirling around Bernanke and the Fed like sharks that sense blood.

    Congressman Dennis Kucinich, D-OH, criticized Bernanke for failing to provide information about Merrill Lynch’s huge losses in November so that shareholders could vote on the transaction.

    “If the Fed knew that there were losses before the government deal took place, why didn’t it provide information to the SEC (Securities and Exchange Committee) so that shareholders were informed?” Kucinich asked.

    Bank of America closed the deal with Merrill Lynch on Jan. 1 after the US government agreed to a $138 billion aid package to help bank of America complete the acquisition. The closed-door deal cost American taxpayers a cool $20 billion dollars. Meanwhile, the House investigation into the Fed actions will continue for weeks.

    US Department of Usury

    Besides having lost the power to regulate its own currency, the United States must also pay interest on the dollars it borrows. Given that the current bailout (and buy-in) of the American economy is in the ballpark of 9 trillion dollars it will take incalculable generations to pay back this monstrous bill.

    “Henry Ford thinks its stupid and so do I, that for the loan of its own money the United States should be compelled to pay… interest,” complained the famous American inventor, Thomas A. Edison. “Why must we pay interest to money-brokers for the use of our own money!”

    Given the trillions of dollars that the Federal Reserve has pumped into the economy to jumpstart consumer spending (indeed, Capitalism itself), many generations of Americans will be struggling financially as the United States goes from creditor nation to debtor nation practically overnight. Yet somehow US President Barack Obama still promises to create a long overdue national healthcare plan.

    Much of the present financial stress began just after 9/11, some economists argue, when George W. Bush beseeched the American people to show defiance in the face of al Qaeda. Their recourse to action: ascend on the shopping malls in their Fords and Chevrolets en masse and shop! So the Federal Reserve, caught up in the euphoria, happily slashed interest rates and the banks, in cooperation with Wall Street, began to underwrite dangerously risky loans and subprime mortgages. Exactly how dangerous was revealed last year with the collapse of the US housing markets. The globe is still feeling the aftershocks, and some are predicting the arrival of yet another ‘big one’ before it’s all over.

    For any American to see the US Constitution being arrogantly ignored to disastrous effect is enough to make a man want to activate other parts of the US Constitution – like form a standing militia and buy a rifle – and drive these pesky bankers straight out of town. To see how serious some Americans feel about the Fed and their shadow leaders, click here.

    A less drastic course of action would be to limit the powers of the Federal Reserve, but rather incredibly Chairman Bernanke is requesting the strengthening of the Fed.

    The Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Christopher Dodd, said the request to expand the powers of the Federal Reserve’s powers as being like giving your son a “bigger, faster car right after he crashed the family station wagon.”

    But things seem to be heading in the opposite direction. As the Associated Press reported: “Obama wants to empower the Federal Reserve to oversee the largest and most influential financial firms.”

    It seems absolutely ludicrous that Congress would want entrust more powers to the Federal Reserve, an “independent agency” that is not answerable to Congress.

    “There’s not a lot of confidence in the Fed at this point,” Dodd commented after Obama’s speech.

    End of the World’s Reserve Currency?

    Since the start of the ongoing economic crisis, which caused a tremendous loss of confidence in the US dollar, there have been calls to rebuild the world’s financial architecture.

    “We must rethink the financial system from scratch, as at Bretton Woods,” said French President Nicolas Sarkozy in September.

    In July 1944, with World War II drawing to a close, 730 representatives from over 40 nations assembled at the Mount Washington Hotel in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, US. Here, the delegates agreed on financial legislation – including the creation of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank – that would dictate economic policy in the West for the next half a century.

    At the center of the agreement was the decision to make the US dollar the ‘world’s reserve currency,’ which was based on the gold standard. This system collapsed on August 15, 1971 when US President Richard Nixon “closed the gold window.” In other words, the dollar is no longer backed up by gold reserves, and to this day the US currency enjoys “dollar hegemony.” But for how long is another question.

    In October, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin rattled financial markets when he hinted to his Chinese counterpart, Wen Jiabao, that the two countries “stop using US dollars in Russian-Chinese settlements.”

    RT reported that Putin has also called for a complete overhaul of the world’s financial system to “end monopoly in world finance.”

    China owns around $700 billion dollars of US debt in the form of Treasury Bonds, so it is understandable that the Chinese authorities are seriously considering what the heck to do with their investment at this point.

    A US delegation that met with central bankers in China early this month provided some insight.

    “It’s clear that China would like to diversify from its dollar investments,” said Republican Mark Kirk said at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank.

    Kirk said the Chinese leaders were critical in private of the US Federal Reserve’s policy of “quantitative easing” – which is in essence a flooding of the financial markets with cash. China views this as a reckless policy of printing cash out of thin air.

    US officials estimate a deficit of $1.841 trillion for the 2009 budget.

    Whatever US officials finally decide to do with the Federal Reserve, they may wish to reflect upon the British economist John Maynard Keynes’ suggestion for a world reserve currency.

    Keynes suggested a ‘world currency unit,’ the bancor , which would regulate the international medium of exchange between nations. The famous supply-side economist envisioned the bancor being fixed upon the value of 30 commodities, with gold among them.

    Now there’s an idea worth banking on.

    Robert Bridge, RT

    Share on tumblr
    Comments (1)

    Nomad Capitalist 29.04.2013 19:49
    Nice to see Alan Greenspan back in the news. A real bang-up job he did, too.
    Add comment
    Authorization required for adding comments

    Where to watchSchedule
    Follow us
    facebook
    twitter
    YouTube
    Google+
    Instag

    Recommended

    Hopes rise again as Palestinians and Israelis prepare for direct talks

    Russia acquires the soft touch

    Beijing and Moscow make the case for multi-polar global solutions

    Russian opposition in the eyes of the western media

    Medvedev sends July 4 congrats to Obama

    Financial reforms rusting by the roadside

    Making the Rouble a new regional reserve

    Is Obama a Wall Street project?

    America’s pro-business leaders: the real culprit behind economic crisis

    Crisis as a way to build a global totalitarian state

  4. Ron Paul  March 21, 2014 at 02:44

    When it comes to the Federal Reserve, it’s not a matter of what you see is what you get. It’s more a matter of what you don’t see is what you’ll end up getting.

    Getting, as in up the you-know-what!

    I’m talking about getting socialism shoved up our capitalist backsides, for one thing.

    It’s simple: We are about to go over the so-called fiscal cliff. Why? Because Congress can’t figure out how to stop spending money it doesn’t have.

    Forget the whole revenue side of the equation. It’s only part of the mix of fixes, and the only fix that matters ain’t fixed.

    Stop spending money you don’t have and you don’t have to tax people more to pay for a bunch of crap they don’t need, don’t want, and don’t even know they’re getting.

    Oh, that would be because on top of what we are getting there’s even more that we’re not getting.

    Congress’ paymasters are getting pork and beans for whatever they want because that’s how our Congress gets elected, by greasing the wheels of insiders to get taxpayer money for their private purses, enough to plentifully pay for campaigns.

    But that’s only the “private” side of spending.

    The spending scheme has mushroomed by expanding (and paying sickeningly outrageous wages and benefits) an ever-growing number of government workers.

    And by expanding entitlements beyond what we are entitled to. And by expanding welfare and “social programs.”

    Yes, I am including 99 weeks of unemployment, and accompanying food stamps, and free money for unwed mothers to have more kids so they can collect more free money, and free day care, and all the other free stuff that ain’t free if someone (that’s you and me) is paying for it.

    All that spending creates a class of people, a voting class. And, guess what they vote for?

    Duh, that would be more free stuff.

    So what’s this got to do with the Fed?

    I’m glad you asked…

    Just Like Magic

    Because Congress wants to glad-hand out these freebies, the private ones and the public ones, to get votes and all the personal wealth that comes with their political positions.

    And they do not want to take away anything with the other hand (that would be raise taxes to pay for their spending), so they wink at the Federal Reserve, and lo and behold the Fed prints the money to pay for it all.

    It’s just like magic. No, it is magic.

    Congress spends and doesn’t have the money to pay up. So it borrows. It borrows from the Fed, people!

    If there was no Fed to print money and give it to Congress, the crooks on the Hill wouldn’t get away with what they take for granted as their political right, which is to spend money they don’t have to pay us to keep them in office.

    Yesterday, the Fed stripped off its cloak of invisibility and said they were going to keep easing (how low can rates go?). In fact, they are going to step up their Treasury bond buying spree.

    Our government doesn’t have any money, but needs billions everyday, so the Fed simply winks at them, they issue debt in the form of bonds, and the Fed buys them all up.

    Revenue problem solved!

    So under what authority does the Fed operate? How do they have the right to print money and pay for stuff that Congress didn’t get permission from the public for (because they didn’t come to us and ask if they could raise taxes on us to spend money on what they think is good for themselves)?

    Oh, that right was given to them… by Congress.

    Back in 1977 Congress gave the Fed a “dual mandate.” They said, besides your job to “maintain price stability and preserve the currency as a store of value,” we now want you to “promote effectively the goal of maximum employment.”

    And just like that (it actually started back in 1946, but that’s another story for another time) the Fourth Branch of Government was officially sanctified.

    Screw the Public, Feed the Banks

    The Fed says we’re going to keep the printing presses running to fund Congress’ schemes (what fiscal cliff?) until unemployment is 6.5%, or inflation is above 2.5%, or until all the banks in America that control us and Congress tell us to stop because they have enough profits to buy more politicians and relax more rules and fund their next gigantic scam.

    What the Fed calls more “transparency” in articulating their new monetary policy guidance schemes is nothing more than tearing off one cloak of invisibility only to find another underneath.

    Which unemployment measure are they going to look at? How are they going to interpret U6, or how many people are counted or not counted in the ranks of people in the job market? Does the birth/death model need to be looked at, or ignored?

    Targeting unemployment is their way of saying there’s not going to be enough money for banks to get really fat again if spending is cut back, or if taxes rise, so we’re going to do what we do, which is screw the public and feed the banks.

    About that inflation in our future, we’ll worry about it when we get there. About that preserving the currency thing, we’ll worry about it when we get there.

    The Fed only cares that its puppet masters (that would be the big banks and maybe all the banks) have enough money to lend (to the government) to collect their interest to enslave the population into paying them back by socializing America to keep them fat.

    You see, in capitalism, the banks would be allowed to fail. And fail they would. But in a socialist world, failure is not an option.

    Starting to get it?

  5. Ron Paul  March 21, 2014 at 02:45

    The headquarters of the Federal Reserve Board in Washington, D.C. (left) doesn’t look like a den of murderers, nor the lair of sinister plotters. But for some conspiracists, the Fed is one of the key suspects in the assassination of JFK. Executive Order 11110, signed by Kennedy before his death, was supposedly a threat to the Fed and allied banking interests.
    One of these conspiracists was the late L. Fletcher Prouty. Known for his book on the assassination, and as the model for “Mr. X” in Oliver Stone’s movie “JFK,” Prouty was a sort of all-purpose guru for conspiracists, explaining the details of the Kennedy assassination, the Vietnam War, and the working of the “High Cabal” that supposedly controlled world affairs.

    Prouty’s theories about the role of the Fed in the Kennedy assassination can be found here:

    http://www.rense.com/politics4/jflandfed.htm

    Do Prouty’s theories make any sense at all? The table that follows lists key statements from Prouty, and compares them with the historical record.

    What Prouty Says The Reality
    On June 4, 1963, a little known attempt was made to strip the Federal Reserve Bank of its power to loan money to the government at interest. On that day President John F. Kennedy signed Executive Order No. 11110 that returned to the U.S. government the power to issue currency, without going through the Federal Reserve. Mr. Kennedy was on his way to putting the Federal Reserve Bank of New York out of business. If enough of these silver certificates were to come into circulation they would have eliminated the demand for Federal Reserve notes. “The executive order modifies a pre-existing order, E.O. 10,289 issued by Harry Truman in 1951. E.O. 11,110 did not create authority to issue new silver certificates, it only affected who could give the order. The purpose of the order was to facilitate the reduction of certificates in circulation, not to increase them. In October 1964 the Treasury ceased issuing them [silver certificates] entirely.”
    Debunking the Federal Reserve Conspiracy Theories

    Executive Order 11110 could have prevented the national debt from reaching its current level, because it would have given the government the ability to repay its debt without going to the Federal Reserve and being charged interest in order to create the new money. Executive Order 11110 gave the U.S. the ability to create its own money backed by silver. . .Virtually all of the nearly $6 trillion in debt has been created since 1963. “The Federal Reserve banks have only a small share of the total national debt (about 7%). Therefore, only a small share of the interest on the debt goes to the Fed. Regardless, the Fed rebates that interest to the Treasury every year, so the debt held by the Fed carries no net interest obligation for the government. In addition, it is Congress, not the Federal Reserve, who is responsible for the federal budget and the national debt.”
    Debunking the Federal Reserve Conspiracy Theories

    The Executive Order was never repealed by any U.S. President through an Executive Order and is still valid. “E.O. 11,110 remained on the books until 1987 when there was a general cleaning-up of executive orders. However, by this time the remaining legislative authority behind E.O. 11,110 had been repealed by Congress with PL 97-258 in 1982.”
    JFK and the E.O. 11,110 Conspiracy

    Mr. Kennedy challenged the government of money by challenging the two most successful vehicles that have ever been used to drive up debt – war and the creation of money by a privately-owned central bank. His efforts to have all troops out of Vietnam by 1965 and Executive Order 11110 would have severely cut into the profits and control of the New York banking establishment. “Yes, the Federal Reserve banks are privately owned, but they are controlled by the publicly-appointed Board of Governors. The Federal Reserve banks merely execute the monetary policy choices made by the Board. In addition, nearly all the interest the Federal Reserve collects on government bonds is rebated to the Treasury each year, so the government does not pay any net interest to the Fed.”
    Debunking the Federal Reserve Conspiracy Theories

    JFK was serious about getting “all Americans” out of Vietnam by the end of 1965. That was NSAM 263 and my boss General Victor Krulak, with the JCS, had worked on that document. Even the Pentagon Papers made an attempt to conceal NSAM #263. NSAM 263 envisioned a small withdrawal of troops from South Vietnam, and it was hoped that the South Vietnamese would progressively take over the task of their own defense as American involvement decreased. No one can know what Kennedy would have done had a continued American involvement been required to stave off a Communist takeover, but his hawkish public statements suggest he might well have escalated just as Johnson did.
    http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/context1.htm

    You may wish to see:

    Main L. Fletcher Prouty page
    Prouty mangles the details of a nuclear accident
    Prouty supported the tales of Scientology guru L. Ron Hubbard
    Prouty believed that oil is not a fossil fuel
    Prouty believed that a man in Dealey Plaza with an umbrella fired a poison dart at Kennedy
    Return to Kennedy Assassination Home Page

You must be logged in to post a comment Login