http://www.infowars.com/dhs-insider-preparations-have-been-finalized-to-respond-to-a-crisis-of-unprecedented-magnitude-within-the-united-states/

DHS Insider: “Preparations Have Been Finalized to Respond to a Crisis of Unprecedented Magnitude Within the United States”

Douglas J. Hagmann
SHTF plan
December 28, 2013

Editor’s Note: One of the questions oft asked in alternative news circles is why, if elements within the U.S. government intend to collapse our economy and implement martial law, no one within these circles has spoken out.

Image: DHS (Wikimedia Commons).

The fact is that scores of people have made it their duty to alert the American people to what’s going on behind the scenes. They’ve told us of the corruption and backroom deals. They’ve given us the warning signs to look for, many of which have already come to pass. They’ve even made us aware of the government’s response should the worst come to pass. Detractors often dismiss the warnings and insider reports as bogus, often claiming that if the sources are anonymous they can’t be legitimate. But do we blame them for taking extreme steps to protect their identities? Edward Snowden and Bradley Manning showed their faces, and now they will spend their lives as targets. Given what happened to these whistle blowers, is it any surprise that others with insider knowledge refuse to speak out in an official capacity?

The following warning comes to us from an anonymous source embedded deep within the Department of Homeland Security who has taken it upon himself to share his knowledge with our audience through the generous contrtributions of the Hagmann and Hagmann Report via the Northeast Intelligence Network. The insider has taken extraordinary measures to remain anonymous, but given what we know the government is up to and the signs we see all around us, does his desire for anonymity make his claims any less legitimate than if he had included his name?

We’ve long argued that any manufactured event would be telegraphed to the general public by whistle blowers on the inside. Deny the possibility if you so choose, but this insider, along with others who have shared their information may well be the only warning you’ll ever receive. As the Insider notes, most people simply have no idea what’s coming, nor do they care to. One morning they’ll wake up and all hell will have broken loose.

Under the cover and amid the distraction of the Christmas bustle, I had my last “official” contact with a source inside the Department of Homeland Security known as “Rosebud” in my writings. My source is leaving his position, retiring along with numerous others choosing to leave this bureaucratic monstrosity. For this contact, my source took unprecedented measures to be certain that our contact was far off the radar of prying government eyes and ears. I was stunned at the lengths he employed, and even found myself somewhat annoyed by the inconvenience that his cloak-and-dagger approach caused. It was necessary, according to my source, because all department heads under FEMA and DHS are under orders to identify anyone disclosing any information for termination and potential criminal prosecution.

“DHS is like a prison environment, complete with prison snitches,” he said, referring to the search for leaks and leakers. And the warden is obsessed. Ask anyone in DHS. No one trusts anyone else and whatever sources might be left are shutting up. The threats that have been made far exceed anything I’ve ever seen. Good people are afraid for their lives and the lives of their families. We’ve all been threatened. They see the writing on the wall and are leaving. It’s not a joke and not hype.”

The following is a narrative from my source, prefaced with the instructions to “take it or leave it,” and “disregard it at your own peril.” He added that it’s now up to each American to act on the information themselves or suffer the consequences. “I’ve resigned myself to the fact that most [Americans] will never be convinced of the reality that is taking place right in front of them.”

The plan explained

“According to every internal document I’ve seen and read, and from the few people I’ve spoken with who understand what’s going on, preparations have been finalized to respond to a crisis of unprecedented magnitude within the United States. The response will include the use of lethal force against U.S. citizens under the instructions of Barack Obama.” But why?

“‘It’s the economy, stupid,’” he began, paraphrasing a campaign slogan coined by James Carville for Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign. ”Just as I disclosed in our first meeting, the crisis will be rooted in an economic collapse. I told you last year, at a time when gold and silver were setting record highs, one specific indicator that time is very short. It is the final ‘smack down’ of the metals, gold and silver, that will presage the orchestrated economic collapse that is being planned by the bankers of Wall Street. Everybody needs to understand that this is a deliberate collapse of the U.S. economy with the oversight of the White House and the full knowledge of the Justice Department. Everyone seems to be waiting for some big, history making event that will signal the start of the collapse. The fact is that the collapse has already started. It’s incremental, like a snowball rolling down a hill. It gets bigger and rolls faster. Well, this snowball is well on its way down the hill.”

“I don’t mean to sound repetitive, by I can’t stress this enough. Contrary to what you hear, we’re already in an economic collapse, except that most people haven’t a clue. The ‘big bang’ comes at the end, when people they wake up one morning and can’t log in to their bank accounts, can’t use their ATM cards, and find out that their private pension funds and other assets have been confiscated,” he stated.

“I’ve seen documentation of multiple scenarios created outside of DHS. Different plans and back-up plans. Also, please understand that I deliberately used the word ‘created,’ as this is a completely manufactured event. In the end it won’t be presented that way, which is extremely important for everyone to understand. What is coming will be blamed on some unforeseen event out of everyone’s control, that few saw coming or thought would actually happen. Then, another event will take place concurrent with this event, or immediately after it, to confuse and compound an already explosive situation.” I asked for specifics.

“As I said, there are several scenarios and I don’t know them all. I know one calls for a cyber-attack by an external threat, which will then be compounded by something far removed from everyone’s own radar. But it’s all a ruse, or a pretext. The threat is from within,” he stated. “Before people can regain their footing, a second event will be triggered.” Again, I asked for specifics.

“I’ve seen one operational plan that refers to the federal government’s response to a significant terrorist attack on U.S. soil. Information at these levels is compartmentalized. I don’t have specifics, just plans for the response. The response will be controls and restrictions on travel, business, and every aspect of our lives, especially gun ownership and speech that incites people against the government. I guess some people would call it Martial Law, and they would not be incorrect. But understand that this will be a process deployed in stages. How quickly of a process remains to be seen.”

The mechanics explained

As I said, people continue to look for something big to happen first, followed by a militaristic response by the federal government against U.S. citizens. Based on what I’ve seen, I don’t believe it will happen this way, although there is one unthinkable exception. That exception would involve a ‘decapitation’ of our leadership, but I’ve seen nothing even remotely suggestive of that. But I’ve heard and even read articles where that is mentioned. Frankly, though, that’s always been a threat. I suppose that if the leadership is deemed useless, or becomes a liability to the larger agenda in some manner, it could happen. The precedent exists. Let’s pray that it’s not the case now.”

“I don’t think anyone except the initiated few know the precise series of events or the exact timing, just a general overview and an equally general time period. I think we’re in that period now, as DHS has their planned responses finalized. Also, the metals are important because it’s real money, not Ponzi fiat currency. The U.S. has no inventory of gold, so the prices are manipulated down to cause a sell-off of the physical assets. China is on a buying spree of gold, and other countries want their inventory back. The very people causing the prices to drop are the ones who are also buying the metals at fire sale prices. They will emerge extremely wealthy when the prices rise after the U.S. currency becomes wallpaper. A little research will identify who these people and organizations are.”

“I’d like to add a bit of perspective that might help explain the events as I described. Do you remember former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld announcing that the Pentagon was unable to account for $2.3 trillion in the defense budget? That was on September 10, 2001, the day before the attacks of 9/11. Some suggest that 9/11 was orchestrated, in part to cover up the missing money, which is ludicrous. The result, however, was that suddenly the accounting issue took a back seat because of the attacks. The result will be the same. That’s a perfect example of the mechanics of what we are about to experience. It’s going to take years to sort out, and when it’s finally sorted out, the damage will have long been done.”

“Please note a few final things. The relationship that exists between DHS today and the executive branch is well beyond alarming. DHS and other organizations have become the private army of the Oval Office. The NSA, and I’ve got contacts there, is taking orders from the Oval Office. The IRS is under the virtual control of the Oval Office in a manner that would make Nixon cower. Even though all roads appear to lead to the Oval Office, they lead through the Oval Office. It’s not just Obama, but the men behind him, the people who put him there. The people who put him there are the ones who created him.” I asked who created him.

“First, ask yourself why there was such an all out effort to marginalize anyone talking about Obama’s eligibility in 2008. Even so-called conservatives pundits fell for the lie that such questions were nothing more than a diversion. They were following a specific drumbeat. That should tell every rational adult that he is a creation of the globalists who have no allegiance to any political party. He is the product of decades of planning, made for this very time in our history. He was selected to oversee the events I just disclosed. Who has that ability? He’s a product of our own intelligence agencies working with the globalists. He should be exhibit ‘A’ to illustrate the need to enforce the Logan Act. Need I say more?”

As often said by another of my sources, the U.S. is a captured operation. The lie is bigger than most people realize or are willing to confront. That is, until there is no other option. By then, it might be too late.

This article was posted: Saturday, December 28, 2013 at 6:38 am

Has peak Obama occurred ? Might he not be in the PTBs plans moving forward ( and thus the breathless reporting , some allegedly supplied by a white house insider (s) ? FWIW ! Consider odd items popping up on Obama.....

http://www.politisite.com/2014/01/05/first-lady-michelle-needs-a-vacation-stays-in-hawaii/

The White House Press Corps (WHPC) is reporting that President Obama and his two daughters arrived back at the White House at 10:20 a.m.

Seems First Lady Michelle Obama has remained in Hawaii as part of an early Birthday gift from President Obama (and the American Taxpayer.)

“As part of her birthday gift from the President, the First Lady will remain in Hawaii to spend time with friends ahead of her upcoming 50th birthday,” said the White House.

According to Lynn Sweet, the First Lady doesn’t like cold weather. Must be nice to have the option to forgo the cold in Washington, DC while the poor and under privileged don’t have the option to extend a $3 Million Hawaiian vacation.

Many news outlets have reported that Ms. Obama’s 5oth Birthday (which is twelve days away) will also cost millions. The gala dubbed ‘Snacks & Sips & Dancing & Dessert’ will be held on January 18th.

The First Lady remaining in Hawaii away from the President is just fueling speculation that there is trouble in the Obama marriage.Separate vacations are not anything new for this Presidency, but following the Mandela Memorial and other photographs in the press, it seems that First Lady Michelle Obama is not very happy with the President of late. So folks have been wondering, ‘are the Obama’s heading for divorce in 2014?’

Seems Obama’s popularity has diminished both inside and outside the White House.

Meanwhile, the White House has not released when First Lady Michelle Obama will return to the White House, nor did they release acost analysis of her extended stay in Hawaii. But according to Breitbart, when the First Lady traveled separately from Hawaii from he family, that cost was estimated between $63,000 and $100,000.

With a National debt at $17.3T, maybe First Lady Obama’s could be satisfied with a 3 week Hawaiian Vacation and come with the President husband and the children.

One hopes that Presidents ‘Birthday gift’ to the First Lady be paid from his income and not from the United States Treasury.

http://beforeitsnews.com/obama/2013/12/michelle-has-had-enough-of-barack-seeks-divorcevideo-2459148.html

(Before It's News)

By Susan Duclos

Rumors of affairs, with males and females, surround Barack Obama and the icing on the cake according to multiple sources and pushed by the National Enquirer, was Barack’s over-the-top blatant flirting with Denmark’s prime minister, Helle Thorning-Schmidt, in South Africa for the memorial service for Nelson Mandela, going as far as taking a “selfie” with her while Michelle sat to the side looking angered at his antics.

But Helle is another matter; she was not on the campaign trail, she is not an athlete, secret service detail, nor a troubled woman from Connecticut. She is not a “sister,” and Denmark was not, at that moment, a pivotal part of some pending international crisis. For Barack Obama to openly flirt and act like a moon struck 14 year old boy with another woman at the funeral of a leader of historical importance was just over the top, even for Michelle. There is no shared interest in athletics, campaign trail stories, or public policy achievements to share with this woman in Michelle’s mind. There was no way to write off his antics as gross exaggerations of a normal relationship.

The Obama divorce rumor has been around a while, reported back in February over Barack’s close “relationship” with Actress Kerry Washington which the Free Patriot describes Michelle’s unhappiness with the “excessive amount of time” Barack Obama spends with Washington.

On the bright side, it seems Kerry Washington and Michelle Obama have the same taste in clothes!!!

But I digress… there is Reggie Love and the rumors that have surround that relationship, then back in Obama’s Illinois Senate days, Vera Baker, and according to the report, Michelle has finally had enough and has visited a divorce attorney.

A White House insider speaking to the National Enquirer along with other tabloids are all reporting that Michelle Obama is meeting with divorce attorneys again. This one isn’t likely to be met with a make-over; while Kerry Washington’s efforts at least lead to Obama’a moving up in the polls and winning reelection, the move with Helle has not helped his poll numbers one little bit. In fact, they have contributed to his polls plummeting.

If it had been just the Enquirer reporting, then despite their accuracy with the John Edwards affair and love child, to which the MSM ignored until Enquirer reporters cornered him in the bathroom of the hotel he was meeting his mistress at, and the Rush Limbaugh drug story, I probably would have passed on this, but according to a White House insider, via ShowBizSpy:

But now Michelle is mad AS hell. She feels violated in front of the whole world, and screamed at him, ‘I’ve had enough!’

“She’s met with divorce lawyers and told Barack that she wants a life apart from him.

“Michelle will stay in the White House for the rest of Barack’s term for appearances’ sake, but she made it clear they’ll be leading separate lives.”

“She’s moving into one of the vacant bedrooms in the family’s private living quarters, and she’s preparing to move his clothes and personal things out of their million-dollar house in Chicago.”

If the recent pictures of Barack and Michelle in public are anything to go by, neither one of them look very happy.

(Barack Obama with Reggie Love)

and....

http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/28/dnc-sends-email-defending-obama-from-impeachment-possibility/

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) sent out a paranoid email Saturday evening urging supporters to vote for Democrats so that Republicans can’t impeach President Obama.

The email, subject line “Impeachment,” was sent to Obama for America supporters, imploring them to contribute to the DNC’s 2014 efforts. “What do these people all have in common?,” the email asked, featuring quotes from Republican Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma, Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, Rep. Kerry Bentivolio of Michigan, and Rep. Blake Farenthold of Texas discussing the possibility of impeaching Obama for one of his numerous instances of presidential misconduct.

The DNC email discussed the “I-Word” and said that “Republicans are actually excited about the idea.”

“Show these Republicans that they are way, way off-base, and give President Obama a Congress that has his back,” according to the DNC email, noting that Democrats need to win 17 GOP House seats to reclaim a majority.

The DNC, which recently expanded its political tactics to include boycotting independent news outlets, previously supported the last president to be impeached: Bill Clinton.

Obama’s staff changed key talking points on the 2012 Benghazi terrorist attack; his Internal Revenue Service targeted conservative groups during the 2012 election cycle; and Obama personally lied to the American people when he told them that they could keep their existing doctors and health insurance plans under Obamacare.

Obama’s expansion of executive branch authority is “setting the stage for something very dangerous in the future” according to Republican Rep. Justin Amash.

An ObamaCare failure is an Obama failure - is he still useful to the PTBs ?

OP/ED

|

12/27/2013 @ 12:37PM |37,923 views

As Predicted, ObamaCare Plunges Into 'Utter Chaos'

38 comments, 9 called-out

Comment Now

Follow Comments

Cato senior fellow Jagadeesh Gokhale predicts ObamaCare’s rollout will cause “utter chaos” at a Kansas Policy Institute forum in February 2013. Photo credit: Kansas Policy Institute.

“HHS maintains they’ll have these [Exchanges] up and running by October 2013. I don’t know anyone who is confident about that and I’m ready to predict that they will not.” — Michael F. Cannon, December 2012

“In my opinion, what’s going to happen is utter chaos.” — Cato Institute senior fellow Jagadeesh Gokhale, February 2013

“With no clarity as to when people should sign up and who they should pay and when, it’s a virtual certainty that many consumers will find themselves uncovered for a period of time through no fault of their own.” — Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), December 2013

My December 2012 prediction that ObamaCare’s health insurance “exchanges” would not be ready on time proved true by July 2013, when President Obama unilaterally delayed the law’s employer mandate for a year. It proved painfully, obviously true when the Exchanges crashed upon takeoff on October 1, just as ObamaCare was throwing millions out of their current health plans.

My colleague Jagadeesh Gokhale‘s February 2013 prediction of “utter chaos” (audio here, at 48: 25) arguably proved true in October, and is now evident in President Obama’s decision to exempt from the individual mandate those millions whose plans Obama himself cancelled.

This categorical exemption is a bigger deal than it seems. With it, President Obama has admitted ObamaCare will strip many people of their health insurance and leave them with gaps in coverage, or no affordable coverage options at all. It is an implicit admission that ObamaCare has created economic peril for millions of Americans and political peril for Democrats.

Things weren’t exactly going well for ObamaCare anyway. There has been no shortage of votes to repeal the entire law, at least not in the House of Representatives. President Obama has signed into law bipartisan bills repealing one of ObamaCare’s three new entitlement programs; gutting its Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan (CO-OP) program; cutting spending on the law’s Prevention and Public Health Fund; repealing its “1099″ reporting requirement (a new tax); twice increasing the amounts that recipients of Exchange subsidies must repay if they incorrectly projected their future income; repealing the law’s “free choice voucher” program; and rescinding some funding for the law’s Independent Payment Advisory Board. Obama had unlimited authority to throw money at states to encourage them to create Exchanges. Still, 34 states refused. He raided nearly half a billion dollars from Prevention and Public Health Fund in order to fund federal Exchanges in those states. Still, the federal Exchanges were a disaster. ObamaCare lost before the Supreme Court, which ruled the law must hold harmless states that refuse to implement ObamaCare’s Medicaid expansion; 25 states have since refused. (To get those states to enact at least part of the expansion, President Obama is coercing them in direct contravention of the Court’s ruling.) Obama unilaterally delayed for one year the employer mandate; multiple anti-fraud provisions; a requirement that small businesses offer their workers a choice of plans through “SHOP” Exchanges; online enrollment through SHOP Exchanges; and limits on cost-sharing in employer plans. In his most egregious attempt to save the law by unilaterally rewriting it, Obama is trying to impose a $700 billion tax burden on the American people that Congress never authorized. Citing difficulties with the law’s web sites, Obama has repeatedly pushed back deadlines for acquiring coverage that will take effect on January 1, and for satisfying the individual mandate. He pushed back the start of the “open enrollment period” for coverage in 2015 until after the congressional elections in early November 2014. Obama even offered to let some people whose coverage had been cancelled restore those old health plans, despite the fact that they are actually illegal under federal law. Obama’s repeated assurances that “if you like your health plan, you can keep it,” that you can keep your doctor, and that premiums would fall, are widely recognized not just as untrue, but as lies. ObamaCare’s popularity rating hit a new low in December 2013, with Americans opposing it by nearly a 2-to-1 ratio. It has lost the support of women (60-35 percent opposed) and the uninsured (50-24 percent say it’s a bad idea) . Even when the president’s responses to ObamaCare’s inadequacies are not illegal, they tend to destabilize the law further or increase its cost.

This time, President Obama announced, just days before the deadline for purchasing coverage with a January 1 effective date, that he would offer a categorical “hardship exemption” from the individual mandate to anyone who had their insurance cancelled due to ObamaCare. The White House guesstimates only half a million people will qualify, but the number may be closer to 5 million. (Former Congressional Budget Office director Douglas Holtz-Eakin predicts “a black market for fraudulent cancellation letters.”) If these folks choose not to buy health insurance, they will not face a penalty. They will also have the option to buy, “if it is available in your area,” the lower-cost catastrophic coverage that ObamaCare otherwise offers only to people under age 30, or who receive the separate “unaffordability” exemption from the mandate.

The obvious purpose of this policy is to give political cover to Senate Democrats who must face the voters next year, and are no doubt afraid of attack ads like this one. The last thing Obama wants is for the Senate to give House Republicans a chance to reopen ObamaCare. So when a handful of Democratic senators demanded that the administration do something about all these people whose policies have been cancelled, Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius announced the policy in a letter to one of those senators and in a bureaucratic “bulletin.” Quietly, as if they didn’t want too many people to know.

Yet this exemption may not be of much value to those who qualify, and is likely to create more problems for ObamaCare supporters than it solves.

Cold comfort. The people who qualify for this exemption don’t actually want it. They want health insurance. They had affordable coverage, until ObamaCare took it away from them, and that’s what they still want now. Sebelius boasts that ObamaCare’s catastrophic plans cost 20 percent less than other ObamaCare plans, but don’t confuse that with affordable coverage. The Manhattan Institute’s Avik Roy — who is now the opinion editor for the sprawling Forbes empire – notes that ObamaCare’s catastrophic plans can still cost twice as much as what was previously available on the individual market.

But even if they like their catastrophic plan, they can’t keep it. Sebelius has complete control over the duration of the exemptions, which she has described as a “temporary” step “to smooth [consumers'] transition” to enrollment in Exchange plans. So in a matter of months, Obama will violate his “if you like your health plan” pledge again by kicking these folks out of their catastrophic plans. They will get another cancellation letter tossing them into the Exchanges. Their premiums will surge again. They may lose their doctor again.

Destabilizing ObamaCare’s risk pools. The exemption means insurers will suffer losses this year, and rates will be higher next year, for all ObamaCare plans.

The president argued before the Supreme Court that ObamaCare’s regulatory scheme cannot work with out the individual mandate. Yet he has now exempted millions of the very people he most needs to comply with it. This exemption siphons good risks out of the Exchanges and destabilizes the risk pools for both the standard ObamaCare plans and the catastrophic plans. Participating carriers set the rates for their Exchange plans with the expectation that these folks would be purchasing bronze, silver, gold, and platinum plans through the Exchanges. But the healthiest members of this now-exempt group are the most likely to go uninsured or purchase a catastrophic plan. So Obama’s blanket exemption makes those risk pools older and sicker.

This blanket exemption also destabilizes the risk pools for the catastrophic plans. It opens those pools to lots of people over age 30, who have higher health expenses than people under age 30, and whom the insurers were not expecting to buy catastrophic plans when they set those rates.

Political problem #1: credibility. The exemption further undermines Obama’s credibility on health care because he is allowing millions to purchase a type of health plan that his administration has denounced because they don’t provide as much coverage as ObamaCare’s vaunted Exchange plans. Sebelius has derided ”very high catastrophic plans that don’t pay for anything unless you get hit by a bus” as unworthy of being called “health insurance.”

The exemption is also an admission that, contrary to Obama’s assurances, many previously insured Americans may not be able to find “an acceptable replacement” for their cancelled policies, in part because ObamaCare has made coverage “ unaffordable.”

This exemption also shows Obama is not interested in bipartisanship. Just as Republicans would have worked with him to delay the employer mandate, they would have happily worked with him to craft an exemption to the individual mandate. In both cases, the president took drastic, and possibly illegal, action to avoid working with Republicans. (It may yet dawn on Obama that he is the reason we don’t have a “normal political environment.”)

Political problem #2: inequity. It is completely unfair for the president to exempt the previously insured but not the uninsured. Ezra Klein writes: “A 45-year-old whose plan just got canceled can now purchase catastrophic coverage. A 45-year-old who didn’t have insurance at all can’t. Why don’t people who couldn’t afford a plan in the first place deserve the same kind of help as people whose plans were canceled?” Expect the uninsured and their members of Congress to agitate for expanding this exemption, which would further undermine the delicate balance of implicit transfers ObamaCare’s Exchanges hope to achieve.

Political problem #3: further cancellation notices, rate shock, etc. As noted above, this exemption is only temporary. There will be lots more grumbling on Capitol Hill when these exemptions run out and people start getting cancellation letters. The president can suspend those cancellations until after the November 2014 elections, but they are coming and he can’t keep them from becoming an issue in those elections. Republicans and “outside” groups will see to that.

Political problem #4: another straw on the insurers’ backs. The health insurance industry has been remarkably supine as the Obama administration’s incompetence threatens to cost them millions of dollars. All that Kathleen Sebelius has to do is “strongly encourage” insurers to pay claims for people who haven’t paid a dime in premiums — something the law gives her no authority to do or even to request — and the industry snaps-to. Nobody knows when individual health insurance carriers will run out of patience with ObamaCare and the administration, but this exemption brings that day closer.

***

I agree with Nicholas Bagley that this exemption is probably legal. Or at least, it comports with the statute, which gives the Secretary of Health and Human Services the power to exempt people from the individual mandate if they experience “a hardship with respect to the capability to obtain coverage under a qualified health plan.” Bagley basically argues that potentially millions of people may now find coverage unaffordable because they believed the president when he lied to them about ”if you like your health plan, you can keep it.” Having planned their finances around that promise, they are now suffering a hardship with respect to the capability to obtain coverage. I find Bagley’s argument troubling, because it implies that the more the president lies, and the more harm his lies cause, the more power he has to issue hardship exemptions. (It’s a little like when the administration argued in NFIB v. Sebelius that Congress had the power to impose an individual mandate under the Constitution’s “necessary and proper” clause because the rest of ObamaCare created so many problems that Congress had to enact the mandate to fix them. The Supreme Court rejected this idea, holding that Congress cannot “create the necessary predicate to the exercise of an enumerated power.”) But at this point, I don’t think this fix violates any laws.

Until Congress repeals ObamaCare, this is what health care will look like in America. Republicans will complain when Democrats jerk your health plan hence. Democrats will complain when Republicans jerk your health plan hither. Presidents from both parties will push the executive’s discretionary powers up to and beyond their lawful limits. Democratic and Republican presidents will “strongly encourage” insurers and health care providers to do things that no law requires, such as pay the medical bills of patients who have not paid a single premium, and the beholden insurers and providers will comply “voluntarily.” Republican and Democratic presidents will withhold information about their own performance, so there is no way to verify its own stellar self-assessments. Still, ObamaCare is definitely not a government takeover.

ObamaCare supporters are sure the Obama administration will be able to sort all this out. Then again, they pooh-poohed predictions like Gokhale’s and mine, and the most prominent among them have deliberately said things they knew to be untrue to enact and to protect this misbegotten law.

http://economyincrisis.org/content/the-tpp-negotiating-process-has-been-a-betrayal-of-american-principles

The TPP Negotiating Process Has Been a Betrayal of American Principles

DECEMBER 27, 2013 DANIEL MILLS 1 COMMENT

Earlier this week, Secretary of State John Kerry said the TPP would bring “transparency” and “accountability” to the communist nation of Vietnam. We wish our government would bring some transparency and accountability to its own dealings with the TPP.

Our Founding Fathers established in our nation a set of ideals and rights which should be maintained by any government. Among these ideals it was established that our government was to be of the people by the people and for the people.

Our Constitution was designed to ensure no faction could maintain control of our government. This system of divided government has stood for over two centuries and has been a constant guard to our freedoms.

Before our leaders lies the makings of an agreement which would be the next step to the overthrow of our sovereignty. The TPP would strip away the rights of the people and remove our government’s ability to oversee its own affairs. It would hand more power to multinational corporate interests while stripping our economy to the bone.

The TPP is about far more than trade; of the 29 sections only 5 have to do with trade. The rest would impact a broad range of categories from intellectual property rights to food safety. When enacted, this would become part of our law, making vast changes to the laws of our land. It would also give foreign companies the right to sue our government in international court if our regulations affect their profits.

Why have officials from Johnson & Johnson, Monsanto, Cisco Systems Inc. and General Electric Co. been involved in the details of the negotiations while our own legislators, such as Elizabeth Warren and Alan Grayson, are left out? What would our Founders make of this process?

Last month, 151 House Democrats, members of Obama’s own party, sent a letter to the White House stating their opposition to granting him Fast Track Authority to negotiate trade agreements, citing a lack of Congressional consultation. If our government wants our trust, it should open the discussion to public debate.

Our leaders need to renew the bond of trust with the American people. We must open the TPP to public debate, stop Fast Track Trade Authority, and take steps to protect American sovereignty from foreign interests.

http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/item/18387-new-revelation-that-attorney-general-eric-holder-is-protecting-jpmorgan-chase-nyc-from-criminal-investigation

New Revelation that AG Eric Holder Is Protecting JPMorgan Chase NYC From Criminal Investigation

132
font size
Print
Email

MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

Providing additional evidence that the Obama Administration's Department of Justice (DOJ) is protecting "banks too big to fail," Pulitzer Prize winning financial reporter David Cay Johnston has revealed that the DOJ has refused to force JPMorgan Chase to comply with an ongoing investigation into the bank's possible knowledge of Bernard Madoff's fraud scheme of a few years ago.

The information obtained might reveal that the bank chose to financially benefit from criminal activity:

Bernard Madoff’s principal bank, JPMorgan Chase, has for years obstructed federal bank examiners trying to ascertain what it knew about his gigantic Ponzi scheme, an official document obtained by Newsweek shows.

The Justice Department refused in September to back up Treasury inspector general staff who wanted a court order to enforce a subpoena, in effect shielding JPMorgan from law enforcement, the October 8 document shows.

The Justice Department told the Treasury Inspector General “that they were denying the request for enforcement of the subpoena,” which means officials “could not undertake further actions regarding this matter,” wrote Jason J. Metrick, the inspector general special-agent-in-charge.

Johnston disclosed the latest damning indication of the DOJ shielding Wall Street banks that dominate US finanes in a Newsweek article. The DOJ pattern of not exploring potential big bank criminal activity was admitted to by Attorney General Eric Holder -- as BuzzFlash at Truthout reported at the time -- as recalled by Johnston:

Last March Attorney General Eric Holder told a Senate hearing he was afraid to prosecute the Too Big to Fail Banks, as it could do even more economic damage, in effect declaring them Too Big to Prosecute.

“The size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when we are hit with indications that if you do prosecute, if you do bring a criminal charge, it will have a negative impact on the national economy -- perhaps even the world economy," Holder testified.

Although Madoff has been serving an effective life sentence in prison since 2009, a special Treasury Department inspector general with independent powers is still trying to ascertain if JPMorgan Chase turned a blind eye to Madoff's mega-ponzi scheme that left many individuals and organizations (including charities) with enormous losses.

The bottom line of the Obama DOJ's position is that Americans are left vulnerable to criminal bank activity on a massive scale because if they were held accountable, Holder believes, the US economic system would be hurt.

But the 2007-2008 crash showed what such uninvestigated and unprosecuted behavior leads to.

In short, the chief law enforcement officer of the United States is authorizing our largest banks to engage in criminal behavior because, he claims, preventing them from doing so might negatively impact our economy? But hasn't it prima facie been proven again and again that the likely criminal bank activity undermines our financial system?

This is so nonsensical, such a defilement of justice and economic integrity that there must be another answer to Holder's protection of suspected (and as indicated in civil and other suits) criminal actions on Wall Street.

The financial masters of the universe call the shots in DC. Holder and his law firm base, Covington and Burling, represent many of them -- and Congress and the White House are beholden to them for campaign cash and revolving door jobs.

http://rt.com/usa/anti-nsa-broadcast-radio-meltdown-841/

Radio station experiences major software meltdown during anti-NSA broadcast

Published time: December 26, 2013 19:46

Get short URL

AFP Photo / Jacques Demarthon

Share on tumblr

Trends

NSA leaks

Aussie Bank Asks "Will Bitcoin Replace The Dollar?"

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 12/27/2013 19:59 -0500

Aussie

Australia

Bitcoin

Central Banks

China

Fail

Germany

Hyperinflation

Money Supply

Quantitative Easing

Reality

Too Big To Fail

inShare4

Bitcoin is rapidly becoming part of the everyday lexicon. Following David Woo's investigation, National Australia Bank's Emma Lawson looks at its creation, use, and quality as "currency," and find that Bitcoin meets most, but not all the conditions required to be a currency. Lawson concludes Bitcoin may not be the most efficient monetary system, given the costs to create, and that the supply set-up can be seen as both an advantage (hyperinflation is not possible) but also a disadvantage (there are conditions which may create deflation). But, if enough people believe in it, and use it, it may be here to stay as a payment system. Simply put, its success (or failure) will depend on establishing trust and adoption.

Via National Australia Bank's Emma Lawson,

The Rise In Crypto-Currency

What are Bitcoin?

Definition of a currency:

Noun: a system of money in general use in a particular country: the fact or quality of being generally accepted or in use.

“Bitcoin” has entered the popular lexicon, challenging our idea of what makes a currency, currency. The definition of currency above does not mention the physical characteristics of the same but that it must be generally accepted.

There have been different forms of currency over the centuries, but what is important is that users believe it to be currency. Banknotes themselves were introduced in China in 118BC as a promissory note. Marco Polo, in the 13th Century recorded that paper bark was used in the place of gold or silver. The first colony in New South Wales used rum for currency, in the absence of printing presses. These examples show that currency or money can be different things, they are not static and they do not have to be physically valuable in themselves (like gold).

As such, Bitcoins can indeed be currency, as could anything labelled as such. As long as you believe it is.

Firstly, what are crypto-currencies? Bitcoin is one of around 50 crypto-currencies, albeit the most well-known, traded and first established in 2009. These are de-centralised digital (or electronic) medium of exchange. They are not backed by physical assets but rather peer security.

Primary issuance of Bitcoin is determined by computer algorithms which require large amounts of computer power, to validate sequences (blocks) and proof-of-work. As more “miners” participate in calculating blocks, the required computer power and sequence of blocks increase; thus not allowing an increase in the speed of Bitcoin issuance despite more mining. Participants become Bitcoin miners to claim transaction fees and initial Bitcoin.

Indeed one claimed benefit of Bitcoin is that in a world of quantitative easing, this alternative is designed not to increase above the scheduled path. Bitcoin are created at a “decreasing and predictable rate…issuance halts completely with a total of 21 million Bitcoins in existence."

The secondary market for Bitcoin is where most participants will acquire them for their digital “wallets” i.e. accounts. The price is determined on exchange via demand and supply, similar to the broader FX market.

At present there are eight dominant exchanges but there have been more and the number changes (Chart 1). In a study of 40 Bitcoin exchanges, 18 were found to have closed and taken customer accounts. Popular exchanges were also found more likely to experience security breaches2.Prices may also vary between exchanges. The most popular in the USD market is Mt Gox, which constitutes 52% of USD volume (based on the latest month average volume); closely followed by Bitstamp at 46%.

Trading of Bitcoin is most popular in CNY, at 46% of the total Bitcoin market by currency, closely followed by USD at 45%, EUR takes up a small percentage at 4%. This makes the China Bitcoin exchange the largest available; it makes up 47% of total Bitcoin trading (Chart 1).

The price on a singular exchange has been particularly volatile recently (Chart 2). There have been calls of a bubble in the Bitcoin price. The price tracked an average of $5.44 in 2011 and $8.29 in 2012 but has risen exponentially from October 2013. It peaked at $1200, and has dropped back to $575 more recently, after regulatory changes in China.

The fact that there are multiple exchanges but only 1723 registered businesses worldwide advertised as using Bitcoin (no doubt there are more in reality), suggests there may be something in the idea that there is currently more people buying Bitcoin in anticipation of an increase in Bitcoin value, rather than buying Bitcoin in order to use them as a payment method. That strongly suggests a bubble in the present value of Bitcoin.

Be that as it may, it does not discount the idea of Bitcoin as a currency or payment system, albeit a presently volatile one.

Bitcoin as a desirable currency

There are a number of qualities that a currency must have to be effective and sustainable. The NSW colony’s use of rum fit the bill by being recognisable but it arguably wasn’t durable when holders got thirsty! Bitcoin has certainly captured the attention of markets and the media, but if it is to have longevity, these tried and tested qualities must be in existence. These are necessary but not sufficient conditions to qualify as currency.

Durability: the unique feature of Bitcoin is that they are electronic, and not physical money. The concept of electronic funds has grown, and examples of electronic units of exchange have been around for some time in the shape of, arguably, credit cards, but also PayPal. Stories of throwing the hard-drive at the local tip aside, crypto-currencies are durable in their electronic records. Computer back-ups are recommended.

Portability: similar to durability, with an electronic version of currency, the portability of Bitcoin is less of an issue. As long as you have a smart-phone. Clearly there are some issues here, with access to smart phones or portable technology not universal. There may be restrictions on use by age or location for example. Anyone trying to just make a mobile phone call in a remote area in Australia could perhaps attest to that.
Fungibility: or the ability to exchange Bitcoins for other Bitcoin without cost. For example, swapping a $10 note for two $5’s. Bitcoin are fungible, although as they come in only one denomination it is less of a concern.

Divisibility: the ability to split a whole Bitcoin. This is possible. It is this ability to split into fraction of Bitcoin that the proponents of the crypto-currency believe will solve the problem of there being a finite amount ever minted. They believe that when there is expanded use and demand for Bitcoin, combined with a limited supply (at 21 million), that Bitcoin will become increasingly divided or fractionalised.

The clear flaw of that plan is the concern regarding deflation. If one Bitcoin can provide the owner with increasingly more goods or services over time (ie. demand outstrips supply for Bitcoin, not goods and services), that means the price of goods and services are falling. This tends to dampen consumption. This may occur only when the final Bitcoin is minted and if demand for Bitcoin use continues to rise.

Scarcity: Bitcoins are scarce as they require expensive and time-consuming computing resources to create. Hacking or counterfeiting is claimed to be prevented by peer pressure or game theory to prevent an invalid increase in minting. This has not been entirely successful, with breaches in June and August 2011 and April 2013. The security features are being adapted over time to address problems as the system matures.

The scarcity can also be considered a flaw. The supply of Bitcoin is inelastic. There are periods of time at which an increase in the money supply is warranted, to meet demand and then cyclically reduced. Bitcoin does not allow for that. The current spike in Bitcoin is an example. Demand for it has risen (arguably on speculative grounds), and supply cannot match it; hence the rise from $100 to $1200 over four months.

One factor is that there are a number of alternative crypt-currencies. Bitcoin is the dominant system now but that is not to say that it will remain that way. Crypto-currencies may stay around and thrive as a payment system but not Bitcoin.

Recognisability: there is a growing awareness of Bitcoin as a payment system. But, its use is limited. Some might suggest that its recognisability at present is concentrated on its own price, rather than a medium of exhcange.

The Bitcoin website shows 1723 sites worldwide that advertise their use. In Australia, there is a café in Adelaide, a website services firm in Melbourne, a juice bar in Sydney and a currency exchange on the Gold Coast. There are likely to be more than that and it is growing. But it is not yet universal.

Mention Bitcoin at present and many would discuss its use as a store of value before its use as a medium of exchange. And this takes us to the other properties of being a currency.

Trust and Adoption are Critical

“Bitcoins have value because they are useful as a form of money”

In a discussion about Bitcoin with a computer engineer I asked “how is it created?” and had the spiel about computing power, energy and the resources needed to identify prime numbers. Ok, that’s great, I may never understand the maths but I get that it requires substantial resources to compute. The next question “so what does it produce that is valuable?” answer – nothing.

Bitcoin are valuable because they exist, because people believe that it may be so. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. There must be trust in the system, for Bitcoin to retain any value. This is how it differs from other payment methods like credit cards and PayPal, which have a pool of funds backing them. Crypto-currencies may be cheaper as a payment method because they do not have that asset backing, but it thus relies more on trust than alternatives.

Bitcoin comes about as a response to quantitative easing and concern regarding central banks’ printing money. But what it cannot replicate is the revenue generating abilities of central banks and the governments that control them, or their inflation fighting credentials. Neither does it have the centuries of history that gold is backed by.

Bitcoin will work as a medium of exchange as long as participants believe in the security of the triple-counting system and peer-to-peer security. But this takes time. Given this, we shall likely not know for a prolonged period of time how successful the crypto-currency experiment will be.
The other condition that Bitcoin needs to be successful is adoption. It needs to become broadly used and accepted. Its (short) history so far has mostly encapsulated illegal activity characterised by the deep-web site Silkroad; subsequently shut-down. As already noted, there are only four businesses in Australia registered on the Bitcoin User site showing they accept it as a medium of exchange.

The connection between Bitcoin and illegal activity will have to be broken before it becomes widely trusted and accepted. Again, this takes a long time to establish. So while we cannot say that Bitcoin will definitely not become a medium of exchange, what we can say is that it will take a prolonged period of time to prove.

The Regulatory Environment

The increased focus on Bitcoin has led to a wealth of commentary and legal stance on its use from central banks and regulators. A few are outlined below, no country has wholeheartedly adopted its use:

Australia – RBA’s Stevens: “maybe there will be a world in which currencies based on some computer algorithm to limit supply as opposed to physical gold or something. There have been many such currencies through the ages…the ones that will survive will be the ones that hold their value which is why we have an inflation target which we’re hitting.”.

China’s PBoC have banned the use of Bitcoin by commercial banks and the clearing of payments in Bitcoin by third-party providers. China has been the most vocal and proactive in preventing the use of Bitcoin as an alternative to local currency in the major nations using (or investing in) Bitcoin. With the Chinese market for Bitcoin the largest so far, this may be a natural response to protect the central bank’s authority on the money system. Needless to say, the price of Bitcoin in CNY fell sharply on the latest announcement (18 December 2013).

The Swiss have taken a slightly different tack, by preparing to declare Bitcoin as a foreign currency. This ensures that it is not a domestic alternative but that it can be tracked and must be declared so as to meet tax and money-laundering laws, but not banning it altogether.

Germany has acknowledged its existence by declaring it a “unit of account” for tax purposes. It is not a foreign currency but “private money.” It now attracts a 25% capital gains tax.

The EU banking regulator has warned on the use of Bitcoin, in regards to theft, price fluctuations and the lack of central bank backing or security on the same. This has been followed by the French Central Bank which said its use is highly speculative and poses a financial risk to users. Dutch Central Bank President Wellink noted that Bitcoin hype was akin to the 17th century tulip bubble (but didn’t result in a flower at the end of it). The Dutch central bank has warned against their use as they are not regulated and there was no underlying liability. There is no deposit guarantee scheme.

Most jurisdictions treat Bitcoin as assets and require tax to be paid on capital gains. TheNorwegian government said that Bitcoin were not considered money or currency and will tax it as an asset, similar to Germany, at 25%,

Thailand was the first country to ban its use as it was ruled not to be a currency.

In November, the US held a Senate hearing on the use of crypto-currencies. Much of the discussion was positive and upheld their use as “legal means of exchange’” There are ongoing concerns about its use in illegal activity.

In a world that is used to being bailed out when the financial system fails, Bitcoin’s decentralised system is a benefit to those in favour of limited government control, but is a distinct disadvantage to those who are used to the final bill being picked up by governments. If the present leap in Bitcoin price proves to be a bubble, it will be the individuals picking up the tab, not governments. There is no deposit scheme or any “too big to fail.” While investment in Bitcoin is small, that poses individual risk. If Bitcoin use becomes much broader, that becomes a risk to financial stability. Caveat emptor.

Bitcoin to replace the AUD? Not Now

We have established that Bitcoin meet most, but not all the conditions required to be a currency. The rest may follow, but that it will take a very long time to be proven. Its success (or failure) will depend on establishing trust and adoption.

Bitcoin may not be the most efficient monetary system, given the costs to create, and that the supply set-up can be seen as both an advantage (hyperinflation is not possible) but also a disadvantage (there are conditions which may create deflation). But, if enough people believe in it, and use it, it may be here to stay as a payment system.

However, there is a large red flag saying buyer beware at current levels of price and use. With no macroeconomic backing, it is impossible to determine fair value for Bitcoin aside from demand and supply – but the chart of AUD/BTC (Chart 3) above shows, BTC’s trajectory is not one of a stable currency.

And regarding China move against BitCoin ..... the SHTF after China New Years holiday - watch out around the end of January !

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-17/china-bans-payment-companies-from-clearing-bitcoin-news-says.html

Chinese central bank officials told third-party payment service providers to stop offering clearing services to online Bitcoin exchanges, according to China Business News, which is affiliated with the Shanghai government.

Companies currently offering services must end services by the Chinese New Year, a weeklong holiday that begins on Jan. 31, the newspaper cited Zhou Jinhuang, deputy director of payment clearance at the People’s Bank of China, as saying at a meeting with more than 10 third-party payment service providers.

China’s central bank regulated the virtual currency for the first time on Dec. 5 by banning financial institutions and payment providers from conducting transactions in the virtual currency. Zhou was cited as saying by China Business News that the rules would be “strictly enforced.”

“The PBOC statement on Dec. 5 was somewhat vague and there is more clarity now,” Zennon Kapron, managing director of financial consultancy Kapronasia, said in an interview in Shanghai. “The way it’s reading now is that after the Chinese New Year, you won’t be able to get your money off the platforms.”

The PBOC’s news department didn’t immediately comment on the Bitcoin report when contacted by Bloomberg News. Two calls to Li Yue, director general of the central bank’s payment and settlement department, were unanswered.

Bank Ban

Bitcoin prices on BTC China, China’s largest exchange, plunged to as low as 3,251 yuan ($535) today before rebounding to 4,155 yuan at 4:16 p.m. local time. The drop in prices was triggered by concern that PBOC officials may visit lenders next to enforce the ban against Bitcoin settlement, Kapron said. The number of banks and payment providers that can transact Bitcoin has shrunk since the ban was announced, he said.

Bitcoin prices on the CoinDesk index jumped as much as 11 times since October, prompting former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan to call the market a “bubble.”

Speculation that authorities in China may halt trading in Bitcoin surfaced after police arrested three people on suspicion of stealing money from investors through a fake online exchange.

GBL, a Bitcoin trading platform in China that began operating in May and had 4,493 registered users at the end of September, abruptly closed on Oct. 26, the official Xinhua News Agency reported Dec. 3., citing police in eastern Zhejiang privince’s Dongyang city.

Bitcoin Crashes After China Bans New Deposits; PBOC Gets DDOSed In Retaliation

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 12/18/2013 07:43 -0500

Yesterday it was the US Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network that tightened its grip on businesses that accept Bitcoin. Today, it is China, where the world's largest Bitcoin exchange by trading volume, BTCChina announced that he had received word from "above" that his platform would no longer be able to accept renminbi from BTC buyers. "As of right now, we have received notice from our third-party payment company that they will disallow customers from making deposits into our exchange," Bobby Lee, a former Yahoo developer who co-founded BTCChina this year, told the Financial Times. The result, not surprisingly, is an overnight crash in BTC, which crashed by 50% from $900 two days ago to just $455 hours ago.

Catharsis Ours

Saturday, December 28, 2013