search
top

Chase Cracks Down on Cash… Is Your Bank Next?

Chase Cracks Down on Cash… Is Your Bank Next? by Clint Siegner The War on Cash Escalates The Federal Reserve bank and its owners, the largest banks on Wall Street, want badly to be able to charge you interest for the privilege of depositing your funds. The problem is getting you to stand for it. Depositors already complain vigorously about zero percent returns on checking and savings accounts. If they must start actually paying the bank to hold funds on deposit, many will opt to simply withdraw the cash and stuff it under their mattress or into a safe deposit box. That simply won’t do. The Goal Is to Force You to Deposit Cash and Charge YOU Interest Bankers in the U.S. can learn something from the Swiss. The Swiss National Bank recently implemented negative interest rates without first solving the “problem” of how to prevent cash from fleeing the banks. Predictably, depositors started doing some math. In one example, a sizable Swiss pension fund, calculated it would save 25,000 francs for every 10 million it held in the bank by simply withdrawing those millions and taking the bales of paper francs to be kept in a vault. The vault storage fees are less expensive than the negative interest rate. Jumping the gun on the implementation of negative rates put the Swiss banks in an awkward situation. Like all fractional reserve lenders, they don’t have anywhere near enough cash to make good on the withdrawals that may be coming. The bank holding the pension money had little choice but to refuse the client’s demand for millions of francs – funds the client is contractually entitled to. Telling clients “sorry, you can’t make a withdrawal” never goes over too well! Nevertheless, the Swiss National Bank is sticking to its guns. It is encouraging retail banks to be “restrictive” with regards to cash withdrawals. And it is berating actors such as the pension fund for trying to circumvent negative interest rates. Apparently no one should be questioning the wisdom behind the policy! But the bluster isn’t hiding the fact that bankers stand upon shaky legal ground. The potential for a run on the banks remains. Insiders here look anxious to avoid a similar situation. Willem Buiter, the chief economist at CitiBank, thinks he’s got the answer to this banker’s quandary. Simply abolish cash. Or tax it punitively. He isn’t the only one supporting this radical solution. Other economists, including the prominent... read more

The Web Of Deception

Greece is making waves, we learned that Jordan and Iraq are lining their borders with “1,000’s” of troops and Ukraine is escalating. What about the criminals back home? Good question. The banksters never sleep and the market action on the DJIA, NASDAQ and S&P shows without question that if you have your hard earned currency in these markets you are playing in a rigged casino. We also learned that a judge in Italy ruled in favor of 6 year old child showing overwhelming evidence that vaccines created autism in this child. Of course you will never hear anything about this in the mainstream media–oh, yeah, there is a US media blackout on this story. Wonder why? Open you mind. Are you awake Yet? As a reader you deserve to know the truth behind the disasters America and the rest of the world faces. If you want to learn more about what is going on in America then consider joining America’s Great Awakening Newsletter. These newsletters are free for a limited time.JOIN US TODAY If you are already a member you can, sign in... read more

Surviving a ‘multitude of fools’

The danger to America is not Barack Obama, but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America . Blaming the prince of fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools, such as those who made him their President. Do this ring true for you? How does the prince get the votes he needs to stay in office? Obamacare will ensure 1/6th of the economy will be controlled by the government. This does not mention Welfare, Social Security or medicare. 109,631,000 Americans lived in households that received benefits from one or more federally funded program. That is 1 in 3 people receive something from government. Can you see where the votes are coming from now? Certainly, as you have just read, the “Fools” that elected the prince are a big problem. It is tough to beat Santa Clause. And now the jockey is bigger than the horse, and the horse is staggering. Collecting “fools,” bribing the population with its own money, seems irreversible. When once something is given, how can it be taken away? The Prince and his court are very dangerous indeed. Are you awake Yet? As a reader you deserve to know the truth behind the disasters America and the rest of the world faces. If you want to learn more about what is going on in America then consider joining America’s Great Awakening Newsletter. These newsletters are free for a limited time.JOIN US TODAY If you are already a member you can, sign in... read more

Supreme Court Says Police Violated 4th Amendment When Use of Drug-Sniffing Dog Prolonged Routine Traffic Stop

In a 6-3 decision issued today in the case of Rodriguez v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Nebraska police violated the Fourth Amendment by extending an otherwise lawful traffic stop in order to let a drug-sniffing dog investigate the outside of the vehicle. According to the majority opinion of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, which was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan, “a police stop exceeding the time needed to handle the matter for which the stop was made violates the Constitution’s shield against unreasonable seizures.” While “an officer…may conduct certain unrelated checks during an otherwise lawful traffic stop,” Ginsburg held, “a dog sniff, unlike the routine measures just mentioned, is not an ordinary incident of a traffic stop.” At issue was a 2012 traffic stop conducted by a Nebraska police officer who happened to have his K-9 dog in the cruiser with him. When the stopped driver, Dennys Rodriguez, refused to consent to letting the drug dog walk around the outside of his vehicle, the Nebraska officer called for back-up, thereby prolonging the stop by an additional eight minutes. According to the Court’s ruling today, those extra minutes violated Rodriguez’s constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment. During the January 2015 oral argument in the case, Justice Sonia Sotomayor previewed the Court’s skepticism towards the police officer’s approach. “We can’t keep bending the Fourth Amendment to the resources of law enforcement,” Sotomayor declared. “Particularly when this stop is not incidental to the purpose of the stop. It’s purely to help the police get more criminals, yes. But then the Fourth Amendment becomes a useless piece of paper.” The Supreme Court’s opinion in Rodriguez v. United States is available here. Are you awake Yet? As a reader you deserve to know the truth behind the disasters America and the rest of the world faces. If you want to learn more about what is going on in America then consider joining America’s Great Awakening Newsletter. These newsletters are free for a limited time.JOIN US TODAY If you are already a member you can, sign in... read more

Police Encounters: What You Need To Know

What makes police officers and the government powerless? When the American people know and use their rights! You have rights during a traffic stop or any police encounter. Learn what your rights are and use them before you loose them! During a traffic stop these cops are trying to question a teenager. His mother is objecting to the questioning. You are not required to answer any questions the police ask you. In fact, you should never answer their questions. This lady may have said too much but she knows her rights. THIS is what happens when people talk to much to cops with the IQ of a rotten head of lettuce. And she is right, Hell would play host to the Winter Olympics before I left ANYONE I cared about alone outside the car for them to potentially assault or kill. Just NOT going to happen. Furthermore, if the parent or legal guardian does NOT consent to the questioning of a minor without assistance of counsel, the cops MUST cease and desist all questioning of that minor, especially when the minor is not suspected of committing any crime. @ 0:05 – She is correct, they CANNOT detain a passenger if there is no reasonable suspicion or probable cause that the passenger committed some offense, which is the ONLY way they could be considered “part of the stop.” That constitutes false imprisonment. @ 2:25 – The officer is totally incorrect on both points of the traffic stop NOT being an arrest, because it IS, AND that an individual is not required to identify themselves UNLESS they have already been lawfully arrested for some OTHER alleged offense. @ 3:18 – The public servant figuratively shoots himself directly in his ill-informed mouth by stating that he was (UNLAWFULLY) detaining the son because of the actions of the mother in telling him to not talk to the cop, and compounds his problems by claiming that she is “concealing” the minor’s identity. Again, he is not required to identify himself. @ 3:35 – BOTH officers screw themselves by claiming that they can detain him and that he MUST divulge his identity “for their safety.” NOTE TO COPS: If you are such a coward that your “safety” depends upon the name of a minor child that has committed no crime, nor that you have even the remotest suspicion of having committed a crime, then you are a REALLY pathetic human being. @ 4:30 – The... read more
Page 1 of 212
top