- Delivering Truth Around the World
Custom Search

Comment and "Breaking News--Economic Stimulus Plan Agreement Imminent--More Of the Same Artifice & Scheme at Work?

Andrew Taylor/ Comments by S

Smaller Font Larger Font RSS 2.0

I've been observing the voodoo spin on CNN this a.m. about the "Breaking News" and the 'imminent' confirmation of final terms of "agreement" or 'deal' between the politicians and the Burning Bush regarding his proposed "economic stimulus plan". They are giving this front-line attention and really pumping it right along with continued announcements about the scheduled State of the Union address on Monday night. The front story is about to hit the airways BIG TIME. This 'agreement', if made effective any time soon, or even if announced as if it had legal force and effect, is 'business as usual'.

However, what most folks will not realize or recognize is this: Any 'refund' check to any 'tax payer' or 'tax filer' issued on the US Treasury at whatever 'value' or 'amount' is set by agreement of the House, Senate, and President, is a form of economic-financial voodoo. The total value of any 'refund' tax relief pkg has to be borrowed as an appropriation of Congress, which goes to the fact that it is an apportioned disbursement of CREDIT to CORP U.S. 'PERSONS', or FRANCHISE TRUST 'TAX PAYERS', which are fully owned and operated by the UNITED STATES-DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. Every 'tax payer' has a SOCIAL SECURITY NO. AND ACCOUNT, which is fully owned by the UNITED STATES. The 'TAX PAYER NAME', on the SSAN as a recipient or BENEFICIARY of the refund, is actually the UNITED STATES. The total amount of the benefit 'plan' has got to be borrowed by Congress from the FRBS, expressed in terms of FRN's, through the US Treasury, which issues the 'refund checks'. When received in the mail, the name on the Treasury envelope will be "JOHN Q PUBLIC", and the real man/woman who takes the check to the bank to deposit or cash it by signature, is performing as the 'COMPELLED SOCIAL SECURITY FIDUCIARY' or 'Trustee' for the FRNCHISE TRUST PERSON-BENEFICIARY, which takes delivery or accepts the alleged benefit.

But what is the benefit, really? It is a bank instrument with face value expressed as a form of 'money of account' or 'bank credii' funds, expressed as an "obligation of the UNITED STATES-UST", which itself exists in banking commerce only by borrowing it from the FRBS. The 'stimulus plan' is a form of monetizing more debt as 'new money' into the FRB System, which is what we erroneously call an 'economy'. The FRN is a promise to pay, in the form of a negotiable commercial instrument or bearer note, denominated on face. The total value of 'new money, as debt' which goes to the 'public debt' of the UNITED STATES, which is owed to the FRBS, is the value of the 'stimulus plan'.

Who is responsible for 'payment of the public debt', if not U.S. 'taxpayers'? The alleged 'elected officials' or 'representatives' of House, Senate, and Executive have gotten together and agreed to make a direct beneficial distribution to 'taxpayers' as 'beneficiarys' of the 'public trust', which operates to-date exclusively on fiat commercial debt-based paper or electronic "currency". The "plan" is a way of monetizing new indebtedness under public policy and public interest debt-creation: debt-administration:debt-collection [in perpetuity]. Tax payers and their 'government' are agreeing that the tax payers shall receive a temporary benefit upfront, which the taxpayers will be obligated to 'pay' on the back-end of the due 'public debt'. So, the 'play' is basically that, Bush and the bogus legislature will appear to be acting in the interest of the People, but actually are acting to further extort the "faith and credit" of the People, by and through all of the nefarious means that I have set out in my COMMENTS in the past week or so. The credit to be borrowed into ciruclation, appears on the debt register of the UNITED STATES and its TREASURY, and it is an aggregate value 'owed to' the CREDITORS to the UNITED STATES, which make notational bookentries of 'credit funds' by depositing the 'promise to pay' of the U.S., which is the signed Appropriations 'Bill' of Congress and the President. It is like a negotiable instrument that requires the signatures or official 'seals' of three parties in order to have binding authority and force and effect. It creates a binding obligation on the UNITED STATES, which is defined at 28 USC 3002 (15)(A-C) as a FEDERAL CORPORATION, AGENCY, or INSTRUMENTALITY thereof. The 'U.S. PERSON' 'TAX PAYER' IS A U.S. ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY, operating as a FRANCHISE TRUST ESTATE under the PUBLIC TRUST. IT is also the NAMED BENEFICIARY on the SOCIAL SECURITY ACCOUNT.....THE U.S. IS THE BENEFICIARY, and its FRANCHISE TRUST operates 'commercially', as domiciled 'within the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA', which under the INTERNAL REVENUE CODE is the only legal definition for UNITED STATES.

This is a perfenct living real time example of how the 'faith and credit' of the 'real man' is extorted under a conversion and 'traverse' of the real man, being extorted without his/her informed consent or understanding, by virtue of the fact that he/she has given the impression of having 'elected' to be treated as a "U.S. citizen" or "resident alien" of the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, wherein prior to their Birth Registration and Application for SOCIAL SECURITY benefits, and prior to contracting for Voter Registration, and 'State Driver License', the real man/woman had the legal status and standing of a 'non resident alien' who is 'foreign to' and 'outside' the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA-UNITED STATES.

Under thrust of the 14th Amendment, 'citizens of the UNITED STATES' have no right to 'protest the public debt', or any other right [except to 'residency within the United States'] for that matter. None of the Bill of Rights applies to 'U.S. citizens'. No right to protest the monetary system, use of private FRBS 'credit' 'loaned' to the UST, etc. When the Congress and President "enjoin" together on 'appropriations' 'Bills', they are acting as fiduciaries of the 'public trust' to create new debt obligations against the UNITED STATES, in order to conduct IT's commercial affairs, which includes those 'U.S. PERSONS' or "PERSONNEL" [per 5 USC 552a(a)(13)] who/which are deemed IT's "EMPLOYEES", "OFFICERS-OFFICIALS", ['TAX PAYERS'], as well as it's wholly-owned 'property' and 'FRANCHISE TRUST' 'ESTATE' operation.

The word "individual" is a loaded statutory term which along with 'person', 'employee', 'officer' etc. causes one to presume and be presumed to be a "U.S. [CORPORATE]citizen" of the "UNITED STATES". It's all commercial, and it is all a form of conversion of the substance of 'future labor' and 'earnings', as 'property' of the real man into a benefit to the UNITED STATES and its undisclosed Princpals and alleged Creditors. If this 'stimulus plan' becomes 'law', it is a mechanism to pump new 'credit as money' into 'circulation', borrowed by the UST-Congress as an credit "Appropriations Bill", which must be 'paid' under regime of the 'public debt', which is itself projected in or over time as "obligation of the UNITED STATES", WHICH INCLUDES THE "FAITH AND CREDIT" OF THE PEOPLE, which act as unknowing 'compelled fiduciaries', 'executors', bondsmen, sureties, guarantors and 'obligors' of the UNITED STATES. The UNITED STATES can only operate on the 'faith and credit' of the People of the united States of America, because there is NO REAL MONEY in the TREASURY or in the SYSTEM. IT is a credit-debt based SYSTEM, which orginates with WHO?

Hence, this may be 'one last shot' of infusing more debt onto the face value of the 'public debt' to be settled under Basel II on the basis of whatever the terms and conditions apply to the U.S. public debt. If Basel II does not implement, and this 'stimulus plan' becomes 'law', it is business as usual. I do not presume to know how the public debt shall be resolved and 'settled' under Basel II, but I do presume to strongly conclude that Basel II must become immediately effective if global financial meltdown is to be further avoided. The 'stimulus plan' may be an operation of the new ownership regime of the FRB, if the rumors which we have heard are true. Personally, I do not see any direct benefit to the people who will receive refund checks, because those miniscule amounts of credit funds are not going to make a real difference in any one's financial life. Furthermore, the media have subliminally promoted the idea that the refunds could or would 'most likely' be used to 'paydown credit card or mortgage debt' or help people avoide imminent foreclosure or bankruptcy. The gist of that message is, "Use your credit advances to pay down due credit obligations before you spend it on other things". The 'plan' is a way of creating more debt, put more credit into circulation, and direct by subliminal suggestion that the new credit in circulation be applied to paying off consumer credit to various U.S. bank corporations, which is the same as the UNITED STATES and its TREASURY, because all U.S. bank corporations are "instrumentalities" of Congress and the TREASURY. WHO's 'credit' is being put into circulation as 'new money' to serve as a 'debt creation' 'debt payment' scheme?



Deal for Economic Rescue Package Closer


2008-01-24 06:21:57

By ANDREW TAYLOR Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) — House Democratic and Republican leaders are looking for imminent agreement with the White House on an emergency package to jolt the economy out of its slump after negotiators on all sides made significant concessions at a late-night bargaining session.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi agreed to drop increases in food stamp and unemployment benefits during the Wednesday meeting in exchange for gaining a rebates of at least $300 for each person earning a paycheck, including low-income earners who make too little to pay income taxes.

Families with children would receive an additional $300 per child, subject to an overall cap of perhaps $1,200, according to a senior House aide who outlined the deal on condition of anonymity in advance of formal adoption of the whole package.

President Bush, second from right, meets with Congressional leaders to discuss the economy, Tuesday, Jan. 22, 2008, in the Cabinet Room of the White House in Washington. From left are, House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of Calif., the president and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nev. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

Pelosi, D-Calif., and House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, had yet to reach agreement on a package of tax breaks for businesses after estimates showed a tentative business tax agreement could exceed $70 billion, far more than had been expected, the aide and a Democratic lobbyist said.

Pelosi and Boehner appeared optimistic as they left their third extended negotiating session of the day with Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. "We'll have more to say tomorrow," Boehner said. "We're hopeful."

However, Pelosi's spokesman said another negotiating session tentatively scheduled for Thursday morning was postponed because the speaker first needed to brief fellow Democrats on the emerging but plan.

Democratic aides said greater GOP flexibility over giving relief to poor families with children — who would not have been eligible under President Bush's original tax rebate proposal — was the catalyst that moved the talks forward.

Asked whether agreement was near, Pelosi said, "We're moving toward that, but all the issues are not resolved."

The business tax portion still being negotiated would give businesses incentives to invest in plants and equipment, give small businesses more generous expensing rules and allow businesses suffering losses now to reclaim taxes previously paid. The last item on spreading operating losses was proving to be unexpectedly expensive.

Pelosi pressed to make sure tax relief would find its way into the hands of lower-income earners while Boehner pushed to include upper middle-class couples with incomes of up to $130,000 or so, according to congressional aides.

Bush backs larger rebates of $800-$1,600, but his plan would have left out 30 million working households who earn paychecks but don't make enough to pay income tax, according to calculations by the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center. An additional 19 million households would have received only partial rebates under Bush's initial proposal.

Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., said negotiators also were near an agreement on an overhaul of the Federal Housing Administration that would make it easier for thousands of homeowners with ballooning interest rates to refinance into federally insured loans. That measure might advance separately of the tax relief package, however.

Both sides agreed to allow Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — government-sponsored companies that are the two biggest U.S. financers and guarantors of home loans — to buy loans much larger than the current $417,000 limit, aides and lobbyists said. Frank said that lending cap might reach as high as $700,000 in areas with the highest home prices.

Pelosi's decision to drop expanding unemployment payments and more money for food stamps — which many lawmakers had assumed would be included in the package — could prove very controversial with Democratic constituencies such as unions, who were already stung by a decision to deny states more money for their Medicaid programs.

Many Democrats had pressed to extend unemployment benefits for people whose 26 weeks of benefits have run out, but Republicans resisted.