- Delivering Truth Around the World
Custom Search

Walter Burien speaking to the Health and Freedom Conference - 2010

Smaller Font Larger Font RSS 2.0

Watch Here:
What St. Augustine had to say about what we now call government:
"A gang is a group of men under the command of a leader, bound by a compact of association, in which the plunder is divided according to an agreed convention. If this villainy wins so many recruits from the ranks of the demoralized that it acquires territory, establishes a base, captures cities and subdues peoples, it then openly arrogates to itself the title of kingdom, which is conferred on it in the eyes of the world, not by the renunciation of aggression, but by the attainment of impunity"
Walter Burien speaks to the Health and Freedom Conference in California 2010. Government collective wealth by government institutional investment funds held globally. There is no need for taxation if administrative changes are made in government. Global investment return when looked at "collectively" from local and federal government is now greater than all taxation collected.

It is now possible to restructure government to pay for its "general purpose" expenses from investment return.

Mr. Burien suggests the establishment of TRF management accounts to phase out all taxation for the benefit of the people of this country. The city of Mesa, AZ has done this in a partial fashion for over forty years. From between 40% to 65% of their general purpose operating funds are satisfied from investment return and enterprise operations. The city of Mesa has one of the lowest city tax rate in the state of Arizona for this reason. **The City of Mesa Police Department has its own investment fund whereby the investment return subsidizes most of its operating budget.

Mr. Burien notes through the establishment of TRF (Tax Retirement Funds) the extra nine-yards can be set into motion to satisfy 100% of government's general purpose operating expenses and then taxation will NOT be needed and then become a word of the past for our future generations.

The perfect point here is that the entire structure to manage the TRFs and performance records to show the complete validity of this happening is in place today from the managers who currently have managed government's multi-trillion dollar institutional global investment funds which in their collective totals from all sources is standing as of 2007 at approximately 110 trillion dollars.

It is also noted that collective local and federal government's gross income "globally" from all sources: Investment; taxation; and enterprise as of 2007 was 14-trillion-dollars with that amount being about equal to the GDP of the USA.... The reason this is possible is that government is bringing in a substantial portion of its gross income from global investments outside of the USA (ever wonder why job outsourcing and foreign trade has been so aggressive over the last two decades?) ANS: It is "very" profitable to our own government's "global" institutional investments held across the globe.

On a last and very important note: Government "promotes" debt at the front door and uses their own global investment funds to fund that same debt through the back door creating a holding grounds for their investment capital and a guaranteed rate of return on the same.

EXAMPLE: US Government may have several investment accounts in China with one having 300-billion dollars available for investment elsewhere. The state of California; NJ; NY; and IL have a bond issue collectively of 250-billion dollars that is now funded "from" that US Government institutional investment account in China. The headlines may read: "250-billion dollars comes from China to fund California; NJ; NY; and IL bond issues, China taking over more of US" but in reality the back door funding approach by US Government global investment funds was exercised again.. Get it? I hope so..

If a true audit of US Local and Federal debt was conducted, that audit may just determine that 65% + of that debt held was "self-funded" by collective US government itself...


The satanic DNA seedline jew Derivative SCAM ON YOU Clearly Explained!!! - Gee, Its only 1,600 TRILLION Dollars YOU MUST PAY BACK, Can you say, PERPETUAL SLAVERY FOREVER???
The following is a communication I received CC today between Dick Fojut and Rush Limbaugh.
The original communication and the CAFR1 reply I thought would be informative to the CAFR1 National email list.
Sent FYI from,
Walter Burien -
CAFR1's Reply is as follows: 
Rush and Dick:
Derivative note:  (or I should say Greed and Opportunity note) A derivative loss is not a debt, it is a pledge to honor a price committed to under time limitations between two bets from a buyer and a seller. It is a "paper bet" (a marker) and no money (excluding the margin deposit 1% of the bet) changes hands until the bet is honored from the looser of the bet. (the winner is paid by the exchanges clearing the bets, and the houses and exchanges are on the hook until the loosers on the bets pays up)
What was done at the end of 2008, in a month and a half, the international markets were "rolled" so fast and so hard that 25 to 30 trillion dollars in value was stripped so fast it created trillions in losses on their markers where many loosers on the trading activity were in default.
If the pledge (the markers) are not honored, the houses / exchanges facilitating the derivative transactions are stuck with the loss but are still responsible to pay the winning markers.
What has happened since the end of 2008, the houses and exchanges have "rolled over" the defaults as they look to find a way to stick their defaulted markers on the backs of the public through dumping the defaulted markers into offset accounts sticking it to the public for repayment of.
If the defaulted markers were offset (trading markers canceled) against the winning markers, the pledges would have been balanced on both sides. But then the winning markers were primarily for the government institutional global funds who staged the whole event in the first place and there is no way they would give up that quick booty secured as is in consistency with their conduct from the past: Stick it to the public, they have always been easy marks to pay for the markers (the defaults) as the winning markers are not touched and thus secured.
What would blow this situation out into the open?
ANS: Release an accounting of both sides of the primary "markers" placed at the end of 2008.
I already know what the findings would show: Government institutional global accounts in concert staged the entire event for massive and quick money secured from their "positioned" markers before the deluge began in the last two months of 2008.
The problem created was they took so much so fast on the winning markers, it stripped everyone's  cash in clearing the other side of the loosing markers as they were settled by the exchanges.
So who gets stuck with the defaults? (who does not eat dinner for the year)
** Let's look at who will decide: Ten wolves (the exchanges clearing the transactions) + Five very big wolves (the Commercial Banks houses clearing the transactions through the exchanges for mega institutional government clients) + (Thirty always hungry for more wolves (Global US Government funds) + Twenty very confused and nervous Sheep ( general population)
Looks like it will be mutton for diner over the next few years...  for the wolves that is..
Please share my comments with all that you know.

Walter Burien - CAFR1 - CTA (Commodity Trading Advisor) 1978 to 1992 and derivatives trader of 33 years.

P. O. Box 2112

Saint Johns , AZ 85936

Tel. (928) 458-5854
From:  "Dick Fojut"  

Subject:  BoA Dumps $75 Trillion In Derivatives on Taxpayers 

Date:  Sat, November 12, 2011 2:39 am

To: "Rush Limbaugh"  

Rush, you oppose the Protestors - but support the BANKSTERS. Why? - Dick Fojut in Tucson 
BoA Dumps $75 Trillion In Derivatives On Taxpayers, Super Committee Looks Away. Seize BoA Now.
By Ralph Lopez URL to see photos, access Links)

It's real money, especially since "Bank of America Deathwatch" financial pundits have multiplied on the web and it has become a bit of a geek guessing game. When will BoA finally tank? And when it tanks, the question becomes, who will walk away with all their money, and who will be left holding the bag? The deal just snuck through with the Federal Reserve's, and implicitly, Congress's approval insures Wall Street casino gambler's debts by moving them into accounts meant for penny-pinching grandmas.

Citing Bloomberg, financial commentator Avery Goodman tells us:
"Even if we net out the notional value of the derivatives involved, down to the net potential obligation, the amount is so large that the United States could not hope to pay it off without a major dollar devaluation, if a major contingency actually occurred and a large part of the derivatives were triggered."
A bailout for one company's most irresponsible investors triggering a major dollar devaluation? This is the kind of thing that starts revolutions.  
Goodman reports:
"Bank of America (BAC) has shifted about $22 trillion worth of derivative obligations from Merrill Lynch and the BAC holding company to the FDIC insured retail deposit division. Along with this information came the revelation that the FDIC insured unit was already stuffed with $53 trillion worth of these potentially toxic obligations, making a total of $75 trillion."

Without going too far into bewildering financial jargon, it's like this: Your wildest son is asking you to co-sign for a debt. If he can't make his payments, you are on the hook. How much is the debt? He doesn't know. Just sign on the dotted line. 

Meanwhile the "super committee" is looking for a trillion or so dollars in hits to everything, including Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid, to keep the budget from going any more out of whack. It's urgent, they say, for us to stop spending like drunken sailors. But at the same time they just whipped out a pen and signed for junior, crossing their fingers that something won't happen which is almost inevitable.
Where did I stumble across this news item? Sure as heck not on MSM, which is focused on the smoke grenade of BoAs recent $400 million fee case settlement. $400 million fits into $72 trillion almost 2 million times. Now which is the bigger story?
I stumbled across it posted by an outraged Occupy Wall Street -type on one of their Facebooks. You don't need to read Karl Marx to become an Occupy Wall Streeter. The American financial pages will do it.
It is unlikely the taxpayer's hit will be as much as $72 trillion. Again, no one knows. But it will be a chunk of money.
BusinessWeek writers Phil Mattingly and Bob Ivry point out that Dodd-Frank is not strong enough to prevent the BoA move:
"Separating complex transactions from FDIC-insured savings has been a cornerstone of U.S. regulation for decades, including Dodd-Frank, the regulatory overhaul enacted last year. Bank of America's transfer prompted some lawmakers to push for stronger rules than were included in that sweeping law. Senator Bernie Sanders, a Vermont Independent who supported legislation to separate trading operations from commercial banking, said the transaction is a "perfect example why we should break up too-big-to-fail financial behemoths.""
Representative Maurice Hinchey, a New York Democrat who pushed to require splitting commercial and investment banking, said "What Bank of America is doing is perfectly legal -- and that's the problem."
Hinchey is among more than 40 House lawmakers who have signed on to a bill that would reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act, the Depression-era law that enforced separation of depository institutions from investment operations. Most are Democrats, but that leaves roughly 180 House Democrats who have not signed onto the bill, and at the moment have no intention to. Not to mention the "super committee" eying your Social Security.  
A commenter in a Columbia Journalism Review piece on the Bloomberg reportage says: 
"The government should not be on the hook for the bets of an investment bank which is impossible when you allow a deposit and investment bank to merge."
The re-instatement of Glass_Steagall, which prevents bankers from going to Vegas with grandma's money, is consistently on lists of reforms being being debated by OWS. . (Also please see "Demand to Get the Money Out of Politics: A "One Demand" for Occupy Wall Street ?," Truthout)
Glass-Steagall began to be dismantled under Ronald Reagan, with Bill Clinton finishing the job for Wall Street in 1999. When Bill Clinton signed the law, Progressive Historian notes:
"it symbolized the ending of the twentieth century Democratic Party that had created the New Deal. Although the 1999 law did not repeal all of the banking Act of 1933, retaining the FDIC, it did once again allow banks to enter the securities business...
The repeal of one of the most important pieces of legislation in this nation's history came about as a result of another Clinton "triangulation,"..."
The transaction is against the Federal Reserve's own regulations, but as Avery Goodman points out, Congress has given ultimate power to the Federal Reserve to ignore its own enabling Act legislation. The pertinent passage of the enabling legislation reads:
"The Board may, at its discretion, by regulation or order exempt transactions or relationships from the requirements of this section if it finds such exemptions to be in the public interest"
Dave Johnson writing for summarizes the absurdity well:
"This situation of crony government protecting the connected rich while people are in the streets demanding change is more and more reminiscent of Egypt under Mubarak.... Currently in Washington Congress' elite "super committee" represents the 1%, looking at ways to take more money out of the economy, discussing cutting Social Security at a time when many people have lost their pensions and savings. They are discussing cutting Medicare and other health services at a time when more and more people are in need. They are discussing cuts and cuts and cuts, when working people are falling behind and behind and behind.
But the actual causes of the deficits that have Congress so concerned are ignored. Reagan and the Bushes cut taxes on the rich and increased military spending, and the deficits and resulting debt soared. It is right there in front of our faces. But even with such "concern" about deficits the tax cuts for the rich continue and the huge increases in military spending are left alone. Instead Congress discusses austerity - making the 99% pay for the benefits and bailouts for the 1%."
Now why are those protesters out there again? Simple. The ones whose interviews the MSM does not air read the financial pages. At the same time many politicians, including Obama, give plenty of lip service about busting up banks which are "too big to fail." But unless someone does something soon, BoA is a done deal. As always, never listen to what politicians say. Watch what they do. A couple of currency devaluations, and we're in Greece .
It is something when financial geeks in conservative business pages are calling for the government to seize Bank of America now, before it brings just America down with it. That's when you know we are all in this together. 

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.