Prominent Members of Chicago Black Community: Those closest to Obama know there is no 2nd term

By Kevin Dujan

I’m just back from a delightful trip down to a little sandwich shop on the Southside of Chicago where prominent members of the black community enjoy lunch served up with a side of political gossip. I relish the occasions I get invited to these little meetings and never know who’ll be sitting at the table with me but love the jerk-chicken combo with extra “bodacious sauce”. In a corner over by a colorful mural celebrating the roaring-twenties and jazz I got an earful about the black community’s feeling about both the Obamas and their abandonment of Chicago for the sunny shores of Oahu in January.

This group of influential black Chicagoans calls themselves, informally, “The Think Squad” and has been a big help with stories and activities in the past. If you consider the Jesse Jacksons, Al Sharptons, and other “Justice Brothers” types on one side of the spectrum…the Think Squad is the polar opposite.

These are good people who openly talk about how terrible the Democrat community has been for black people for the last four or five decades and how Obama and his acolytes have made a great many things worse for blacks since he took office.

The Think Squad is not happy about the amnesty efforts for criminal Hispanics who broke American laws but are now able to push blacks out of work because of Obama’s intention to allow these people to become job-seekers in this dreadful economy. As one person at the table noted by waiving her hand at the scene out the window, “What the Hell has gotten any better since he became President. Where’s all that hope and change? All I see is crime and trash”.

“Listen bud, there’s no second term, nothing, and they know as much,” a Think Squader told me between bites of his bodacious sandwich. “All this is for show. Axelrod has already moved on but no one knows what to do and they’re kind of just limping around without a plan hoping those Romney people mess up or the media drags them across the finish line. But ain’t nobody in that top tier who thinks he’s going to win. It’s just not happening because they can’t fool people a second time”.

I know there are many of you who — for whatever reason — still sit in front of your televisions with your eyes pried wide open taking in all the lies the corrupt media tells you. Why you do this is beyond me. I also don’t understand why you still pay for newspaper subscriptions or think that the polls Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow recite to you are in any way accurate.

I can find no gentle way to say this but if you believe what the tee-vee tells you, then you’re foolish. After four long years of watching the corrupt media relentlessly lie to drag Obama over the finish line if you have not picked up on the fact that everyone on television is working hard under the Democrats’ banner then there is truly something wrong with you. You are a lost cause.

You need to get out into your community and get the scoop from real people on the ground. You need to see what’s going on with your OWN EYES and listen with your OWN EARS to get the stories the media won’t ever tell you.  You need to talk to a “Think Squad” of your own wherever you can find one.

The Think Squad confirmed what I’ve been hearing through friends whose families know Marion Robinson, the current “First Grandmother” and Michelle’s mother: the Obamas and those close to them are preparing to decamp to Honolulu, Hawaii and live out his post-presidency in the post suburb of Kailua. This is Hawaii’s Beverly Hills.

The Think Squad had a great time mocking the hula and pretending to sip mai-tais and pina-coladas as they regaled me with all the things Marion’s been “bragging-on” about the house she expects to live in come January when the Obamas depart the White House and Marion comes with them.

They’ll still have servants, Secret Service guards, a chef, and almost all of the amenities they enjoy now. But it will be a permanent vacation mode instead of the short bursts of paradise these people experienced on their many jaunts to Hawaii over the last four years before their usual return to Washington. But now, they won’t ever have to go back to DC and Marion is especially gleeful that they won’t be coming back to Chicago ever, either.

“She hates the cold and is glad to never have to come back here,” another person at the table told me while munching on some sweet potato chips at lunch. I dipped some in hot sauce like she did and discovered a new favorite snack as she told me how she, too, would love to abandon Chicago winters forever and never have to come back here.

The general consensus is that black people will keep voting Democrat in droves because that’s “just what we do” but that there is nowhere near the excitement levels of 2008. ”People will not be lining up to do nothing for him in November ’cause he didn’t do nothing for us for four years”, any angry Think Squader told me from the other end of the table. The mood indicated that black turnout would not be anywhere in the realm of 2008 and would instead sink down to more normal participation rates — which jives with everything you should be noticing in terms of enthusiasm for Obama across the board. People are over Obama, like he’s a rapper who has not had a big hit in a while or a singer whose last few albums have bombed. You still see people peddling the Obama tee shirts on the south side, “but you ain’t see nobody BUYING them, do you?”. I was told to look closely at those shirts and see for myself that many of them were left over from years ago. Nobody’s bothered to make up new designs for 2012 here on the Southside and the raggedy shirts for sale on the street corners are still sporting HOPE and CHANGE logos alongside the usual portraits of Obama’s disembodied head floating in glory with those of Dr. King, Malcolm X, and even, randomly, Tupak Shakur at times.

The table burst out into loud laughter when I asked if anyone believed there was even a remote chance that the Obama Presidential Library and Museum could be coming to Chicago and every last member of the Think Squad said “that thing’s going on the beach somewhere in Hawaii where it belongs”. There is no delusion that Chicago would get any sort of perk or pay-back for sending the Obamas to Washington. ”What do they care about Chicago for when they got everything they needed out of this place and there’s nothing more they need?”. The consensus was that Obama has a long established pattern of taking what he needs, then moving on to someplace new to acquire new resources there, and then moving on to whatever he thinks can help him advance again.

Hawaii is the next roosting place for the Obamas because his post-presidency will be all about becoming “The President of the World” since he can’t get any higher in this country than the plateau he’s already reached.

He’ll travel abroad, give big speeches, and spend the rest of his life touring Asian and Middle Eastern countries talking about how much the West misunderstands Islam and how much America has to apologize for. A good number of the Think Squaders don’t see too long of a post-presidency for Obama. Some think he’s sick (with Parkinson’s, as we’ve talked about on this site for years) and others think he might even have HIV (due to his inexplicable weight loss). ”He’s got the Slims and it shows”, somebody at the table said, drawing an awkward silence as a waitress walked around picking up trash while trying not to seem like she was listening to the boisterous group in the corner. ”The Slims” is slang in Chicago’s black community for HIV/AIDS. One in five black men in Chicago have HIV who engage in any sort of homosexual activity; this includes guys who are married and still fool around with men but don’t consider themselves bisexuals or “punks”, which is black slang for a gay man of color.

There was no doubt at the table that Barack Obama is gay and has been part of the “down low club” that’s incredibly common in big cities like Chicago where gay black men desperately seek to avoid being labeled as “punks” by taking a wife and creating a public sham of a marriage. Normally, the woman in these relationships is somehow undesirable and difficult to deal with, which is why a straight man would not want to touch her. A few good examples of this are Star Jones, Terry McMillen, Oprah Winfrey, Jada Pickett Smith, and of course Michelle Obama. All of them either married or have a longterm relationship with a gay black man (a “punk”) but who enjoy the benefits of having this man on their arm (for however long it lasts, in the case of Jones and McMillen). One of these women is a lesbian who not only has benefitted career-wise from being married to a punk but who also hides her own homosexuality by faking a marriage.

It’s hilarious sitting at a table in a sandwich shop with people who know the real score about stuff like this and realizing just how many millions of people out there who rely on the corrupt media for their news haven’t the slightest clue in Hell what’s really going on.

Some in the Think Squad believe that Obama will just come out when he ascends to that international stage in his post-presidency but others think he’ll never do that for fear of retaliation from Muslims. It’s common practice for Muslim men to continue having relations with other males while manifestly heterosexual and married, especially if the wife in question is mannish and overbearing much like Michelle. ”If you can’t see it just by looking at him, then you’re stupid” said one of my lunch mates today. I 100% agree with that and will never understand how any of this is a mystery to Americans. I guess they just don’t want to see Obama for who he really is and maybe never will.

As lunch wrapped up today and I put on my sweatshirt for the long walk back to the Red Line, the parting thoughts from the group were these:

* No — black people are not going to riot when Barack Obama loses. Black people have pretty much given up on this guy, mainly because of the fact he didn’t deliver on his promises to them but also a lot of them see that he’s gay and don’t like that and also don’t like the gay marriage “stuff” he was “talking about a lot this year”.

* No — there’s not a snowball’s chance in Hell that blacks will vote Republican this year because they will NOT vote against Obama. They will instead sit home. ”He didn’t help me, so I ain’t helping him!” is the motto this year. Count on black turnout to be at 2004 levels, not 2008 numbers the way the corrupt media is baking into all those polls that get conservatives worked up where they show Obama leading. Without blacks voting at 2008 numbers, Obama loses Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia with no hope of making up those numbers with other groups. It’s as simple as that.

* Yes — the Obamas are already planning their move to Hawaii. Michelle is actually happy about this as she does not like being First Lady. She will enjoy having all the perks of the position for the rest of her life without any of the hard work. She is looking forward to a life of luxury and fun for the rest of her days. Michelle’s mother is thrilled to be leaving Washington for Hawaii permanently. All those years of putting up with her “punk-ass son-in-law” as she called him have finally paid off for her in her mind, because she never dreamed she’d get to retire on an estate in Hawaii that can only be described as “royal”. Obama himself didn’t actually like being president. It was always a step towards something bigger. He really wants to be UN Secretary General or something and lord over the whole world. His ego and narcissism have no bounds.

* Yes — the Think Squad believes Obama will lose, despite what the corrupt media tells you, because “who in their right mind would believe this man again when he made a mess the first time?”. Without the mass-hysteria of Hopeychange and the threats of “if you don’t vote for him then you are a racist” there’s no wave of emotion for Obama to surf to re-election. That means no second term. That’s how the Think Squad sees it as prominent members of the Chicago black community at least.

SOURCE: http://hillbuzz.org/prominent-members-of-chicago-black-community-confirm-those-closest-to-obama-know-there-is-no-second-term-coming-42773

By Rainer Buergin and Stefan Riecher on October 26, 2012

More from Businessweek

The Bundesbank said the Federal Reserve Bank of New York will help it meet auditing requirements related to its gold reserves that were demanded by Germany’s Audit Court.

“We have been in discussions with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York about the Bundesbank’s holdings of gold,” the Bundesbank said yesterday in a letter to the German parliament’s budget committee. “The discussions have been fruitful and the Federal Reserve has expressed a commitment to work with the Bundesbank to explore ways to address the audit observations, consistent with its own security and control processes and logistical constraints.”

The agreement is part of a compromise between the German central bank and the Audit Court, which has called on the Bundesbank to take stock of its gold holdings outside Germany, saying it has never verified their existence.

The Bundesbank distributed the letter to reporters after board member Carl-Ludwig Thiele and the Audit Court’s head Dieter Engels testified to budget committee lawmakers in the lower house of parliament in Berlin.

The Frankfurt-based central bank on Oct. 23 issued a statement saying that “the Bundesbank and the Federal Court of Auditors have different opinions” on the matter. The central bank manages Germany’s gold reserves, which amounted to 3,396 tons as of Dec. 31, 2011. The gold is kept at central bank vaults in Frankfurt, New York, Paris and London.

‘Very’ Reassured

The New York Fed held the largest share of reserves at the end of 2011, or 45.2 percent with a value of 60.1 billion euros ($78 billion), according to a statement sent to the German parliament. The Bundesbank held 30.5 percent, worth 40.5 billion euros, in Frankfurt.

Engels told reporters “we’ve found a compromise” on the matter, adding he’s “very” reassured after the meeting. It makes no sense to fight over details that are controversial even among legal experts, he said.

“We’re in negotiations with our partner central banks to develop auditing rights, and that’s been agreed in principle,”said Thiele. “In parallel, we will, over the next three years, transfer 50 tons of gold each year from New York to Frankfurt, which is an additional way to create confidence.”

The Bundesbank is grateful that its partner central banks were willing during the Cold War to guard German gold and make sure it’s available to Germany even in times of tension, Thiele said. The legal disagreement with the audit court has been overcome through “practical action,” he said.

Engels said the Audit Court “had no doubts about our American partners, at no point in time. For us it’s a question of regularity and how we’ll proceed in the future.”

Funny ‘stuff’ going on here.  The title of the article suggests the German Audit Court REQUESTS verification of their gold deposits held abroad and wants to ‘test’ the gold bars to validate they are real.

However, the text of the story says the Audit Court DEMANDED such verification.  Those are very different words and connotations.

Further, the Audit Court indicates they never verified the existence of that gold.  Could that be due to the swap arrangement by the U.S. Treasury, FED and Exchange Stabilization Fund using a method of swapping gold outside of Congressional oversight?

The article further states the German gold is stored is kept at central bank vaults in Frankfurt, New York, Paris and London. Strange that only gold held in New York is to be returned to Frankfort.

It is curious that in discussions between authorities in NY and Frankfort, that ‘a compromise’ was found and that ‘it doesn’t make sense to fight over details that are controversial’.  What exactly is controversial and why was a compromise necessary?  If the transfer of gold via a swap arrangement with the U.S. was legitimate, there would be no controversy or compromise necessary. 

And, if everything is kosher, why are only 50 tons of gold being returned each year for three years?  Sounds like a means of keeping ‘things quiet’ as in a hush money payoff.  If the gold really belongs to Germany and everything was done legally, why the delay and why is only part of their property being returned to them?

The Germans made a politically correct statement about being sure the gold is safely stored in New York yet wants to bring that gold home to “examine” part of that gold.  Doesn’t sound they are really certain about the validity of the gold or else it is an excuse to explain that they want their gold returned to them as they don’t believe they will otherwise get it back at all.

Something doesn’t “smell right”.

German gold hoard is gone. It was Leased into the marketplace 2001 and now they want some of it returned.

Oct 25 2012

Today James Turk shocked King World News when he stated, “The entire German gold hoard was gone because it had been leased into the marketplace. Meaning, the vaults holding German gold were emptied by 2001 because of the Bundesbank leasing activities.”

Turk added, “Half of the gold they (the Germans) leased themselves. The other half of Germany’s gold hoard was eventually leased into the market as well through complicated swaps with the US. But the reality is that as of 2001, all of that German gold was gone. Meaning all German gold worldwide, which was supposed to be stored in vaults, the vaults were emptied of German gold and the gold was leased into the market.”

Turk went on to say, “It’s uncertain if any of that leased gold has ever been returned to those vaults. Meaning, the vaults which are supposed to be storing the German gold hoard may still be empty.”

Incredibly, 11 years ago James Turk had diagnosed the problems of the missing German gold hoard. Here is the 2001 piece titled, “Behind Closed Doors” in which he exposed the German gold was in fact missing:

James Turk 2001 – This past December in “The Smoking Gun” I provided substantive proof that the Exchange Stabilization Fund was intervening in the gold market. From publicly available reports prepared by the Federal Reserve, I established that the weight of gold held as a component of the US Reserve Assets has been changing, and that these changes – some of which are of significant size – result from activity by the ESF. These Federal Reserve reports conclusively demonstrate that the ESF has been intervening in the gold market since at least 1996

Maybe people are skeptical because they haven’t bothered to take the time to read the Federal Reserve reports for themselves. Maybe it’s because it’s easier to accept the word of some government bureaucrat who denies ESF involvement in the gold market than it is to seek out and look for the truth. Maybe they don’t want to believe that the US government is lying to them when Treasury official after Treasury official denies any involvement by the ESF in the gold market. I don’t know. Or maybe it’s because they think that government officials work for the American people – and not for vested interests – in their deliberative sessions behind closed doors. Wouldn’t it be refreshing if we could peek-in behind those closed doors to see what really is being said?

The reality is that very little emerges from behind closed doors, and the minutes and transcripts of closed-door sessions that do make it into the public domain contain redactions that blank out the ‘good parts’ – the revealing statements. But what if someone forgot to redact one of those ‘good parts’? Too fantastic to be true? Well, sit down, take a deep breath and carefully read what follows.

A transcript of the Federal Reserve Open Market Committee has been released for which somebody forgot to get his or her red pen out. Someone forgot to redact some very revealing words about the ESF and its activity with gold. Here’s what was said. [See the transcript from the January 31st 1995 meeting.]

MR. MATTINGLY. It’s pretty clear that these ESF operations are authorized. I don’t think there is a legal problem in terms of the authority. The [ESF] statute is very broadly worded in terms of words like “credit” – it has covered things like the gold swaps – and it confers broad authority. [Emphasis added]

Please read the above statement again, and maybe even a third and fourth time. This statement, which I can only assume was inadvertently not redacted by the FOMC Secretariat, confirms what we already know, but the US government has all along refused to admit – that the ESF is involved in the gold market. In fact, the authority of the ESF is so broad that “it has covered things like the gold swaps”. In other words, the authority of the ESF is so broad it has even been used to authorize “gold swaps”.

some background information is necessary.

The proceedings of each FOMC meeting are taped. These tapes are then transcribed, and the Federal Reserve releases these transcripts after five years. Thus, the transcripts from the 1995 meetings were released earlier this year, and having now read through them, I can honestly say that they contain a treasure trove of material, even though there are many redactions. The important point is that these transcripts are not only informative, but they are an accurate record of what is going on behind closed doors. Here is what the Federal Reserve itself says about the FOMC transcripts:

“Beginning with the 1994 meetings, the FOMC Secretariat produced the transcripts shortly after each meeting from an audio recording of the proceedings, lightly editing the speakers’ original words, where necessary, to facilitate the reader’s understanding. Meeting participants were then given an opportunity within the next several weeks to review the transcript for accuracy.

For the meetings preceding 1994, the transcripts were produced from the original, raw transcripts in the FOMC Secretariat’s files. These records have also been lightly edited by the Secretariat to facilitate the reader’s understanding. In addition, where one or more words were missed or garbled in the transcription, the notation “unintelligible” has been inserted. In some instances, words have been added in brackets to complete a speaker’s apparent thought or to correct an obvious transcription error or misstatement.

In other words, the 1995 transcripts are accurate. There are no disclaimers for them, like those made for the pre-1994 transcripts. Therefore, the above quote by Mr. Mattingly about the ESF and gold is accurate. And who is Mr. Mattingly? Virgil Mattingly is General Counsel of the Federal Reserve, its chief legal advisor.

That Mattingly’s remark passed without comment by anyone in the FOMC meeting implies that everyone knew exactly what he was referring to. In other words, to explain ESF authority his example was purposefully chosen. It was one to which the Federal Reserve Governors could all relate because it was something they saw happen during their watch. In my imagination I can see them sitting around the big FOMC conference table nodding their heads in agreement when Mattingly used this example of the gold swaps to explain how broad the ESF’s authority actually is.

To give you a flavor of the full discussion underway in the FOMC meeting, here’s a sample of the transcript.

MR. MELZER. What ability do the Treasury or the ESF have to take us out of an obligation [i.e., repay the Federal Reserve] if funds are not appropriated by Congress? Do they have the ability just to say, we committed to this and we are going to pay the Fed off?
MR. TRUMAN. Yes, they could.
MR. MELZER. But if they can do that, why can’t they just advance it themselves?
MR. TRUMAN. They could, but I think they feel that it would be useful to their objectives to have a lot of people – [apparently the rest of his comments are redacted]

The discussion then continues on this point, but touches upon the relationship between the ESF and the Treasury. These comments also establish that the ESF does not use “appropriated funds”, meaning that the ESF is answerable only to the Secretary of the Treasury and the President. All actions of the ESF are beyond Congressional authority.

CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN. Could I just formally respond to Governor Lindsey? There is a question here of whether or not the amount the United States Treasury gives us has to be appropriated funds, which I think is really where our examination of the issue has to be. In examining the take-out, we ought to make certain that we talk to them with respect to the question of what happens if they do not get the appropriated funds.

MR. TRUMAN. Mr. Chairman, the Exchange Stabilization Fund does not have appropriated funds.
CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN. Are we going to be getting a take-out from the Exchange Stabilization Fund?
MR. TRUMAN. I think that is what is in the program.
CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN. Okay.
SPEAKER(?). That is not the same as the Treasury.
MR. TRUMAN. Even if we didn’t, the precedent in the 196Os – I think there was a question then about whether the Treasury could engage in foreign exchange operations outside of the ESF – was the use of Roosa bonds in the 1960s. The Treasury floated Roosa bonds to obtain foreign currencies and used some of those currencies to take us out. That did not involve appropriated funds. That was treated as a debt-management operation.

The above passage confirms what we already know, but many people refuse to admit. The ESF is a slush fund beyond Congressional oversight. It can be used to ‘get around’ most anything (i.e., it can skirt normal governmental procedures). No wonder so many people want to do away with the ESF. There is no room for it in our democratic process. It is not subject to the normal checks-and-balances so carefully crafted by the Founding Fathers that have proven over time to be so essential for control within the federal government. The ESF is the antithesis of the American foundation of representative government because it subjects a free people to an unconstitutional governmental force.

some more excerpts:

MR. LINDSEY. My second question has to do with our credibility. I don’t know what questions to ask, and I hope you will help me out in that regard. I have this document in front of me, which includes a page entitled “What is the Exchange Stabilization Fund?” The document came from Treasury International Affairs. I gather it was written by them. I have written enough of these to know what you do, and that is to tell your point of view. Paragraph 3, not to mention the dots indicating an omission in paragraph 2, got me a little nervous. Paragraph 3 says these holdings in the ESF are used to enter into swap arrangements with foreign governments, to finance exchange market intervention, to provide short-term bridge finance, etc., and all these things are great. So, basically paragraph 3 is establishing that this is not unprecedented. My question would be: Do we do all these nice things if it’s not in support of the dollar? Is this unprecedented with regard to the fact that we are supporting another currency?

MR. TRUMAN. The language before the dots is–
MR. LINDSEY. I am talking about the third paragraph. I will go to the second paragraph in a second. I’m sorry. I am running a little out of order. It is saying the ESF has done all these things.
MR. TRUMAN. The legislation governing the objectives of the ESF was changed, I think for the most part in the mid- to late-1970s. The changes included the language that the government of the United States and the International Monetary Fund have the obligation to promote orderly exchange rate arrangements leading to a stable system of exchange rates. That was interpreted to include making loans to Bolivia in helping it maintain a system of stable exchange rates.
MR. LINDSEY. So that has happened before?
MR. TRUMAN. Yes. They have made loans to or financial arrangements with at least 31 countries around the world over the last 50 years.
MR. LINDSEY. I think we all will be asked questions about this. Can you read this paper and tell me that there is not something missing that I should know about, meaning that this is not only the truth but the whole truth?
MR. TRUMAN. I can only say that Treasury lawyers have looked into the question of whether these operations are legal under this broad authorization of what they can do and what the purpose is–
MR. MATTINGLY. If I can help out?
MR. LINDSEY. Yes.
MR. MATTINGLY. It’s pretty clear that these ESF operations are authorized. I don’t think there is a legal problem in terms of the authority. The statute is very broadly worded in terms of words like “credit – it has covered things like the gold swaps – and it confers broad authority. Counsel at the White House called the Treasury’s General Counsel today and asked “Are you sure?” And the Treasury’s General Counsel said “I am sure.” Everyone is satisfied that a legal issue is not involved, if that helps. [Emphasis added]
MR. LINDSEY. Is there anything missing on this page?
MR. MATTINGLY. No, there is not. If you look at the last paragraph, for example, that is part of the statute.
MR. LINDSEY. About notifying Congress in writing in advance?
MR. MATTINGLY. The statute says that with the permission of the President they can make loans.

There you have it. The ESF doesn’t have to notify Congress about anything in advance. It is under the sole authority of the Secretary of the Treasury and the President, and they can do “gold swaps” without any Congressional approval, which brings up an important point I made in “The Smoking Gun”.

the Treasury Department has changed the designation of nearly 1700 tonnes of inventoried gold at the US Mint’s facility in West Point, New York (approximately 21% of the total US Gold Reserve) from “Gold Bullion Reserve” to “Custodial Gold”.

The August 2000 Status Report on US Treasury Owned Gold stored at West Point has a designation of “Gold Bullion Reserve”. But the September 2000 and subsequent status reports inexplicably designate this same gold that is stored at the US Mint in West Point as “Custodial Gold”.

This change was made without explanation, so rather than let the matter remain unexplained, Mike diligently contacted the Treasury asking what seemingly are two uncomplicated questions. Would the Treasury please explain why they made this change, and what does this change in designation mean with respect to the ownership status of the gold at West Point?

They are simple questions, but perhaps they touch too close to a nerve. Not surprisingly, the Treasury so far has not responded to Mike. I have some views on what Mike discovered, and why the Treasury is so quiet about it. I think this change in asset classification is related to the ESF gold swaps. Here’s my thinking.

The change Mike spotted possibly occurred as a result of accountants looking at the financial statements of the US Mint being prepared for its annual report ending fiscal year 2000. Note that the previous director of the Mint (Phillip Diehl) resigned in early 2000, so this was the first annual report signed by the new director (Jay Johnson). If there is one thing that government bureaucrats do well, they take great pains to call things by their right name. To do otherwise would put their job in jeopardy if something under their responsibility came under Congressional scrutiny, and it was subsequently determined that the name assigned to something was incorrect or misleading.

Therefore, this change in the descriptive label for nearly 1,700 tonnes of gold at West Point from “Gold Bullion Reserve” to “Custodial Gold” was purposeful. It happened for a reason. This conclusion is all the more plausible because the Treasury did not change the classification from “Gold Bullion Reserve” to “Custodial Gold” to describe the gold stored in Fort Knox or at the US Mint in Denver. Maybe new US Mint director Johnson saw something he didn’t like. What could that have been?

I’ve already put one-and-one together to establish that the ESF has “gold swaps” with the Bundesbank. It therefore does not require much conjecture to add one supposition to the equation by concluding that the gold in West Point has been swapped with gold owned by the Bundesbank, thereby necessitating its reclassification from “Gold Bullion Reserve” to “Custodial Gold”. Here’s what I think has happened.

The Treasury has gold in West Point. The Bundesbank has gold in Europe. The Treasury cannot directly do a deal with the Bundesbank because unlike the ESF, the Treasury is subject to Congressional oversight. So instead the Secretary of the Treasury and the President decide to use the ESF to set up a swap line for gold with the Bundesbank.

By so doing, the gold in the Bundesbank’s vault in Europe becomes ESF gold, to do with as they please – i.e., the ESF lends this metal to bailout certain bullion banks. And the Bundesbank now owns the gold in West Point, which as a result was purposefully re-classified from Gold Bullion Reserve to Custodial Gold because the Treasury no longer owns this gold, having swapped it out through the ESF in exchange for gold in Europe owned by the Bundesbank. Case closed. The mystery of the abnormally low gold price is solved. The ESF did it.

(continuing . . .This same individual (a top gold expert) told me several months ago about some astonishing intelligence he had learned from a source in Europe. He told me that the Bundesbank’s gold vault was empty, which seemed so preposterous that I found it hard to believe. He also admitted that this news startled him when he learned about it, and that he did not have an adequate explanation for it. He knew that the Bundesbank was an active lender of gold, but he had a difficult time accepting the possibility that all 3,400 tonnes that it owned had been loaned. Yet he was confident that his source had provided him with accurate information.

We now know what has happened. The Bundesbank has loaned 1,700 tonnes, one-half of its 3,400 tonnes reserve; the other 1,700 tonnes were swapped for gold in the US reserves, requiring the change in the West Point vault from Gold Bullion Reserve to Custodial Gold. In other words, the Bundesbank’s vault is empty because one-half of their gold is stored in West Point not Europe, and the other half has been loaned out.

what’s the ESF’s motive? Unfortunately, we just don’t know for certain.

Many, including me, claim that it is to use gold to provide the liquidity needed to bailout some big banks that have imprudently grown their gold books by recklessly expanding credit and mismatching their asset/liability maturities. These banks are the ones with the unusual – some say abnormal – derivative activities that are named as co-defendants in Reg Howe’s suit against the BIS. That this list includes Germany’s largest bank may explain why the Bundesbank would agree to participate in this gold swap scheme. It was bailing out one of its own.

Others claim the ESF aims to manipulate the gold price to make inflation numbers look better than they really are by keeping the gold price artificially low. And there are some who argue that the US government, acting at the behest and under the instructions of the big banks, aim to destroy their combined arch enemy – gold, regardless of the fact that the gold mining industry would be destroyed along with it.

The US government cannot claim that the ESF is not involved with gold. We now have the irrefutable proof that establishes beyond any reasonable doubt that the ESF is indeed involved in the gold market.

An article published a few weeks ago, indicated Mexico stored about 97% of their gold in NY, London and Switzerland.  Has their hoard been swapped, leased or loaned out?  How many obligations or claims have been made on that same metal? 

This past year, Venezuela repatriated their gold from London.  If that gold had been leased or obligated multiple times, what gold was used to replace that which was removed from London vaults?

Germany wants a 150 tons of their gold returned to Germany.  This appears to be a warning ‘shot across the bow’.  If that portion of their gold cannot be returned, then all claims and liabilities made in written contracts, swap arrangements and leases are bogus and will be exposed as such.  It would be a Black Swan event like no other and fiat currencies would immediately implode.

Now we fast forward to now.  This article appeared Oct. 24, 2012.

The Germans Are Coming for Their Gold

Published: Wednesday, 24 Oct 2012 | 5:10 PM ET

By: John Carney
Senior Editor, CNBC.com

A German federal court has said that country’s central bank should conduct annual audits and physically inspect its gold reserves worldwide, including gold in the custody of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. In addition to the FRBNY, Bundesbank gold is stored in London, Paris and Frankfurt.

For decades, the Bundesbank has relied on written confirmation of its gold holdings in London, Paris and New York. According to the report from the German audit court, the last time Bundesbank officials physically inspected the central banks gold holdings was, well, never.

(It should be stated that the folks at FT Alphaville quote a report saying an inspection took place in 1979/1980.)

Interestingly enough, the Bundesbank is apparently quite happy with taking the word of other central bankers about the existence, location and size of its gold reserves. It put out the word that it disagrees with the Audit Court, which only has advisory power and cannot force the Bundesbank to follow its recommendations, about the need for inspections. Nonetheless, the Bundesbank is actually going to follow the recommendation that it verify the gold stocks. It also has plans to ship some 150 tons of gold back to Germany for a more “thorough examination.”

If their gold cannot be repatriated, this ‘shadow’ banking system that is hidden from the public and the Congress, may blow up.

Major Banks, Governmental Officials and Their Comrade Capitalists Targets of Spire Law Group, LLP’s Racketeering and Money Laundering Lawsuit Seeking Return of $43 Trillion to the United States Treasury

Oct. 25, 2012, 2:09 p.m. EDT

NEW YORK, Oct. 25, 2012 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ — Spire Law Group, LLP’s national home owners’ lawsuit, pending in the venue where the “Banksters” control their $43 trillion racketeering scheme (New York) – known as the largest money laundering and racketeering lawsuit in United States History and identifying $43 trillion ($43,000,000,000,000.00) of laundered money by the “Banksters” and their U.S. racketeering partners and joint venturers – now pinpoints the identities of the key racketeering partners of the “Banksters” located in the highest offices of government and acting for their own self-interests.

In connection with the federal lawsuit now impending in the United States District Court in Brooklyn, New York (Case No. 12-cv-04269-JBW-RML) – involving, among other things, a request that the District Court enjoin all mortgage foreclosures by the Banksters nationwide, unless and until the entire $43 trillion is repaid to a court-appointed receiver – Plaintiffs now establish the location of the $43 trillion ($43,000,000,000,000.00) of laundered money in a racketeering enterprise participated in by the following individuals (without limitation): Attorney General Holder acting in his individual capacity, Assistant Attorney General Tony West, the brother in law of Defendant California Attorney General Kamala Harris (both acting in their individual capacities), Jon Corzine (former New Jersey Governor), Robert Rubin (former Treasury Secretary and Bankster), Timothy Geitner, Treasury Secretary (acting in his individual capacity), Vikram Pandit (recently resigned and disgraced Chairman of the Board of Citigroup), Valerie Jarrett (a Senior White House Advisor), Anita Dunn (a former “communications director” for the Obama Administration), Robert Bauer (husband of Anita Dunn and Chief Legal Counsel for the Obama Re-election Campaign), as well as the “Banksters” themselves, and their affiliates and conduits. The lawsuit alleges serial violations of the United States Patriot Act, the Policy of Embargo Against Iran and Countries Hostile to the Foreign Policy of the United States, and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (commonly known as the RICO statute) and other State and Federal laws.

In the District Court lawsuit, Spire Law Group, LLP — on behalf of home owner across the Country and New York taxpayers, as well as under other taxpayer recompense laws — has expanded its mass tort action into federal court in Brooklyn, New York, seeking to halt all foreclosures nationwide pending the return of the $43 trillion ($43,000,000,000.00) by the “Banksters” and their co-conspirators, seeking an audit of the Fed and audits of all the “bailout programs” by an independent receiver such as Neil Barofsky, former Inspector General of the TARP program who has stated that none of the TARP money and other “bailout money” advanced from the Treasury has ever been repaid despite protestations to the contrary by the Defendants as well as similar protestations by President Obama and the Obama Administration both publicly on national television and more privately to the United States Congress. Because the Obama Administration has failed to pursue any of the “Banksters” criminally, and indeed is actively borrowing monies for Mr. Obama’s campaign from these same “Banksters” to finance its political aspirations, the national group of plaintiff home owners has been forced to now expand its lawsuit to include racketeering, money laundering and intentional violations of the Iranian Nations Sanctions and Embargo Act by the national banks included among the “Bankster” Defendants.

The complaint – which has now been fully served on thousands of the “Banksters and their Co-Conspirators” – makes it irrefutable that the epicenter of this laundering and racketeering enterprise has been and continues to be Wall Street and continues to involve the very “Banksters” located there who have repeatedly asked in the past to be “bailed out” and to be “bailed out” in the future.

The Havens for the money laundering schemes – and certain of the names and places of these entities – are located in such venues as Switzerland, the Isle of Man, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Cypress and entities controlled by governments adverse to the interests of the United States Sanctions and Embargo Act against Iran, and are also identified in both the United Nations and the U.S. Senate’s recent reports on international money laundering. Many of these entities have already been personally served with summons and process of the complaint during the last six months. It is now beyond dispute that, while the Obama Administration was publicly encouraging loan modifications for home owners by “Banksters”, it was privately ratifying the formation of these shell companies in violation of the United States Patriot Act, and State and Federal law. The case further alleges that through these obscure foreign companies, Bank of America, J.P. Morgan, Wells Fargo Bank, Citibank, Citigroup, One West Bank, and numerous other federally chartered banks stole trillions of dollars of home owners’ and taxpayers’ money during the last decade and then laundered it through offshore companies.

This District Court Complaint – maintained by Spire Law Group, LLP — is the only lawsuit in the world listing as Defendants the Banksters, let alone serving all of such Banksters with legal process and therefore forcing them to finally answer the charges in court. Neither the Securities and Exchange Commission, nor the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, nor the Office of the Attorney General, nor any State Attorney General has sued the Banksters and thereby legally chased them worldwide to recover-back the $43 trillion ($43,000,000,000,000.00) and other lawful damages, injunctive relief and other legal remedies.

James N. Fiedler, Managing Partner of Spire Law Group, LLP, stated: “It is hard for me to believe as a 47-year lawyer that our nation’s guardians have been unwilling to stop this theft. Spire Law Group, LLP stands for the elimination of corruption and implementation of lawful strategies, and that is what we’re doing here. Spire Law Group, LLP’s charter is to not allow such corruption to go unanswered.”

Comments were requested from the Attorney Generals’ offices in NY, CA, NV, NH , OH, MA and the White House, but no comment was provided.

About Spire Law Group

Spire Law Group, LLP is a national law firm whose motto is “the public should be protected — at all costs — from corruption in whatever form it presents itself.” The Firm is comprised of lawyers nationally with more than 250-years of experience in a span of matters ranging from representing large corporations and wealthy individuals, to also representing the masses. The Firm is at the front lines litigating against government officials, banks, defunct loan pools, and now the very offshore entities where the corruption was enabled and perpetrated.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/major-banks-governmental-officials-and-their-comrade-capitalists-targets-of-spire-law-group-llps-racketeering-and-money-laundering-lawsuit-seeking-return-of-43-trillion-to-the-united-states-treasury-2012-10-25

“This Presidential election is different from all others.

We are deciding whether we want America or amerika.”

Stoney Lonesome

The FDIC uses loss-share agreements to encourage lenders to buy the loan portfolios of failed banks. The loans are sold at discounts of up to 65 percent and deals are “sweetened” with loss protection guarantees of up to 95 percent (including legal fees). “Losses,” however, are not based on the discounted price paid for the loans, but on their original value.

For instance, let’s say the FDIC transfers a $350,000 home loan to Bank A at a 30 percent discount ($245,000) with a 90 percent loss-share guarantee.

 Bank A then sells the home at foreclosure for $150,000. According to the FDIC, Bank-A’s “loss” is $200,000 ($350,000 minus $150,000) and a check for $180,000 is cut to cover 90 percent of the “loss.”

With sale proceeds of $150,000 and loss reimbursement of $180,000, Bank A just made $85,000 by foreclosing on an American family with taxpayers paying the expenses and much of the profit.

(Income to Bank A was the sale proceeds of $150,000 + the $180,000 reimbursement from FDIC for a total income to Bank A of $330,000.  Cost to the bank for the property was $245,000 (the 30% discount of the original value of the loan).  The yield or profit to the Bank A is $85,000.    

                                                                     $150,000 + $180,000 = $330,000.

                                                               Cost of the loan to Bank         -$ 245,000

                                                             Profit to Bank A to foreclose   $   85,000

If a lender can make $85,000 by foreclosing without regard to costs, there remains little incentive to deal with the uncertainty and negotiating pains of a short sale and zero incentive to modify loans. In other words, the exploitation of loss-share turns traditional collection practices upside-down.

Between 1991 and 1993 the FDIC entered into 16 loss-share agreements. By 2009, the number jumped to 94. Today, 269 loss-share agreements guarantee losses of $160 billion. Many banks have been paid hundreds of millions, and some have received more than $1 billion from the FDIC.

With payouts expected to exceed $21 billion by 2014 and an FDIC insurance fund balance of negative $20 billion, one wonders where money will come from.

Perhaps the FDIC will crack down on exploitive lenders or maybe they will simply draw on their $500 billion line of credit from the U.S. Treasury, also known as the U.S. taxpayer.

(In Florida, the Florida Supreme Court reversed their earlier Administrative Order requiring anyone being foreclosed on be provided a chance to meet with lenders to try to work out a modified mortgage plan.  Those sessions were conducted by a Supreme Court Certified, Circuit Civil Mediator.  It became apparent after about one year that mortgages were not being ‘settled’ or modified.

 Is there any wonder why?  It was in the financial interest of the banks, the lenders, to receive millions of taxpayer dollars through the FDIC Loss-Share Agreement and so chose to foreclose even though in many instances the borrowers had re-gained employment in a bad economy and would be able to resume payments.  Plans could have been established whereby the borrowers could have paid arrearages.   

The homeowners never had a chance.  “Free” money for the banks from the borrowers, and others, taxes by way of the FDIC were used to wrench their homes away from them and in many cases made their families homeless. 

It also dumped thousands of homes on the real estate market causing the value of other home owners wanting to sell their properties to lose value in their homes. 

All due to the generosity of the unelected, federal government bureaucrats.)

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2011-11-27/news/fl-nncol-loss-share-banks-nikpour-1127-20111127_1_loss-share-fdic-short-sale