In keeping with never letting a good crisis go to waste, the theory that the government allowed Al Qaeda to attack us isn’t too far a stretch when considering what Richard Gage has to say about 7 WTC. Our government’s involvement in 9/11 revolves around Building 7, and if Richard Gage’s theory proves correct, it will take us to some even darker places than we have been before, (but not totally unexpected).
700 Architects and engineers are calling for a new investigation of 9/11 and “Building 7” because of the controlled demolition, and evidence thereof, of this building.
My readers know that I am currently researching a massive rabbit hole, but am going to take some time to follow up on what exactly Building 7 is all about, and given who the tenants of building 7 were, it will probably be very interesting. I have emphasised the tenants of note that I will be investigating.
The position of Building 7 in relation to the other WTC buildings before September 11, 2001
In June 1986, before construction was completed, Silverstein signed Drexel Burnham Lambert as a tenant to lease the entire 7 World Trade Center building for $3 billion over a term of 30 years. In December 1986, after the Boesky insider-trading scandal, Drexel Burnham Lambert canceled the lease, leaving Silverstein to find other tenants. Spicer & Oppenheim agreed to lease 14 percent of the space, but for more than a year, as Black Monday and other factors adversely affected the Lower Manhattan real estate market, Silverstein was unable to find tenants for the remaining space. By April 1988, Silverstein had lowered the rent and made other concessions.
In November 1988, Salomon Brothers withdrew from plans to build a large new complex at Columbus Circle in Midtown and agreed to a 20-year lease for the top 19 floors of 7 World Trade Center.The building was extensively renovated in 1989 to accommodate the needs of Salomon Brothers. Most of three existing floors were removed as tenants continued to occupy other floors, and more than 350 tons (U.S.) of steel were added to construct three double-height trading floors. Nine diesel generators were installed on the 5th floor as part of a backup power station. “Essentially, Salomon is constructing a building within a building – and it’s an occupied building, which complicates the situation,” said a district manager of Silverstein Properties. The unusual task was possible, said Larry Silverstein, because it was designed to allow for “entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building’s structural integrity, on the assumption that someone might need double-height floors.”
At the time of the September 11, 2001 attacks, Salomon Smith Barney was by far the largest tenant in 7 World Trade Center, occupying 1,202,900 sq ft (111,750 m²) (64 percent of the building) which included floors 28–45. Other major tenants included ITT Hartford Insurance Group (122,590 sq ft/11,400 m²), American Express Bank International (106,117 sq ft/9,900 m²), Standard Chartered Bank, Securities and Exchange Commission (111,398 sq ft/10,350 m²), and the (106,117 sq ft/9,850 m²). Smaller tenants included the Internal Revenue Service Regional Council (90,430 sq ft/8,400 m²) and the United States Secret Service (85,343 sq ft/7,900 m²). The smallest tenants included the New York City Office of Emergency Management,National Association of Insurance Commissioners, Federal Home Loan Bank, First State Management Group Inc., Provident Financial Management, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service. The Department of Defense (DOD) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) shared the 25th floor with the IRS. Floors 46–47 were mechanical floors, as were the bottom six floors and part of the seventh floor.
We all see the same names coming up over and over again, yet you may wonder why the DOD and CIA were left out. As always; following the money…
Given what our current VP in charge of nothing said back on the campaign trail, wouldn’t that make the 13 TARP receiving banks who owe back taxes unpatriotic, and would it not make GM suspect? Once again, read the whole article and cast your eye on TurboTax Timmie’s Treasury Department.
WASHINGTON (AP) – The government bailout of General Motors includes a valuable prize for the ailing carmaker: a tax break that could save GM and its future investors more than $12 billion—if it ever becomes profitable again.
But these are far from ordinary times. The Treasury Department has, in effect, suspended long-standing tax rules for companies that receive bailout money, providing benefits not available to firms that don’t receive government help. New Treasury rules could provide GM billions in tax breaks once it becomes profitable and starts paying taxes again, which could be years away.
For tax purposes, it’s like the government’s ownership never happened, said Robert Willens, a corporate tax accountant in New York.
The new tax rules, issued over the past several months, are part of the government’s massive effort to prop up struggling financial firms and the automobile industry. The goal is to help companies like GM eventually become profitable, so the government can sell its stake, get back its investment and get out of the carmaking business.
The notices have the full effect of a law, even though they aren’t reviewed or approved by Congress.They also apply to banks and other financial firms receiving money from the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP. (empasis added)
But the new rules don’t apply to corporations that are taken over by other private companies. That means Chrysler could lose the value of its tax write-offs in its merger with Italy’s Fiat Group SpA, depending on the structure of the company after it emerges from bankruptcy protection, tax experts said.
The moral of this story is to become part of the government and do not pay your taxes like most of Barack Obama’s appointees and bailed out banker friends. (Did Chrysler not contribute enough to Dem’s campaigns?)
If you are still thinking that anyone besides The Federal Reserve and the Treasury Dept. are running this country….wise up! This would also explain why writing to your representatives in D.C. is no longer an efficient or logical means of effecting change.
On the day before Thanksgiving in 1991, the U.S. Senate voted to vastly expand the emergency powers of the Federal Reserve.
Almost no one noticed. (emphasis added)
The critical language was contained in a single, somewhat inscrutable sentence, and the only public explanation was offered during a final debate that began with a reminder that senators had airplanes to catch. Yet, in removing a long-standing prohibition on loans that supported financial speculation, the provision effectively allowed the Fed for the first time to lend money to Wall Street during a crisis.
That authority, which sat unused for more than 16 years, now provides the legal basis for the Fed’s unprecedented efforts to rescue the financial system.
Since March 2008, the central bank’s board of governors has invoked its emergency powers at least 19 times: to contain the wreckage of Bear Stearns and ease the fall of American International Group, to preserve Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, to limit losses at Bank of America and Citigroup, to lend more than $1 trillion.
The repeated use of the once-dusty law has surprised and alarmed a wide range of people, including economists and members of Congress. It has even raised worries among presidents of the regional banks that make up the Federal Reserve system.
Many critics are concerned that an institution not accountable to voters is risking vast amounts of public money and choosing which companies get help. Others are concerned that the Fed’s new role will interfere with its basic responsibility for regulating economic growth.
There is also a question about the roots of the crisis: Did investment banks take greater risks in the past two decades because they knew the Fed could rescue them?
The 1991 legislation, authored by Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), was requested by Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street firms in the wake of the 1987 market crisis, and it would save some of them a generation later.
Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and other leaders of the central bank have argued that the emergency authority has allowed it to rescue the financial system and that without it, the economy would be in far worse shape. And they argue that they are using the power as Congress intended.
As Congress intended, but isn’t the Fed unconstitutional to begin with? Were not the Founding Fathers against a central bank system from the very start?
“This provision was designed as a last resort to make sure credit flows when times are tough and credit isn’t being extended,” said Scott Alvarez, the Fed’s general counsel. “That’s exactly what it’s being used for today.”
Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said that the actions taken by the Fed have been necessary and important but that those actions should have been taken by an agency accountable to voters. He said he was not aware of the Fed’s emergency power until September, and he favored removing much of that authority from the Fed once the crisis has passed.
Barney was not aware because he, like his peers in the House and Senate, DO NOT READ!
“This is a democracy, and there is a problem with too much power going to an entity that is not subject to democratic powers,” Frank said.
I thought the United States was a Republic?
“By necessity, the Fed was the institution everybody looked to because they had the balance sheet and the legal authority to act,” said Phillip L. Swagel, an assistant Treasury secretary in the George W. Bush administration who is to become a professor at Georgetown University’s business school.
See video below as to how their balance sheet is coming out…
But the government’s reliance on the Fed has roused critics.
“There’s no accountability,” said Walker F. Todd, a former economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland whose writings raised some of the earliest questions about the 1991 law. “How much power do you want to concentrate in a few people who are not directly accountable to the political process?”
Those criticisms have been heightened by the Fed’s refusal to disclose which firms have benefited from many of the emergency programs, such as the names of the companies that have used the Fed’s “commercial paper funding facility” to issue short-term debt.
The Fed ‘loses’ $9 Trillion:
Rodgin Cohen, a partner at Sullivan & Cromwell, suggested to several of his clients the idea of modifying the 1932 law to allow lending to investment banks, according to people involved in the discussions. Cohen is a legendary figure on Wall Street, building a career as perhaps the preeminent legal adviser on banking mergers, in part through his command of the minutiae of federal regulations.
Dodd, at the time chairman of the securities subcommittee of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, agreed to insert the language into a bill whose primary purpose was to reform the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., which guarantees commercial bank deposits.
Dodd declined to comment for this story, but at the time, he said the legislation gave the Fed “greater flexibility to respond in instances in which the overall financial system threatens to collapse.”
The Fed has extensive regulatory authority over commercial banks, to keep them from needing its safety net. But after Dodd’s language passed into law, the Fed did not seek new regulatory authority over investment banks, nor did Congress move to provide new authority.
So not only do we have the Community Reinvestment Act being ramped up to give mortgages to people without jobs, but we have a Congress that did not regulate investment banks. (For those of you that have not seen the above linked video – take the time and vote it up.)
Instead, over the next two decades, federal officials would emphasize that investment banks had an incentive to be cautious because they were operating without a safety net.
Has the absence of a safety net has ever stopped any little kid from death-defying acts of insanity, or any capitalist on steriods from trying to make just one more buck because they lack a moral center, or any corrupt politician from making promises they won’t keep to get just one more vote?
I believe everything we are seeing today goes back to current and former congresses that DID NOT FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION. I do compare the people who are running our country to crack addicted fiends that are just looking for their next fix of financial kickbacks or votes for re-election.
The Community Reinvestment Act and Dodd’s part in it:
….goes to one BIG INVASION OF PRIVACY: The 2009 American Community Survey by the US Census.
The 2010 Census has not even started yet and we have an amazing amount of b*llsh*t happening surrounding the census what with our front doors be GPSed so that god-knows-who will know exactly where everybody is, to this next piece of insanity in the campaign against America. Does anybody in the Beltway ever stop to think whether this is Constitutional, Morally Right, or just plain Bad Manners? Nope.Did.Not.Think.So. They’ve all been raised in a barn.
The federal government is forcing 3 million Americans to disclose sensitive, information about finances, health and lifestyle in a 14-page survey – including questions about availability of household flush toilets and difficulty with undressing and bathing.
The 2009 American Community Survey, an annual supplement to the decennial Census, asks about residents’ personal relationships and whether a home has hot and cold running water, a flush toilet, bathing facilities, and phone services. It also asks how many rooms are in a home and what vehicles are used at each household.
The new questionnaire asks respondents what they pay for electricity, gas, water and sewer every month and whether residents receive food stamps.
Question 16 asks, “About how much do you think this house and lot, apartment, or mobile home would sell for if it were for sale?”
Respondents are required to disclose costs associated with rent or mortgage, annual real estate taxes on and fire, hazard and flood insurance expenses.
For each person in the household, the questionnaire asks for citizenship status, education level, whether that person attends private or public schools. It also features questions about health coverage, hearing and vision impairment and physical, mental or emotional conditions.
It asks if residents “have difficulty dressing or bathing” or “doing errands alone such as visiting a doctor’s office or shopping” or whether they have difficulty making decisions. Respondents must indicate if they have served in the military, their current marital status and whether they have been married or given birth to children in the last 12 months. The Census Bureau claims its question is used as a “measure of fertility” and is used to “carry out various programs required by statute, including … conducting research for voluntary family planning programs.”
The letter asks where residents worked last week and whether they drove a car, rode a bus, subway railroad, ferryboat, taxicab or bicycle to get there. It then asks what time they left for work and how long their commute lasted.
Respondents are also required to disclose their place of employment, duties and income.
While many recipients may consider the questionnaire to be tedious and meddling, the Census Bureau warns that citizens are required by law to complete it and may be fined as much as $5,000 for willfully refusing. While an individual may feel uneasy about answering each question truthfully, the fine for filing false information can be as much as $500. (emphasis added)
The Census Bureau estimates that the form takes an average of 38 minutes for each household to complete.
While the U.S. Constitution allows Americans to be counted for purposes of taxation and political representation, Jim Harper, a privacy expert at the Cato Institute, told the New York Post the survey is “a classic example of mission creep over the decades – this constitutional need to literally count how many noses are in the United States has turned into a vast data-collection operation.” (emphasis added)
Rep. Ron Paul blasted the government for spending “hundreds of millions of dollars” on the survey and called the questionnaire “insulting” in his Texas Straight Talk column.
“The questions are both ludicrous and insulting,” he wrote. “The survey asks, for instance, how many bathrooms you have in your house, how many miles you drive to work, how many days you were sick last year, and whether you have trouble getting up stairs. It goes on and on, mixing inane questions with highly detailed inquiries about your financial affairs. One can only imagine the countless malevolent ways our federal bureaucrats could use this information. At the very least the survey will be used to dole out pork, which is reason enough to oppose it.”
Paul continued, “The founders never authorized the federal government to continuously survey the American people. More importantly, they never envisioned a nation where the people would roll over and submit to every government demand. The American Community Survey is patently offensive to all Americans who still embody that fundamental American virtue, namely a healthy mistrust of government. “
Craig T. Nelson has stated that he is going to stop paying taxes and is willing to go to jail because he feels he is being taxed without representation.
I already think that cutting off the money from this crack smokin’ congress and executive branch is the ONLY way we are going to get their attention, short of __________ (fill in the blank; you folks are smart).
At this point, our spending addicted government could be smokin’ crack for all the good it is doing us out here in the REAL WORLD!
(P.S. I already started in March. Send me a bill.)
For those readers just joining us; AIG is heavily involved in Shariah finance, and our taxpayer money was being used to continue this practice. Separation of Church and State anyone? You may want to spend some time at Thomas More Law Center website.
ANN ARBOR, MI – Proclaiming that times of crisis do not justify departure from the Constitution, Federal District Court Judge Lawrence P. Zatkoff allowed the lawsuit against Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and the Federal Reserve Board challenging the AIG bailout to proceed. The lawsuit was filed last December by the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and attorney David Yerushalmi, an expert in security transactions and Shariah-compliant financing.
In his well-written and detailed analysis issued yesterday, Judge Zatkoff denied the request by the Obama administration’s Department of Justice to dismiss the lawsuit. The request was filed on behalf of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and the Federal Reserve Board – the named defendants in the case. In his ruling, the judge held that the lawsuit sufficiently alleged a federal constitutional challenge to the use of taxpayer money to fund AIG’s Islamic religious activities.
Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, commented, “It is outrageous that AIG has been using taxpayer money to promote Islam and Shariah law, which potentially provides support for terrorist activities aimed at killing Americans. Shariah law is the same law championed by Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban. It is the same law that prompted the 9/11 terrorist attacks on our soil that killed thousands of innocent Americans. We won this skirmish. But the war to stop the federal government from funding Islam and Shariah-compliant financing is far from over.”
In its request to dismiss the lawsuit, the DOJ argued that the plaintiff in the case, Kevin Murray, who is a former Marine and a federal taxpayer, lacked standing to bring the action. And even if he did have standing, DOJ argued that the use of the bailout money to fund AIG’s operations did not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The court disagreed, noting, in relevant part, the following:
“In this case, the fact that AIG is largely a secular entity is not dispositive: The question in an as-applied challenge is not whether the entity is of a religious character, but how it spends its grant. The circumstances of this case are historic, and the pressure upon the government to navigate this financial crisis is unfathomable. Times of crisis, however, do not justify departure from the Constitution. In this case, the United States government has a majority interest in AIG. AIG utilizes consolidated financing whereby all funds flow through a single port to support all of its activities, including Sharia-compliant financing. Pursuant to the EESA, the government has injected AIG with tens of billions of dollars, without restricting or tracking how this considerable sum of money is spent. At least two of AIG’s subsidiary companies practice Sharia-compliant financing, one of which was unveiled after the influx of government cash. After using the $40 billion from the government to pay down the $85 billion credit facility, the credit facility retained $60 billion in available credit, suggesting that AIG did not use all $40 billion consistent with its press release. Finally, after the government acquired a majority interest in AIG and contributed substantial funds to AIG for operational purposes, the government co-sponsored a forum entitled “Islamic Finance 101.” These facts, taken together, raise a question of whether the government’s involvement with AIG has created the effect of promoting religion and sufficiently raise Plaintiff’s claim beyond the speculative level, warranting dismissal inappropriate at this stage in the proceedings.”
The lawsuit, which was filed in December of last year in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, is a constitutional challenge to that portion of the “Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008” (EESA) that appropriated $40 billion in taxpayer money to fund and financially support the federal government’s majority ownership interest in AIG, which engages in Shariah-based Islamic religious activities that are anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Jewish.
According to the lawsuit, “The use of these taxpayer funds to approve, promote, endorse, support, and fund these Shariah-based Islamic religious activities violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
The lawsuit was brought on behalf of Murray, a former Marine who served honorably in harm’s way in Iraq to defend our country against Islamic terrorists. Murray objects to being forced as a taxpayer to contribute to the propagation of Islamic beliefs and practices predicated upon Shariah law, which is hostile to his Christian religion. He is being represented by Thomas More Law Center Trial Counsel Robert Muise and by David Yerushalmi, an associated attorney who is an expert in Shariah law and Shariah-compliant financing, as well as general counsel to the Center for Security Policy.
According to the lawsuit, through the use of taxpayer funds, the federal government acquired a majority ownership interest (nearly 80%) in AIG, and as part of the bailout, Congress appropriated and expended an additional $40 billion of taxpayer money to fund and financially support AIG and its financial activities. AIG, which is now a government owned company, engages in Shariah-compliant financing which subjects certain financial activities, including investments, to the dictates of Islamic law and the Islamic religion. This specifically includes any profits or interest obtained through such financial activities. AIG itself describes “Sharia” as “Islamic law based on the Quran and the teachings of the Prophet [Mohammed].”
With the aid of taxpayer funds provided by Congress, AIG employs a “Shariah Supervisory Committee,” which is comprised of the following members: Sheikh Nizam Yaquby from Bahrain, Dr. Mohammed Ali Elgari from Saudi Arabia, and Dr. Muhammed Imran Ashraf Usmani from Pakistan. Dr. Usmani is the son, student, and dedicated disciple of Mufti Taqi Usmani, who is the leading Shariah authority for Shariah-compliant finance in the world and the author of a book translated into English in 1999 that includes an entire chapter dedicated to explaining why a Western Muslim must engage in violent jihad against his own country or government. According to AIG, the role of its Shariah authority “is to review our operations, supervise its development of Islamic products, and determine Shariah compliance of these products and our investments.”
An important element of Shariah-compliant financing is a form of obligatory charitable contribution called zakat, which is a religious tax for assisting those that “struggle [jihad] for Allah.” The amount of this tax is between 2.5% and 20%, depending upon the source of the wealth. The zakat religious tax is used to financially support Islamic “charities,” some of which have ties to terrorist organizations that are hostile to the United States and all other “infidels,” which includes Christians and Jews.
The Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, an example of an Islamic “charity” that qualifies for receipt of the zakat, was recently convicted by a federal jury for providing millions of dollars to Islamic terrorist organizations. As a direct consequence of the taxpayer funds appropriated and expended to purchase and financially support AIG, the federal government is now the owner of a corporation engaged in the business of collecting religious taxes to fund interests adverse to the United States, Christians, Jews, and all other “infidels” under Islamic law.
The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes America’s Christian heritage and moral values, including the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life. It supports a strong national defense and an independent and sovereign United States of America. The Law Center accomplishes its mission through litigation, education, and related activities. It does not charge for its services. The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization. You may reach the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website at www.thomasmore.org.
Why not give the organization that is supposed to keep our economy stable, (through one great depression and 20 some recessions), the power to assess risk to the markets, and activities that are detrimental to the financial system? Sure, why not keep on the road of doing things in the most insane ways, like the government and the auto worker’s union owning the two biggest car companies in the country? Yes, let’s please give the banking cartel who creates the economic instability we are experience with their manipulation of interest rates, inflation, deflation, and issuance of M3 currency, the role of telling us when the markets and their handling of the financial system are causing instability.
Does anybody else see how there may be just a small conflict of interest here?
WASHINGTON (Reuters)—The U.S. Federal Reserve should oversee threats to the financial system, not a council of regulators, a group led by an economic adviser to the Bush administration said Tuesday.
Glenn Hubbard, former chairman of President George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, said an idea to create an inter-agency council of regulators would inevitably be inefficient, indecisive and compromising.
Mr. Hubbard now co-chairs the Committee on Capital Markets Regulation, an independent research organization.
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is proposing that the Federal Reserve serve as an all-seeing regulator to detect activities that could pose risks that undermine the entire financial system.
The administration also is recommending two new agencies to protect consumers and investors.
The proposals are part of six regulatory overhaul recommendations that the administration is circulating among key lawmakers. Persons familiar with the plan say details still need to be hammered out. No announcement is expected from the administration until the week of June 8 at the earliest.
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and other administration officials have discussed the regulatory proposals in the past. But the plan circulating on Capitol Hill indicated that the ideas are beginning to come together into a formal package for Congress to consider.
It just keeps coming like one big dump truck of manure being dumped on the American people. Karma is gonna be a b*tch when it comes back around.
Hey Robert, I’ll get right on going to the back of the bus, sitting down, shutting up and getting in line for the fascist in charge when all those folks in Washington D.C. start acting like Americans instead of goosestepping bambi wannabees who think that not making waves for the selected resident is gonna keep them in power. I got news for ya, more than freedom is on the line right now.
Imagine a judicial nominee said “my experience as a white man makes me better than a latina woman” new racism is no better than old racism.
Robert had the WH response all ready to go:
“I think it is probably important for anybody involved in this debate to be exceedingly careful with the way in which they have decided to describe different aspects of this impending confirmation. I think we’re satisfied when the people of America and the people of the senate get a chance to look at, ah, more than just the blog of a former lawmaker, that they’ll come to the same conclusion that the president did.”
Blah, Blah, Blah!
Robert? RACIST, RACIST, RACIST, RACIST. Did I say it enough for you? Sonia is a racist, sexist, liberal leftie judge who definitely appears to have been groomed by the same people as Gumby to help effect change on a global level. I am not afraid of you because I KNOW there are more Americans that are getting more and more riled by the tsunami of sh*t coming out of Washington, D.C. Come on over; we’ll debate the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Okay, now that we have the racist label out of the way, let’s all start digging on what “The Powers That Be” are REALLY TRYING TO HIDE with all the deflection surrounding the racism event because once again Bambi’s administration COULD NOT VET someone properly. It’s there, it’s hiding and it probably has something to do with business law, international relations, and/or corporations.
Republicans? Michael Steele? Are you listening? Better stand up and fight this nomination. Just sayin’ ya just don’t know what is going to happen tomorrow.