When ideas come to you that may be different, are you going to be open to receive them and apply them to your life?
Most of us here have forgotten about smiling. Who has the time to care and share? We have gotten so lost in the un-necessities and urgencies of life, that the truly important values have been forgotten. Our mental state is clearly reflected on our faces. Why has this happened?
Video Courtesy of Democracy Now!
Additional Reporting by Colonel Sixx (RIP)
General Wesley Clark is the former Commanding General of U.S. European Command, which included all American military activities in the 89 countries and territories of Europe, Africa, and the Middle East. Additionally, he was Supreme Allied Commander in Europe (SACEUR), which granted him overall command of NATO military forces in Europe 1997 – 2001.
Clark was awarded awarded a Bronze Star, Silver Star, and Purple Heart for his service in Vietnam, among numerous subsequent medals and citations. He graduated Valedictorian of his class at West Point.
Flashback: At a Democracy Now! event held on March 2, 2007, former presidential candidate and Four-Star General, Wesley Clark (Ret.), described a memo he was shown that the Bush Administration planned to take out 7 countries in 5 years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Iran between 2007 and 2012.
Although these alleged plans appear to be moving slower than initially intended, Bashar al-Assad’s days as the Dictator-for-Life of Syria appear to be numbered – and the plans noted in the memo cited by Clarke would appear to be on track. [AB: Or is it?]
(As an aside, there appears to be a strong occult connection with the date, March 19. The invasion of Libya via the UN and the 2003 invasion of Iraq were both done on March 19, as with many other military conflicts, cited in the video, above).
Newsflash: On March 26, 2011, it was reported that “scores” of protesters in Syria were murdered by the security forces of President Bashar al-Assad. Bashar was forced to make concessions after these murders failed to quell the uprising – but even his concessions have failed to stop the protests. His days as the Dictator-for-Life of Syria appear to be numbered – and the plans noted in the memo cited by Clarke would appear to be on track.
Flashback: On ABC’s ‘This Week with George Stephanopoulos,’ which aired on March 5, 2006 Wesley Clarke is quoted as saying:
“I think when you look at this country, right now, we need a 2-party system that works. We need Congress to do its job. We need a real investigation of some of the abuses of authority that are apparently going on at the Executive branch…We’ve never finished the investigation of 9/11 and whether the administration actually misused the intelligence information it had. The evidence seems pretty clear to me. I’ve seen that for a long time.”
Cluff Gold, a gold mining concern focused on West African assets, recently signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Samsung. Under the unusual agreement, the huge Seoul, South Korea based industrial company will be offering substantial funding to the mining concern to help develop its mining portfolio in the initial form of a $20 million unhedged loan facility.
This is the very first financing deal of its kind, where a non-mining concern has shown an interest in a mining company to help provide it with a reliable supply of bullion over the longer term.
For whatever reason, capital from outside the mining industry is now starting to become available to it. Interestingly, the well-known shorts in the mining shares could well be in trouble, although the fact that Samsung is buying into a gold miner highlights the fact that it is probably too late to do the same for silver.
Silver Miners are Spread Thin and at the Mercy of the Banks
Although a desperate need for consolidation exists in the silver mining sector, the capital to do so seems quite hard to come by since miners are typically viewed as risky borrowers by funding banks. This situation creates significant problems for the supply of silver going forward.
If a tech company announced a similar joint venture with a silver miner, it would very likely create an industrial panic and see the price of silver push sharply higher. This move could be large enough to break the global financial system, especially if the famously short bullion banks are not as hedged by offsetting transactions in the OTC sector as they claim to be.
Basically, the worldwide surge in investment demand for silver is competing with constant industrial demand for a metal that is universally believed to be vastly more ubiquitous than it is due to years of extreme price distortion.
Furthermore, silver’s monetary history ties it to gold, even though they have different intrinsic values. Nevertheless, no central banks own silver in comparable quantities to their gold holdings.
Impact of the Samsung/Cluff Gold Deal
Overall, as noted by many, including the legendary gold mining CEO, Jim Sinclair, the story is a major game changer that demonstrates substantial international corporate investment in a monetary metal.
It also highlights the persistent undervaluation in the sector, and the desire by industrial concerns to secure their long term supply of a precious metal.
Furthermore, the creative financing deal demonstrates the recognition of the facts that:
(1) Gold mines mine money,
(2) The supply of gold is dwindling and
(3) Gold plays an important role in the high tech industry, which is actually quite minimal compared with silver’s broader industrial importance.
The deal also indicates that the precious metals bear market inflicted by widespread hedging of gold shares is now coming to a close. Just think about it, if Samsung or another large tech company tried to source silver in this way, it could very well trigger a spreading crisis.
Precious Metals in the Rehypothecation Era
The Samsung/Cluff Gold deal also comes in the era of rehypothecation, which involves a broker pledging as collateral for a bank loan the securities in customer margin accounts.
Basically, the rehypothecation of assets, which infinitely dilutes claims on real assets, can and will ultimately lead to total losses even for investors who thought that they had strong collateral backing.
Furthermore, the inventory of the world’s credible assets is literally evaporating in absence of CapEx spending, which is also one of the reasons behind the ECB’s seemingly endless lowering of its collateral requirements.
Why Buy Silver?
Within this investing and supply environment for silver, a substantial buying interest could well have a remarkable upwards impact on the price of silver for the following reasons:
(1) Not much silver left. This is the same reason that central banks are not buying silver. Basically, silver has been dis-hoarded and any major buyer would immediately induce a short covering panic that would end all panics.
(2) Silver miners are spread thin. The supply of silver is largely a byproduct of the mining of other metals because the primary silver producers are still viewed as risky. They also often have trouble finding funding for their mining operations and exploration activities.
(3) Strategic threat. No one wants to be the one that blows the silver market sky high with large purchases, so gradual accumulation often seems a more prudent investment strategy in the relatively thin silver market.
Although Samsung may not be buying silver — yet — this innovative deal with Cluff Gold indicates that conditions are favorable for more “finance for supply” transactions of this type over the years to come.
By: Dr. Jeff Lewis
By Raymond Bonner, Special to ProPublica; Joaquin Sapien, ProPublica; and Sergio Hernandez, Special to ProPublica
For 30 years, Ken Anderson was the face of law enforcement in Williamson County, Texas, first as a bearded district attorney asking the court for tough sentences, and for the last 10 years handing those kinds of sentences out as a judge.
Earlier this month, his beard gone, his hair white, Anderson, noted for his talks to school children about the criminal justice system and the dangers of drugs, walked into the courthouse again, this time as a defendant. He had come to turn himself in, be fingerprinted, photographed and post $2,500 bail. A few hours earlier a judge had ordered his arrest.
Not for drunk driving or speeding, or any other of the pedestrian crimes that sometimes fell public officials. Instead, Anderson was the rarest of defendants, a prosecutor criminally charged for his role in having helped send an innocent man to prison.
In one of Anderson’s most notorious murder cases 2014 the conviction of Michael Morton for killing his wife 2014 he withheld critical evidence that would have been essential to Morton’s defense.
Morton spent 25 years in prison before gaining his release. Anderson, once named the Texas Prosecutor of the Year, now faces 10 years in prison for his part in Morton’s wrongful conviction.
The judge who oversaw a Court of Inquiry investigation of Anderson’s conduct did not spare the former prosecutor.
“The court cannot think of a more intentionally harmful act than a prosecutor’s choice to hide mitigating evidence so as to create an uneven playing field for a defendant facing a murder charge and a life sentence,” said Judge Louis Sturns.
Anderson’s lawyer has filed an appeal, arguing that the statute of limitations bars any action.
In Williamson County, the charges have shaken Anderson’s friends and colleagues.
But Judge Sturns’s action is even more remarkable when set against the long and often ugly history of prosecutorial misconduct. Even when prosecutors engage in strikingly unethical behavior, they are rarely sanctioned for it, much less criminally charged.
George Kendall, a veteran defense lawyer who has specialized in death penalty prosecutions, called the Anderson case “unprecedented.”
Prosecutors and defense lawyers disagree on whether prosecutorial misconduct is widespread, or instead limited to isolated transgressions by inexperienced or overzealous prosecutors.
However, one thing is abundantly clear: While revelations of misconduct might result in people being freed from prison or granted new trials, action is almost never taken against the offending prosecutors.
An investigation by ProPublica found 30 cases in New York in recent years where convictions had been overturned because of prosecutorial misconduct. Yet in only one instance was a prosecutor punished in any meaningful way.
In fact, many of the New York prosecutors found to have withheld evidence and accepted false testimony were promoted, or received raises, even after courts overturned convictions because of their misconduct.
In one case, a Queens man was sent to prison for raping his 4-year-old daughter even though the prosecutor had evidence showing the child hadn’t been sexually abused. After spending nearly two years in prison, the man’s conviction was overturned. A judge later ruled that what the prosecutor had done was “tantamount to fraud.” But after the conviction was overturned, the prosecutor received a raise and became head of a department where she oversaw and guided young assistant district attorneys.
In California, “prosecutors continue to engage in misconduct, sometimes multiple times, almost always without consequence,” according to a study by the Northern California Innocence Project and Santa Clara University School of Law. In some 600 cases in which courts found there had been prosecutorial misconduct, the study found, only six times did the State Bar discipline the prosecutor
In Virginia, four murder convictions have been overturned within the last year because of prosecutorial misconduct, according to The Open File, a website launched last year “to monitor prosecutorial misconduct and accountability.” None of the prosecutors have been sanctioned.
Twenty-six years ago in Texas, Michael Morton was charged with bludgeoning his wife to death with a club while she lay on the couple’s waterbed.
During Morton’s trial, Anderson put on an emotional case, shedding tears in court and graphically depicting Morton’s alleged crimes. His theory of the case was that Morton had become enraged after his wife had denied him sex the previous night, which had been his birthday. For good measure, Anderson told the jury that Morton had masturbated on his dead wife before he headed off to work as a manager at the nearby supermarket.
The jury deliberated less than two hours before finding Morton guilty; he was sentenced to life in prison.
It is now charged that Anderson won his conviction corruptly, failing to comply with the law as laid down by the United States Supreme Court: Anderson had withheld from Morton’s lawyers documents that indicated their client was innocent.
Anderson failed to turn over the transcript of an interview in which Morton’s young son told his grandmother that a “monster” had killed his mother and that his father had not been at home, and a police report that a green van had been seen near the home and that a strange man had walked into the woods behind the house around the time of the murder.
Morton had been in jail 15 years when one of his trial lawyers contacted Barry Scheck, who had used his fame and money from the O.J. Simpson trial to expand the work and visibility of the Innocence Project. Scheck assigned the case to Nina Morrison, a bright, tenacious young lawyer then new to the office, but who has in the last decade secured the release of more than a dozen men from prison based on DNA testing.
The Innocence Project works with local lawyers, and Morton was fortunate that John Raley, a highly regarded civil litigator in Houston, agreed to represent him pro bono.
Morton’s new lawyers quickly moved to request DNA testing on a bloody bandana that had been found at a construction site 100 yards from Morton’s house. The state resisted, and a court denied the request; but Morrison persisted, and eventually a court ordered DNA testing.
The bandana was found to contain the blood of Morton’s wife and the DNA of an unknown individual. That individual was later identified as Mark Alan Norwood, whose DNA was found in a national database; he was convicted of the murder and sentenced to life in prison last month.
DNA testing was not as advanced at the time of Morton’s trial, and there was no serious criticism of Anderson for not having considered the bandana more carefully. But that was not the end of the case
Using the state’s public records act, Morrison had sought documents from the district attorney’s office. After years of litigation, what she obtained was explosive.
Foremost among the documents was an eight-page transcript of an interview of the victim’s mother by a police officer, an account that suggested Morton could not have been the killer. There was also a sheriff’s report about the strange man seen in the neighborhood around the time of the killing.
Anderson had kept all of this from the defense. With Morton out of prison, and fully exonerated, his lawyers might have stopped there. But they pushed on.
An obscure 1876 Texas law provides for a Court of Inquiry when there is probable cause to believe that “an offense has been committed against the laws of this State.” Such courts have been used to investigate cases of wrongful convictions, but never allegations of prosecutorial misconduct.
Morton’s lawyers persuaded a judge that this was a proper case for a Court of Inquiry. Their legal arguments were buttressed no doubt by the extraordinary public attention paid to the Morton case: Pamela Colloff had authored a two-part series, “The Innocent Man,” which appeared in The Texas Monthly; there had been an editorial in The New York Times; 60 Minutes and National Public Radio had also weighed in.
Appointed as the special prosecutor for the Court of Inquiry was Rusty Hardin, who had been a legendary Houston district attorney 2014 “one of the most feared death penalty prosecutors in Texas,” says George Kendall.
During the hearing before Judge Sturns in February, Anderson, 60, was grilled for several hours by Hardin. Anderson defiantly defended his actions, “discounted the importance of the inquiry itself, struck a sarcastic tone, and cast himself as the victim of a ‘media frenzy,’” Colloff reported.
He also suffered memory lapses. He routinely turned over all evidence to the defense that he was required to, he testified. But he had “no independent memory” of having given the defense the interview in which Morton’s young son told his grandmother that a monster had killed his mother.
How could Anderson not remember a statement by a child seeing his mother killed? Hardin demanded to know.
“I have no recollection of it,” Anderson repeated. Besides, he said, he’d put no credence in what a little boy said.
It is hard to overstate the uniqueness of the inquiry into the prosecutor’s actions in the Morton case, and the subsequent legal action against Anderson.
One way to appreciate its novelty is to recall the South Carolina case of Edward Lee Elmore. A semi-literate African-American, Elmore was convicted and sentenced to death for the sexual assault and murder of a 75-year-old white woman.
In Elmore’s case, the prosecution didn’t just withhold critical information from the defense. There is reason to believe that the police and investigators concocted evidence, and that they committed perjury.
For instance, at Elmore’s trial, officers testified that more than 40 of Elmore’s pubic hairs had been found on the bed where he was alleged to have sexually assaulted the victim.
But the claims, as well as others involving what was once presented as scientific evidence of Elmore’s guilt, ultimately crumbled upon re-examination. And some potentially exculpatory evidence was withheld from Elmore’s lawyer.
Elmore was approaching 30 years in prison 2014 more than half his life 2014 when the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion. It is striking for its length 2014 194 pages 2014 but even more so for the majority’s scathing criticism of the state’s handling of the case. There was “persuasive evidence,” the court held, that investigators “were outright dishonest,” and that they “lied about” some of their investigative findings at the time of Elmore’s trial.
That judgment was rendered more than 18 months ago, and Elmore was released shortly afterward. But there is no indication of any investigation into the police or prosecutors involved in the case.
Raymond Bonner, a lawyer and former New York Times reporter, is the author of “Anatomy of Injustice: A Murder Case Gone Wrong.”
Gun free zones don’t lower crime rates or even prevent mass shootings, so what do they do? Gun control allows megalomaniacal politicians to exercise control over law-abiding citizens through unconstitutional legislation that paves the way towards eroding the Bill of Rights at large.
The simple fact of the matter is that the attacks on the Second Amendment should concern you, even if you don’t own a gun. In fact, I am definitely not someone you would consider a ‘gun nut’. Far from it, I actually grew up with the impression that guns were killing weapons that the average person would never truly need. After all, you could simply call a gun-wielding police officer if anything went wrong. So what drove me to become passionate on protecting the Second Amendment, even to the point of producing the new documentary Disarmed: A History of Gun Control?
It comes down to the fact that gun control and the attacks on the Second Amendment amount to much more than guns themselves. In fact, the Second Amendment’s fall will signify the fall of the Constitution at large — the very fabric of the United States. You see if the government can override the Second Amendment, why can’t they override the First Amendment? Or how about the Constitution as a whole? If we can confiscate all modern firearms and override the Constitution through federal or state law, then the Constitution now becomes a secondary piece of paper.
Now gun control advocates would never want to give up the First Amendment. In fact, virtually everyone who hates the Second Amendment (which is actually an extreme minority blown up by the media) loves the First Amendment. They would tell you that giving up the First Amendment would ruin the country, no one would be granted free speech — our freedom would collapse overnight.
The error here is assuming that we can permit the government, a government full of power-hungry sociopaths, to eradicate one Amendment while assuming we will preserve the others. How could anyone think this? The answer is that they aren’t thinking, they’re responding to events that the media broadcasts to them in a certain light. Mass shootings in schools and movie theaters have pushed the mantra that it’s the guns that are to blame and nothing else.
You’re not supposed to ponder on why Batman shooter James Holmes traveled out of his way to the one movie theater that did not allow attendees to bring in their legal concealed carry weapons. You’re not supposed to ask about the fact that the Sandy Hook shooting occurred in one of the most extreme ‘gun free’ zones in the nation. You’re especially not supposed to investigate into why Columbine shooter Dylan Klebold was so afraid of the looming concealed carry law in the area. Instead, you’re supposed to emotionally react to the issue of guns. And from that reaction, your response is not supposed to be logical but emotional.
It’s not logically to think that destroying the Second Amendment and eroding our rights to own a weapon will not cause a political domino effect that leads to the dismantling of our Bill of Rights. No, it’s an emotional response that says ‘ban the guns’ without logical thought. Even examining the statistics reveals this to be the case as well.
Former Obama Administration Secret Service member Dan Bongino stated it correctly when he explained in a passionate speech that gun control is not about controlling guns. Instead, it’s about ‘people control’. After withdrawing from the Secret Service without retirement pay to inform the public regarding gun control, Dan Bongino reveals that he is also not a ‘gun nut’ as some might think. It simply comes down to protecting our rights.
Watch the former Obama Secret Service member’s speech below:
This is how we roll!
Author: The Amish Brain
Make sure you have enough FRNs to pay for basic such as food, bills, etc.and stay liquid like soup. On Feb 2nd, Bank of America was down for about 8 hours and I could not access my account online.
And let’s not forget about the stunning decision made in August of 2012, in which the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, from Illinois, ruled that once a person deposits their personal money in the bank, the bank is free to do with whatever it wants to do with the depositor funds including covering their bank losses, engaging in risky investments and presumably, even stealing the funds. Is it clear why Jesus chased the money changers from the Temple?
How many will go willingly to their own demise?
Could this be the beginning of the trigger event which will ultimately lead to revolution in this country, complete with roundups and mass exterminations of dissidents? Time will tell. Meanwhile, get your money out of the banks, now, while you still can. Having, or not having money in a bank is like watching, or not watching TV. I gave up the tube about 20 years ago. Once in a great while I’ll find myself in a situation where I’m exposed to someone else’s TV (for an excruciating few minutes) and when I’m able to remove myself from that agonizing situation, I feel like I’ve got to go take a shower. In somewhat of a similar comparison (for me), years ago I stopped leaving any amount, over and above for paying my monthly bill(s), in the bank. If it wasn’t for the supposed “convenience” that “checking” provides for me, I’d NEVER put my hard earned “fiat” currency in an environment whereby at any moment it could be “taken” by criminals.
Any cash that comes to me goes immediately into precious metals, most often Gold. THAT is my savings account. When I need cash, I head down to my local gold/silver/coin shop with an “OZ” and make a “withdrawal”. Clean Deal.
PS Unfortunately, we have banks where the employees have smiles on their faces and sweet things to say which give the illusory impression that “everything is just fine”. For them it is. They don’t know what the upper administrators are up to. That at any moment the plug could be pulled. Depositors say “I’m friends with my bank manager and she says we’re healthy”. All the while, cancer is in “stage “II” of development.