• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Can anybody confirm or deny this? Sounds fake!

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Beijing, China -- Sources at the United States Embassy in Beijing China have just CONFIRMED to me that the United States of America has tendered to China a written agreement which grants to the People's Republic of China, an option to exercise Eminent Domain within the USA, as collateral for China's continued purchase of US Treasury Notes and existing US Currency reserves!

The written agreement was brought to Beijing by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and was formalized and agreed-to during her recent trip to China.

This means that in the event the US Government defaults on its financial obligations to China, the Communist Government of China would be permitted to physically take -- inside the USA -- land, buildings, factories, perhaps even entire cities - to satisfy the financial obligations of the US government.

Put simply, the feds have now actually mortgaged the physical land and property of all citizens and businesses in the United States. They have given to a foreign power, their Constitutional power to "take" all of our property, as actual collateral for continued Chinese funding of US deficit spending and the continued carrying of US national debt.

This is an unimaginable betrayal of every man, woman and child in the USA. An outrage worthy of violent overthrow.

I am endeavoring to obtain images or copies of the actual document but in the interim, several different sources both in the US and in China have CONFIRMED this to me.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Clinton Talks

“In talks with Clinton, China will ask for a guarantee that the U.S. will support the dollar’s exchange rate and make sure China’s dollar-denominated assets are safe,” said He in Beijing. “That would be one of the prerequisites for more purchases.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601009&sid=a_dsDz145J_A
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
To make in order and provide the appropriate waivers for amendment #6, offered by Rep. Goodlatte (R-VA), which would prevent funds in the bill from being used to exercise the power of eminent domain to take private property from a private entity and give that property to another private entity, while exempting certain enumerated uses, such as highways, prisons, public utilities, and in cases of national emergencies or national disasters declared by the President.

http://rules-republicans.house.gov/ShortTopics/Read.aspx?ID=237
 

MsSage

Well-known member
Mike Church was just talking about this. He/staff has a call into the white house press office and waiting for conformation or denial.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Supposedly this is where it was first leaked. Is the Government really starting to mortgage land, buildings etc.?

http://www.halturnershow.blogspot.com/2009/02/feds-grant-eminent-domain-as-collateral.html
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Nothing new....GW's been doing this/allowing this for years...All the tollways and roadways and bridge projects that are/were built by foreign countries got the power of eminent domain/ownership over the roadways- and control of large areas surrounding the projects...

The NAFTA superhiway was set up under this premise...I don't know if China had any money in it- but China was the one putting all the money into the Mexican ports to connect to it.....

Lou Dobbs was ranting on this for sometime and has had many shows on it.....
 

Mike

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Nothing new....GW's been doing this/allowing this for years...All the tollways and roadways and bridge projects that are/were built by foreign countries got the power of eminent domain/ownership over the roadways- and control of large areas surrounding the projects...

The NAFTA superhiway was set up under this premise...I don't know if China had any money in it- but China was the one putting all the money into the Mexican ports to connect to it.....

You're lying again...........Nothing unusual though. :roll: :roll:

None of the Contractors nor Operators are actual owners of the projects aforementioned by you. :roll:

They have long term contracts which allow them to recoup their investments, but no ownership.

The so-called NAFTA Super HWY was to be funded 65% by a Spanish contractor and 35% by a USA contractor.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
And a whole lot of these "contractors" who own these projects are "countries"--just like the Dubai Ports fiasco Bush tried to ram thru....

Or the Airbus contract- a business owned by several countries of the EU...

The country owns the business....And after building the road- can charge any amount they want- and were given eminent domain rights to control everything around the roads....One that Dobbs highlighted, in Pennsylvania I believe, had control of everything that happened/was built 1/2 mile on either side of the road...
 

Mike

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
And a whole lot of these "contractors" who own these projects are "countries"--just like the Dubai Ports fiasco Bush tried to ram thru....

Or the Airbus contract- a business owned by several countries of the EU...

The country owns the business....And after building the road- can charge any amount they want- and were given eminent domain rights to control everything around the roads....One that Dobbs highlighted, in Pennsylvania I believe, had control of everything that happened/was built 1/2 mile on either side of the road...

You know, you're a sneaky, slimy, lyin' SOB. :mad:

These contractors do not "OWN" these highways as you stated before. :roll: Eminent Domain is not an issue in ownership, only a means to procure the land necessary for a highway.

And on the Airbus contract..Northrop Grumman, a U.S. contractor, is the one that bid on the Tankers. It just so happens that they are using an airframe from EADS (Europe), as opposed to the Boeing, which most of comes from Japan.
 

Tex

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
Clinton Talks

“In talks with Clinton, China will ask for a guarantee that the U.S. will support the dollar’s exchange rate and make sure China’s dollar-denominated assets are safe,” said He in Beijing. “That would be one of the prerequisites for more purchases.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601009&sid=a_dsDz145J_A

The Bloomberg article was pretty good. We need a devaluation of the dollar so the Chinese stop subsidizing their trade. Yes, it will mean that our interest rates don't get subsidized by China but that is exactly what is needed. The Chinese need to sell those treasuries and buy U.S. goods. It will help our economy because of the demand and get us to take a more responsible look at our economy. For too long, the "devil's" deal with China has been that China manipulates its currency (this is what happens when there is no floating currency), has a trade surplus and "invests" that trade surplus in the U.S. by buying assets which includes treasuries. When they buy treasuries (to the degree they have) they artificially lower interest rates and indebt future generations of U.S. citizens who are on the hook for the borrowing. These are the problems we have been experiencing and have now come to a head in our economy. If we want the train to keep going in the same direction, we will cave to the Chinese in various ways. If we want to stop the nonsense that has allowed politicians to quietly sell out economy unnoticed by the masses until now, we will tell the Chinese they made a bad investment. It seems with the spending and treasury buying we are flooding the market with dollars so we are going to inflate our way out of the Chinese finger handcuffs and will not be able to rely on foreign governments to subsidize our govt.'s reckless spending.

Right now, with the velocity of money (the measure of how the economy and the turnover of internal trade) is low so pumping dollars in the system is fine. We will have to take those dollars out when the velocity increases (the economy gets better) so that we do not have the inflationary spiral. Paul Volker is on the administration's advisory board and put an end to the stagflation under Reagan (stagflation or inflation in othe ways is the potential problem with this loose money policy):

"Volcker's Fed is widely credited with ending the United States' stagflation crisis of the 1970s. Inflation, which peaked at 13.5% in 1981, was successfully lowered to 3.2% by 1983."----(from Wiki on Volker)

The trick, which the govt. in general has a poor track record, is to reduce govt. outlays and or loose money policy after the velocity increases.

I sure hope they are successful. We need some sort of a "jubilee" in this country due to the concentration of wealth and all the political policies it has been buying through corrupt or incompetent politicians and their appointees, and it sure seems like we are getting it. It does bring a lot of uncertainty for many but also a lot of opportunities if handled correctly.

If we do have to give China something, I hope it is Bill and Hillary who started this mess. It is better than giving concessions to them that have actual value.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Tex, what's your opinion of the sudden and drastic withdrawal of funds on Sept. 11, 2008? Some debate on whether it was the 11th, or the 18th.

The one that caused the Fed to call in the Major banks to a meeting, where they told them they were going to take TARP money?
 

Tex

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
Tex, what's your opinion of the sudden and drastic withdrawal of funds on Sept. 11, 2008? Some debate on whether it was the 11th, or the 18th.


The one that caused the Fed to call in the Major banks to a meeting, where they told them they were going to take TARP money?


I don't know enough about who was actually behind it. Some of the players in the market are so big that they can do something this quick, just about get away before anyone knows about it, and profit from advanced knowledge at the expense of everyone else who does not have their knowledge. I do think this needs to be looked into big time and people need to be held accountable, which is kinda what happened, as I understand it---they didn't let the run continue. This is how they stop every run on the bank---they shut them down and make sure all the little people know they are not going to be screwed by the big guys in a run on the banks(remember the Christmas story "It's a Wonderful Life" with Jimmy Stewart). In my opinion, all withdrawals need to be limited and disclosed to keep this from happening. This same theory happens when the SEC limits insider trading and requires disclosure by people who are involved in management who might be in a position to know.

Our banking system is leveraged. That means that they don't have all the money in the bank that is deposited. Most of it is loaned out to other people and only a small amount is actually held for day to day transactions. When a run on the bank happens, that small amount they keep is used up. If they can not borrow on the assets (their loans outstanding and accounts receivable or reputation) then they are in trouble and must liquidate. A run on all the banks at the same time would create the same problem only much, much larger and that is why they need and have govt. oversight and depositor guarantees to prevent it.

It was a huge move to insure the money market accounts as it is a huge amount of liability the govt. took on to protect the financial system from a run on those assets. If they didn't do it, all the money in the money market accounts would have had a run on it and the smaller people would have been the ones likely out of luck while those in the know took the assets. The move prevented that type of run that would have pushed the financial institutions even further and doubtless had many more failures.

A run on the bank or financial institutions can also be caused by big people who want to cause damage they can capitalize on if not watched (like calls or the right to sell stock at a certain price) or by governments and sovereign funds (foreign govt. accounts). Whatever it was, it needed to be stopped and was. I hope they find the people behind it to see if there was something to be concerned about. Our financial institutions are/were at stake.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Is it possible that it was orchestrated by Obama backers, causing a crisis, that sealed the election? I'm not saying that McCain was going to win, but it was the final nail.

If so, I think it got away from them! It has brought a lot to light though!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
What I now think is really comical- is that over the last 3-4 years when I posted articles and posts about how the government and the states were allowing foreign countries- many of which were Muslim countries- to invest huge amounts into US infrastructure and business and come in and buy up corporate/financial entities, toll roads, railroads (one of which carries Nuclear products for the military)-or get 100 year leases on ports/infrastructure--get power of eminent domain over areas of the country- you guys screamed bloody murder AT ME for Bush bashing- for even questioning a hero with a (R) by his name...

But now when you even hear rumormongering that the same type of thing is continuing- and its someone with a (D) by their name--you're screaming bloody murder at Obama and the (D's)...

:lol: :lol: :lol:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
OT, did you take a look at this yet?

http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=32550

The right wing folks- like WND and the John Birchers been have been claiming this is the path GW has been on for years...In fact they predicted an economic Bust under him- to lower the dollar down to the value of the Peso- so that he could further bring on the North American Union and force the Amero down everyones throats....

But when I posted any of those articles, I was just a Bush Basher.... :roll:
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Watch the video, you won't be disappointed. It's bigger than Bush! But does include the whole Bush family, and the Clintons, but it further outlines who's pulling the strings!

I guarantee, if enough people watch it, we'll have years of material to discuss. And lots of research to verify everything!
 
Top