BOM LEGIAN, BALI

NOTE: This document is not an attempt to promote or discredit any particular Political Party. Our present economic situation is a bi-partisan problem and will continue to be a problem requiring immediate attention regardless of who is in the White House or which Party is dominant in Congress. (Further Note - Rense.com does not necessarily endorse the purchase of the materials offered at the end of this article and are passing it along as part of the primary article as received -ed)

CONTINENTAL HERITAGE SECURITY REPORT

This report will be one of the most important and timely pieces of information you have ever read. It is alarming, but not speculative nor intentionally sensational for the purpose of selling. When I returned to the States a year ago after being overseas for two years, I noticed an escalation of debt in this country. The danger signs present today are nothing short of incredible.

After a lot of research on my part, I found that not only were my personal fears correct, but there are a lot of finance wise people who see the same thing coming -- people who are getting out of harm's way. Our economy is in DEEP DEEP TROUBLE, and that means your investments, your pensions, and your savings are exposed to incredible risk.

I. THE OVERALL ECONOMIC PICTURE

The Forerunner

Early Tuesday morning Oct. 29, 1929, the stock market opened as usual. The only difference on this particular day was that all the trading activity on the floor was to sell, not buy. Not only did the "crash" that followed affect multitudes of Americans, it affected people and economies all over the world. Thousand of people lost their jobs; their homes; and their life savings. The middle class was wiped out. By the end of the year, commodity markets lost an unbelievable sum of 40 billion dollars in equity.

Four years later, at the depth of the depression, the national income fell by 50% and 5000 banks had closed their doors. From the very beginning, our founding fathers had always advocated that the federal government should not interfere with the free enterprise system. However, due to the suffering induced by the depression, the American people wanted relief and allowed the new President Roosevelt to take action with programs that had been considered illegal up to that time.

The President boldly initiated his socialistic "New Deal", and for the first time in history, the U.S. government intervened in the affairs of private business with helps called "entitlements." The stage was set for the federal government to dominate American business, banking, commerce, and the economy as a whole.

Not only did this "New Deal" allow for more government control in private enterprise, it also was the beginning of the cancerous government debt that will eventually be financially perilous to our economy. This country saw a great depression in 1929. We are dangerously close to repeating history but with much more devastation. (Maka direkayasa WTC 911, DIBORONG "Put Options" SEBELUM WTC 911, ini GUGATAN pakar Jerman vs. Insider Tradings tsb SEBELUM terjadi bencana WTC 911 sbb judul doang German Experts Press For Truth Of Pre-911 Stock Activity By Erik Kirschbaum 12-19-1)

The America that you and I grew up to know and appreciate is a thing of the past. The upcoming crash is going to make the crash of 1929 look like a mild recession in comparison. Your job, your company and your industry is much more dependent on other industries today than it was in 1929. If our government continues to spend more than it takes in, with 100 percent certainty, it will go broke. A time of rectification is certain, it's only a matter of when.

The Problem Defined

Our government has the ability to generate $1.2 Trillion in taxes. It spends $1.4 to $1.5 Trillion per year. The U.S. government is spending more money each year than it raises in taxes. How does it do that? It borrows the money to make up the difference. In 1992, it had to borrow about a quarter of all the money it spent. This amount borrowed is called the deficit. The government has been operating this way since the 1960's. The accumulation of yearly deficits is called the National Debt. By 1992, the National debt was estimated at over 4 Trillion dollars. (Anda dapat BACA National Debt itu dalam FLASH di satu tower di Manhattan)

The government has given up on trying to pay back the national debt and is struggling to just keep up with the interest payments. Right now, interest payments is one of the top three expenditures in the National budget each year. In just a few years, it will be the largest expenditure. In 1980 the percentage of income tax used to pay the interest of the debt was about 30%. In 1992, just 12 years later, that had doubled to 60%. (Siapa di NKRI atau Wong Indonesia di Amrik, yang tetap mau NGOTOT, sok pinter, bahwa Amrik negara digdaya dan kaya raya? Then you DON’T read the statistics! Para pialang di BEJ, NDOBOS!)

Experts project that within just a few years, the interest payments alone will absorb all of the taxes collected. At this point, there will be no money to run the country and America will be bankrupt. ("Consumers’ Spending" sebagai indikator ekonomi penting di Amrik, pun 90% lebih memakai CREDITCARDS! So, menciptakan efek gelembung sabun alias "bubble"; sementara itu menumpuk pula tunggakan KPR oleh konsumen properti. Maka KIAMAT ekonomi Amrik IS a certainty! WTC-911, sementara, "menyelamatkannya" plus serbu Irak!)

Even if our budget was balanced, we would still be in trouble because we don't have the cash flow left over to pay the interest on our existing debt. This means we borrow to pay the interest which means the existing debt is compounding. (Pinjam kepada siapa? The FEDERAL RESERVE, Bank Sentral Amrik milik PRIBADI geng Rothschild dan geng Rockefeller, baca Who Controls The Federal Reserve System? by Victor Thorn
5-9-2, 70% saham dimiliki para "mahadalang"! Ini gerombolan penguasa bumi itu: 1) The Rothschild Family - London 2) The Rothschild Family - Berlin 3) The Lazard Brothers - Paris 4) Israel Seiff - Italy 5) Kuhn-Loeb Company - Germany 6) The Warburgs - Amsterdam 7) The Warburgs - Hamburg 8) Lehman Brothers - New York 9) Goldman & Sachs - New York 10) The Rockefeller Family - New York.

Mau tahu para bagaimana para garong penyembah LUCIFER itu "morotin" Amrik (Pemerintah & publik)? Nih, kutipannya dari artikel itu: menangislah yang punya deposito jutaan dollar A.S. Sebab your money IS worthless!!! Macam toilet kakus! USD anda TIDAK dijamin EMAS lagi ("fiat money"). J.F. Kennedy mau mengembalikan sistem emas itu, seperti Abraham Lincoln, mbalelo vs. Mahadalang – DIBUNUH! Berikut ini kutipan dari artikel WHO CONTROLS THE FED di atas, dalam teks merah, format paragrap CENTER:

We all know that the Federal Reserve CORPORATION prints money - then loans it, at interest, to our government. But wait until you see what a total scam this process is. But before we get to the meat of this issue, let's remember one thing about the very essence of banking - primarily that money should have

some type of standard upon which its value is based. In the case of America, we operate on what is

called a "gold standard" (i.e. our money is backed by gold).

So, with that in mind, let's look at how money is actually created, and at what cost. If the Federal Reserve wants to print 1,000 one-hundred ($100) bills, their total cost for ink, paper, plates, labor, etc. would be approximately $23.00 (according to Davvy Kidd in "Why A Bankrupt America"). Now, if you do the math,

the total cost of 10,000 bills would be $230.00 ($.023 x 10,000). But, and here's the catch - 10,000 $100

bills equals $1,000,000! So, the Federal Reserve can "create" a million dollars, then LEND it to the

U.S. Government (with interest) for a total cost of $230.00! That's not a bad deal, huh!

The banking industry calls this process "seignorage." I call it outright THEFT. Why? Well, regardless of the immense profit margin ($1,000,000 for $230), plus the huge interest payments, our government then needs to STEAL the American people's money to payoff their debts via a Mob-like agency called the IRS. So the bankers steal from the government, then the government turns around and steals from the people. I'm no genius, but who do you think is getting screwed in this process? US - the people at the bottom rung of the ladder.

What's worse is that - now catch your breath - there's NO MORE gold left in Fort Knox! It's all gone. In other words, the GOLD STANDARD that our financial system was based upon is now an illusion. We can't convert our money into gold --- only other currency. The entire underlying basis for our money is now a lie - a sham. The Federal Reserve has become so arrogant that they've become a literal MONEY MAKING MACHINE, creating currency out of thin air! So that's where the Fed gets their money - they literally make it, then

Lend it to us so they can make even MORE money off of it.

Nah, sudah mudeng atawa belum? So, WHY Tuan Tuan NGOTOT menyelisihi Sistem Ekonomi dan Keuangan Islam berdasarkan SYARI’AT ISLAM? Sungguh STUPID! Di manakah EMAS Fort Knox itu kini? Di Jerman dan Inggris, milik cucu ROTHSCHILD. Para raja minyak Timur Tengah menyimpan Petrodollar-nya di bank bank Barat termasuk Amrik; berhubung menikmati BUNGA deposito HARAM hukumnya (Protestan, Katolik, Islam -- kecuali Yahudi/Yudaisme – MENGHARAMKAN riba!), maka bunga deposito itu diambil para garong Zionis dan Kristen PALSU di atas!

Lanjutan artikel THE US ECONOMYIS IN BIG TROUBLE:

It doesn't take an expert to realize the eventual results of that. If we continue to spend more than we take in, the U.S. government is heading for an eventual collapse. In the beginning of our country, the only time it borrowed money was during time of war. This changed in the 1960's.

When John F. Kennedy was inaugurated as President, federal revenues and spending was less than $100 Billion per year. The deficit was $3 Billion per year. After 1963 when Kennedy was assassinated, President Johnson made some drastic changes in this country's economic policies. Johnson declared war on poverty, war on Viet Nam and began borrowing money to achieve these goals at record rates.

By 1981, Federal spending had increased to $500 Billion. By the time Ronald Reagan left office, federal spending was up to about $1 Trillion per year. Federal debt, which was $914 Billion in 1981, had increased to 2.8 Trillion in 1989. By the end of the Bush presidency, the debt was 4.2 Trillion.

The total federal debt today is around $6 Trillion (including off budget debt which with unfunded retirement liabilities is another $2.5 Trillion). Consumer debt was $794 Billion in 1990. Business debt was $700 Billion. Only 2 percent of Americans own their home. Banks now hold nearly $2 Trillion in first mortgages. In addition, they hold $80 Billion in home equity loans. The average household debt is 84 % of their income.

(Ketika saya masih di Amrik, tahun 1990 ada 30-an juta "homeless" di sana)

America owes (on-budget) 4 Trillion dollars. It must borrow 1 Billion, 100 Million dollars every day in order to maintain the pretense of prosperity. For a number of years, the U.S. has not only been using up its capital -- that's all gone now -- but it has also been using up its borrowing power. When its borrowing power is all gone; when no one like Japan, Germany, etc., will be willing to invest into the American economy, then that will be the "breaking point" -- and the breaking point is upon us. KIAMAT Amrik di depan hidung! Maka digelar kampanye Anti Teror dan versus Irak! Ini disebut "Escapism Policy", lari dari problim! Alihkan perhatian publik, ganyang Jema’ah Islamiah, ganyang Al-Qaeda!

Sori, belasan paragrap saya pangkas di sini, terakhir indikator sbb: "Kurangajar Yusuf!" ‘kali gitu Gubernur BI berujar, karena saya beberkan rahasia boss-nya di FEDERAL RESERVE.

Our economy is in grave danger of collapsing. It would be prudent to notice the indicators and heed the warning. The following chart demonstrates the parallels between the indicators in 1929 and what we see today:

PARALLELS 1929 - 1990's

1. (1929) Explosion of consumer installment debt
- (1990's) ditto

2. (1929) Mountain of mortgage debt
- (1990's) ditto

3. (1929) Giant business debt
- (1990's) ditto

4. (1929) Sharp drop in Corporation Liquidity
- (1990's) ditto

5. (1929) Shaky Banking system
- (1990's) ditto

6. (1929) Record Government Debt
- (1990's) ditto

7. (1929) Consumer optimism and complacency
- (1990's) ditto

8. (1929) Bull market since 1921
- (1990's) Bull market since 1982

9. (1929) Large amount of unsophisticated investors
- (1990's) ditto

10. (1929) Price to earnings ratio = 19
-- (1990's) Price to earnings ratio = 31

11. (1929) Dividend yield = 3%
-- (1990's) Dividend yield = 3%

12. (1929) Yield on long term Treasury Bond
--- 1920 = 7.8%
--- 1929 = 4.7%
-- (1990's) Yield on long term Treasury Bond
--- 1983 = 14%
--- 1993 = 6%

13. (1929) Fed began policy of "easy money" in 1924
-- (1990's) Fed began policy of "easy money" in 1989

14. (1929) Gluttony on commercial real estate
-- (1990's) ditto

15. (1929) Rising tide of trade protectionism
-- (i.e. Smoot Hawley Protective Tariff)
-- (1990's) Protective legislation introduced
-- (trade war with Japan)

16. (1929) Interests were high - then low -
--- when started back up, the banks failed.......
-- (1990's) interest rates have been low, and are
--- on their way back up.......

** Courtesy of JEREMIAH FILMS (P.O. Box 1710 - Hemet, CA 92546 - [800] 828-2290), this Free Report includes excerpts taken from their video "The Crash: The Coming Financial Collapse of America" --- Featured speakers include Ed Meese, former U.S. Attorney General; Bill Dannemeyer, U.S. Congressman; Larry Burkett, Author, "The Coming Economic Earthquake"; Chuck Missler, International Executive; Mark Richie, Commodity Trading Advisor; Grover Norquist, Economist, U.S. Chamber of Commerce; Robert Unger, Assoc. publisher, New York

Guardian; Emanual McLittle, Publisher Destiny Magazine **

To the best of our knowledge, the text on this page may be freely reproduced and distributed.

"Our forefathers would think it's time for a revolution. This is why they revolted in the first place. They revolted against much more mild oppression."

Rep. Ron Paul (anggota US House of Representatives)

Rep. Ron Paul says the text of the USA PATRIOT bill was not made available for review before the vote.

If the United States is at war against terrorism to preserve freedom, a new coalition of conservatives and liberals is asking, why is it doing so by wholesale abrogation of civil liberties?

They cite the Halloween-week passage of the antiterrorism bill - a new law that carries the almost preposterously gimmicky title: "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act" (USA PATRIOT Act).

Critics both left and right are saying it not only strips Americans of fundamental rights but does little or nothing to secure the nation from terrorist attacks.

Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, one of only three Republican lawmakers to buck the House leadership and the Bush administration to vote against this legislation, is outraged not only by what is contained in the antiterrorism bill but also by the effort to stigmatize opponents. Paul tells Insight:

"The insult is to call this a 'patriot bill' and suggest I'm not patriotic because I insisted upon finding out what is in it and voting no. I thought it was undermining the Constitution, so I didn't vote for it and therefore I'm somehow not a patriot. That's insulting."

Paul confirms rumors circulating in Washington that this sweeping new law, with serious implications for each and every American, was not made available to members of Congress for review before the vote. "It's my understanding the bill wasn't printed before the vote - at least I couldn't get it.

They played all kinds of games, kept the House in session all night, and it was a very complicated bill. Maybe a handful of staffers actually read it, but the bill definitely was not available to members before the vote." (Bush cs. mem-FAIT-A-COMPLI Konggres, indikasi I’TIKAD JAHAT)

And why would that be? "This is a very bad bill," explains Paul, "and I think the people who voted for it knew it and that's why they said, 'Well, we know it's bad, but we need it under these conditions.'" Meanwhile, efforts to obtain copies of the new law were stonewalled even by the committee that wrote it.

What is so bad about the new law? "Generally," says Paul, "the worst part of this so-called antiterrorism bill is the increased ability of the federal government to commit surveillance on all of us without proper search warrants." He is referring to Section 213 (Authority for Delaying Notice of the Execution of a Warrant), also known as the "sneak-and-peak" provision, which effectively allows police to avoid giving prior warning when searches of personal property are conducted.

Before the USA PATRIOT Act, the government had to obtain a warrant and give notice to the person whose property was to be searched. With one vote by Congress and the sweep of the president's pen, say critics, the right of every American fully to be protected under the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures was abrogated. (Klop dengan U.U. Darurat 1952 anti HAM !)

The Fourth Amendment states: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which is joining with conservatives as critics of the legislation, the rationale for the Fourth Amendment protection always has been to provide the person targeted for search with the opportunity to "point out irregularities in the warrant, such as the fact that the police may be at the wrong address or that the warrant is limited to a search of a stolen car, so the police have no authority to be looking into dresser drawers." Likely bad scenarios involving the midnight knock at the door are not hard to imagine. (Sitkon seperti inilah yang dialami Abu Ba’asyirvs. Polisi!)

Paul, a strict constructionist (see Picture Profile, Sept. 3), has a pretty good idea of what Americans may anticipate. "I don't like the sneak-and-peak provision because you have to ask yourself what happens if the person is home, doesn't know that law enforcement is coming to search his home, hasn't a clue as to who's coming in unannounced & and he shoots them. This law clearly authorizes illegal search and seizure, and anyone who thinks of this as antiterrorism needs to consider its application to every American citizen." (Polisi kita, seenak perutnya melakukan penggeledahan di rumah/toko/kendaraan!)

The only independent in the House, Rep. Bernie Sanders from Vermont, couldn't support the bill for similar reasons: "I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, and I'm concerned that voting for this legislation fundamentally violates that oath. And the contents of the legislation have not been subjected to serious hearings or searching examination."

Nadine Strossen, president of the ACLU and professor of law at New York University, tells Insight, "The sneak-and-peak provision is just one that will be challenged in the courts. We're not only talking about the sanctity of the home, but this includes searches of offices and other places. It is a violation of the Fourth Amendment and poses tremendous problems with due process. By not notifying someone about a search, they don't have the opportunity to raise a constitutional challenge to the search."

Even before the ink on the president's signature had dried, the FBI began to take advantage of the new search-and-seizure provisions. A handful of companies have reported visits from federal agents demanding private business records. (Dengan PERPU 2002, Polisi MENCULIK Abu Ba’asyir. FAKTA !)

C.L. "Butch" Otter (R-Idaho), another of the three GOP lawmakers who found the legislation unconstitutional, says he knew this provision would be a problem. "Section 215 authorizes the FBI to acquire any business records whatsoever by order of a secret U.S. court. The recipient of such a search order is forbidden from telling any person that he has received such a request. This is a violation of the First Amendment right to free speech and the Fourth Amendment protection of private property."

Rep. Otter says the new "PATRIOT law" gives federal agents unconstitutional police powers.

Otter added that "some of these provisions place more power in the hands of law enforcement than our Founding Fathers could have dreamt and severely compromises the civil liberties of law-abiding Americans. This bill, while crafted with good intentions, is rife with constitutional infringements I could not support."

Like most who actually have read and analyzed the new law, Strossen disagrees with several provisions not only because they appear to her to be unconstitutional but also because the sweeping changes it codifies have little or nothing to do with fighting terrorism. "There is no connection," insists Strossen, "between the Sept. 11 attacks and what is in this legislation.

Most of the provisions relate not just to terrorist crimes but to criminal activity generally. This happened, too, with the 1996 antiterrorism legislation where most of the surveillance laws have been used for drug enforcement, gambling and prostitution."

"I like to refer to this legislation," continues Strossen, "as the 'so-called antiterrorism law,' because on its face the provisions are written to deal with any crime, and the definition of terrorism under the new law is so severely broad that it applies far beyond what most people think of as terrorism."

A similar propensity of governments to slide down the slippery slope recently was reported in England by The Guardian newspaper. Under a law passed last year by the British Parliament, investigators can get information from Internet-service providers about their subscribers without a warrant. Supposedly an antiterrorist measure, the British law will be applied to minor crimes, tax collection and public-health purposes.

Under the USA PATRIOT Act in this country, Section 802 defines domestic terrorism as engaging in "activity that involves acts dangerous to human life that violate the laws of the United States or any state and appear to be intended: (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping." (Jadi DEMOpun dipasung!)

The ACLU has posted on its Website, www.aclu.org, a comprehensive list of the provisions and summarizes the increased powers for federal spying. The following are a sample of some of the changes as a result of the so-called USA PATRIOT Act.

The legislation: * minimizes judicial supervision of federal telephone and Internet surveillance by law-enforcement authorities. * expands the ability of the government to conduct secret searches. * gives the attorney general and the secretary of state the power to designate domestic groups as terrorist organizations and deport any noncitizen who belongs to them. * grants the FBI broad access to sensitive business records about individuals without having to show evidence of a crime. * leads to large-scale investigations of American citizens for "intelligence" purposes.

More specifically, Section 203 (Authority to Share Criminal Investigative Information) allows information gathered in criminal proceedings to be shared with intelligence agencies, including but not limited to the CIA in effect, say critics, creating a political secret police. No court order is necessary for law enforcement to provide untested information gleaned from otherwise secret grand-jury proceedings, and the information is not limited to the person being investigated.

Furthermore, this section allows law enforcement to share intercepted telephone and Internet conversations with intelligence agencies. No court order is necessary to authorize the sharing of this information, and the CIA is not prohibited from giving this information to foreign-intelligence operations in effect, say critics, creating an international political secret police.

According to Strossen, "The concern here is about the third branch of government. One of the overarching problems that pervades so many of these provisions is reduction of the role of judicial oversight. The executive branch is running roughshod over both of the other branches of government. I find it very bothersome that the government is going to have more widespread access to e-mail and Websites and that information can be shared with other law-enforcement and even intelligence agencies.

So, again, we're going to have the CIA in the business of spying on Americans something that certainly hasn't gone on since the 1970s." Strossen is referring to the illegal investigations of thousands of Americans under Operation CHAOS, spying carried out by the CIA and National Security Agency against U.S. activists and opponents of the war in Southeast Asia.

Nor do the invasion-of-privacy provisions of the new law end with law enforcement illegally searching homes and offices, say critics. Under Section 216 of the USA PATRIOT Act (Modification of Authorities Relating to Use of Pen Registers and Trap and Trace Devices), investigators freely can obtain access to "dialing, routing and signaling information."

While the bill provides no definition of "dialing, routing and signaling information," the ACLU says this means they even would "apply law-enforcement efforts to determine what Websites a person visits." The police need only certify the information they are in search of is "relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation." This does not meet probable-cause standards that a crime has occurred, is occurring or will occur.

Furthermore, regardless of whether a judge believes the request is without merit, the order must be given to the requesting law-enforcement agency, a veritable rubber stamp and potential carte blanche for fishing exhibitions.

Additionally, under Section 216, law enforcement now will have unbridled access to Internet communications. The contents of e-mail messages are supposed to be separated from the e-mail addresses, which presumably is what interests law enforcement. To conduct this process of separation, however, Congress is relying on the FBI to separate the content from the addresses and disregard the communications.

In other words, the presumption is that law enforcement is only interested in who is being communicated with and not what is said, which critics say is unlikely. Citing political implications they note this is the same FBI that during the Clinton administration could not adequately explain how hundreds of personal FBI files of Clinton political opponents found their way from the FBI to the Clinton White House.

And these are just a few of the provisions and problems. While critics doubt it will help in the tracking of would-be terrorists, the certainty is that homes and places of business will be searched without prior notice. And telephone and Internet communications will be recorded and shared among law-enforcement and intelligence agencies, all in the name of making America safe from terrorism.

Strossen understands the desire of lawmakers to respond forcefully to the Sept. 11 attacks but complains that this is more of the same old same old. "Government has the tendency," she explains, "to want to proliferate during times of crisis, and that's why we have to constantly fight against it.

It's a natural impulse and, in many ways, I don't fault it. In some ways they're just doing their job by aggressively seeking as much law-enforcement power as possible, but that's why we have checks and balances in our system of government, and that's why I'm upset that Congress just rolled and played dead on this one."

Paul agrees: "This legislation wouldn't have made any difference in stopping the Sept. 11 attacks," he says. "Therefore, giving up our freedoms to get more security when they can't prove it will do so makes no sense. I seriously believe this is a violation of our liberties. After all, a lot of this stuff in the bill has to do with finances, search warrants and arrests."

For the most part, continues Paul, "our rights have been eroded as much by our courts as they have been by Congress. Whether it's Congress being willing to give up its prerogatives on just about everything to deliver them to an administration that develops new and bigger agencies, or whether it's the courts, there's not enough wariness of the slippery slope and insufficient respect and love of liberty."

What does Paul believe the nation's Founding Fathers would think of this law? "Our forefathers would think it's time for a revolution. This is why they revolted in the first place." Says Paul with a laugh, "They revolted against much more mild oppression."

Kelly Patricia O'Meara is an investigative reporter for Insight Magazine