|Dr. James David Manning has been one of the most outspoken Pastors regarding the Obama being ineligible to be our President and the truth about our private Federal Reserve.|
He is now under threat of being arrested, imprisoned and has had many threats on his life. Recently the CIA, DHS and local Police have questioned him and put him under investigation for daring to not be deterred from his right to tell the American people the truth.
It is the time for all good men to come to the aid of our country.
In Liberty, Freedom and Faith,
November 19, 2009
From: FBTalk <email@example.com>
Date: Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 8:07 PM
Subject: Re: E-mail Frank Beckmann ENTRY
To: "R. George Dunn" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
George.....You heard correctly....This administration has continually ignored the constitution (see Chrysler and GM bankruptcies for perfect examples)....FB
On Nov 18, 2009, at 6:10 PM, <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Originated from: http://www.wjr.net/Sectional.asp?id=6552
> First Name: R. George
> Last Name: Dunn
> E-mail: email@example.com
> 1. Your Message
> ANSWER: Frank, I seen no podcast for this interview with the banker. please read thru to understand the depth of what I heard.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: R George Dunn
> To: Mike Goschka ; Glenn Beck ; Saulius "Saul" Anuzis ; Jack Hoogendyk
> Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 5:50 PM
> Subject: Are Michigan Banks being looted?
> This is serious if true.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: R. George Dunn
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 4:07 PM
> Subject: [SPAM] [Northern Light] Are Michigan Banks being looted?
> Listened to Detroit's Frank Beckmann on WJR 760 AM, 11/18/09 :
> The CEO of a Closed Michigan Community Bank in Warren told the story of how in Michigan all the Michigan oriented community Banks were being manipulated by the Federal Government in order for multi-national banks to buy up assets and use them anywhere in the world to make a profit, while shorting the State of Michigan of needed capital to thrive.
> Here is what he said happened. The Federal came in with an audit finding a need to move assets from capital use to Reserves. Due to the fall of property values, the assets of the bank did not fit the required more reserve for balance. So the bank did so. Then comes another inspection on the balance finding that the capital assets of the bank and the loans given do not comply with law. The Bank CEO told them that we have moved it to the reserve! The answer was 'that does not matter'. The Federal Government closed the bank and sold the tangible assets.
> The Constitution does not limit the power of a State regarding intra-banking nor give the Federal government authority beyond inter-state needs. I suggest Michigan put a limit on this removal of assets for commercial gain caused, via Federal powers over-extended, by edicting the action of the Federal Government as "null and void. Request recent closed banks be reviewed for re-establishing closed banks.
> Is there an inspector General operating today or are they all afraid based on how the first Inspector stood and got ran over. Where is he today?
> R. George Dunn
> If the Government took the assets from our banks and gave them to foreign investors for collateral, would that mean we would lose all our sovereignty in default?
> Posted By R. George Dunn to Northern Light at 11/18/2009 04:07:00 PM
If everyone knew all there is to know, they would not do half the things they do, including myself, therefore I must foregive them, including myself.
Everywhere you look, corruption:
Economists opposing Fed audit bill have undisclosed Fed ties
Submitted by cpowell on 06:49PM ET Wednesday, November 18, 2009.
Section: Daily Dispatches By Ryan Grim
Huffington Post, New York
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
As the debate over an audit of the Federal Reserve intensifies in the House, one camp is trotting out eight academics it calls a "political cross-section of prominent economists."A review of their backgrounds shows they are anything but.In a letter to the House Financial Services Committee earlier this month, all eight wrote that they support the type of amendment now being introduced by Rep. Mel Watt, D-N.C. Watt's approach purports to increase Fed transparency while it actually would tighten restrictions on any audits.The letter was sent around Wednesday by Watt's staff to members of the committee in advance of a vote scheduled for Thursday.Watt's measure is in competition with an amendment cosponsored by Reps. Ron Paul, R-Texas, and Alan Grayson, D-Fla., that would repeal the restrictions that Watt leaves in place.But far from a broad cross-section, the "prominent economists" lobbying on behalf of the Watt bill are in fact deeply involved with the Federal Reserve. Seven of the eight are either currently on the Fed's payroll or have been in the past.The Fed connections are not outlined in the letter sent around to committee members on Wednesday, but are publicly discernible through a review of their resumes, which are all posted online.In September, Huffington Post reported that the Federal Reserve has accomplished a soft form of effective control over the field of monetary economics simply by employing -- and being the means for career advance -- for an overwhelming proportion of the discipline.Now that the Fed is locked in a legislative battle on the Hill, it can call on those economists to give their "unvarnished" opinions to lawmakers.The connections that the seven economists lobbying Congress have to the Fed are not incidental and four of them maintain current positions.Let's run the traps:Frederic Mishkin is a former board member, having served from 2006-2008. His career at the Fed stretches back to 1977 and he currently holds two positions: one as a member of the Center for Latin American Economics at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, where he's been since 1996; and another as an academic consultant to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, where he's been since 1997.Anil K. Kashyap is currently a consultant with the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, a position he's held since 1991. He's also on the economic advisory panel of the New York branch and was a consultant there in 2003. He was a visiting scholar at the division of monetary affairs at the Board of Governors of in1994, 2001 and 2005 and at the division of international finance in 1997.Pete Klenow was a visiting scholar at the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis from 1994-1999, 2003-2004, 2006 and again this year. From 2000-2003 he was also a senior economist at that branch. He's currently a visiting scholar at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, a position he's held since 2005. He was a visiting scholar at the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City from 2004-2006.Ricardo J. Caballero was a visiting scholar at Federal Reserve Bank of Boston from 2004-2005 and a visiting scholar at the Federal Reserve Board on multiple occasions.Robert Hall was a research assistant at the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System from 1982-1984 and an economist there from 1988-1991.Thomas Sargent was an adviser to the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis from 1981 to 1987 and continues to write frequently for Fed-sponsored journals.Micheal Woodford is on the Monetary Policy Advisory Committee of Federal Reserve Bank of New York, a position he's held since 2004. He's also listed as a consultant to the research department there dating back to 2005. In the past, he's been a visiting scholar at the Board of Governors and various regional branches in 1987, 1993-1998 and 2000-present, often at multiple banks in the same year.Economists with Fed connections strongly reject the notion that being paid by the bank influences their thinking. But Robert Auerbach, who spent years investigating the institution and is the author of "Deception and Abuse at the Fed," says that those economists are simply in denial. "If you're on the Fed payroll, there's a conflict of interest," says Auerbach.The tie between the economists backing Watt's amendment and the Fed doesn't by itself mean that it's bad policy, but it does make clear which amendment is favored by the Federal Reserve. If there's still any doubt, the e-mail from Watt staff notes that former Fed chairs Alan Greenspan and Paul Volcker also support a version of it.Meanwhile, a broad coalition of liberal organizations is lining up behind the Paul-Grayson amendment, which also has the backing of most Republicans on the committee.The AFL-CIO and other labor groups, as well as Americans for Financial Reform signed on to a letter posted Wednesday calling for committee members to back the Paul-Grayson approach."In creating the Federal Reserve nearly 100 years ago, the Congress envisioned a central bank free from political pressure. But the structure that may have once ensured independence now appears to put the Fed much closer to the financial industry than the American people, who deserve to know who the beneficiaries are," reads the letter.The Fed, in other words, is not independent of political pressure, but that pressure comes from Wall Street banks rather than from the American people through their elected representatives.It's a distinction that the note from Watt's staff on Wednesday subtly acknowledges, by focusing on legislative and executive branch pressure, rather than financial industry influence. The Paul-Grayson amendment, it warns, "would place the United States well outside of the mainstream of industrialized nations that shield their central banks from political interference by the Legislative and Executive branches of government, with potentially disastrous results to the U.S. economy."
-----Ryan Grim is senior congressional correspondent for the Huffington Post.
WWP Strategies | 66 Canal Center Plaza | Suite 555 | Alexandria | VA | 22314
I put FairTax into our VAT, which Michigan has and recognized part of the cashflow problem is property taxes. We need jobs, not more tax and this service tax coming is just that, slight of hand, but more out of our cashflow. Hope you can find value in what the FairTax does for jobs and our State's' welfare. Reality can be cold and dark when Good Men do Nothing~
This Bank story ended up buried, not on Frank Beckmann's podcast log. I believe the banker is Chairman of the Gaming Commission. Maybe you should run for Governor.
From: Sen. Cameron S. BrownSent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 5:17 PMSubject: It's time to end "Pay to Play" campaigning!
Having trouble viewing Cameron's email? Click here
Dear R. GEORGE,
Defending the principle of "one person, one vote" will be my top priority if privileged to serve as Michigan's next Secretary of State. In fact, I'm not waiting until 2010 or beyond to protect the integrity of our elections, which are under increasing attack from groups like ACORN who wish to compromise them.
In recent weeks and months, I've introduced bills that will strengthen Michigan's election laws and strongly punish those who violate them. I've advanced legislation to help put an end to ACORN's submission of fraudulent voter registration applications, and to put real teeth in laws forbidding such groups from paying people to vote for certain candidates or political parties.
This week, I announced the submission of Senate Bill 984, which will address unethical election practices brought to light in the recent Detroit City Council elections. The Detroit News detailed a long standing but rarely discussed practice in which local candidates must pay community organizations, unions and other groups as much as $5,000 in exchange for endorsements.
This "pay to play" system means critical campaign endorsements are awarded to candidates not on the basis of their qualifications for the job, but on the size of their pocketbooks. This is unethical and it should be illegal. Instead, it has become the norm in Detroit politics over the years, even though the Detroit News says such practices are "virtually unheard of in U.S. politics."
Michigan voters must be able to trust that endorsements from respected organizations are awarded based on merit, just like they must be able to trust that groups like ACORN are not unfairly impacting our elections. Again, I'm not waiting until 2010 or beyond to address such critical issues - I'm tackling them now, and my efforts will continue along the path to becoming your next Secretary of State.If you agree that defending the principle of "one person, one vote" and protecting the integrity of our elections should be our next Secretary of State's top priority, I welcome your support of my campaign.
Sincerely,CAMERON S. BROWNState SenatorRepublican Secretary of State Candidate
About Sen. Cameron Brown Sen. Cameron S. Brown is a candidate for the Republican nomination for Secretary of State.
Currently serving in his second term, Sen. Brown and his wife Helen live in the farmhouse built by his great-great grandparents near Sturgis.
During his time in the legislature, Sen. Brown has earned a reputation as a principled conservative willing to take tough stands on issues that reflect his Republican values.
To learn more about Sen. Brown and his campaign, visit www.cameronsbrown.com.
Hope you can find value in what the FairTax does for jobs and our State's' welfare. Reality can be cold and dark when Good Men do Nothing~
This email was sent to email@example.com by firstname.lastname@example.org. Paid for by Cameron Brown for Secretary of State Committee | 201 Townsend Street, Suite 900 | Lansing | MI | 48933