The problem with capitalism is the same thing that is touted as its virtue. Namely, one of capitalism’s animating doctrines is that a worker can work hard and make more money as time goes on, and this is how the worker will “get ahead.”
But the flip side of that doctrine is that everyone—including the worker himself—is trying to take as much of everyone else’s money as possible. That’s the “profit motive” in action. We are taught to think that the profit motive is good, because from each individual’s perspective, it is a positive thing to think that an individual can do some kind of work and profit from said work. But what is almost never alluded to by champions of the profit motive is that everyone is expected to seek profit from everyone else, which has a cancelling-out effect on any one individual’s attempt to generate profits.
For example, an enterprising young person is told that he can make $10 for cutting a lawn. Then he can use that money to eventually buy a car or whatever. Meanwhile, though, that enterprising young person is in turn being profited FROM by the gas station, the mower salesperson, the taxman, etc. And that multiplies out exponentially across the entire economy—people constantly trying to, and being expected to, profit on their endeavors while others are simultaneously doing the same TO them while each side of the equation sees itself as a standalone integer and not subject to the equation.
This inevitably leads people to having to resort to borrowing, whether they are individuals or large corporations. EVERYONE in capitalism HAS to borrow eventually BECAUSE of this profit-cancelling effect of everyone having to profit from everyone else. And this is how the banks took over—because banks are allowed to create money from nothing. The banks ARE the standalone integers not subject to the equation. So capitalism could and should be more aptly called “bank-ism.”
Indeed, it’s a perfect situation for the banks–everyone fighting for the most imaginary pieces of paper that the banks can create independent of any other variable.
So I was watching the above video with Steve Mnuchin and Maria Bartiromo because of its title: “Mnuchin on Fannie And Freddie Funds Used to Pay for ObamaCare: It’s True”. Bartiromo mentions in passing that a bill was being considered to make Fannie and Freddie comply with the Freedom of Information Act, which I had not heard about. Sure enough, she was right, and it turns out that the bill—H.R. 1694, Fannie and Freddie Open Records Act of 2017 (click to read the text of the bill)—has passed the House and been sent to the Senate!
This is great news for those of us who, like me, were fighting against foreclosure and other mortgage shenanigans and tried to get FOIA info out of Fannie and/or Freddie but were told that Fannie and Freddie were private companies, even though they had been taken into conservatorship by the Federal Housing Finance Agency and been given billions in bailout money ($187 billion—largest bailout in history), making them effectively part of the government. Indeed, in the Fox News video above, Bartiromo even mentions that Mnuchin thinks that Fannie and Freddie “need to be privatized” (approx. 4:00 in the video). To hear Fannie and Freddie tell it, they have always been private. That’s what they told me back in 2010:
“Fannie Mae is a private company whose documents are not subject to the FOIA…The purpose of the FOIA is to open the actions of government agencies to public scrutiny, not to reveal the inner workings of private entities. The FHFA’s temporary role as conservator of Fannie Mae does not transform the business records of this private company into ‘agency records’ subject to the FOIA.”
And here’s the copy of the letter they sent me:
The plot thickens, does it not? The Republicans want to attack Obama and Obamacare and now suddenly want to use the diversion of Fannie and Freddie funds as a cudgel to beat Obamacare to death. And this Fannie and Freddie Open Records Act will help them wield that cudgel. What they may not realize is that they’ll be opening a Pandora’s Box of Fannie fraud when those of us who know that FANNIE MAE, BY ITS OWN ADMISSION, OWNS NOTHING (same goes for Freddie) will use this law (fingers crossed) to get the info we sought back in the thick of the foreclosure crisis! And then nail Fannie and Freddie to the wall–because as the logo parody at the top of the page suggests, Fannie “Mae” not own your mortgage and never did!
I was informed last night that Barbara Bratton—who sued U.S. Bank in 2012 over the foreclosure of her home in Ontario, California–was recently convicted on 6 counts of real estate fraud and now faces up to 6 years in prison. From Highland Community News:
SAN BERNARDINO, Calif. – On April 14, a San Bernardino County jury returned a verdict of guilty on 6 counts of real estate fraud against 58-year-old Barbara Rae Bratton of Upland. Bratton was taken into custody immediately following the guilty finding.
In May 2013, the Ontario Police Department investigated Bratton on suspicion of filing two false grant deeds with the San Bernardino County Recorder’s Office on a house in the 900 block of Locust Street in Ontario. The false deeds were filed a month earlier by Bratton in a fraudulent attempt to take possession of a house she once owned and had lost to foreclosure.
According to District Attorney Sr. Investigation John Vega, who was assigned to the case, the house had been sold to new buyers who then purchased it legally.
“Ms. Bratton owned the house at one time, but had not made a mortgage payment on it for approximately four years resulting in the foreclosure, and two evictions, to finally remove her from the property,” Sr. Investigator Vega said.
Bratton argued in court that the house still belonged to her in spite of years of not making payments on the property. She continuously cited flawed legal theories that some people use to not pay home loans.
What this story refers to as “flawed legal theories” is what reasonable people with correctly calibrated bullshit detectors call “bank fraud.” That is to say, banks routinely and as a matter of course do what Barbara Bratton is purported to have done, i.e., file false documents in county land records. But not one banker has ever gone to jail for doing so. Not one.
Some would say it’s just a loony conspiracy theory that banks do that. Those same people would say that Bratton was a tin-foil-hatter, a “sovereign citizen” who thought everyone was out to get her and she was trying to get something for nothing, apparently the worst crime that can ever be committed.
Except it’s not a conspiracy theory that banks falsify documents—it’s a conspiracy fact. For example, here’s a story from 2014 that undeniably proves just that:
This kind of manufacturing of evidence happens all the time, it’s just that usually, hard evidence of this criminal behavior is hard to come by. However, Wiley got undeniable proof of it this time. He got his hands on a Nationstar (who used to call themselves “Aurora”) internal memo which said this:
So the Feeneys were right–there was no assignment that gave Aurora/Nationstar the right to do anything. SO THEY (AURORA/NATIONSTAR) MADE ONE UP, BACKDATED IT, AND GOT A NOTARY TO SIGN OFF ON IT! And then filed it in the land records of Greene County, Missouri!
And of course, let’s not forget about Lorraine Brown of DocX, who was found guilty of falsifying over a million documents and then filing them in the land records of counties all across the country. She of course was not an employee of a bank, but the documents she falsified were produced on behalf of banks! She and DocX were the patsies for the criminality of the banks.
Hell, just yesterday, Living Lies published an article in which bank employees and mortgage servicing employees emailed each other back and forth about how best to falsify necessary documents to foreclose on a woman who is currently in such fragile health from a battle with cancer that some fear that her imminent eviction as a result of this falsification could literally kill her:
October 27, 2008
From: Michael Barnett
To: Diane Meistad
Subject: RE: Default Assignment Request loan (Fauley, Robynne)
Okay Diane, I had my manager look at this file with me and we have determined that we need the following assignments to correct the chain of assignments:
1) Corrective Assignment from WAMU TO Deutsche Bank (to correct the assignment from RFC to WAMU, which was recorded in error) & Note Allonge
2) Assignment from Deutsche Bank to RFC & Note Allonge
3) Assignment from RFC to LNV Corp (Note allonge in file already)
The assignment from RFC to WAMU was recorded in error so it is not needed. We also have 2 endorsements on the original Note WAMU to RFC to Deutsche Bank which should be cancelled, to correct the Endorsement chain on the Note. We will just need the okay from you via email to cancel these endorsements. Will this work for you? Thanks Michael.
[NOTE: MGC has decided what was done right and wrong in prior transactions for which it has no knowledge, and what now needs to be done in its own best interest to steal and harvest the home. The transfers to and from WAMU as described above would be fraud due to WAMU being defunct. Then there is the request to have RFC cancel out the endorsements and replace with allonges. The third request in the sequence states that an allonge is already in the file from RFC to LNV Corp even though there are no assignments, yet, to support that allonge. That allonge created by MGC is fraudulent, and represents yet another broken sequence in the chain of title.]
Four days after this last email on October 27, 2008, the following two attached assignments are recorded simultaneously in Clackamas County, Oregon (Recorded Assignments – October 31 2008 – Fauley). The first assignment (and I call it the “first” because of its fraudulently back-dated) is executed on “March 10, 2008″ and notarized as such by “Diane Meistad” – Notary Public – State of Minnesota.” The assignor is “Residential Funding Company, LLC fka Residential Funding Corporation” with no Assignee named. NO ASSIGNEE! However, the second assignment is executed on October 27, 2008 with the Assignor named as “Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas (formerly known as Bankers Trust Company) and the Assignee – “Residential Funding Company, LLC.” This assignment is also notarized by “Diane Meistad.” As admitted by Meistad above, RFC was not in title position to transfer the asset as of October 27, 2008. Yet, she acquiesced to MGC’s fraudulent conspiracy to forge, fabricate, and alter documents.
So, Diane Meistad, Michael Barnett, and all the rest of you who where involved in this deceit, this one’s on you. You are the only ones who can put a stop to this injustice. Robynne Fauley, who is elderly and very sick, has suffered immensely from your actions. In six-days she is scheduled to be evicted from her home. Fix this!
We can clearly see then, that the cops and the courts shouldn’t be going after Barbara Bratton or others like her. They should be going after the banks, as Trump might say, “big league.” Because Bratton was right—the bank did steal her home, as they have literally millions of others. As I wrote about Bratton and her case back in 2013:
I want to be clear that I am in no way arguing that because U.S. Bank may be a “paper terrorist,” then that means that Barbara Bratton is a paper terrorist–I believe the exact opposite is true. Indeed, the truth is the ultimate defense. So the truth needs to be determined, namely: who is entitled to the house, Bratton or U.S. Bank? As the consent order with U.S. Bank makes abundantly clear, along with the general fact pattern of the ongoing foreclosure crisis, there is more than enough evidence to come down in favor of Bratton. So if Bratton is in fact the true owner of her property, then that necessarily means the following: the documents she filed are not forgeries but the documents that U.S. Bank filed are forgeries, and should be treated as such.
Throwing Barbara Bratton in jail does not fix the problem of real estate fraud, because the banks are still running wild and free and commit fraud on a scale that is orders of magnitude larger than anything Bratton or any private citizen like her could ever dream of committing. Her sentence is itself just more fraud. God help us. And God help Kimi Vandyk, who sources say is apparently now in a similar situation in the Santa Barbara area.
As this great article from The AntiMedia points out, North Korea is not in any way a threat to the United States:
In what universe does it make sense that Kim Jong-un would think attacking an “enemy” in the region would be beneficial? On Monday, Anti-Media reported on the fact that former Pentagon chief William Perry told CNN in November that North Korea would never strike first because, very simply, Kim doesn’t want to die.
“I do not believe the North Korean regime is suicidal,” he said. “Therefore, I don’t believe they’re going to launch an unprovoked nuclear attack on anyone.”
That’s because Kim has certainly applied to the situation what the mainstream narrative would like you to discard — common sense. With just a dash of it, any logical being can look at the events unfolding and see that North Korea poses no threat, to any surrounding nation, period.
The article goes on to point out that what the U.S. is really doing is setting its sights on China:
China, incidentally, reportedly just deployed 150,000 troops to its border with North Korea. Much like Japan, the reason given was preparation. Preparation for war was the message between the words.
But it wouldn’t be war with North Korea. That tiny strip of land is merely the buffer between two military juggernauts, the United States and China. That’s World War III, friends, and it has nothing to do with Kim Jong-un.
While Kim may not be a threat to the U.S., is he a threat to U.S. allies South Korea or Japan? Much more so than the U.S., certainly, but Kim is not an idiot. He knows that any first strike he launches will be his last AND gives the U.S. its desired casus belli. THAT’S the real threat–that S. Korea or Japan will be hit be some missiles and we will be told that Kim did it, and it will be untrue. Remember the Gulf of Tonkin—the second attack of August 4, 1964 did not happen, even though it was the second attack that was used to pass the Tonkin Gulf Resolution that resulted in the escalation of the disastrous war in Vietnam. We should be very wary of a similar situation happening now, especially in light of the very real questions over the intelligence regarding the alleged gas attack by Assad that led to the cruise missile attack on a Syrian airfield earlier this month.
A comment from a Facebook friend completely nails the inexplicable controversy over whether David Dao, the doctor with a checkered professional past, should’ve been dragged off United 3411 or not:
“You can not defend personal freedom and defend what is essentially a “hidden” contract. A reasonable person would not read all the fine print and has a right to expect the service they pay for. Those that keep on with this carriage contract and obey orders nonsense are a perfect example of why totalitarianism works.”
This article explains why the “comply” crowd is completely misreading the situation, as it point out two things:
1) even the United CEO now says that Dao shouldn’t have been removed and wasn’t at fault:
“He can’t be. He was a paying passenger sitting on our seat in our aircraft, and no one should be treated like that. Period.”
2) Dao originally agreed to get off the plane when they asked for volunteers, but when he agreed, he apparently was not told or did not understand that the flight they were offering him was not until the next day and when he realized that, he changed his mind. So Dao clearly was not unreasonable or even unjustified in arguing that he should be able to keep his seat.
Predictably and understandably, Dao has already hired lawyers to sue United. Seems like a gimme for Dao, but corporate propaganda has a way of getting a hold on some people’s minds, even if—nay, especially if—some of those people happen to be judges. More than likely, there will be an undisclosed settlement. But we shall see…
Anarchists have apparently decided that fixing potholes themselves is better than waiting for the city of Portland, Oregon to do it. This is music to many people’s ears, mine included, and for me that’s because it confirms one of my arguments in favor of what I have come to call “self-issued currency” about which I have of course written many times. I have not published much about this particular argument here on Liberty Road Media, but I have written about it in my forthcoming book on the subject, and this story of pothole-fixing anarchists provides the perfect opportunity to air this argument/theory publicly.
The purpose of this argument is to counter those detractors of the self-issued currency idea who typically will ask something along the lines of “If every individual can create the national currency in unlimited amounts, what will be the incentive for them to work, particularly at unpleasant or difficult—but necessary—tasks?”
In Portland, as we can see, simply being able to drive on smooth public roads is incentive and compensation enough to motivate these anarchists This is but one example of how society could work going forward in a system of self-issued currency, in which profit is not measured in dollars and cents, but is measured in actual profit of being able to live in a well-functioning, cooperative society. Believe it or not, there are people who like patching potholes, plumbing, math, housework, picking up trash, mending fences, digging ditches, and insert-unpleasant-task-here. In a society of self-issued currency, the incentive to get these things done will be to get these things done, not to be paid a salary of imaginary, arbitrary government chits whose only real value is to pay the taxman and to control the wage slaves.