Stock Market Crash Expected In 2008 To Be Worse Than 1929

[Soldier4Christ]

Are feds stockpiling survival food?
'These circumstances certainly raise red flags'

A Wall Street Journal columnist has advised people to "start stockpiling food" and an ABC News Report says "there are worrying signs appearing in the United States where some … locals are beginning to hoard supplies." Now there's concern that the U.S. government may be competing with consumers for stocks of storable food.

"We're told that the feds bought the entire container of canned butter when it hit the California docks. (Something's up!)," said officials at Best Prices Storable Foods in an advisory to customers.

Spokesman Bruce Hopkins told WND he also has had trouble obtaining No. 10 cans of various products from one of the world's larger suppliers of food stores, Oregon Freeze Dry.

He said a company official told him on the telephone when he discussed the status of his order that it was because the government had purchased massive quantities of products, leaving none for other customers.

That, however, was denied by Oregon Freeze Dry. In a website statement, the company confirmed it cannot assure supplying some items to customers.

"We regret to inform you Oregon Freeze Dry cannot satisfy all Mountain House #10 can orders and we have removed #10 cans from our website temporarily," the company tells frustrated customers. "The reason for this is sales of #10 cans have continued to increase. OFD is allocating as much production capacity as possible to this market segment, but we must maintain capacity for our other market segments as well."

The company statement continues, "We want to clarify inaccurate information we’ve seen on the Internet. This situation is not due to sales to the government domestically or in Iraq. We do sell products to this market, but we also sell other market segments … The reason for this decision is solely due to an unprecedented sales spike in #10 cans sales.

"We expect this situation to be necessary for several months although this isn’t a guarantee. We will update this information as soon as we know more. We apologize for this inconvenience and appreciate your patience. We sincerely hope you will continue to be Mountain House customers in the future," the company statement said.

But Hopkins wasn't backing away from his concerns.

"The government just came in and said they're buying it. They did pay for it," he told WND about the summertime shipment of long-term storage butter. "They took it and no one else could have it.

"We don't know why. The feds then went to freeze dried companies, and bought most of their canned stock," he said.

A spokeswoman for Oregon Freeze Dry, sales manager Melanie Cornutt, told WND that the increasing demand for food that can be stored has been on the rise since Hurricane Katrina devastated large sections of the Gulf Coast, cutting off ordinary supply routes.

"We are currently out of stock on our cans. We are not selling any of our cans," she confirmed.

She then raised the issue of government purchases herself.

"We do sell to the government [but] it is not the reason [for company sales limits]," she said.

Officials with the Federal Emergency Management Agency told WND whatever government agency is buying in a surge it isn't them. They reported a stockpile of about six million meals which has not changed significantly in an extended period.

But Hopkins said it was his opinion the government is purchasing huge quantities of food for stockpiles, and Americans will have to surmise why.

"We don't have shelters that [are being] stocked with food. We're not doing this for the public. My only conclusion is that they're stocking up for themselves," he said of government officials.

Blogger Holly Deyo issued an alert this week announcing, "Unprecedented demand cleans out major storable food supplier through 2009."

"It came to our attention today, that the world's largest producer of storable foods, Mountain House, is currently out of stock of ALL #10 cans of freeze dried foods, not just the Turkey Tetrazzini. They will NOT have product now through 2009," she said.

"This information was learned by a Mountain House dealer who shared it with me this morning. In personally talking with the company immediately after, Mountain House verified the information is true. Customer service stated, 'I'm surprised they don't have this posted on the website yet.' She said they have such a backlog of orders, Mountain House will not be taking any #10 can food requests through the remainder of this year and all of the next.

"Mountain House claims this situation is due to a backlog of orders, which may very well be true, but who is purchasing all of their food? This is a massive global corporation.

"One idea: the military. Tensions are ramping up with Iran and news segments debate whether or not we will implement a preemptive strike in conjunction with Israel," she wrote.

Hopkins raised some of the same concerns, suggesting a military conflict could cause oil supplies to plummet, triggering a huge increase in the cost of food – when it would be available – because of the transportation issues.

The ABC report from just a few weeks ago quoted Jim Rawles, a former U.S. intelligence officer who runs a survival blog, saying food shortages soon could become a matter of survival in the U.S.

"I think that families should be prepared for times of crisis, whether it's a man-made disaster or a natural disaster, and I think it's wise and prudent to stock up on food," he told ABC.

"If you get into a situation where fuel supplies are disrupted or even if the power grid were to go down for short periods of time, people can work around that," he said. "But you can't work around a lack of food – people starve, people panic and you end up with chaos in the streets."

At his California ranch, the location of which is kept secret, he said, "We have more than a three-year supply of food here."

In the Wall Street Journal, columnist Brett Arends warned, "Maybe it's time for Americans to start stockpiling food.

"No, this is not a drill," he wrote.

His concern was about various food shortages around the globe, and the fact that in a global market, prices in the U.S. reflect difficulties in other parts of the world quickly.

Professor Lawrence F. Roberge, a biologist who has worked with a number of universities and has taught online courses, told WND he's been following the growing concern over food supplies.

He also confirmed to WND reports of the government purchasing vast quantities of long-term storable foods.

He said that naturally would be kept secret to avoid panicking the public, such as when word leaks out to customers that a bank may be insolvent, and depositors frantically try to retrieve their cash.

"[These] circumstances certainly raise red flags," he said.

[Soldier4Christ]

Senate GOP hands Dems oil ultimatum
Would block other bills if refuse to vote on expanding offshore drilling

Senate Republicans have threatened to block nearly all other bills pending before the August recess if Democrats refuse to vote with them on expanding offshore drilling.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said bills that do not pertain to energy can wait until after the August recess, with gas prices now surpassing $4 per gallon. McConnell and top Republicans indicated Wednesday they would oppose any procedural votes to take up other legislation, which require 60 votes to succeed.

“We think there is nothing more important that we can do right now than to deal with the Number One issue of the country,” McConnell said. “This is the biggest issue since terrorism right after 9/11. People are pounding on their desks, saying, Why don’t these people get together and do something about this problem?”

The hardball tactics reflect Republican confidence that they can pull off a major election-year victory with gas prices at record highs, after they have been battered at the polls and have lost on several recent high-profile legislative battles.

Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) planned for the Senate this week to pass a bill targeting market speculation on oil futures, which both sides blame for playing a role in driving up gasoline prices.

Following swift Senate action on the narrow energy bill, Reid wanted the Senate to approve a massive defense authorization bill, an overhaul of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, legislation to protect reporters’ sources, an extension of expiring energy tax incentives, and a major package of 33 bills held up by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.).

But Republicans are planning to keep the Senate on the energy issue until their demands are resolved. The massive housing-rescue package might be the only other measure that gets valuable floor time before the August recess.

Democrats say the GOP is intentionally prolonging the debate in order to score political points by insisting on more than two dozen amendments to the oil-speculation bill. Democrats, who say opening up new lands won’t affect prices for a decade and are concerned about its environmental impacts, have offered the GOP one amendment to the oil-speculation bill.

But the GOP is positioning itself as the party willing to do whatever it takes to lower gas prices. The Republicans say Democrats are scared to cast votes on new drilling in the face of voter anger over high gasoline prices, and they point to the majority’s decision to scrap appropriations bills to avoid a debate over lifting the congressional ban on drilling along the Outer Continental Shelf.

McConnell said the Senate will be in session in September and will have time then to finish outstanding issues.

“Our goal is to stay on the subject that the American people are demanding that we do something about and finish the job,” McConnell said.

His deputy, Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) said the GOP would object to any motions to proceed to other measures in order “to keep the energy bill on the floor to pass a good energy bill.”

Rodell Mollineau, a Reid spokesman, shot back at the Republican threat.

“Why would Sen. McConnell’s statement be any different than his posture on most every other bill to come through the Senate?” Mollineau said. “Bush-McCain Republicans have conducted 83 filibusters so far this year and have blocked six attempts this summer to address the energy crisis. Their feigned outrage would be laughable if it wasn’t at the expense of millions Americans suffering at the pump.”

[Soldier4Christ]

All I can say is it's about time that we had some people in Washington standing up for the people. Now if they will just continue this on other subjects as well.

[Soldier4Christ]

I posted this article elsewhere but I think that it needs to go here also. What we are seeing here is not only a move toward socialism but a move that will cause the poor in the U.S. to be even poorer. It is not a solution but rather an act that will bring more poverty around the entire world. This money taken from all in the U.S. will not go into the hands of the needy in other countries but rather it will end up in the hands ruthless government.

_________

Obama's $845 billion U.N. plan
forwarded to U.S. Senate floor
'Global Poverty Act' to cost
each citizen $2,500 or more

The U.S. Senate soon could be debating whether you, your spouse and each of your children – as well as your in-laws, parents, grandparents, neighbors and everyone else in America – each will be spending $2,500 or more to reduce poverty around the world.

The plan sponsored by Sen. Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee for the office of president, is estimated to cost the United States some $845 billion over the coming few years in an effort to raise the standard of living around the globe.

S.2433 already has been approved in one form by the U.S. House of Representatives, and now has been placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar for pending debate.

WND previously has reported the proposal demands the president develop "and implement" a policy to "cut extreme global poverty in half by 2015 through aid, trade, gotcha120" and other programs.

Cliff Kincaid at Accuracy in Media has published a critique asserting that while the Global Poverty Act sounds nice, the adoption could "result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States" and would make levels "of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations."

He said the legislation, if approved, dedicates 0.7 percent of the U.S. gross national product to foreign aid, which over 13 years he said would amount to $845 billion "over and above what the U.S. already spends."

The plan passed the House in 2007 "because most members didn't realize what was in it," Kincaid reported. "Congressional sponsors have been careful not to calculate the amount of foreign aid spending that it would require."

A recent statement from Obama's office noted the support offered by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

"With billions of people living on just dollars a day around the world, global poverty remains one of the greatest challenges and tragedies the international community faces," Obama said. "It must be a priority of American foreign policy to commit to eliminating extreme poverty and ensuring every child has food, shelter, and clean drinking water. As we strive to rebuild America's standing in the world, this important bill will demonstrate our promise and commitment to those in the developing world.

"Our commitment to the global economy must extend beyond trade agreements that are more about increasing profits than about helping workers and small farmers everywhere," he continued.

"Not one dime would go to fixing America," the commentary said.

Obama has continued to lobby for such massive expenditures on his campaign stops. During an address as recently as last week, he said, "I'll double our foreign assistance to $50 billion by 2012, and use it to support a stable future in failing states, and sustainable growth in Africa; to halve global poverty and to roll back disease."

Beck and Kincaid pointed out that the plan not only commits the U.S. to the anti-poverty spending proposal, it also adopts for the U.S. the United Nations Millennium Development Goal, which includes a variety treaties and protocols advocated by the U.N.

Objections have remained strong. On a posting also available at the All American blogger, a commentator warned that the U.S. has yet to be able to win its own war on poverty.

"On January 8, 1964, President Lyndon Johnson declared "all-out war on human poverty and unemployment in these United States." This "all-out war" would last through the presidencies of Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, H.W. Bush, Clinton, and George W. Bush. We have spent billions of dollars fighting this war, and what have we achieved?"

He continued, "Very little. In 1964, there were 36 million Americans living in poverty, or about 19 percent of the population. In the 40 years between 1964 and 2004: ... poverty never measured less than 11 percent of the population. In 1983, under President Reagan, poverty registered 15.2 percent; in 1993, at the beginning of Bill Clinton's presidency, poverty was measured at 13.7 percent of the population. In 2004, under George W. Bush, a president often accused by the political Left as not caring about the poor, the poverty rate declined to 12.7 percent. Still, some 37 million Americans remain poor."

Despite that performance, "Obama is ready to take the fight global," said commentator Duane Lester.

"In addition to seeking to eradicate poverty, that declaration commits nations to banning 'small arms and light weapons' and ratifying a series of treaties, including the International Criminal Court Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol (global warming treaty), the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child," he wrote.

Tom DeWeese at NewsWithViews said the plan "is very telling" about what Obama would do as president.

DeWeese, president of the American Policy Center, warned the over-arching plan includes the ideals of consolidating all international agencies under the U.N., regulation by the U.N. of all corporate environmental issues, license fees charged by the U.N. to use air, water and natural resources, a restructuring that would give hand-picked non-governmental organizations huge influence, authorize a standing U.N. army and require registration of all arms.

[nChrist]

I posted this article elsewhere but I think that it needs to go here also. What we are seeing here is not only a move toward socialism but a move that will cause the poor in the U.S. to be even poorer. It is not a solution but rather an act that will bring more poverty around the entire world. This money taken from all in the U.S. will not go into the hands of the needy in other countries but rather it will end up in the hands ruthless government.

_________

Obama's $845 billion U.N. plan
forwarded to U.S. Senate floor
'Global Poverty Act' to cost
each citizen $2,500 or more

The U.S. Senate soon could be debating whether you, your spouse and each of your children – as well as your in-laws, parents, grandparents, neighbors and everyone else in America – each will be spending $2,500 or more to reduce poverty around the world.

The plan sponsored by Sen. Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee for the office of president, is estimated to cost the United States some $845 billion over the coming few years in an effort to raise the standard of living around the globe.

S.2433 already has been approved in one form by the U.S. House of Representatives, and now has been placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar for pending debate.

WND previously has reported the proposal demands the president develop "and implement" a policy to "cut extreme global poverty in half by 2015 through aid, trade, gotcha120" and other programs.

Cliff Kincaid at Accuracy in Media has published a critique asserting that while the Global Poverty Act sounds nice, the adoption could "result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States" and would make levels "of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations."

He said the legislation, if approved, dedicates 0.7 percent of the U.S. gross national product to foreign aid, which over 13 years he said would amount to $845 billion "over and above what the U.S. already spends."

The plan passed the House in 2007 "because most members didn't realize what was in it," Kincaid reported. "Congressional sponsors have been careful not to calculate the amount of foreign aid spending that it would require."

A recent statement from Obama's office noted the support offered by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

"With billions of people living on just dollars a day around the world, global poverty remains one of the greatest challenges and tragedies the international community faces," Obama said. "It must be a priority of American foreign policy to commit to eliminating extreme poverty and ensuring every child has food, shelter, and clean drinking water. As we strive to rebuild America's standing in the world, this important bill will demonstrate our promise and commitment to those in the developing world.

"Our commitment to the global economy must extend beyond trade agreements that are more about increasing profits than about helping workers and small farmers everywhere," he continued.

"Not one dime would go to fixing America," the commentary said.

Obama has continued to lobby for such massive expenditures on his campaign stops. During an address as recently as last week, he said, "I'll double our foreign assistance to $50 billion by 2012, and use it to support a stable future in failing states, and sustainable growth in Africa; to halve global poverty and to roll back disease."

Beck and Kincaid pointed out that the plan not only commits the U.S. to the anti-poverty spending proposal, it also adopts for the U.S. the United Nations Millennium Development Goal, which includes a variety treaties and protocols advocated by the U.N.

Objections have remained strong. On a posting also available at the All American blogger, a commentator warned that the U.S. has yet to be able to win its own war on poverty.

"On January 8, 1964, President Lyndon Johnson declared "all-out war on human poverty and unemployment in these United States." This "all-out war" would last through the presidencies of Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, H.W. Bush, Clinton, and George W. Bush. We have spent billions of dollars fighting this war, and what have we achieved?"

He continued, "Very little. In 1964, there were 36 million Americans living in poverty, or about 19 percent of the population. In the 40 years between 1964 and 2004: ... poverty never measured less than 11 percent of the population. In 1983, under President Reagan, poverty registered 15.2 percent; in 1993, at the beginning of Bill Clinton's presidency, poverty was measured at 13.7 percent of the population. In 2004, under George W. Bush, a president often accused by the political Left as not caring about the poor, the poverty rate declined to 12.7 percent. Still, some 37 million Americans remain poor."

Despite that performance, "Obama is ready to take the fight global," said commentator Duane Lester.

"In addition to seeking to eradicate poverty, that declaration commits nations to banning 'small arms and light weapons' and ratifying a series of treaties, including the International Criminal Court Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol (global warming treaty), the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child," he wrote.

Tom DeWeese at NewsWithViews said the plan "is very telling" about what Obama would do as president.

DeWeese, president of the American Policy Center, warned the over-arching plan includes the ideals of consolidating all international agencies under the U.N., regulation by the U.N. of all corporate environmental issues, license fees charged by the U.N. to use air, water and natural resources, a restructuring that would give hand-picked non-governmental organizations huge influence, authorize a standing U.N. army and require registration of all arms.

Collectively, the U.N. isn't even close to reaching the maturity and intelligence levels of the Three Stooges. They don't have any business running or managing ANYTHING! We could also take a sampling from various prisons and have a much higher level of HONESTY! Sadly, a troop of baboons could run the world better than the U.N., so these plans are INSANE!

[Soldier4Christ]

these plans are INSANE!

A fitting statement especially considering the person that initiated this bill.

[Barbara]

It is not a solution but rather an act that will bring more poverty around the entire world. This money taken from all in the U.S. will not go into the hands of the needy in other countries but rather it will end up in the hands ruthless government.

Amen. That money would end up in the same hands as the 'Oil for Food' debacle!

[Soldier4Christ]

Arctic has '90 billion barrels of oil'
Energy-rich region has as much undiscovered gas as all reserves known to exist in Russia

The Arctic holds as many as 90bn barrels of undiscovered oil and has as much undiscovered gas as all the reserves known to exist in Russia, US government scientists have said in the first state assessment of the region.

The estimates could fuel the race among polar nations, such as Russia, the US, Denmark, Norway and Canada, vying for control of the region, though the study said Russia and the Alaska platform appeared to have the most undiscovered resources.

Alaska's large estimated holdings are likely to stir the debate about opening protected areas of the state to development.

The 90bn barrels of undiscovered oil the US Geological Survey believes the Arctic holds is 13 per cent of the world's undiscovered oil - about the known reserves of the United Arab Emirates. The 1,669,000bn cubic feet of natural gas are equivalent to 30 per cent of undiscovered gas reserves.

"The extensive Arctic continental shelf may constitute the geographically largest unexplored prospective area for petroleum remaining on earth," the USGS said. Its report only makes estimates based on conventional resources recoverable through a well bore; there could be more trapped in heavy sands or shale.

Last August, Russia planted its flag on the seabed 4km under the North Pole, raising fears of a rush to grab the Arctic's mineral resources. Denmark in May called a summit of the five Arctic powers to try to reiterate the countries' commitment to the UN's Law of the Sea Convention that governs territorial waters.

Yet Donald Gautier, a USGS scientist, said most of the undiscovered resources were in areas already under territorial claims, and the Pole itself did not appear "very interesting" for fossil fuels.

Commercial interest in exploiting the Arctic has increased with Royal Dutch Shell, the Anglo-Dutch energy group, pushing to help Russia develop gas from the Yamal region, and Total having won the right to do so at Russia's giant Shtokman gas field.

In the US, companies are pushing into Arctic Alaska, while Denmark has drawn interest in exploring off Greenland.

Mr Gautier said: "Only Arctic Alaska really booms out.'' It shows the most promise for oil resources, while Russia shows the most for natural gas.

Consultants Wood Mackenzie in 2006 estimated the Arctic basins, including those being developed, held 233bn barrels of discovered oil and gas and another 166bn that had yet to be found, most of it gas.

[HisDaughter]

The government is going to wait until they've given our country away or it is taken from us because of their bullheaded apathy and then the new rulers of America will make swift use of these resources.  I have also copied and pasted this last article and sent it to Maria Cantwells office.  I'm mad and at least one Washingtonian is going to let her know.  Nothing will come of it I know but at least she will know that she's not pulling the wool over these eyes.

[Soldier4Christ]

Good for you! If more people would do the same thing perhaps these politicians would realize that their job is on the line, that they are not the ones that run this nation.

[Soldier4Christ]

Feds take over 2 more western banks
28 branches close for weekend, to reopen as Mutual of Omaha

The 28 branches of 1st National Bank of Nevada and First Heritage Bank, operating in Nevada, Arizona and California, were closed Friday by federal regulators.

The banks, owned by Scottsdale, Ariz.-based First National Bank Holding Co., were scheduled to reopen on Monday as Mutual of Omaha Bank branches, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. said.

The FDIC said the takeover of the failed banks was the least costly resolution and all depositors - including those with funds in excess of FDIC insurance limits - will switch to Mutual of Omaha with "the full amount of their deposits."

The FDIC also said accountholders can access their funds during the weekend by writing checks or using ATM or debit cards.

As of June 30, the closed banks had total assets of $3.6 billion. That's down from $4.1 billion six months earlier. Most of the assets are in 1st National while First Heritage accounts for $254 million.

Calls to 1st National were referred by a receptionist to Joe Martony, an executive vice president in Scottsdale, Ariz. Martony didn't return repeated calls to his office.

In Nevada, 1st National has 10 branches and employs about 350 people. Five of its branches are in Las Vegas, three are in the Reno-Sparks area, one is in Carson City and one is in Laughlin. Notices of the closure were being posted late Friday.

Fifteen 1st National branches are in Arizona, while Newport Beach-based First Heritage has three branches in Southern California.

Bill Uffelman of the Nevada Bankers Association said Friday the FDIC action "is a reflection of the times for the banks. It's a poor economy."

Uffelman cautioned against the sort of consumer concern that prompted many customers of IndyMac Bank branches to wait for hours in line to withdraw funds across Southern California last week after that bank was seized by federal regulators. All FDIC-insured bank deposits are guaranteed by the FDIC up to $100,000, he noted.

Gov. Jim Gibbons said the bank takeover will be closely monitored in Nevada "to ensure there's minimal disruption to business and that employees' jobs are protected as much as possible."

Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano spokeswoman Shilo Mitchell said in a statement that the FDIC's takeover of 1st National is not indicative of the overall banking climate in Arizona.

"It's very important that Arizonans know that their deposits are secure," said Felecia Rotellini, superintendent of Arizona Department of Financial Institutions. "They are well-managed and the 1st National Bank of Arizona issues should not cause any panic in Arizona."

[Barbara]

It's a good time to start keeping your money at home in a safe!

Now GET A LOAD OF THIS ONE from our local Sunday paper.

"MIAMI JUDGE ISSUES INJUNCTION FOR GROUP - from wire reports

MIAMI - A Miami federal judge on Friday toughened an order against a group that promotes its own currency and says it wants to seize control of Bank of America and more that $15 billion from its branches.

U.S. District Judge Alan Gold in Miami issued a preliminary injunction against The United Cities Group Inc. Gold had previously issued a temporary restraining order.

During the hearing, Bank of America attorney Mary Leslie Smith told Gold that earlier this month armed guards dressed in black entered two South Florida branches, blocked exits and tried to seize the bank's assets on behalf of the group."


What the heck is going on? Why aren't they in jail? Who are these people and how have they done this more than once? Where are they getting their own currency? And last, but not least, why would ARMED people that enter banks still be on the street??? The average citizen is not allowed to wave any kind of weapon around in a bank!!!!!

[Barbara]

This was a tiny story on the bottom of the newspaper.

I just googled this group. They have created a 'Global Currency' and are already establishing banks in every state in the nation. They're offering jobs, health insurance, housing, building equip., etc., etc.

They've already acquired some other banks. Is this the beginning of the Amero?

[HisDaughter]

What the heck is going on? Why aren't they in jail? Who are these people and how have they done this more than once? Where are they getting their own currency? And last, but not least, why would ARMED people that enter banks still be on the street??? The average citizen is not allowed to wave any kind of weapon around in a bank!!!!!

Hi Sister Barbara.  Interesting article and good questions!  This will give me something to Google later today.  Where ARE they getting their money?  And a take over with armed men?  Sounds like something out of a Hollywood movie!  Good Grief!

In Christ
Yvette

[Soldier4Christ]

This is definitely an illegal group. The group is facing many charges one of which is fraud. H. William Marrero, acting as TUC's lawyer, tried to introduce its head Angel Cruz as "chairman of the United States" and Gladstone Gardner as "vice chairman of the United States." Marrero also challenged Gold's jurisdiction to hear the case, but the judge refused to let him speak because he isn't a licensed attorney. Even though there were armed guards that had a license to carry weapons no weapons were pulled so charges on this aspect were not made.

Some of it's assets are provided by it's members that are members. They claim to have over 120 businesses in membership.

They are in conjunction with JC CONSULTORES LABORALES INC and their combined goal is "Reorganizing and establishing organizations".

Mission:

To enforce the constitution of the United States of America and that of the world, which affords American citizens and citizens around the globe certain dignities and economic rights.

Objective:

To preserve the economic stability of the American workforce and aid international workers across all occupational sectors, by insuring that labor and trade are established in a just manner for the benefit of all.

They claim to be a private bank, Insurance company, credit union and clearing house. They also claim that they are assisting mayors, city managers and businesses in rebuilding infrastructure on a municipal level.

The more I look at this company the more it does look like a rouge group that is attempting to instill a one world economic government.

Also of note on their "assets". Employees have been paid by checks. These checks cannot be cashed and are considered fraudulent. They are drawn on an unknown entity by using an invalid routing number.