“October Surprise” Spotting, Waiting on the Vote-Jacking

It’s a fine pastime – I mean if you don’t have friends, hobbies, schedules, kids, housework, a yard, oil change, or other real chores to do – trying to figure out the “next Big Thing” that will show up in the MSM news flow.

Should be something big enough to cause panic, a sucking of the breath, massive above-the-fold headlines and a bump in viewership for the “alleged” news channels.

Thus far, the holiday has been fairly orderly.

In Syria, the government is showing how they don’t have an effing clue: They are trying to promote tourism while headlines like At least 38 killed in string of bomb blasts across Syria – Turkey says ISIS driven from Turkish-Syrian border are crossing.

Makes you wonder what’s been placed in the water over there, doesn’t it?

The Money-Go-Round

Markets in Asia were up modestly overnight. But that will blow around this week as the G20 is meeting in China. Carefully timed and staged: Seoul says N. Korea fires 3 ballistic missiles into sea. As luck would have it, they aimed at something big enough so they could hit it (The Pacific).

Putin’s Gimme Shelter

The war in Syria is having one effect, though it’s kind of hard to explain: The world axis of power around Oil is shifting.

The tip-off headline to study is Oil jumps as Saudi Arabia and Russia agree to work together.

Remember, the Saudis had this wet-dream idea of building a pipeline from the kingdom up through Syria and Turkey and then into Europe where they figured to make oodles of dough. Underselling Russia they could buy market share. We get that…

But, since the War in Syria (WiS) is going badly, they will go von Clausewitz: war by other means, which is what business comes down to.

But Russia isn’t trusting anyone. Having lost millions in WW II, the Russia mindset is very much in the Trust-but-Verify mode. So, just in case the commercial angle doesn’t pan out, they continue to make an incredible investment in Civil Defense.

Take this story out this weekend in the UK Sun: VLADIMIR SHOOTIN’ Russian president is gearing up for atomic war with the West by building top-secret nuclear shelters, security experts fear

Not that the story should surprise anyone: It’s been part of our “Big Picture” view forever, Alex Jones on InfoWars has been harping on this for months. But the mainstream media controls are in place. The great unwashed are still snoozing – making mention of it in a column this early almost pointless.

What’s likely happened is that enough people have grokked the story on the Web that it has to appear in the MSM, so out it comes in the “edgy” Sun. We will let it percolate there and then see how far into the MSM it gets. When both the NY Times and the Washington/Amazon Post cover some aspect of Civil Defense in a three-day window, the it will have arrived.

For now it swirls around the edges of the stream of consciousness awaiting the leap to courant dominant.

Pass the Aspirin

Not too much on our business agenda this week. Gallup’s consumer spending ditty comes out tomorrow. The most exciting financial news is a bunch of Fed-speaks mouthing this and that. But the real action is the G20. The Global Picture will matter most for the next week or three, although presidential campaigning is in background.

Even that has become laissez faire: Trump is actually campaigning while Clinton is off raising still more money to buy the election.

Used to be people asked “Who did you vote for?”

As the media speed picked up, it became “Who are you planning to vote for?”

A ways further it becomes “Did you register?”

And this year it will come down to “Did you enter a bid?”

Not that it matters.

A sage reader of ours has already told us “You don’t need to actually win. You just need to count the votes….”

Considering Homeland Security has already been hacked, even the most reasoned person can see the high potential for wrong-doing of the highest order in this unconstitutional federalization of elections. By decree, not Law we notice.

Why?

Well, should be obvious: When young black voters are turning on Hillary, and when even music greats like Sean “Diddy” Combs says black people got short-changed by Obama, what’s a good decreeing and controlling central government going to do in order to compel its anointed successor into office?

Presactly…enforce the count their way of course!

Best part about this kind of fed-jack?  We won’t  need an October Surprise, after all, thank you.

It’s been done.

An d most recently in Detroit where Donald Trump receiving a shawl and a bible at a black church while getting an ovation was ordered shut down according to this report.

Done…and done.

Meantime the pro-Clinton press is trying to whip up the idea that Russia is meddling in US politics, but in truth it’s appearing very much like the usual list of necons and the richy-rich.  They do have the high bid so far, you see?

Big-Picture-wise, the plan seems simple enough from out here in the woods:  Have the FedGov make up hacked election stories, along with dire warnings about foreign influencers and then justify the pending DHS vote-jack in November.  Easy-peasy.

“The question remains whether the federal government will subvert the Constitution to achieve the goal of federalizing elections under the guise of security,” Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp told Nextgov in an email. “Designating voting systems or any other election system as critical infrastructure would be a vast federal overreach, the cost of which would not equally improve the security of elections in the United States.” 

Land of that who?    Hand me my meds.

Comments

“October Surprise” Spotting, Waiting on the Vote-Jacking — 28 Comments

  1. Grub, guns and gold.

    If you don’t hold it, you don’t own it.

    If that doesn’t keep you alive nothing will.

  2. Old Ben Franklin warned us about getting involved in foreign affairs. He also stated those who beat their whepons into Plow Shares will be plowing for those who did not beat their whepons into plow shares/

  3. I will be going to my voting precinct to confront any UN scumbag on site…also notifying my Sherriff to remove the scumbag UN from our voting area since us locals DID NOT INVITE them…Obamas invite does not apply to county or city owned land the polling pricinct sit on…it is not federal………….imho

  4. This is an Interview with a banker about
    a foreclosure. The banker was placed on
    the witness stand and sworn in. The
    plaintiff’s (borrower’s) attorney asked
    the banker the routine questions
    concerning the banker’s education and
    background.

    The attorney asked the banker, “What is
    court exhibit A?”

    The banker responded by saying, “This
    is a promissory note.”

    The attorney then asked, “Is there an
    agreement between Mr. Smith
    (borrower) and the defendant?”

    The banker said, “Yes.”

    The attorney asked, “Do you believe the
    agreement includes a lender and a
    borrower?”

    The banker responded by saying, “Yes,
    I am the lender and Mr. Smith is the
    borrower.”

    The attorney asked, “What do you
    believe the agreement is?”

    The banker quickly responded, saying,
    “We have the borrower sign the note
    and we give the borrower a check.”

    The attorney asked, “Does this
    agreement show the words borrower,
    lender, loan, interest, credit, or money
    within the agreement?”

    The banker responded by saying, “Sure
    it does.”

    The attorney asked, “According to your
    knowledge, who was to loan what to
    whom according to the written
    agreement?”

    The banker responded by saying, “The
    lender loaned the borrower a $50,000
    check. The borrower got the money and
    the house and has not repaid the money.”

    The attorney noted that the banker never
    said that the bank received the
    promissory note as a loan from the
    borrower to the bank. He asked, “Do
    you believe an ordinary person can use
    ordinary terms and understand this
    written agreement?”

    The banker said, “Yes.”

    The attorney asked, “Do you believe you
    or your company legally own the
    promissory note and have the right to
    enforce payment from the borrower?”

    The banker said, “Absolutely we own it
    and legally have the right to collect the
    money.”

    The attorney asked, “Does the $50,000
    note have actual cash value of $50,000?
    Actual cash value means the promissory
    note can be sold for $50,000 cash in the
    ordinary course of business.”

    The banker said, “Yes.”

    The attorney asked, “According to your
    understanding of the alleged agreement,
    how much actual cash value must the
    bank loan to the borrower in order for
    the bank to legally fulfill the agreement
    and legally own the promissory note?”

    The banker said, “$50,000.”

    The attorney asked, “According to your
    belief, if the borrower signs the
    promissory note and the bank refuses to
    loan the borrower $50,000 actual cash
    value, would the bank or borrower own
    the promissory note?”

    The banker said, “The borrower would
    own it if the bank did not loan the
    money. The bank gave the borrower a
    check and that is how the borrower
    financed the purchase of the house.”

    The attorney asked, “Do you believe that
    the borrower agreed to provide the bank
    with $50,000 of actual cash value which
    was used to fund the $50,000 bank loan
    check back to the same borrower, and
    then agreed to pay the bank back
    $50,000 plus interest?”

    The banker said, “No. If the borrower
    provided the $50,000 to fund the check,
    there was no money loaned by the bank
    so the bank could not charge interest on
    money it never loaned.”

    The attorney asked, “If this happened, in
    your opinion would the bank legally own
    the promissory note and be able to force
    Mr. Smith to pay the bank interest and
    principal payments?”

    The banker said, “I am not a lawyer so I
    cannot answer legal questions.”

    The attorney asked, ” Is it bank policy
    that when a borrower receives a
    $50,000 bank loan, the bank receives
    $50,000 actual cash value from the
    borrower, that this gives value to a
    $50,000 bank loan check, and this
    check is returned to the borrower as a
    bank loan which the borrower must
    repay?”

    The banker said, “I do not know the
    bookkeeping entries.”

    The attorney said, “I am asking you if
    this is the policy.”

    The banker responded, “I do not recall.”

    The attorney again asked, “Do you
    believe the agreement between Mr.
    Smith and the bank is that Mr. Smith
    provides the bank with actual cash value
    of $50,000 which is used to fund a
    $50,000 bank loan check back to
    himself which he is then required to
    repay plus interest back to the same
    bank?”

    The banker said, “I am not a lawyer.”

    The attorney said, “Did you not say
    earlier that an ordinary person can use
    ordinary terms and understand this
    written agreement?”

    The banker said, “Yes.”

    The attorney handed the bank loan
    agreement marked “Exhibit B” to the
    banker. He said, “Is there anything in this
    agreement showing the borrower had
    knowledge or showing where the
    borrower gave the bank authorization or
    permission for the bank to receive
    $50,000 actual cash value from him and
    to use this to fund the $50,000 bank
    loan check which obligates him to give
    the bank back $50,000 plus interest?”

    The banker said, “No.”

    The lawyer asked, “If the borrower
    provided the bank with actual cash value
    of $50,000 which the bank used to fund
    the $50,000 check and returned the
    check back to the alleged borrower as a
    bank loan check, in your opinion, did the
    bank loan $50,000 to the borrower?”

    The banker said, “No.”

    The attorney asked, “If a bank customer
    provides actual cash value of $50,000 to
    the bank and the bank returns $50,000
    actual cash value back to the same
    customer, is this a swap or exchange of
    $50,000 for $50,000.”

    The banker replied, “Yes.”

    The attorney asked, “Did the agreement
    call for an exchange of $50,000
    swapped for $50,000, or did it call for a
    $50,000 loan?”

    The banker said, “A $50,000 loan.”

    The attorney asked, “Is the bank to
    follow the Federal Reserve Bank
    policies and procedures when banks
    grant loans.”

    The banker said, “Yes.”

    The attorney asked, “What are the
    standard bank bookkeeping entries for
    granting loans according to the Federal
    Reserve Bank policies and procedures?”
    The attorney handed the banker FED
    publication Modern Money Mechanics,
    marked “Exhibit C”.

    The banker said, “The promissory note
    is recorded as a bank asset and a new
    matching deposit (liability) is created.
    Then we issue a check from the new
    deposit back to the borrower.”

    The attorney asked, “Is this not a swap
    or exchange of $50,000 for $50,000?”

    The banker said, “This is the standard
    way to do it.”

    The attorney said, “Answer the question.
    Is it a swap or exchange of $50,000
    actual cash value for $50,000 actual
    cash value? If the note funded the check,
    must they not both have equal value?”

    The banker then pleaded the Fifth
    Amendment.

    The attorney asked, “If the bank’s
    deposits (liabilities) increase, do the
    bank’s assets increase by an asset that
    has actual cash value?”

    The banker said, “Yes.”

    The attorney asked, “Is there any
    exception?”

    The banker said, “Not that I know of.”

    The attorney asked, “If the bank records
    a new deposit and records an asset on
    the bank’s books having actual cash
    value, would the actual cash value
    always come from a customer of the
    bank or an investor or a lender to the
    bank?”

    The banker thought for a moment and
    said, “Yes.”

    The attorney asked, “Is it the bank
    policy to record the promissory note as
    a bank asset offset by a new liability?”

    The banker said, “Yes.”

    The attorney said, “Does the promissory
    note have actual cash value equal to the
    amount of the bank loan check?”

    The banker said “Yes.”

    The attorney asked, “Does this
    bookkeeping entry prove that the
    borrower provided actual cash value to
    fund the bank loan check?”

    The banker said, “Yes, the bank
    president told us to do it this way.”

    The attorney asked, “How much actual
    cash value did the bank loan to obtain
    the promissory note?”

    The banker said, “Nothing.”

    The attorney asked, “How much actual
    cash value did the bank receive from the
    borrower?”

    The banker said, “$50,000.”

    The attorney said, “Is it true you
    received $50,000 actual cash value from
    the borrower, plus monthly payments
    and then you foreclosed and never
    invested one cent of legal tender or other
    depositors’ money to obtain the
    promissory note in the first place? Is it
    true that the borrower financed the
    whole transaction?”

    The banker said, “Yes.”

    The attorney asked, “Are you telling me
    the borrower agreed to give the bank
    $50,000 actual cash value for free and
    that the banker returned the actual cash
    value back to the same person as a bank
    loan?”

    The banker said, “I was not there when
    the borrower agreed to the loan.”

    The attorney asked, “Do the standard
    FED publications show the bank
    receives actual cash value from the
    borrower for free and that the bank
    returns it back to the borrower as a
    bank loan?”

    The banker said, “Yes.”

    The attorney said, “Do you believe the
    bank does this without the borrower’s
    knowledge or written permission or
    authorization?”

    The banker said, “No.”

    The attorney asked, “To the best of your
    knowledge, is there written permission
    or authorization for the bank to transfer
    $50,000 of actual cash value from the
    borrower to the bank and for the bank
    to keep it for free?

    The banker said, “No.”

    Does this allow the bank to use this
    $50,000 actual cash value to fund the
    $50,000 bank loan check back to the
    same borrower, forcing the borrower to
    pay the bank $50,000 plus interest? ”

    The banker said, “Yes.”

    The attorney said, “If the bank
    transferred $50,000 actual cash value
    from the borrower to the bank, in this
    part of the transaction, did the bank loan
    anything of value to the borrower?”

    The banker said, “No.” He knew that
    one must first deposit something having
    actual cash value (cash, check, or
    promissory note) to fund a check.

    The attorney asked, “Is it the bank
    policy to first transfer the actual cash
    value from the alleged borrower to the
    lender for the amount of the alleged
    loan?”

    The banker said, “Yes.”

    The attorney asked, “Does the bank pay
    IRS tax on the actual cash value
    transferred from the alleged borrower to
    the bank?”

    The banker answered, “No, because the
    actual cash value transferred shows up
    like a loan from the borrower to the
    bank, or a deposit which is the same
    thing, so it is not taxable.”

    The attorney asked, “If a loan is
    forgiven, is it taxable?”

    The banker agreed by saying, “Yes.”

    The attorney asked, “Is it the bank
    policy to not return the actual cash value
    that they received from the alleged
    borrower unless it is returned as a loan
    from the bank to the alleged borrower?”

    “Yes”, the banker replied.

    The attorney said, “You never pay taxes
    on the actual cash value you receive
    from the alleged borrower and keep as
    the bank’s property?”

    “No. No tax is paid”, said the crying
    banker.

    The attorney asked, “When the lender
    receives the actual cash value from the
    alleged borrower, does the bank claim
    that it then owns it and that it is the
    property of the lender, without the bank
    loaning or risking one cent of legal tender
    or other depositors’ money?”

    The banker said, “Yes.”

    The attorney asked, “Are you telling me
    the bank policy is that the bank owns the
    promissory note (actual cash value)
    without loaning one cent of other
    depositors’ money or legal tender, that
    the alleged borrower is the one who
    provided the funds deposited to fund the
    bank loan check, and that the bank gets
    funds from the alleged borrower for
    free? Is the money then returned back to
    the same person as a loan which the
    alleged borrower repays when the bank
    never gave up any money to obtain the
    promissory note? Am I hearing this
    right? I give you the equivalent of
    $50,000, you return the funds back to
    me, and I have to repay you $50,000
    plus interest? Do you think I am stupid?”

    In a shaking voice the banker cried,
    saying, “All the banks are doing this.
    Congress allows this.”

    The attorney quickly responded, “Does
    Congress allow the banks to breach
    written agreements, use false and
    misleading advertising, act without
    written permission, authorization, and
    without the alleged borrower’s
    knowledge to transfer actual cash value
    from the alleged borrower to the bank
    and then return it back as a loan?”

    The banker said, “But the borrower got
    a check and the house.”

    The attorney said, “Is it true that the
    actual cash value that was used to fund
    the bank loan check came directly from
    the borrower and that the bank received
    the funds from the alleged borrower for
    free?”

    “It is true”, said the banker.

    The attorney asked, “Is it the bank’s
    policy to transfer actual cash value from
    the alleged borrower to the bank and
    then to keep the funds as the bank’s
    property, which they loan out as bank
    loans?”

    The banker, showing tears of regret that
    he had been caught, confessed, “Yes.”

    The attorney asked, “Was it the bank’s
    intent to receive actual cash value from
    the borrower and return the value of the
    funds back to the borrower as a loan?”

    The banker said, “Yes.” He knew he had
    to say yes because of the bank policy.

    The attorney asked, “Do you believe that
    it was the borrower’s intent to fund his
    own bank loan check?”

    The banker answered, “I was not there
    at the time and I cannot know what went
    through the borrower’s mind.”

    The attorney asked, “If a lender loaned a
    borrower $10,000 and the borrower
    refused to repay the money, do you
    believe the lender is damaged?”

    The banker thought. If he said no, it
    would imply that the borrower does not
    have to repay. If he said yes, it would
    imply that the borrower is damaged for
    the loan to the bank of which the bank
    never repaid. The banker answered, “If
    a loan is not repaid, the lender is
    damaged.”

    The attorney asked, “Is it the bank
    policy to take actual cash value from the
    borrower, use it to fund the bank loan
    check, and never return the actual cash
    value to the borrower?”

    The banker said, “The bank returns the
    funds.”

    The attorney asked, “Was the actual
    cash value the bank received from the
    alleged borrower returned as a return of
    the money the bank took or was it
    returned as a bank loan to the
    borrower?”

    The banker said, “As a loan.”

    The attorney asked, “How did the bank
    get the borrower’s money for free?”

    The banker said, “That is how it works.”

    • That what labor day is about you LABOR, and the bankers win over and over , thats why bankers rule the ghetto , even if you think you are rich , they win, why because that is the way it is , do you feel like being a john f. kennedy and changing it ,good luck, MAY ALL BEINGS BE LOVINGLY FULFILLED , so be it

      • If your local state and county banks do fail, a way to help them is to take $1000 and open accounts with 10 different banks ,divide it into $100, a bank , and each bank legally has the ability to loan 9 times that $100 =$900 to lend times 10 = $9000 of artificial money to get your local area going , and the reasoning is that if some fail you will still have a success rate for your community

      • As I was reading this my mind split into several parts:

        1. this is a hellva a ‘Shaggy Dog’ story,

        2. I was losing the plot, and felt like pounding my head on my desk,

        3. and ain’t the legal system ‘Wonderful’.

        Finally George must be a ‘saint’ to moderate this . . .

  5. George, I tell people everyday to wakeup, no too involved in their phone, ect. Listened the other day to a show asking who Joe Biden is, the young kids didn’t know. They hear snippets on a MSN Network and decide who to vote for from that. Very few people are informed. Thanks for what you do.

  6. George, Ohio just mail out 6.6 million absence t ballet’s. This covers all registered voters in the state.never done before. Hey we might get an even election yet. One can hope.

    • Uh… I will be down at the airport waiting for the pigs to fly.

      No use having paper ballots, they will b e considered void, fired, or lost enroute.

      We will estimate her into office.

      • All of Oregon’s voting is by mail – and it has been very successful! Any fraud is such a small percentage of the total vote as to be of little consequence . . .

        The fraud that I have noticed is when particular state’s election officials – try to affect access to voting by certain groups of people that they perceive likely to vote against their personal preference – such as during the 2012 election when Karl Rove was so ‘surprised’ that his candidate didn’t win.

        Or in the election of 2000 and the problem with the votes in Florida – I don’t know if Jeb Bush believes in ‘Fate’ – but I do believe in ‘just deserts’ and his involvement in that particular brotherly ‘assist’ will be a stain on his reputation forever.

        No, if Hilary Clinton wins – it will be because Donald Trump lost due to his too numerous faults.

  7. Only one thing to remember. If war starts with Russia/China, the USA will lose. The USAF can only get 40% of its planes in the air, and now the navy reports even worse statistics. No ground war can be fought and won without air support, so this means that the war will go nuclear almost immediately, and even if the USA won, it would no longer be a place that was livable. If the USA forces a confrontation, it will not be one of these Middle East skirmishes. It will be everything all in, instantly. The electricity will go off,the Internet will go down, and the economic system will seize, as in frozen. What you have in your possession and in your gas tank may be all you ever get for months, if not years. George will find his ham radios interesting for about a day, because the bad news will be devastating.

    • Hell Mic…Obama will just hand the Chinese the keys to the former WH and call it what it is.

      Deed in lieu of foreclosure, lol

  8. Hey George-Since the NSA is out hacking everybody(probably including this note, hi there spook), wouldn’t you think they would have known about Hilliary’s not-so-secret server setup, having intercepted the missing e-mails real time? Could that be an October surprise?

    • Naw too many of the big bad corps have their cash on the scales…sorry – just skeptical

  9. “Things that can’t work, won’t work.” I always say.

    Many of us have become aware of the grand theft called captured government, and the outrages are mounting daily- but really it is only the alternative media which causes this, and the lifeblood of that is the Internet. Just as small printing presses with anonymous authors fueled the War of Independence.

    But the corruption is seemingly always with us, as books like The Devil’s Chessboard, and Family of Secrets clearly show. It’s just that in the past, almost nobody had access to enough information to know what was really happening, much less stop it. Now some of us see the lizards behind the curtain, or “curtail” as one apt typo put it.

    But no matter who they say won this election, the system is unsustainable, and the real people’s uprising is a few years off. And if Hillary wins blame will fall on Russia, Republicans, free speech, etc. if Trump wins, ditto, plus Trump.

    So my ploy is to be thinking hard about what new structures we can build out of the rubble coming soon to a country near you. And voting for Johnson, because the smell of death and rot is hard to wash out my spirit. If I lived in a purple state, Trump’s choices of judges not approved by cultural Marxists would compel voting for him. And his semi-anti war with Russia position. But barely. So at least I have the luxury of being a sad observer, not jumping into the icy N. Atlantic. Those in purple states should look at the active, coordinated, suppression of speech embraced by the entire media/democrat/progressive/corporate/military complex, and ask yourselves how that can be part of a successful democratic republic.

  10. Perhaps the Russians would prefer that moronic bully Trump over Clinton, easy to see why…

  11. As the “good” (ROTF ,LOL) ship ussa Titanic steams past 50 knots through a large field of deadly icebergs, hitting a new one every minute or so,
    The ‘merican people debate kim kardashians thong size,which body part on QB tony romo will shatter next and weather or not Colon Crappernickles protest was justified.
    You can’t fix stupid.
    But history and the Karma wheel is gonna slap the ussa continuously about the head , just like one of those steam powered paddle wheelers thumped the Mississippi river.

    • Amen, brothers and sisters. But there’s something about an impending train-wreck that is oh so attention-arresting…

  12. RE: Federalizing the election – you are ‘spot on’ George, although I believe the slight of hand being foisted upon the masses is not so much to protect our votes. Taking control of the polls will prevent the wrong candidate from winning, mortally wounding the globalista’s plans. Brexit was a serious setback. A Trump presidency could pretty much ‘stick a fork’ in the EU and perhaps the G-20. A tangential but none-the-less very real and serious concern is the release of State Dept classified material out into the wild, thereby irreparably damning Hillary and hugely embarrassing the Feds. Washington is no doubt sweating bullets.

    • And we confidently predict “hand picked” EU “observers” – which will be yet another bad joke.

  13. I never thought I would live to see the USA stolen out from under our collective noses by the same gang of psychos who set up the Soviet Union. Kruschev said they would bury us, and sure enough, they have, only it wasn’t the Russians. All those sleeping sheeple out there will finally be shocked awake as the poleaxe strikes them between the eyes.

  14. First rule of common sense. “Don’t believe anything that you hear and only half of what you see.”

    Taking Ure advice about days off belonging to us an not the man I have a couple nifty little ham projects I am working on today. No phone, and once I scan through Urban Survival one last time the only pc getting any attention is in the shack.