The left has failed with all options to get rid of Trump.
Only option remaining is violent removal and is underway!

Sunday, March 30, 2014

Eagle1 "RV, GCR, or ?" Posted at KTFA Saturday Night

Eagle1 "RV, GCR, or ?" Posted at KTFA Saturday Night

03/29/2014
Eagle1 » March 29th, 2014, 10:00 pm 

RV or GCR or ?

Good Afternoon, Family:

Frank is right! How's that for an introduction to this opinion piece?

Now, let me really mess with you! I'm also right! So how can that be? How can Frank be right that there is only an RV and not a GCR, while I'm right in saying that there IS and MUST BE a GCR?

Now that I have you thoroughly confused, let me take you into a little history of events and explain the why's and wherefore's of our diverging intel.

Everyone knows that George W. Bush signed Executive Order #13303 in 2003 making it lawful for Americans to purchase and hold the Iraqi Dinar, which would otherwise have been a sanctioned currency and unlawful to buy or sell.
....
We all know that the objective from Day One in the Bush Administration was for the Dinar to be restored to its original value, and with that restored value, create a flow of cash within our nation to not only pay for the Iraq War, but to at least pay off the Treasury's acknowledged public debt.

At the same time, it would bring to the American people a flow of finances and (for some) much wealth, resulting in a very big turnaround in our economy.

With all of the gold Iraq already had in its reserves -- never mind all the un-mined gold that the soldiers found under the streets and in otherwise unusual places -- by virtue of the fact that the US Treasury was holding trillions of Dinar in its reserves toward the expected date of the RV, the US Dollar would actually have some gold backing for the first time in decades.

No one is arguing with those facts. All of us have seen the events unfolding in Iraq bringing us step-by-step and closer to the day of the revalue of the IQD. So far so good?

What seems to have been lesser known is that members of the Bush Administration (whose names shall go unmentioned in this post) began to see the value of a global economic reset.

There were other currencies whose values were operating under artificially low (and previously sanctioned) rates. Vietnam and Indonesia are two classic examples. Were there to be a revalue of those currencies and/or a restructuring of currency values based on actual fixed assets, this could fundamentally alter the global economies and restore some sanity to the way currencies were exchanged and commodities traded between countries.

Working with German economist and then-Managing Director of the IMF, Horst Köhler, at a meeting in Basel, Switzerland, a set of protocols began to be developed by which the member nations of the IMF would determine their respective asset bases against the amount of currency in use.

By the time the Basel III Protocols were finally published in 2010 with then-Managing Director of the IMF, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, those protocols had undergone many iterations resulting in what was going to be a fundamental restructuring of the way banks managed their assets, along with new rules for measuring the stability of banks globally.

Before any global reset could be implemented, however, there needed to be banking software and international exchange software developed which would accommodate all of the changes that were about to be implemented.

Babylon II was the outgrowth of this process, gaining its name from Babylon, LTD, an Israeli software company based in Or Yehuda, Israel. Wikipedia says of this software, " Babylon is a tool used for translation and conversion of currencies, measurements and time, and for obtaining other contextual information."

Anyone who has spent any time at all in the computer industry working with translator programs will be acquainted with the Babylon Translator which, for a period of time, was bundled with Google as a language translator program. This is the same company that developed the new banking software.

In February of 2012, this software began its installation process and testing throughout banks globally. Many of you will remember the glitches that took place with NASDAQ and the NYSE when they began to roll out the version of the software designed for trading in 2013, and we saw the exchanges go down for several hours because of problems in the software.

OK, that's some of the nuts and bolts behind both the RV and the GCR. Let's get to what appears to be a discrepancy between Frank's focus on the IQD RV and my emphasis on a Global Currency Reset, and why both of us are correct.

By the time we reached the maturity of the two processes for the revalue of the Dinar, and the implementation of the currency reset, none of the original players were involved.

The Bush Administration was no longer in power, and while members of that administration were certainly invested in the respective outcomes, the Obama Administration had taken over.

Much of Frank's intel comes from folks who are connected to the current administration in one way or another, as well as his very dominant sources of intel from within Iraq.

Much, if not most, of my intel comes from people who either were in the Bush Administration, or are connected currently to the IMF and the World Trade Organization, with only a couple of sources within the current administration. Here's where what appears to be a strong (albeit friendly) disagreement stems from.

The current administration is very pro-Iraqi RV. They want the U.S. to gain AND KEEP the upper hand globally where finances, and particularly the USD, are concerned. On the other hand, the current administration is very anti-GCR. Why, you ask?

We've seen a lot of talk and hullabaloo over the 2010 Code of Economic and Governance Reforms in the past two weeks. This past week, the Senate overwhelmingly passed a bill providing Ukraine financial aid in the face of its virtual cutoff from Russia. Included as a rider to that bill was this 2010 Code of Reforms being actively pushed by Treasury Secretary Jack Lew.

That sounds like I just contradicted myself, doesn't it? I just said that the current administration is very anti-GCR, and yet Jack Lew, our gifted Treasury Secretary is pushing these IMF reforms. How can that be?

The 2010 Reforms were stripped from the bill before it went to the House of Representatives as already noted in a previous post, and the aid to Ukraine passed overwhelmingly, minus the IMF bill. Even yesterday, the 28th, Christine Lagarde was expressing her dismay and aggravation with Congress over its failure to pass these reforms.

So, to borrow a catch phrase from an old TV commercial, "Where's the Beef?"

One of the principal provisions of the IMF Code of Economic and Governance Reforms keys in on the word, "Governance." These reforms include creating a 10-member governing board which includes Russia, China, Brazil and India -- among others. This governing board would, if agreed to by the U.S., put Russia on an even playing field with the United States as far as having a say in global economic issues.

With Russia having taken such an aggressive and adversarial stance with regard to Ukraine, its annexation of Crimea, its huge military buildup on the Ukrainian border, and what appears to be further adventurism towards Estonia and other neighbors, the last thing our Representatives in the House want to see is for Russia to have equal footing in the IMF on a governing board.

Consider, also, the fact that Obama has placed sanctions on Russia, along with our European allies, because of Russia's adventurism.

Obviously, the Obama administration has no particular love for China because of China's participation in the BRICS group, and its currency trading between these countries without the use of the USD. China could be tolerated on this governing board with some economic agreements between us, but under the present circumstances and the present regime in Russia, that will never happen!

Thus, as you see, the signing off on these reforms (which include this new governing board) is not something that is widely accepted within the current administration.

They are more than happy to see an RV because it does not require any acceptance of the IMF Reforms, and it solves our economic woes -- at least for the time being.

Christine Lagarde, on the other hand, is not about to stand by and allow the US to run away with this boon economically while the remaining 187 member nations gain little benefit. Some folks have suggested that because Christine is basically a socialist at heart, she and Obama are joined at the hip.

The problem with that analysis is that Christine and Obama are galaxies apart when it comes to implementing their respective socialist policies. For Christine, her brand of socialism is to provide a more level playing field when it comes to making decisions that aid the developing and emerging economies of other nations. Hence, the 2010 Reforms.

Hopefully I'm drawing a picture that helps you understand the divergent views between the intel I receive and share, and that which Frank receives and shares with the family. If your sources are strongly pro-RV and strongly anti-GCR, then your view will be that if there ever is any such thing as a GCR, it's going to be way down the road.

Under the present circumstances and view of this administration, were their agenda to succeed, Frank would be 100% correct. And -- based on the intel he has been given -- he IS correct!

On the other hand, knowing what I know from behind the scenes at the IMF, Christine isn't about to stand by and allow an RV of the IQD without other nations getting to join in this restructuring.

Could we see an RV of the IQD and a later GCR?

Sure! The kicker here is that "later" is going to be measured in microseconds, minutes or hours at worst -- not weeks or months. Everything is in play, and everything is in a state of readiness for both possibilities.

With the House and Senate at an apparent impasse over the "Governance Reforms" one wonders if there is any real solution, and the answer is, YES! I'm going to make what I believe is a simple proposal that I hope my friends on both sides of the aisles in the Senate and House of Representatives will take to heart.

As Senator Ted Cruz pointed out last week (and several members of the House concurred), with Putin and Russia so hell-bent on rebuilding the old Soviet Empire and reclaiming territories and nations they considered as "Soviet," the simple solution is to amend the Governance portion of the 2010 Reforms by removing Russia from the governing board of ten members, either substituting another acceptable nation in its place, or simply leaving Position 10 empty until such time as Russia complies with the demands to withdraw from the Ukraine, surrender the Crimea back to Ukraine and withdraw its forces from its western borders on Ukraine and Estonia.

The alternative would be to simply hold the position open until such time as Russia has a more flexible leader, or one who is willing to partner with the rest of the nations in a peaceful way.

The above solution, of course, would require the amended Reforms to go back to the other signing nations in order to get their agreement with the change. It is a relatively simple change that I believe most of the House and Senate would agree to, in fact with a "super veto-proof majority" that Obama could either sign or simply allow to become law without his signature.

In view of Russia's belligerence and the already imposed sanctions by many of the signatory nations to the IMF, I believe this amendment could pass quickly and smooth the way for a Global Currency Reset.

Without this amendment, what we have is a stalemate between the U.S. and the IMF with the U.S. currently holding a complete veto capability to any change in the Reforms.

Christine has made it clear to many that she is willing to bypass the U.S. and move ahead with the Global Currency Reset. A meeting is planned with the IMF and the World Bank on April 10 and 11.

It is conceivable that if we don't get an RV/GCR by that date that a decision could be made to move ahead unilaterally with the other nations. Am I predicting that? No. I'm expecting things to move without us having to reach such a confrontational stage.

Keep your eyes peeled, folks! We're in the midst of something exciting, and whether we see it this weekend, next week, or the week after is less important than the fact that we are coming to the finish line! God is on the move!

Blessings on you.

Eagle1

http://www.dinarrecaps.com/1/post/2014/03/eagle1-rv-gcr-or-posted-at-ktfa-saturday-night.html



1 comment:

  1. This certainly adds some perspective on current issues, thank you.
    Personally I think that this is only one layer of the onion ;
    - why would Russia risk losing a position on the IMF's EGR ? If there is one thing that has always been a thorn in the side of the Russians, its the second class status it receives next to the Americans. The EGR would be a huge step in removing the thorn.
    Also the financial gain with a GCR, certainly would offset their current objectives?

    - Obama, and C. Lagarde????? Mainstream media talks about these two as if they are at the top of the economic food chain. Well at least in the west they do. If you travel to the east, they are considered representatives, of a corporation. Christine for example ; is the managing director of the IMF. Which means she represents a board of directors. The board of directors is relatively small in the IMF as you can see on their website. All acting directors represent major financial institutions. A part of which represent banks who are shareholders of the Federal Reserve. These banks of course represent corporate America.
    On wall street, this would be considered a "conflict of interest".

    Eagle1 , given the seemingly high profile resources you have, I am going to assume that you are well aware of a layer above the presented one.

    One final thing : If the IQD RV happened prior to a GCR, would that not create a massive currency shift? Enough so to empty Central Banks?

    Any thoughts from the public?




    ReplyDelete