Senate Amended HR 4173 "Financial Regulatory Reform", a Communist-Socialist Legislation to seize all US non-bank Private Businesses and their assets

In the May 20, 2010, Senate Amended HR 4173 "Financial Regulatory Reform"
http://banking.senate.gov/public/_files/HR_4173_Senate_passed_as_amended.pdf

we see the attempt to sneak in totalitarianism in the legislative branch of US Government.

The totalitarianist clauses are reminiscent of and somewhat parallel to history in what ended Weimar Germany from being a Republic, and transforming it into a Socialist State (in the sense of legislation being sneaked in for passage). That is, by stealth, Congress is de facto attempting to pass the kind of legislation in huge bills, where just a few vague passages will have effectively the same end result as the Nazification of 1933 in which a Fascist Socialism usurped the authority in Germany.

For those unfamiliar with history, in 1933, the totalitarianism was effectively accomplished in two very quick legislative steps. At that time, the Nazis as "Socialists", beginning with the decree of February 28, 1933:
1) Restricted free speech
2) Removed the rights of a free press to exist
3) Removed the rights of free assemby and associations
4) Restricted personal libeties
5) Subjected all communications of any type as not private to the Socialist State
6) Allowed for warrantless searches and easy confication of personal properties
7) Allowed for the defining of what did or did not materially endanger the Socialist State to be subject to the whims and interpretations.

This last part was permanently ensured by the Enabling Act of March 23, 1933, when all laws no longer needed a German Reichstag (the Congressional equivalent) to approve and pass laws. All that was neded was an approval of the Fuhrer (Hitler) or someone he had appointed (much like a Czar, by the American example).
http://www.bundestag.de/htdocs_e/artandhistory/history/factsheets/enabling_act.pdf


Thus, the Nazis did a one-two to destroy freedom in Germany. In America, with greater freedoms, a tradition and history and psyche for freedom as a Republic and a centuries old Constitution...that one-two is more difficult and must be eroded away by many decades of betrayal, with large betrayals to the Constitution toward the end. To the Communist-Socialists, the word "Revolution" isn't just throwing words around...they really desire to create a Communist overthrow of the US Government and its Constitution. Soldiers and Veterans and all who have taken the oath to uphold the US Constitution may soon have to decide if their oaths meant anything, or to go with the flow, and commit blood-baths upon the civilian populations who will resist the new up and coming Communist-Socialist Regime. These are ugly and sad realities that must be considered, and resisted peacefully and legally via the Courts and by other legal and peaceful means now...so that day of bloody revolution and totalitarian usurpation of the entire US Government NEVER comes.

Initially, in 1933 Germany, the Enabling Act was "Democratically" passed, after the crisis of the Reichstag fire, and sold as the ‘Act for the Removal of the Distress of the People and the Reich’. The Catholic Party of Germany (the Conservatives by example) was tricked, and a Dictatorship was enabled and came to power with Hitler at its head, and the Nazis so greatly empowered, that they were only removed by a World War, a pummeled and bombed out nation and many millions in war corpses.

Today, we have the Communist-Socialists who wish to duplicate the same death grip dismantling and takeover of a Republic as the Nazis did to the Weimar Republic of Germany. But the problem is, they cannot pass their own February 1933 decree, because we have a US Constitution and we have a court system that vigorously defends many of the very same things the February 28, 1933 decree outlawed or removed.


In a large part, the jumps have been by installing a non-US NBC Usurper into the Presidency, who also violated the Logan Act in Iraq as a US Senator, and installed an unConstitutional Secretary of State in the form of a sitting senator, passing unconstitutional and unaccounted for trillions in spending and unconstitutionally socializing US Industries, Banks, Companies...passing unconstitutional mandates in the form of forced Healthcare purchases by rich and poor alike, and so forth. The next leap will be the taking over and Nationalizing all private businesses and related private wealth into the control of secret boards and unelected Communist-Socialists, as stated in this bill...oligarchies subject to and answerable to the whims of the Usurper Obama.

Starting with page 60 and Section 120's
ADDITIONAL STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO ACTIVITIES OR PRACTICES FOR FINANCIAL STABILITY PURPOSES
of the May 20, 2010 Senate amended HR 4173, we read:

P. 60
† HR 4173 EAS

1 (1) ROLE OF PRIMARY FINANCIAL REGULATORY
2 AGENCY.—
3 (A) IN GENERAL.—Each primary financial
4 regulatory agency may impose, require reports
5 regarding, examine for compliance with, and en
6 force standards in accordance with this section
7 with respect to those entities for which it is the
8 primary financial regulatory agency.
9 (B) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.— The author
10 ity under this paragraph is in addition to, and
11 does not limit, any other authority of a primary
12 financial regulatory agency. Compliance by an
13 entity with actions taken by a primary financial
14 regulatory agency under this section shall be en
15 forceable in accordance with the statutes gov
16 erning the respective jurisdiction of the primary
17 financial regulatory agency over the entity, as if
18 the agency action were taken under those stat
19utes.
20 (2) IMPOSITION OF STANDARDS.— The primary
21 financial regulatory agency shall impose the stand
22 ards recommended by the Council in accordance with
23 subsection (a), or similar standards that the Council
24 deems acceptable, or shall explain in writing to the
25 Council, not later than 90 days after the date on

[Focus on the aove bold print. What the Council deems means that the law changes with the subjectivity or whims of those who are on the council...they ARE the law.]


P. 61
† HR 4173 EAS


1 which the Council issues the recommendation, why the
2 agency has determined not to follow the recommenda
3 tion of the Council.
4 (d) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—The Council shall report
5 to Congress on—6 (1) any recommendations issued by the Council
7 under this section;
8 (2) the implementation of, or failure to imple
9 ment such recommendation on the part of a primary
10 financial regulatory agency; and
11 (3) in any case in which no primary financial
12 regulatory agency exists for the nonbank financial
13 company conducting financial activities or practices
14 referred to in subsection (a), recommendations for leg
15 islation that would prevent such activities or prac
16 tices from threatening the stability of the financial
17 system of the United States.

The ‘Act for the Removal of the Distress of the People and the Reich’ has been reworded as "activities or practices that threaten the financial stability of the United States." And what are those activities or practices? That is explained in Section 121 as those financial institutions having $50 billion dollars or more in assets, and the desire to possess those non-financial institutions and companies valued at ANY AMOUNT. From the child who runs a lemonade stand, to the employer with one employee, to the largest non-financial company having assets of less than $50 billion dollars. The specificity of Section 120 is that if legislation does not allow the unelected board to have the power in 121, that Congress ought to pass the legislation to complete the principle of the enabling act to fulfill the parameters laid out in Section 121.

62
† HR 4173 EAS
15 SEC. 121. MITIGATION OF RISKS TO FINANCIAL STABILITY.
16 (a) MITIGATORY ACTIONS.—If the Board of Governors
17 determines that a bank holding company with total consoli
18 dated assets of $50,000,000,000 or more, or a nonbank fi19 nancial company supervised by the Board of Governors,
20 poses a grave threat to the financial stability of the United
21 States, the Board of Governors, upon an affirmative vote
22 of not fewer than 2⁄3 of the Council members then serving,
23 shall require the subject company—24 (1) to terminate one or more activities;


63
† HR 4173 EAS
1 (2) to impose conditions on the manner in which
2 the company conducts one or more activities; or
3 (3) if the Board of Governors determines that
4 such action is inadequate to mitigate a threat to the
5 financial stability of the United States in its rec
6 ommendation, to sell or otherwise transfer assets or
7 off-balance-sheet items to unaffiliated entities.

What is a threat to the financial stability of the United States? It is a subjective term that is as vague as "hope and change". It means whatever those in power want it to say. By voicing an opposing opinion, the Communist-Socialist traitors to the US Constitution in the Media deemed all conservatives who disagreed with them as a "threat to the United States". In August and September 2009, people who dared challenge Congress with questions, or peacefully assemble and wag their ditties on posterbopards at television cameras and then go home...these were called a "threat" to the security of the United States of America. When violent anarchists of the Left actually threw molotov cocktails, rolled dumpsters into Police lines, and could have gotten people killed by their violence, as they terrorized neighborhoods and vandalized peaceful businesses and destroyed and victimized the vehicles of private citizens, many of whom faced hardship to pay to repair their vehicles...the Left approvingly nodded their heads, because the Communist-Socialists love to oppress and beat down the poor, and keep them as half-starved dogs, licking the hands of sweet talking cruel masters, who want people to be like dogs to do their bidding and empower them all the more...unquestioningly, obediently.

The Senate Amended HR 4173 "Financial Regulatory Reform" hits the poor as well as the middle class and the rich. It uses the assets of 50 Billion dollar Financial Institutions as a smoke screen to conduct it real intent: to seize the assets of all public and private non-bank companies of ANY AMOUNT, from a single dollar in value to infinity.

By Section 121, we see that "the Board of Governors then serving" becomes an oligarchic dictatorship…literal dictatorship of the proletariat Communism in practice. Who comprises this "Board"? More Czars, and / or political Obama hacks?

In other words, Sections 120 and 121 are telling us that anyone having a bank account, payroll, or issuing credit or financial assistance in any form…and is subjectively demed a threat by an emotionally unstable or mentally challeneged Communist-Socialist zealot who believes in Islam or Third World Communism (as Obama frequently surrounds himself with and appoints) can be deemed a threat to the financial stability of the United States. Anyone...any group...any company...any size.

Fathers who own their own business and wish to buy the wife a car, give their kids a present, pay for their parent's medical bills, all financial transactions will no longer be private, but must be reported to the bureaucracy of the Communist-Socialist dictatorship, and will be State regulated because the vaguery of the language of the bill permits such a reasonable interpretation to that end.
Therefore, part of the language of this bill is crafted in such a way, that it is aimed at eliminating family owned businesses and the dispensation of private wealth derived from franchise or private ownership in a business of any type. Only employees are exempt in the above scenario…but the Communist-Socialists Senator Dodd and Representative Barney Frank will go after even the employees once they nail all private owners to the wall.

In today's America, these evil-doers are free to hold office, free to collapse the economy into recession, free to then continually assist in the robbing of the US Treasury via their official positions, they are fre to play the archilochean thespian role of victim and conqueror, and be defended by the Media and many Communist-Socialist sympathizers to commit treason and sedition all the more…actively enabled and supported by the corrupt of both major political parties, inclusive of Richard Shelby - John McCain - and others, who now perhaps see jumping on the Communist-Socialist bandwagon and overthrowing the US Constitution as a survival mechanism to hold onto a position of title and rank or some grand illusion of theirs.

So now that we have learned that the HR 4173 "Financial Regulatory Reform" is a de facto enabling act of this nations private sector finances toward dictatorship in disguise, what is America going to do about it?
---------------------------------------------------------------------




Supplement:

Jefferson's Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank : 1791

The bill for establishing a National Bank undertakes among other things:
1. To form the subscribers into a corporation.
2. To enable them in their corporate capacities to receive grants of land; and so far is against the laws of Mortmain.
3. To make alien subscribers capable of holding lands, and so far is against the laws of Alienage.
4. To transmit these lands, on the death of a proprietor, to a certain line of successors; and so far changes the course of Descents.
5. To put the lands out of the reach of forfeiture or escheat, and so far is against the laws of Forfeiture and Escheat.
6. To transmit personal chattels to successors in a certain line and so far is against the laws of Distribution.
7. To give them the sole and exclusive right of banking under the national authority; and so far is against the laws of Monopoly.
8. To communicate to them a power to make laws paramount to the laws of the States; for so they must be construed, to protect the institution from the control of the State legislatures, and so, probably, they will be construed.
I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That " all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people." [XIIth amendment.]

To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.
The incorporation of a bank, and the powers assumed by this bill, have not, in my opinion, been delegated to the United States, by the Constitution.

I They are not among the powers specially enumerated: for these are: 1st A power to lay taxes for the purpose of paying the debts of the United States; but no debt is paid by this bill, nor any tax laid. Were it a bill to raise money, its origination in the Senate would condemn it by the Constitution.
2. "To borrow money." But this bill neither borrows money nor ensures the borrowing it. The proprietors of the bank will be just as free as any other money holders, to lend or not to lend their money to the public. The operation proposed in the bill first, to lend them two millions, and then to borrow them back again, cannot change the nature of the latter act, which will still be a payment, and not a loan, call it by what name you please.

3. To "regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the States, and with the Indian tribes." To erect a bank, and to regulate commerce, are very different acts. He who erects a bank, creates a subject of commerce in its bills, so does he who makes a bushel of wheat, or digs a dollar out of the mines; yet neither of these persons regulates commerce thereby. To make a thing which may be bought and sold, is not to prescribe regulations for buying and selling. Besides, if this was an exercise of the power of regulating commerce, it would be void, as extending as much to the internal commerce of every State, as to its external. For the power given to Congress by the Constitution does not extend to the internal regulation of the commerce of a State, (that is to say of the commerce between citizen and citizen,) which remain exclusively with its own legislature; but to its external commerce only, that is to say, its commerce with another State, or with foreign nations, or with the Indian tribes. Accordingly the bill does not propose the measure as a regulation of trace, but as `' productive of considerable advantages to trade." Still less are these powers covered by any other of the special enumerations.


II. Nor are they within either of the general phrases, which are the two following:
1. To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, that is to say, "to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare." For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase, not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please, which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless.

It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please.


It is an established rule of construction where a phrase will bear either of two meanings, to give it that which will allow some meaning to the other parts of the instrument, and not that which would render all the others useless. Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers, and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect. It is known that the very power now proposed as a means was rejected as an end by the Convention which formed the Constitution. A proposition was made to them to authorize Congress to open canals, and an amendatory one to empower them to incorporate. But the whole was rejected, and one of the reasons for rejection urged in debate was, that then they would have a power to erect a bank, which would render the great cities, where there were prejudices and jealousies on the subject, adverse to the reception of the Constitution.

2. The second general phrase is, "to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution the enumerated powers." But they can all be carried into execution without a bank. A bank therefore is not necessary, and consequently not authorized by this phrase.

If has been urged that a bank will give great facility or convenience in the collection of taxes, Suppose this were true: yet the Constitution allows only the means which are "necessary," not those which are merely "convenient" for effecting the enumerated powers. If such a latitude of construction be allowed to this phrase as to give any non-enumerated power, it will go to everyone, for there is not one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenience in some instance or other, to some one of so long a list of enumerated powers. It would swallow up all the delegated powers, and reduce the whole to one power, as before observed. Therefore it was that the Constitution restrained them to the necessary means, that is to say, to those means without which the grant of power would be nugatory


But let us examine this convenience and see what it is. The report on this subject, page 3, states the only general convenience to be, the preventing the transportation and re-transportation of money between the States and the treasury, (for I pass over the increase of circulating medium, ascribed to it as a want, and which, according to my ideas of paper money, is clearly a demerit.) Every State will have to pay a sum of tax money into the treasury; and the treasury will have to pay, in every State, a part of the interest on the public debt, and salaries to the officers of government resident in that State. In most of the States there will still be a surplus of tax money to come up to the seat of government for the officers residing there. The payments of interest and salary in each State may he made by treasury orders on the State collector. This will take up the greater part of the money he has collected in his State, and consequently prevent the great mass of it from being drawn out of the State. If there be a balance of commerce in favor of that State against the one in which the government resides, the surplus of taxes will be remitted by the bills of exchange drawn for that commercial balance. And so it must be if there was a bank. But if there be no balance of commerce, either direct or circuitous, all the banks in the world could not bring up the surplus of taxes, but in the form of money. Treasury orders then, and bills of exchange may prevent the displacement of the main mass of the money collected, without the aid of any bank; and where these fail, it cannot be prevented even with that aid.

Perhaps, indeed, bank bills may be a more convenient vehicle than treasury orders. But a little difference in the degree of convenience cannot constitute the necessity which the Constitution makes the ground for assuming any non-enumerated power.

Besides, the existing banks will, without a doubt, enter into arrangements for lending their agency, and the more favorable, as there will be a competition among them for it; whereas the bill delivers us up bound to the national bank, who are free to refuse all arrangement, but on their own terms, and the public not free, on such refusal, to employ any other bank. That of Philadelphia I believe, now does this business, by their post-notes, which, by an arrangement with the treasury, are paid by any State collector to whom they are presented. This expedient alone suffices to prevent the existence of that necessity which may justify the assumption of a non-enumerated power as a means for carrying into effect an enumerated one. The thing may be done, and has been done, and well done, without this assumption, therefore it does not stand on that degree of necessity which can honestly justify it.

It may be said that a bank whose bills would have a currency all over the States, would be more convenient than one whose currency is limited to a single State. So it would be still more convenient that there should be a bank, whose bills should have a currency all over the world. But it does not follow from this superior conveniency, that there exists anywhere a power to establish such a bank; or that the world may not go on very well without it.

Can it be thought that the Constitution intended that for a shade or two of convenience, more or less, Congress should be authorized to break down the most ancient and fundamental laws of the several States; such as those against Mortmain, the laws of Alienage, the rules of descent, the acts of distribution, the laws of escheat and forfeiture, the laws of monopoly? Nothing but a necessity invincible by any other means, can justify such a prostitution of laws, which constitute the pillars of our whole system of jurisprudence. Will Congress be too strait-laced to carry the Constitution into honest effect, unless they may pass over the foundation-laws of the State government for the slightest convenience of theirs ?

The negative of the President is the shield provided by the Constitution to protect against the invasions of the legislature: 1. The right of the Executive. 2. Of the Judiciary. 3. Of the States and State legislatures. The present is the case of a right remaining exclusively with the States, and consequently one of those intended by the Constitution to be placed under its protection,

It must be added, however, that unless the President's mind on a view of everything which is urged for and against this bill, is tolerably clear that it is unauthorized by the Constitution; if the pro and the con hang so even as to balance his judgment, a just respect for the wisdom of the legislature would naturally decide the balance in favor of their opinion. It is chiefly for cases where they are clearly misled by error, ambition, or interest, that the Constitution has placed a check in the negative of the President.
Thomas Jefferson, 1791

----------------------------------------

On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.— Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826),
letter to Judge William Johnson,
(from Monticello, June 12, 1823)