Speak Up Now

Blog on Accountability
Subscribe

Archive for the ‘Business’

Banque Cantonale de Geneve (BCGE) refuses to release money belonging to her client, because he is American citizen and lives in the United States: Is BCGE (and other Swiss banks) the ultimate “black hole” ? Can we still trust Swiss Banks?

May 18, 2012 By: admin Category: Business

This posting is a follow up to the conversations I had with BCGE now over a period of weeks. Since the issues addressed here are of bank’s corporate policy and procedural nature, hopefully this posting will find its way to the bank’s attorneys in their so called “compliance” department and to the BCGE direction. They contemptuously ignored in-person conversations with the Branch Manager as well as the email on this subject.

 

Facts:

 

For some time grandma, a Swiss citizen, saved and deposited, usually 100 Swiss francs at a time, money in a BCGE (Banque Cantonale de Geneve) Savings Account for her grandson. Now, when he graduated from college and is preparing to enter his Graduate School he would like to retire (some or all of) the money so accumulated in HIS account at BCGE.

 

He requested access to his account in order to withdraw his money. This was flatly refused by the bank on the grounds that since he is American citizen and lives in the United States, the bank cannot / will not have any direct communication with him. For the same reason, i.e. American citizen and not residing legally in Switzerland, the bank refused to give him any possibility to access HIS own money through e-banking.

 

Living literally around the corner of the BCGE branch, I, his father, asked the Branch Manager how can he, presently living in the United States, retire his money from HIS savings account. The answer I got from her was that the only way for him to access HIS money is to come to the bank in person. (The fact of American geography being slightly different from local parochial Geneva thinking seemed to be lost on the bank – or totally ignored).

 

It should be noted that the Branch Manager told me that she was going to inform the bank so-called “compliance” that very afternoon and that she would call me before the end of the day with a solution – as suggested by the bank direction and / or compliance. Week later I haven’t heard a word from her. How is that for professionalism of a Swiss banker, a BCGE Branch Manager?

 

When I suggested to the Branch Manager that he could sign an appropriate authorization (i.e. “procuration” in French) for me (and have it properly notarized in the United States) I was told me that the bank policy is that the person giving the “procuration” must be physically present in the bank. It seems, the only form of “procuration” (equivalent in this case of a “limited power of attorney”) acceptable to the bank for such an authorization to access someone else’s account resides on bank’s computer. The form has to be filled out by a bank employee, printed out and signed then and there by all the persons present in the bank and that such a form, blank or filled out and unsigned must never leave the bank.

 

A commonly used “power of attorney”, notarized in the United States, is, allegedly, not acceptable to the bank. Even as my son’s father, with his full knowledge and consent, and even with documents usually acceptable worldwide in the business environment (i.e. “power of attorney”), I am unable to assist him.

 

In summary, BCGE (Banque Cantonale de Geneve), gladly accepted deposits, but comes time of withdrawal the bank is making it really difficult, and so far impossible, to its client, to get to HIS money. Their lame explanation / “justification” being that, as consequence of the Obama Administration pressure, the Banque Cantonale de Geneve seems to have issued edict of total non-communication with anyone residing in the USA.

 

It is my opinion that a bank, and especially a Swiss bank of the stature of BCGE  should learn how to respect her clients and learn to deal with them, whoever they are and wherever in the world they may be.

 

Since over a week after the conversations no word was communicated with bank suggesting a resolution of this quagmire, I decided to spread the word on Internet and through my network of friends, acquaintances and associates, Social Media etc. informing the word of the BCGE despicable and unprofessional (Shylock-like) practices and inviting them this way not only not to trust the BCGE.

 

Parenthetically: I myself used to have a simple checking account at Credit Suisse in Lausanne since the very first days of my college studies there, October 1969. In 2010, living in California, and after being Credit Suisse client for over 40 years, I received a curt letter from the bank informing me that because of the agreements between Switzerland and the United States they were closing my account and were asking me where to wire the residual money.

 

So BCGE doesn’t seem to be alone in rather discourteous treatment of Americans. Credit Suisse was pretty unpleasant too.

 

Consequently: Please inform and warn your friends and acquaintances when and where you deem appropriate. Do not deposit your funds in BCGE

 

Comments and opinions

 

In my opinion, Banque Cantonale de Geneve (BCGE) cannot be trusted

 

Since the issues described here above are closely related to the fact that both, my son and I are American citizens and BCGE and Credit Suisse (never mind the world famous UBS giving clients names to the US authorities) bank’s practices are clearly and selectively discriminatory against American citizens, I informed Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, my California Congressman. It is he and his colleagues in the Congress that can influence the bilateral (financial) agreements between the United States and Switzerland. He should be fully informed where the extremists policies of the Obama administration pushed behavior of Swiss banks against the American citizens and inform his colleagues (including extremists like, for example, Senator Carl Levin) about the horrendously negative consequences of their myopic actions.

 

It should be stressed that the practices described here above are specific to treatment of American citizens and do not apply to other clients, Swiss or non Swiss. As I said, these practices seem to be direct consequence of the Obama administration policies. However, the Swiss bankers, BCGE, Credit Suisse and their colleagues, should be aware of the fact that the cowardly “caving-in” to the American “quasi-terrorist’ (“school-yard bully”) practices in the field of banking by the Swiss banks destroyed a trust the world used to have in Swiss institutions since foundation of Switzerland on August 1, 1291. The Swiss banks should have never, never, never caved in to Obama’s pressures! Giving-in only encourages that kind of behavior from other (European) nations (namely Germany and France). This is precisely the reason countries do not negotiate with terrorists: it shows weakness and sets precedent saying “intimidation works”.

 

It should also have been explained to Obama that the problem is NOT the destination country where the money is looking for refuge from his misguided taxation and “redistribution” “Robin Hood – like” philosophy. The countries, where people fear for their assets and seek refuge elsewhere should look at themselves. Interestingly enough, this very same observation was clearly pointed out on this subject in a recent Swiss television program with respect to France and flight of the French capital in the wake of their recent Presidential elections.

 

 

 

FBI/IC3/SECRET SERVICE BUSINESS ALERT

October 20, 2010 By: Herman Category: Business

FBI/IC3/SECRET SERVICE BUSINESS ALERT

Fraud Advisory for Businesses:

Corporate Account Take Over

Fraud Advisory for Businesses: Corporate Account Take Over
Wed, 20 Oct 2010 07:30:00 -0500

http://www.ic3.gov/media/2010/CorporateAccountTakeOver.pdf

 

 

 

Soviet Active Measures

August 10, 2010 By: admin Category: Business, Economy, History, International, Politics, Societal

SOVIET ACTIVE MEASURES[1]

Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it. (George Santayana, The Life of Reason, 1905)

Introduction.

In 10 days, August 20-21, it will be the 42nd anniversary of the Russian occupation of Czechoslovakia. Persons and activities surrounding this event might hold the key to understanding our present, and who knows, maybe the near future. This is my attempt at “connecting-some-dots” and submitting for discussion the question “Where do we think we are heading?”

Every now and then we see someone doing something totally unexpected, “out-of-their –character,” goes the expression. Our typical reaction in such a situation might be, for example, “What in the world is going on?” or “Is he/she gone crazy?” “Why did he/she (Spitzer, Gibson, Lohan …) do that?”

More often than not, we don’t have all the personal, historical, cultural elements that would explain, rationalize, person’s seemingly illogical behavior. Many stories by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, numerous classic movies and made-for-TV criminal series are based on that premise: – The key to someone’s today’s behavior may be found in distant past and / or a distant land. Unless a person is certifiably psychologically ill, digging deeply enough in his/her past, will always lead to a logical explanation.

The following account is based on the author’s best recollection of the events as they happened some time ago and over several decades. The purpose of this narrative is to help with understanding of recent / current events and maybe assist in forecasting of possible things to come. There will always be people arguing that “history does not repeat itself” since the conditions can never be systemically “identical.” That may be true, in general. However, the Principle of Causality has been sufficiently validated, recognized and is now respected as to help us with acceptance of some degree of predictability based on either some “eerie similarities[2]” or parameters already in place (ex. population segmentation by age)[3].

Is failure to “connect the dots” a US specific illness due to someone’s incompetence[4] or is it something much more nefarious? I let you decide.

I just submit the following series of events, facts, observations and thoughts, for discussion. While going over the series of events, please, recognize that at any point in time we DO NOT KNOW what will happen next week, month, – never mind years or decades later. Right now, we may speculate about the outcome of the November 2010 elections but we do not know their results. Just as now in August 2010 we do not know what will happen in October, November, December this year, or in 2011, 2012, 2013, – in 1960s nobody could predict what would happen in 1979, January 1993. Or could he?

Chapter 1

August 20-21, 1968, Prague, Czechoslovakia

Moscow, Tuesday August 20, 1968 about 4 PM Local Time [2 PM Prague, 8 AM New York City]

Czechoslovak Ambassador Pavlovský in Moscow allegedly receives a brief phone call. The caller says just one sentence, “It was decided for tonight” and hangs up. The Ambassador calls immediately the First Secretary of the Czechoslovak Communist Party Alexander Dubček in Prague with this information. Dubček gets a note about the call but does not share it with anyone[5].

Prague, Ruzyně Airport, August 20, 1968 – mid afternoon

An unscheduled flight with about 100 very athletic looking young men, allegedly some kind of sports team, arrives from Moscow. All men carry sizeable duffle bags and go straight out without being stopped by the customs officers. A couple of busses chartered by the Russian Embassy are waiting for them. They leave for an unknown destination.

Prague, Hradčany Castle, August 20, 1968 evening.

A meeting of key party and government officials is taking place at the Hradčany Castle, the Czech equivalent of the White House or Palais de l’Elysée. Dubček still does not say a word about the afternoon warning call to his colleagues. Allegedly, he does not believe it. At about 10 PM the Minister of Communications Hoffman excuses himself, goes out and orders his people to shut down all international phone communications.

Prague, Ruzyně Airport, August 20, 1968 about 10:40 PM Local Time [4:40 PM New York City]

The Russian athletic looking men, now in commando gear, appear back at the Ruzyně Airport. They quickly overpower the night crew and take control of the control tower. Few minutes later at about 11 PM local time the first Russian Air Force transport planes start landing in very short intervals one after another. They very quickly offload the troops and tanks and immediately take off and fly back.

At the same time, Russian units, with some relatively small numbers of Polish, East German, Hungarian and Bulgarian soldiers start crossing the borders all around the country.

The news of the crossings by the border guards reaches the meeting in Prague. Dubček bursts into tears, “They should not have done this to me. I trusted them,” he is said to have uttered, crying. For those who have not seen Dubcek in those days, just visualize the whining Jimmy Carter. The body language is eerily similar.

It is said the President Johnson[6] had advance information about the (preparation of the) invasion but he decided against giving a heads-up to the Czech leaders.

Prague, Downtown, Wednesday, August 21, 1968

Less than eight hours after the beginning of the military operation, the population wakes up to a sight of Russian tanks all over the streets of downtown Prague. One should be impressed by the logistics and the execution. Books were written about the events that followed.

Chapter 2

15 years later: January 1983, Glendale, Arizona

In 1979, a high ranking KGB officer, Stanislav Levchenko defected to the United States[7]

On December 17, 1982 a document titled “Unmasking Moscow’s “Institute of the U.S.A.” was published by the Heritage Foundation[8]. The Heritage Foundation document was based on July 7, 1981 declassified CIA’s debriefings of Stanislav Levchenko.

The original CIA debriefings document titled “Soviet Active Measures” came to my possession at Thunderbird School of Global Management in early January 1983. It was distributed by Werner Wagenlerner, then, allegedly, the West German Undersecretary of Defense, i.e. the highest West German Defense career official. He was our professor for a course titled “Selected Topics on Europe.”

As you can see in the document itself, since 1960s, that is in the years leading to the occupation of Czechoslovakia, the Soviet Union had a very thorough and consistent strategy of manipulating Western media as well as potential future persons of influence. Let’s leave aside for now their specific use of fake information and disinformation of the West through the media. I let you read about that in the document.

As part of their strategy to manipulate the public opinion in the West in their favor, the Soviet Union founded in 1960 the Patrice Lumumba University in Moscow[9] . The role of this University was to attract young students from all over the world and to convert them to the Russian, socialist / communist way of thinking as well as develop friendly personal relationships.

For the sake of intellectual integrity, let’s acknowledge that the strategy of influencing future leaders in other countries is common elsewhere. Switzerland, for one, likes to have foreign students in their Universities too (I know, I studied with them), hoping that once they return to their countries of origin (mostly in the third world), they will favor trade with Swiss companies instead of French, German or British ones. That’s the Swiss / Western approach.

The Russian approach, as documented by Levchenko is significantly more devious. Since the early sixties they clearly, strategically and deliberately manipulated the psyche of as many youngsters from all over the world as they could. The goal was to inoculate the socialist way of thinking and friendly attitude to the Soviet long term strategy of world domination. Yes, world domination. That’s what we, as kids, were taught daily in the middle and high schools in the sixties in the Socialist Czechoslovakia: “The Communist regime is the best and will ultimately prevail worldwide.” There was no secret about that. It was the mantra. The goal of the future Russian / communist world domination was taught to us daily and openly[10].

They succeeded beyond their wildest dreams:

10 / 25 years later: Wednesday, January 20, 1993, Washington DC

At 12 Noon, William Jefferson Clinton, becomes the 42nd President of the United States. Anyone heard the term “Manchurian Candidate”? See the Chapter 4, below, for more. But wait, the story is not over yet.

Chapter 3

Three years later: Tuesday, October 1, 1996

On October 1, 1996 I arrived to Prague for a short visit to the old country. In a magazine coincidentally available on the newsstands that day, I found a large (two large pages) article by several Czech journalists (possibly Mlady Svet?) on Hillary Clinton’s stay that summer[11]. It was an outstanding piece of journalistic investigation, completely ignored in the West. (One might ask “Why?”). The authors documented that 1. She was not there in any official capacity or on invitation by the Czech government, and 2. She was not staying in any hotels but was staying in numerous private residences. They then listed, first and last names, the hosting families. All these hosts were identified as former, hard core communists from the sixties, now out of power. Anyone heard about this in the US?

One thing we have to give her, – she clearly did stay loyal to her old college friends. It has been extensively documented (and discussed BEFORE Bill Clinton became President) how both, Bill and Hillary as boyfriend and girlfriend frequently traveled between London where Bill Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar and Moscow and Prague. Yet nobody in the Western Media seems to have connected the dots. Anyone wants to suggest an explanation?

Excerpt: ….Quote from Footnote [11]:

Clinton first used it in an address at the Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty headquarters in Prague on July 4, 1996. The kicker then wasn’t a call to restore American greatness abroad, but to safeguard hard-won freedoms from the Soviet incursion. “Freedom has come, and now it is up to each of us to determine what freedom will mean,” she told the crowd in Prague. Unquote.

Thirteen years later: Thursday, January 21, 2009 to present

Hillary Rodham Clinton becomes the 67th United States Secretary of State – person in charge of the United States foreign affaires, and thus privy to all United States secrets. It is she who now negotiates with Vladimir Putin in the name of the United States. Is it reasonable to think someone in the Congress got “asleep at the wheel” during her confirmation hearings?

Chapter 4

Bill Clinton’s Russian connection[12]:

Quote

As a Georgetown junior, Clinton inherited his antiwar orientation from his part-time employer, Senator J. William Fulbright. Fulbright’s views on Vietnam had in turn been influenced by scholar Bernard Fall. Fall had an academic background at institutions linked to Chinese Communist apologist Owen Lattimore. He had recently co-authored a book on Vietnam with Marcus Raskin, cofounder of the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), which disseminated Marxist propaganda aimed to sway Fulbright and other decision-makers. Fulbright’s office was also in regular contact with Igor Bubnov, a KGB operative on Capitol Hill. President Johnson had ordered the FBI to monitor Fulbright and his staff for suspected Communist contact at the time Clinton went to work for Fulbright.

Clinton remained relatively quiet about his war views during his first year as a grad student at Oxford from fall 1968 to spring 1969. He took an activist turn in summer 1969 while seeking to avoid being drafted. During summer vacation, he worked with the Vietnam Moratorium Committee (VMC), a US antiwar group which was helping a Communist-dominated coalition called the New Mobe to organize fall protests.

Upon Clinton’s return to Oxford that fall, he and his friend Richard Stearns helped a British VMC counterpart called Group 68 organize Americans in England for Moratorium protest events. (A supplementary background profile of Group 68 follows the body of the article, exploring the group’s links to a British antiwar network centered around Bertrand Russell and Russell’s associate Tariq Ali. Russell’s network helped the North Vietnamese and Soviets disseminate anti-US propaganda through channels such as the International War Crimes Tribunal, sponsored by the Soviet front the Stockholm Conference on Vietnam.)

Over winter vacation of 1969-1970, Clinton toured Moscow, where he had been preceded by his roommate Strobe Talbott. Talbott was then translating the memoirs of former Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev, which had been leaked to him by Victor Louis, a KGB disinformation agent and talent spotter. Clinton and Talbott’s other roommate Frank Aller was doing similar work on the unpublished notes of Edgar Snow, an academic associate of Lattimore.

The conclusion suggests possible directions for further research, considering where additional information on Clinton’s early activity might be found in government files and other sources.

Unquote

And again in the same document:

Quote

Meanwhile the KGB tried to influence Fulbright’s staff directly. In 1967, Soviet ambassador Igor Bubnov, an active KGB operative on Capitol Hill, initiated regular discussions with Fulbright’s chief of staff Carl Marcy. (After retiring from government service in 1973, Marcy would work for several organizations associated with Communist or IPS activity, including the Council for a Liveable World, the Center for International Policy, and the American Committee on United States-Soviet Relations aka American Committee on East-West Accord.)

US intelligence came to suspect Communist influence on Fulbright. In February 1966, President Johnson ordered FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover to investigate whether Fulbright and other Senate critics of US policy in Vietnam were receiving information from Communists. Hoover produced a report which demonstrated a correlation between the Soviet party line and the public statements of Fulbright and Senator Wayne Morse, but without authorization for wiretaps he was unable to confirm any direct contact with Communists or foreign agents. Ordered to seek confirmation, Hoover spent the next weeks producing a 67-page review of FBI wiretap records of contacts between Soviet bloc embassies and US Senators, Representatives, and Congressional staff, covering the period from July 1965 to March 1966. Hoover continued submitting biweekly follow-up reports to Johnson through January 1968. Johnson tasked other intelligence agencies to conduct similar inquiries. In 1968 Johnson boasted that he knew within minutes what Fulbright was saying over lunch at the Soviet embassy. Secretary of State Dean Rusk conveyed this fact to Marcy, telling him, “We know every time that you or people on your staff meet with people in the Soviet bloc.”

While US intelligence was investigating Fulbright and his staff, Georgetown junior Bill Clinton joined Fulbright’s staff in summer 1966. Clinton had looked to Fulbright as a role model since high school, when he first learned that Fulbright had attended England’s Oxford University as a Rhodes Scholar, a career path Clinton would follow as a graduate student. He got the job with Fulbright through Jack Holt, a local politician who was supported by Clinton’s uncle Raymond. After Uncle Raymond got him on Holt’s campaign, Clinton approached Holt and expressed his interest in working for Fulbright. Holt recommended him to Fulbright’s administrative assistant Lee Williams. Williams offered Clinton a job as an assistant clerk on the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.

Clinton continued working for Fulbright into his senior year. According to his autobiography My Life, he worked in the document room of the committee’s offices on the fourth floor of what was then called the New Senate Office Building (later renamed the Dirksen Senate Office Building), while Carl Marcy and a few committee senior staff worked in a larger room at the Capitol Building. Clinton’s primary duty was “taking memos and other materials back and forth between the Capitol and Senator Fulbright’s office, including confidential material for which I would have to receive proper government clearance. Beyond that, I would do whatever was required, from reading newspapers and clipping important articles for the staff and interested senators to answering requests for speeches and other materials, to adding names to the committee’s mailing list.” He often read “material stamped ‘confidential’ and ‘secret’ that I had to deliver from time to time”.

According to Clinton, he adopted an antiwar position while working under Fulbright. A few months after he began working for Fulbright, he had the Senator autograph a copy of his book The Arrogance of Power, which criticized US foreign policy on Vietnam and other topics. Clinton says his antiwar orientation was also influenced by members of Fulbright’s staff who encouraged him to study the issue of draft deferment.

Unquote

And Bill Clinton in Prague, from the same publication.

Quote

The delegation Clinton met sounds like it may have been related to the activities of the Committee of Liaison with Families of Servicemen Detained in North Vietnam (COLIFAM), an antiwar group formed in summer 1969 which negotiated POW exchanges in return for pro-Communist propaganda statements. However this is only informed speculation that has not been verified.

Clinton stayed in Moscow about five days. Several accounts say he left via the Soviet airline Aeroflot, but Clinton says “Nikki and her Haitian friend Helene put me on the train”.

In either case, Clinton’s next stop was Prague, Czechoslovakia, where he arrived on January 6, 1970. There he looked up the family of his Oxford friend Jan Kopold. Kopold’s family was well-connected in Czech Communist circles. Clinton received a guided tour of Prague from Marie Svermova, the widow of Czech Communist Party hero Jan Sverma, who was Jan Kopold’s grandfather. In 1969 the Kopolds ostensibly held dissident political views against the ruling regime, which had grown unpopular among reformers and student activists after the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia the previous year.

Clinton stayed in Czechoslovakia through January 12. According to his account, he then went on to Munich, West Germany to visit his friend Rudy Lowe and celebrate Faschingsfest, a Carnival Season festival with costumes similar to Mardis Gras or Halloween.

Unquote

Then there is the Bill Clinton Czech Communist Connection from article by Joel A. Ruth from April 30, 1999[13].

Quote

Activities such as Clinton’s were not at all out of character for Oxford students during that period and it has been estimated that even today, upwards of 60 percent of all British professors hold moderate to extreme Socialist views. For such, the Universities had long been the home recruiting ground of the international communist movement. Its successes were exemplified by their recruitment of the traitors Kim Philby and Donald MacLean.

While Bill Clinton has never explained who paid for his trip to Moscow, he was accompanied by a friend and fellow Oxford student, Czech Jan Kopold. They were to attend a meeting of the War Moratorium Committee to be held January 2, 1970. Upon arrival, Clinton did not check into a youth hostel, but rather stayed at the Hotel National, the most exclusive and expensive one in Moscow of that time — a ritzy place usually reserved for foreign ambassadors and high-level Communist Party apparatchiks.

In today’s terms, that trip would probably cost several thousand dollars. Clinton only had his tiny $275 Rhodes stipend to live on and never held a job. Thus, it is easy to believe that this tab and the arrangements could only have handled by the KGB, which during that epoch limited no expenses in its attempts to recruit promising American students in Europe.

Clinton has also never accounted for the 11 days spent in Moscow before the actual meeting of the War Moratorium and has never revealed who paid his expenses or what he did or whom he met with during that time. However, for a tourist visiting Red Square in Moscow, a trip to Lenin’s Tomb is usually on the itinerary. For a visiting leftist, such a visit is as requisite as a Moslem’s visit to the Kabah while in Mecca. Standing before the mummy of the High Priest of Communism and Atheism on Christmas Day, for a communist, had long represented a symbolic, ritual act of contempt and abnegation of all the religious, spiritual, and ethical values which most Americans cherish.

Even more telling was Clinton’s January 4 return trip from Moscow on another Aeroflot jet. The flight terminated in Prague, then the capital of the Czechoslovakian Soviet Socialist Republic (CSSR)[14]. There, Clinton was a guest of Jan Kopold’s father, Bedrich Kopold and Jan’s maternal grandmother Maria Svermova, who was the original founder of the Czech Communist Party in the 1930s. During his visit, she took a liking to young Bill; they walked and talked. Svermova’s deceased husband was the original editor of Rude Pravo, the Czech Communist Party paper before the War.

After the Soviet-backed Communist coup of Czechoslovakia in February 1948 had disposed of Democratic President Jan Masaryk by tossing him out a window of the Foreign Ministry, Rudolf Saltzman, a.k.a. Slansky, became the new president. Karel Svab, Maria’s brother, was appointed Commissar of Secret Police and was responsible for the subsequent murders, tortures, and deportations to Russian gulags of several hundred thousand Christians, democracy advocates, anti-Communists, and even religious Jews who had survived the Holocaust. Under the Saltzman/Slansky regime (1949-1952), Maria Svermova was Secretary of the Communist Party and the Central Committee, the supreme ruling body. While the majority of Jews in pre-war Czechoslovakia were anti-Communist, the Party itself was dominated by a clique of apostate Jews who had long since abandoned the principles of their religion to embrace the False God of Marxism.

The entire Kopold clan was a significant part of the ruling Communist party elite and was responsible for those murders and deportations either by the act or as formulators of policy. In fact, 11 out of 12 Politburo leaders of the Czech Communist Party were apostate Jews who had taken refuge in Moscow just prior to the German occupation of the Czech rump state in 1939. It was easy for the Communists to seize control in 1948 without popular resistance because the Germans had confiscated all private weapons during the War.

In 1948, Saltzman/Slansky smuggled guns and explosives to Palestine to arm the Zionist organizations, the Haganah, the Stern Gang, and the Irgun to enable them to keep killing British officials until Britain became fed up and pulled out. In 1949 these gangs organized the ethnic cleansing of over one million Palestinian Arabs from their lands which were then confiscated and made an integral part of the nascent State of Israel. President Saltzman/Slansky in turn paid with his life for assisting the Zionists. Accused of harboring Jewish nationalist sentiments, which were in opposition to Marxist internationalism, Stalin sent him to the gallows in 1952.

Years later, when Clinton was President, he again flew to Moscow, this time on Air Force One, to meet Boris Yeltsin. Then, on his return flight he had the plane stop in Prague, where, besides playing the saxophone — important stuff — he went to visit the parents of his Oxford friend Jan Kopold. By then, Maria Svermova had died of old age. As for Jan Kopold, he had been killed earlier in an “accidental fall” in Turkey in 1970, becoming perhaps the first of a long string of former Clinton friends and associates to meet an untimely end. Interestingly, Clinton told the news media people accompanying him on the Prague pit stop that the Kopolds were “old friends he had long admired.” Nothing appeared in the press, however, about Clinton’s admiration for and association with this family once such an intimate part of the ruling echelon of the murderous criminal Soviet puppet government that had enslaved Czechoslovakia.

Unquote

In conclusion, some open questions:

Jan Masaryk ( + March 10, 1948, Foreign Ministry Building, Prague)[15] —— Vince Foster (+ July 20, 1993, Marcy Park, Washington, DC)[16] ——  ?

Do you still remember the series of suspicious deaths of personalities (besides Vince Foster) during the Clinton years?

The deaths of the two personalities, Jan Masaryk and Vince Foster, happened some forty five years apart and on different sides of the Atlantic Ocean, – yet the Modus Operandi (of questionable suicides) looks so strangely similar! Should we / are we allowed to be asking questions? If not, what does it say about us?

In your opinion, how would Rahm Emmanuel’s famous sentence (“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste,” Rahm Emanuel, Mr. Obama’s new chief of staff, told a Wall Street Journal conference of top corporate chief executives this week”) reported by The Wall Street Journal online on November 21, 2008[17] fit in the process?

Do you see it fitting in 1929-1932 Germany?

It is early August 2010. What’s next? Is there anybody else who sees eerie similarities with other historical events? Anyone would venture into forecasting or at least asking “Why?”


[1] The term “Active Measures” is used for undercover / intelligence activities with the goal of manipulating public opinion in a wide variety of ways.

[2] See also Leonard Peikoff’s Ominous Parallels, © 1982, Meridian – Penguin Books 1983 (Library of Congress Catalog Number 83-60247) for his take on some other scary historical parallels.   http://www.amazon.com/Ominous-Parallels-Brilliant-parallels-pre-Hitler/dp/0452011175/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1280432538&sr=1-3

[3] A 1977 book by Helène Carrère d’Encausse titled L’Empire Eclaté predicted the fall of the Russian Empire. The prediction was based on the birthrates of the Russian Christian vs. Muslim populations and upcoming conflict within the Red Army – officers mainly Christian, soldiers mainly Islamic. In spite of this publication, the CIA was “surprised” by the 1989 fall of Berlin wall. I guess they don’t read French.

[4] The FBI failure (“failure”?) to “connect-the-dots” before the 9-11 is still in everybody’s fresh memory.

[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Pact_invasion_of_Czechoslovakia now says it was the Czechoslovak Ambassador to Hungary, Jozef Pučik who allegedly received the warning call. In the days after the invasion, this author was told / the word on the street was, that it was the Ambassador Pavlovský in Moscow who received that warning phone call.

[6] To get a better perspective on the various events, here is the timeline of the American Presidents during the events described in this article:

Lyndon Johnson                     November 22, 1963 – January 20, 1969

Richard Nixon                         January 20, 1969 – August 9, 1974

Gerald Ford                              August 9, 1974 – January 20, 1977

Jimmy Carter                          January 20, 1977 – January 20, 1981

Ronald Reagan                       January 20, 1981 – January 20, 1989

George H.W. Bush                 January 20, 1989 – January 20, 1993

William J. Clinton                 January 20, 1993 – January 20, 2001

George W. Bush                     January 20, 2001 – January 20, 2009

[7] See, for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Levchenko and references cited there.

[8] http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/1982/12/Unmasking-Moscows-Institute-of-the-USA

[9] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peoples%27_Friendship_University_of_Russia

[10] The logic was: The Communist regime is the best. Those who disagreed must then be mentally ill. Hence unlimited incarceration of opponents (without any judicial proceedings) – mainly in the former Soviet Union. Also well documented.

[11] From the Time magazine of July 12, 2007 http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1643100,00.html

[12] http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1884984/posts

[13] http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=16122

[14] Correction: CSSR stood for Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, not for Czechoslovak Soviet Socialist Republic as said in the article above.

[15] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Masaryk (as review with other primary references)

[16] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vince_Foster (as review with other primary references)

[17] http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB122721278056345271.html

AZ immigration defense fund donation page

July 10, 2010 By: admin Category: Business, Illegal immigration - Arizona, Politics

AZ immigration defense fund donation page:

https://az.gov/app/keepazsafe/donation_information.xhtml

Written by Mary McHugh
Friday, 09 July 2010 11:50

On July 6, the federal government announced it was suing the State of Arizona over its Senate Bill 1070, due to go into effect July 29. This bill is part of Arizona’s efforts to defend itself against the illegal immigration pouring over its southern border shared with Mexico, and the multitude of problems and dangers this has ensued both locally and nationally.

In the wake of the government’s announcement, a defense fund originally set up through executive order by Gov. Jan Brewer on May 26 immediately began amassing thousands of dollars from concerned parties of all 50 states, plus Washington D.C. and Puerto Rico. The total donated as of Thursday morning was about $500,000, with $330,000 arriving between July 6-8 alone; 7,008 of the 9,057 total online contributions since May were also made during this time period, with an estimated 88 percent of the fund’s total donations coming from these online contributors. Generally, the contributions were small, from between $5 to $2,000, and many of those donating were retirees. One concerned contributor, Mary Ann Rohde from Rialto, California, stated, “Arizona needs our help. It’s a disgrace what our government is doing.” She and her husband donated $20. According to the Associated Press:

More at:

http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/immigration/3986-donations-from-other-states-being-made-to-az-defense-fund

FBI INTELLIGENCE NOTE

June 24, 2010 By: Herman Category: Business

http://www.ic3.gov/

FBI Intelligence Note

Prepared by the Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3)

June 21, 2010

Fraudulent Telephone Calls Allowing Fraudsters Access to Consumer Financial and Brokerage Accounts The FBI Newark Division released a warning to consumers concerning a new scheme using telecommunications denial-of-service (TDoS) attacks.

The FBI determined fraudsters compromised victim accounts and contacted financial institutions to change the victim profile information (i.e. email addresses, telephone numbers and bank account numbers).

The TDoS attacks used automated dialing programs and multiple accounts to overwhelm victims’ cell phones and land lines with thousands of calls. When victims answered the calls they heard dead air (nothing on the other end), an innocuous recorded message, advertisement, or a telephone sex menu. Calls were typically short in duration but so numerous that victims changed their phone numbers to terminate the attack.

These TDoS attacks were used as a diversion to prevent financial and brokerage institutions from verifying victim account changes and transactions. Fraudsters were afforded adequate time to transfer funds from victim brokerage and financial online accounts.

Protection from TDoS attacks and other types of fraud requires consumers to be vigilant and proactive. In Newark’s Public Service Announcement (PSA), they recommend consumers protect themselves by:

  • Implement security measures for all financial accounts by placing fraud alerts with the major credit bureaus if you believe they were targeted by a TDoS attack or other forms of fraud.
  • Use strong passwords for all financial accounts and change them regularly.
  • Obtain and review your annual credit report for fraudulent activity.

If you were a target of a TDoS attack, immediately contact your financial institutions, notify your telephone provider, and promptly report it to the IC3 website at: www.IC3.gov. The IC3 complaint database links complaints to assist in referrals to the appropriate law enforcement agency for case consideration. The complaint information is also used to identity emerging trends and patterns.

To learn more about the FBI’s role in addressing these attacks please refer to the FBI Newark Division, PSA dated May 11, 2010, located at: http://newark.fbi.gov/press.htm.

Countries external debts

June 06, 2010 By: admin Category: Business

Since the US Treasury Secretary Geithner saw himself  (again)  in position of lecturing other nations on their economies, I thought it might be interesting to see the US position with respect to the world.

The Dollars per Capita owed to country’s external creditors is the measure of the amount each citizen owes. For example, this was $43,758 as of June 30, 2009 for every American and $49,525 for each Greek.

The Percentage of the country’s GDP (Gross Domestic Product) can be seen as the country’s ability to repay. In other words, Liberia may have owed only $930 Per Capita in 2003 but the total amount being 606% of its GDP, its ability to repay is rather slim.

Source:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_external_debt

Ranked by Percent of GDP Ranked by Per Capita Dollars
Country↓ External debt[2] Date↓ Country↓ External debt[2] Date↓
US dollars↓ Per capita[3][4] Per Capita Percent of US dollars↓ Per capita[3][4] Per Capita Percent of
US dollars↓ % of GDP[5][6]↓ Dollars GDP US dollars↓ % of GDP[5][6]↓ Dollars GDP
World 56,900,000,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 8,422 98% World 56,900,000,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 8,422 98%
1 Monaco 18,000,000,000 2000 est. 565,043 N/A 1 Luxembourg 1,994,000,000,000 30-Jun-09 4,028,283 3854%
2 Korea, North 12,500,000,000 2001 est. 582 N/A 2 Monaco 18,000,000,000 2000 est. 565,043 N/A
3 Somalia 3,000,000,000 2001 est. 393 N/A 3 Ireland 2,287,000,000,000 30-Sep-09 515,671 1004%
4 Netherlands Antilles 2,680,000,000 2004 12,280 N/A 4 Netherlands 3,733,000,000,000 31-Dec-09 226,503 470%
5 West Bank 1,300,000,000 2007 est. 552 N/A 5 Switzerland 1,339,000,000,000 30-Jun-09 182,899 271%
6 Bermuda 160,000,000 FY99/00 2,560 N/A 6 United Kingdom 9,088,000,000,000 30-Jun-09 147,060 416%
7 Cook Islands 141,000,000 1996 est. 7,756 N/A 7 Belgium 1,354,000,000,000 31-Dec-08 126,188 267%
8 New Caledonia 79,000,000 1998 est. 404 N/A 8 Norway 548,100,000,000 30-Jun-09 113,174 143%
9 Cayman Islands 70,000,000 1996 2,078 N/A 9 Denmark 607,400,000,000 30-Jun-09 110,216 196%
10 Faroe Islands 68,100,000 2006 1,409 N/A 10 Austria 808,900,000,000 30-Sep-09 97,411 212%
11 Micronesia, Federated States of 60,800,000 FY05 est. 563 N/A 11 Hong Kong 655,100,000,000 30-Sep-09 92,725 311%
12 Greenland 58,000,000 2009 1,007 N/A 12 France 5,021,000,000,000 30-Jun-09 80,209 188%
13 British Virgin Islands 36,100,000 1997 1,897 N/A 13 Sweden 669,100,000,000 30-Jun-09 72,594 165%
14 Nauru 33,300,000 2004 est. 2,599 N/A 14 Finland 364,900,000,000 30-Jun-09 68,180 153%
15 Montserrat 8,900,000 1997 14,958 N/A 15 Germany 5,208,000,000,000 30-Jun-09 63,493 155%
16 Anguilla 8,800,000 1998 818 N/A 16 Spain 2,410,000,000,000 30-Jun-09 52,588 165%
17 Wallis and Futuna 3,670,000 2004 244 N/A 17 Qatar 63,160,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 51,856 75%
18 Niue 418,000 2002 est. 196 N/A 18 Greece 552,800,000,000 30-Jun-09 49,525 167%
19 Liechtenstein 0 2001 0 N/A 19 Portugal 507,000,000,000 30-Jun-09 47,632 223%
20 Palau 0 FY99/00 0 N/A 20 United States 13,450,000,000,000 30-Jun-09 43,758 94%
21 Luxembourg 1,994,000,000,000 30-Jun-09 4,028,283 3854% 21 Australia 920,000,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 42,057 92%
22 Ireland 2,287,000,000,000 30-Sep-09 515,671 1004% 22 Cyprus 32,860,000,000 31 December 2008 est. 41,648 129%
23 Liberia 3,200,000,000 2005 est. 930 606% 23 Italy 2,328,000,000,000 31-Dec-08 39,234 101%
24 Netherlands 3,733,000,000,000 31-Dec-09 226,503 470% 24 Slovenia 55,000,000,000 31-Aug-09 27,282 112%
25 United Kingdom 9,088,000,000,000 30-Jun-09 147,060 416% 25 United Arab Emirates 128,600,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 26,202 56%
26 Sao Tome and Principe 318,000,000 2002 2,193 349% 26 Canada 833,800,000,000 30-Jun-09 24,749 62%
27 Hong Kong 655,100,000,000 30-Sep-09 92,725 311% 27 Estonia 22,540,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 16,821 118%
28 Switzerland 1,339,000,000,000 30-Jun-09 182,899 271% 28 Latvia 38,010,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 16,811 145%
29 Belgium 1,354,000,000,000 31-Dec-08 126,188 267% 29 Japan 2,132,000,000,000 30-Jun-09 16,714 42%
30 Portugal 507,000,000,000 30-Jun-09 47,632 223% 30 Montserrat 8,900,000 1997 14,958 N/A
31 Austria 808,900,000,000 30-Sep-09 97,411 212% 31 Seychelles 1,250,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 14,706 163%
32 Guinea-Bissau 941,500,000 2000 est. 722 203% 32 New Zealand 58,920,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 13,636 50%
33 Burundi 1,200,000,000 2003 167 202% 33 Croatia 59,400,000,000 30 September 2009 est. 13,390 94%
34 Denmark 607,400,000,000 30-Jun-09 110,216 196% 34 Netherlands Antilles 2,680,000,000 2004 12,280 N/A
35 France 5,021,000,000,000 30-Jun-09 80,209 188% 35 Hungary 116,800,000,000 31-Dec-09 11,667 90%
36 Gambia, The 628,800,000 2003 est. 438 170% 36 Israel 84,690,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 11,649 43%
37 Greece 552,800,000,000 30-Jun-09 49,525 167% 37 Lithuania 36,430,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 10,924 98%
38 Spain 2,410,000,000,000 30-Jun-09 52,588 165% 38 Iceland 3,073,000,000 2002 10,670 35%
39 Sweden 669,100,000,000 30-Jun-09 72,594 165% 39 Bahrain 10,870,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 10,462 54%
40 Sierra Leone 1,610,000,000 2003 est. 311 163% 40 Slovakia 52,530,000,000 31-Dec-08 9,706 55%
41 Seychelles 1,250,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 14,706 163% 41 Kuwait 32,500,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 9,191 29%
42 Germany 5,208,000,000,000 30-Jun-09 63,493 155% 42 Malta 3,750,000,000 2008 9,080 45%
43 Congo, Republic of the 5,000,000,000 2000 est. 1,722 155% 43 Cook Islands 141,000,000 1996 est. 7,756 N/A
44 Finland 364,900,000,000 30-Jun-09 68,180 153% 44 Czech Republic 76,830,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 7,318 39%
45 Latvia 38,010,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 16,811 145% 45 Korea, South 333,600,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 6,842 40%
46 Norway 548,100,000,000 30-Jun-09 113,174 143% 46 Bulgaria 49,280,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 6,511 105%
47 Zimbabwe 5,821,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 496 132% 47 Saint Kitts and Nevis 314,000,000 2004 6,408 79%
48 Cyprus 32,860,000,000 31 December 2008 est. 41,648 129% 48 Kazakhstan 93,210,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 5,987 85%
49 Estonia 22,540,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 16,821 118% 49 Lebanon 21,110,000,000 30 November 2009 est. 5,473 63%
50 Comoros 232,000,000 2000 est. 420 115% 50 Poland 201,200,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 5,279 47%
51 Slovenia 55,000,000,000 31-Aug-09 27,282 112% 51 Aruba 478,600,000 2005 est. 4,935 21%
52 Bulgaria 49,280,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 6,511 105% 52 Romania 95,480,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 4,459 59%
53 Italy 2,328,000,000,000 31-Dec-08 39,234 101% 53 Antigua and Barbuda 359,800,000 Jun-06 4,388 36%
54 Congo, Democratic Republic of the 10,000,000,000 2007 est. 164 100% 54 Serbia 31,720,000,000 30 November 2009 est. 4,297 74%
55 Lithuania 36,430,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 10,924 98% 55 Jamaica 11,550,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 4,260 97%
56 Jamaica 11,550,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 4,260 97% 56 Singapore 19,200,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 4,042 11%
57 United States 13,450,000,000,000 30-Jun-09 43,758 94% 57 Turkey 274,000,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 3,884 45%
58 Croatia 59,400,000,000 30 September 2009 est. 13,390 94% 58 Uruguay 12,610,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 3,770 40%
59 Australia 920,000,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 42,057 92% 59 Chile 60,900,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 3,586 38%
60 Hungary 116,800,000,000 31-Dec-09 11,667 90% 60 Mauritius 4,567,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 3,565 52%
61 Ukraine 104,000,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 2,275 90% 61 Panama 12,040,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 3,475 49%
62 Kazakhstan 93,210,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 5,987 85% 62 Taiwan 79,800,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 3,452 21%
63 Mali 2,800,000,000 2002 240 84% 63 Grenada 347,000,000 2004 3,402 74%
64 Niger 2,100,000,000 2003 est. 178 79% 64 Dominica 213,000,000 2004 3,000 75%
65 Saint Kitts and Nevis 314,000,000 2004 6,408 79% 65 Belize 954,100,000 2008 est. 2,982 70%
66 Iraq 50,290,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 1,610 76% 66 Saudi Arabia 72,450,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 2,839 20%
67 Nicaragua 4,700,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 743 76% 67 Argentina 108,600,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 2,706 35%
68 Qatar 63,160,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 51,856 75% 68 Macedonia 5,458,000,000 31 September 2009 est. 2,648 59%
69 Dominica 213,000,000 2004 3,000 75% 69 Russia 369,200,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 2,611 30%
70 Serbia 31,720,000,000 30 November 2009 est. 4,297 74% 70 Nauru 33,300,000 2004 est. 2,599 N/A
71 Grenada 347,000,000 2004 3,402 74% 71 Bermuda 160,000,000 FY99/00 2,560 N/A
72 Moldova 3,970,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 1,113 73% 72 Oman 7,474,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 2,522 14%
73 Guinea 3,072,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 290 70% 73 Barbados 668,000,000 2003 2,456 25%
74 Belize 954,100,000 2008 est. 2,982 70% 74 Ukraine 104,000,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 2,275 90%
75 Kyrgyzstan 3,467,000,000 31-Dec-08 653 68% 75 Sao Tome and Principe 318,000,000 2002 2,193 349%
76 Central African Republic 1,153,000,000 2007 est. 270 68% 76 Bosnia and Herzegovina 8,415,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 2,102 49%
77 Sudan 36,270,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 927 66% 77 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 223,000,000 2004 2,084 54%
78 Bhutan 836,000,000 2009 1,239 66% 78 Cayman Islands 70,000,000 1996 2,078 N/A
79 Lebanon 21,110,000,000 30 November 2009 est. 5,473 63% 79 Gabon 3,065,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 2,078 28%
80 Canada 833,800,000,000 30-Jun-09 24,749 62% 80 El Salvador 11,510,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 1,976 55%
81 Romania 95,480,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 4,459 59% 81 British Virgin Islands 36,100,000 1997 1,897 N/A
82 Macedonia 5,458,000,000 31 September 2009 est. 2,648 59% 82 Costa Rica 8,057,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 1,744 27%
83 United Arab Emirates 128,600,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 26,202 56% 83 Malaysia 48,260,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 1,738 25%
84 Djibouti 428,000,000 2006 573 56% 84 Congo, Republic of the 5,000,000,000 2000 est. 1,722 155%
85 Slovakia 52,530,000,000 31-Dec-08 9,706 55% 85 Maldives 589,000,000 2009 est. 1,707 43%
86 El Salvador 11,510,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 1,976 55% 86 Cuba 19,440,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 1,698 34%
87 Laos 3,085,000,000 2009 est. 484 55% 87 Mexico 177,000,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 1,646 20%
88 Cote d’Ivoire 12,080,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 565 54% 88 Iraq 50,290,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 1,610 76%
89 Bahrain 10,870,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 10,462 54% 89 Trinidad and Tobago 2,079,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 1,589 10%
90 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 223,000,000 2004 2,084 54% 90 Saint Lucia 257,000,000 2004 1,586 32%
91 Marshall Islands 87,000,000 2008 est. 1,377 54% 91 Venezuela 43,410,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 1,517 13%
92 Cape Verde 325,000,000 2002 722 53% 92 Tunisia 15,640,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 1,500 39%
93 Mauritius 4,567,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 3,565 52% 93 South Africa 73,840,000,000 30-Jun-09 1,497 26%
94 Armenia 4,470,000,000 30-Jun-09 1,368 51% 94 Faroe Islands 68,100,000 2006 1,409 N/A
95 New Zealand 58,920,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 13,636 50% 95 Marshall Islands 87,000,000 2008 est. 1,377 54%
96 Panama 12,040,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 3,475 49% 96 Armenia 4,470,000,000 30-Jun-09 1,368 51%
97 Bosnia and Herzegovina 8,415,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 2,102 49% 97 Dominican Republic 11,850,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 1,312 25%
98 Poland 201,200,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 5,279 47% 98 Bhutan 836,000,000 2009 1,239 66%
99 Sri Lanka 19,450,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 961 47% 99 Brazil 216,100,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 1,129 14%
100 Samoa 177,000,000 2004 994 47% 100 Jordan 6,715,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 1,121 29%
101 Turkey 274,000,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 3,884 45% 101 Moldova 3,970,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 1,113 73%
102 Malta 3,750,000,000 2008 9,080 45% 102 Bahamas, The 342,600,000 2004 est. 1,067 6%
103 Mongolia 1,860,000,000 2009 690 44% 103 Colombia 47,330,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 1,052 21%
104 Eritrea 311,000,000 2000 est. 87 44% 104 Guyana 804,300,000 30-Sep-08 1,049 42%
105 Solomon Islands 166,000,000 2004 355 44% 105 Peru 30,040,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 1,032 24%
106 Israel 84,690,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 11,649 43% 106 Libya 6,491,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 1,025 11%
107 Maldives 589,000,000 2009 est. 1,707 43% 107 Suriname 504,300,000 2005 est. 1,011 28%
108 Japan 2,132,000,000,000 30-Jun-09 16,714 42% 108 Greenland 58,000,000 2009 1,007 N/A
109 Mozambique 4,159,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 197 42% 109 Samoa 177,000,000 2004 994 47%
110 Guyana 804,300,000 30-Sep-08 1,049 42% 110 Thailand 66,300,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 990 25%
111 Korea, South 333,600,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 6,842 40% 111 Sri Lanka 19,450,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 961 47%
112 Uruguay 12,610,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 3,770 40% 112 Ecuador 13,280,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 941 23%
113 Czech Republic 76,830,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 7,318 39% 113 Montenegro 650,000,000 2006 939 24%
114 Tunisia 15,640,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 1,500 39% 114 Turkmenistan 5,000,000,000 2009 est. 934 31%
115 Chile 60,900,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 3,586 38% 115 Liberia 3,200,000,000 2005 est. 930 606%
116 Ghana 5,840,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 253 38% 116 Sudan 36,270,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 927 66%
117 Cambodia 4,157,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 298 38% 117 Botswana 1,651,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 910 14%
118 Nepal 4,500,000,000 2009 161 36% 118 Belarus 7,900,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 833 16%
119 Lesotho 581,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 233 36% 119 Anguilla 8,800,000 1998 818 N/A
120 Antigua and Barbuda 359,800,000 Jun-06 4,388 36% 120 Tonga 80,700,000 2004 791 33%
121 Argentina 108,600,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 2,706 35% 121 Georgia 3,381,000,000 31-Dec-09 771 31%
122 Iceland 3,073,000,000 2002 10,670 35% 122 Nicaragua 4,700,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 743 76%
123 Vietnam 31,000,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 355 34% 123 Angola 12,830,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 741 19%
124 Cuba 19,440,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 1,698 34% 124 Guinea-Bissau 941,500,000 2000 est. 722 203%
125 Tajikistan 1,691,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 260 34% 125 Cape Verde 325,000,000 2002 722 53%
126 Philippines 53,140,000,000 30 September 2009 est. 576 33% 126 Mongolia 1,860,000,000 2009 690 44%
127 Tonga 80,700,000 2004 791 33% 127 Kyrgyzstan 3,467,000,000 31-Dec-08 653 68%
128 Tanzania 7,070,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 174 32% 128 Indonesia 150,700,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 651 28%
129 Saint Lucia 257,000,000 2004 1,586 32% 129 Morocco 20,060,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 633 22%
130 Pakistan 52,120,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 318 31% 130 Korea, North 12,500,000,000 2001 est. 582 N/A
131 Turkmenistan 5,000,000,000 2009 est. 934 31% 131 Philippines 53,140,000,000 30 September 2009 est. 576 33%
132 Georgia 3,381,000,000 31-Dec-09 771 31% 132 Djibouti 428,000,000 2006 573 56%
133 Russia 369,200,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 2,611 30% 133 Namibia 1,184,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 569 13%
134 Bolivia 5,349,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 523 30% 134 Cote d’Ivoire 12,080,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 565 54%
135 Kuwait 32,500,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 9,191 29% 135 Micronesia, Federated States of 60,800,000 FY05 est. 563 N/A
136 Jordan 6,715,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 1,121 29% 136 West Bank 1,300,000,000 2007 est. 552 N/A
137 Papua New Guinea 2,320,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 366 29% 137 Guatemala 7,489,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 534 20%
138 Indonesia 150,700,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 651 28% 138 Bolivia 5,349,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 523 30%
139 Gabon 3,065,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 2,078 28% 139 Swaziland 534,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 520 18%
140 Suriname 504,300,000 2005 est. 1,011 28% 140 Paraguay 3,220,000,000 31-Dec-09 513 22%
141 Costa Rica 8,057,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 1,744 27% 141 Albania 1,550,000,000 2004 497 21%
142 Burma 7,373,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 123 27% 142 Zimbabwe 5,821,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 496 132%
143 Chad 1,600,000,000 2005 est. 177 27% 143 Laos 3,085,000,000 2009 est. 484 55%
144 South Africa 73,840,000,000 30-Jun-09 1,497 26% 144 Gambia, The 628,800,000 2003 est. 438 170%
145 Thailand 66,300,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 990 25% 145 Honduras 3,315,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 423 23%
146 Malaysia 48,260,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 1,738 25% 146 Comoros 232,000,000 2000 est. 420 115%
147 Bangladesh 23,220,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 141 25% 147 New Caledonia 79,000,000 1998 est. 404 N/A
148 Dominican Republic 11,850,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 1,312 25% 148 Somalia 3,000,000,000 2001 est. 393 N/A
149 Yemen 6,245,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 264 25% 149 Vanuatu 81,200,000 2004 383 22%
150 Zambia 3,313,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 277 25% 150 Syria 7,621,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 374 15%
151 Barbados 668,000,000 2003 2,456 25% 151 Egypt 28,450,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 371 15%
152 Peru 30,040,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 1,032 24% 152 Papua New Guinea 2,320,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 366 29%
153 Kenya 7,729,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 215 24% 153 Solomon Islands 166,000,000 2004 355 44%
154 Madagascar 2,054,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 99 24% 154 Vietnam 31,000,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 355 34%
155 Malawi 1,091,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 78 24% 155 Pakistan 52,120,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 318 31%
156 Montenegro 650,000,000 2006 939 24% 156 Sierra Leone 1,610,000,000 2003 est. 311 163%
157 Ecuador 13,280,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 941 23% 157 Cambodia 4,157,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 298 38%
158 Honduras 3,315,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 423 23% 158 Guinea 3,072,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 290 70%
159 Afghanistan 2,700,000,000 2008 96 23% 159 Zambia 3,313,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 277 25%
160 Burkina Faso 1,840,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 128 23% 160 Central African Republic 1,153,000,000 2007 est. 270 68%
161 Morocco 20,060,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 633 22% 161 Azerbaijan 2,411,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 269 6%
162 Paraguay 3,220,000,000 31-Dec-09 513 22% 162 Yemen 6,245,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 264 25%
163 Senegal 2,763,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 216 22% 163 Tajikistan 1,691,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 260 34%
164 Benin 1,200,000,000 2007 135 22% 164 China 347,100,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 260 7%
165 Vanuatu 81,200,000 2004 383 22% 165 Ghana 5,840,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 253 38%
166 Taiwan 79,800,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 3,452 21% 166 Iran 18,730,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 253 6%
167 Colombia 47,330,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 1,052 21% 167 Wallis and Futuna 3,670,000 2004 244 N/A
168 Albania 1,550,000,000 2004 497 21% 168 Mali 2,800,000,000 2002 240 84%
169 Aruba 478,600,000 2005 est. 4,935 21% 169 Lesotho 581,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 233 36%
170 Mexico 177,000,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 1,646 20% 170 Senegal 2,763,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 216 22%
171 Saudi Arabia 72,450,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 2,839 20% 171 Kenya 7,729,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 215 24%
172 Guatemala 7,489,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 534 20% 172 Mozambique 4,159,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 197 42%
173 Angola 12,830,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 741 19% 173 Niue 418,000 2002 est. 196 N/A
174 India 223,900,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 187 18% 174 India 223,900,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 187 18%
175 Swaziland 534,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 520 18% 175 Niger 2,100,000,000 2003 est. 178 79%
176 Belarus 7,900,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 833 16% 176 Chad 1,600,000,000 2005 est. 177 27%
177 Egypt 28,450,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 371 15% 177 Tanzania 7,070,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 174 32%
178 Syria 7,621,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 374 15% 178 Burundi 1,200,000,000 2003 167 202%
179 Brazil 216,100,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 1,129 14% 179 Congo, Democratic Republic of the 10,000,000,000 2007 est. 164 100%
180 Oman 7,474,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 2,522 14% 180 Nepal 4,500,000,000 2009 161 36%
181 Botswana 1,651,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 910 14% 181 Fiji 127,000,000 2004 est. 150 5%
182 Kiribati 10,000,000 1999 est. 120 14% 182 Cameroon 2,929,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 147 13%
183 Venezuela 43,410,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 1,517 13% 183 Bangladesh 23,220,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 141 25%
184 Ethiopia 4,229,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 51 13% 184 Equatorial Guinea 174,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 136 1%
185 Cameroon 2,929,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 147 13% 185 Benin 1,200,000,000 2007 135 22%
186 Uganda 2,050,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 62 13% 186 Uzbekistan 3,630,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 130 11%
187 Namibia 1,184,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 569 13% 187 Burkina Faso 1,840,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 128 23%
188 Singapore 19,200,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 4,042 11% 188 Burma 7,373,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 123 27%
189 Libya 6,491,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 1,025 11% 189 Kiribati 10,000,000 1999 est. 120 14%
190 Uzbekistan 3,630,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 130 11% 190 Madagascar 2,054,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 99 24%
191 Trinidad and Tobago 2,079,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 1,589 10% 191 Algeria 3,389,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 97 2%
192 China 347,100,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 260 7% 192 Afghanistan 2,700,000,000 2008 96 23%
193 Haiti 428,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 48 7% 193 Eritrea 311,000,000 2000 est. 87 44%
194 Iran 18,730,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 253 6% 194 Malawi 1,091,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 78 24%
195 Nigeria 9,689,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 64 6% 195 Nigeria 9,689,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 64 6%
196 Azerbaijan 2,411,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 269 6% 196 Uganda 2,050,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 62 13%
197 Bahamas, The 342,600,000 2004 est. 1,067 6% 197 Ethiopia 4,229,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 51 13%
198 Fiji 127,000,000 2004 est. 150 5% 198 Haiti 428,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 48 7%
199 Algeria 3,389,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 97 2% 199 Liechtenstein 0 2001 0 N/A
200 Equatorial Guinea 174,000,000 31 December 2009 est. 136 1% 200 Palau 0 FY99/00 0 N/A
201 Brunei 0 2005 0 0% 201 Brunei 0 2005 0 0%
202 Macau 0 2009 0 0% 202 Macau 0 2009 0 0%

IRS Launches First Wave Of Small Business Attacks

May 29, 2010 By: admin Category: Business

IRS Launches First Wave Of Small Business Attacks

Initial Focus on Employment Tax Compliance

May 27, 2010 by Dan Pilla

When the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) released its five-year strategic plan last year it promised a flurry of new attacks on the public in a variety of areas. Referred to by the IRS as “enforcement initiatives,” these attacks constitute the key areas the agency will target for increased audit attention in the years to come. What was a mere promise last fall of more audit activity is now a reality. The IRS just recently launched the first wave of audit attacks.

In reviewing the IRS’s strategic plan it came as no surprise to me that the lion’s share of this new audit attention would be focused on small businesses. What did surprise me is the level of aggressiveness with which the IRS intends to carry out the attack. The agency identified four specific areas that it will focus on. I reveal them here.

1. The misclassification of workers as independent contractors (ICs). Employment taxes represent a staggering cost to businesses, both in terms of money and time. For this reason, many businesses look for ways to trim costs by reducing employees. One strategy is to use independent contractors (ICs) rather than employees to perform services for the business. But there is a right way and a wrong way to use ICs. If you go about it the wrong way you open yourself up to substantial tax assessments with penalties and interest.

Because employment taxes are such an important revenue source, the IRS is determined to audit as many businesses as possible to ferret out those that use ICs. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently reported that in 2007, various audits by state revenue departments found that more than 150,000 workers were misclassified as ICs. This report prompted the IRS to undertake its own study. So beginning immediately, the IRS will launch at least 6,000 random audits of small businesses. The announcement came on April 22 and was issued by Robin Arnold, a senior IRS program manager and field specialist.

Of course, the random audits are just the beginning. Once the IRS has the audit program fully developed and refined it will let loose its agents upon businesses on a much wider scale. The agency is training 200 revenue agents right now to conduct these audits. Moreover, it’s in the process of hiring nearly 2,000 more agents this year to help carry the load. Even worse, the results of the audits will be shared with the states so they can get in line behind the IRS to pick the bones clean.

And while it’s certainly not illegal to use ICs, you must be sure the workers are legitimate ICs and not merely employees masquerading as ICs. This is just one reason my IRS Problem Solver Series is so important and valuable for small businesses. This issue is just one of the many I discuss in great detail in that package.

2. Employment tax return non-filers. The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration recently called on the IRS to step up enforcement against businesses that don’t file employment tax returns or pay employment taxes on time. The IRS treats this issue very seriously since employment tax money is largely withheld from the paychecks of employees. The employer is then responsible to pay it to the IRS. When the employer fails to do that he is treated as violating a “trust” relationship and becomes personally liable for the unpaid withholding taxes.

The IRS is now expanding its audits to randomly probe businesses for employment tax compliance. And because these audits are entirely random, there’s really no way a business can avoid such an audit. The best you can do is to make sure your business is in compliance.

3. Payment of fringe benefits to employees. Unless specifically excluded by law, the payment of money, property or services of any kind as compensation for services is taxable income. If a person receives goods in exchange for services, those goods are taxed at their fair market value.

On the other hand, the tax code does exclude from taxation certain fringe benefits paid by companies to their employees. But the exclusions are limited and are expressly defined. To the extent that any benefits exceed those limits, they are taxable.

To illustrate how desperate for revenue the Federal government now is, the random audit program targeted at small businesses will also focus on the payment of fringe benefits to employees. Look for the IRS to work on taxing every possible benefit that’s paid to employees. And of course, it intends to squeeze that money out of your pocket.

4. Payment of compensation to corporate officers. One of the most common mistakes made by small corporations is the failure to pay corporate officers (usually the owners) a “reasonable salary.” The tax code provides that corporate officers who provide services to a corporation must be compensated by the corporation commensurate with the fair market value of those services.

But many corporate officers do not draw a salary. Rather, they take their entire compensation in the form of a “dividend.” The difference is that the dividend is generally not subject to social security tax while the salary is. This is an issue of growing concern, but most small business owners will not see it coming. Too many tax return preparation professionals just do not understand the nuances of determining reasonable compensation or even that the IRS will challenge the compensation package of a small business owner. I expect many business owners to be blindsided by this issue. It could cost you a fortune.

—Daniel J. Pilla


After you visited this site, please do not forget to "Share" our Vial Lido Facebook page (The “Share” function is on http://www.facebook.com/pages/Via-Lido/113135125384472, in the pull down menu under the Settings button, - (the flower / dented wheel sign placed just next to the “Like” button. You will have to "Log In" yourself first). Thanks!