November 7th, 2012

Fed Report: 100% Chance Of Recession


closing down

This article was written by Mac Slavo and originally published at SHTFplan.com

Now that the election is over, the propaganda media can back off the burying of those critical stories that they couldn’t be bothered to report in the lead up to the re-election of President Obama.

What are we talking about?

For starters, the Federal Reserve’s recent report, which received nary a comment from the political and financial pundits on television.

While the economy was on the minds of most voters last night, what they didn’t know may have very well swung the election to one candidate over another.

And this particular tidbit of data is as important as it gets when we’re talking about economic health:

Via SGT Report and The Daily Crux with commentary by Pragmatic Capitalism:

Here’s an interesting new data point that the St Louis Fed has put together to calculate recession probabilities:

“Recession probabilities for the United States are obtained from a dynamic-factor markov-switching model applied to four monthly coincident variables: non-farm payroll employment, the index of industrial production, real personal income excluding transfer payments, and real manufacturing and trade sales. “

What’s interesting about this index is the current reading. At 20%, the index is at a level that has ALWAYS been followed by a recession. As you can see below, the index has never approached 20% without a subsequent recession. All 6 recessions since 1967 have coincided with 20%+ readings in the US Recession Probabilities index.


It’s no secret that the economy is still hurting. According to this report we are on the verge of another recession within the midst of a broader ‘depression.’ Contrarian analysts have already suggested this is the case, with many saying we’ve been in recession since at least summer.

Moreover, if you look at the real numbers behind the numbers, like the rate of real inflation, and bounce those against this purported economic growth you may be surprised to find that we never exited the recession!

Look at the chart below. You see that red line? That’s the government’s official GDP, a measure for economic growth. The government shows it in positive territory and its been heralded without question by the mainstream machine as the proof for an economic recovery.

Now look at the blue line. That’s the unofficial GDP as calculated by economist John Williams using algorithms that account for distortions in the way government calculates inflation.

A recession, as defined by most traditional measures of economics, is a period of two consecutive quarters with negative economic growth.

That’s right — this whole time during which millions were losing jobs and homes, and as food stamp usage doubled, we have been in recession. That’s over four years now.

But did we really need a report from the Federal Reserve to confirm that for us?

On another (related) note, stock markets are down over 300 points as of  this writing. Apparently Europe is in shambles (again).

It seems this is how financial markets around the world are celebrating the re-election of a President who has presided over the largest cumulative debt increase in the nation’s history.

Now that the election is over, we can return to our regularly scheduled programming.




SUPPORT OUR BILLBOARD CAMPAIGN
Placing billboards outside of military bases to remind service members of their oath


Please donate and support Oath Keepers mission, every little bit helps!



 Read More Posts

Comments posted belong to the commenter alone, and are not endorsed by Oath Keepers or the administrators for this site. We will remove offensive, racist, or threatening comments.

2 Responses to “Fed Report: 100% Chance Of Recession”

  1. 1
    Robert Been Says:

    I just wonder when will honor the oath?

  2. 2
    Cal Says:

    Which part? To “support and defend the US Constitution? As much as attorneys today follow what they were taught and believe that the Supreme Law of this land means nothing – who knows. But for us people who have not taken the oath legally, just to ourselves and with same believing friends – soon.

    You see, when the SUPREME law of this land says that:

    The first law statute of the United States of America, enacted in the first session of the First Congress on 1 June 1789, was Statute 1, Chapter 1: an act to regulate the time and manner of administering certain oaths, which established the oath required by civil and military officials to support the Constitution.

    The wording of the Presidential Oath was established in the Constitution in Article II, Section 1, Clause 10.

    The requirement for all Federal and State Civil officers to give their solemn and binding Oath is established in Article VI, Section 1, Clause 4.

    They are BOUND by their Oath to support the Constitution, and should they abrogate their Oath by their acts or inaction, are subject to charges of impeachment and censure (political recourse to political offenses).

    Once given, the Oath is binding for life, unless renounced, refused, and abjured. It does not cease upon the occasions of leaving office or of discharge.

    But for civil recourse:
    The US Constitution.
    Solemn: “Legally binding, Common legal phrase indicating that an agreement has been consciously made, and certain actions are now either required or prohibited”, “The other requirement for an agreement or contract to be considered legally binding is consideration – both parties must knowingly understand what they are agreeing to”. (And if they did not, they should have!)

    Bound: “Being under legal or moral obligation; To constitute the boundary or limit of; To set a limit to; confine”.

    Used to be on the FBI website a few years ago until taken down:
    The wording we use today as Executive Branch employees is now set out in chapter 33 of title 5, United States Code. The wording dates to the Civil War and what was called the Ironclad Test Oath. Starting in 1862, Congress required a two-part oath. The first part, referred to as a “background check,” affirmed that you were not supporting and had not supported the Confederacy. The second part addressed future performance, that is, what you would swear to do in the future. It established a clear, publicly sworn accountability. In 1873, Congress dropped the first part of the Ironclad Test Oath, and in 1884 adopted the wording we use today.

    In the Federal Government, in order for an official to take office, he or she must first take the oath of office. The official reciting the oath swears an allegiance to uphold the Constitution.

    The Senate then revised its rules to require that members not only take the Test Oath orally, but also that they “subscribe” to it by signing a printed copy. This condition reflected a wartime practice in which military and civilian authorities required anyone wishing to do business with the federal government to sign a copy of the Test Oath. The current practice of newly sworn senators signing individual pages in an elegantly bound oath book dates from this period.

    The Founding Fathers agreed upon the importance of ensuring that officials promised their allegiance; indeed, very little debate occurred before the first Congress passed this statute. Although the wording of the military officer’s oath has changed several times in the past two centuries, the basic foundation has withstood the test of time. The current oath is more than a mere formality that adds to the pageantry of a commissioning or promotion or investment ceremony – it provides the necessary foundation for leadership decisions.

    Precedents:
    Gen Douglas MacArthur and President Harry S. Truman during the Korean War; on 11 April 1951 President Truman relieved MacArthur as supreme commander, United Nations Command. Truman explained how, from his perspective, MacArthur did not support the requirements of the Constitution and did not faithfully discharge his duties: “Full and vigorous debate on matters of national policy is a vital element in the constitutional system of our free democracy. It is fundamental, however, that military commanders must be governed by the policies and directives issued to them in the manner provided by our laws and Constitution. In time of crisis, this consideration is particularly compelling.”

    28 December 1780, Washington court-martialed Thomas Dewees, finding him guilty of two offenses: (1) not taking the oath of office and (2) “selling public wood to the prejudice of the service.” Here we see that not taking the oath is not simply an administrative error. In fact, the practice at the time was to publish the sentence in a newspaper “to prevent in future the commission of such crimes.”

    Whether the framers of the Constitution intended that the Supreme Court should in proper cases hold unconstitutional acts of Congress and acts of the legislatures of the States is answered Yes.

    The subject was fully discussed not only in the Constitutional Convention, but also in the State ratifying conventions and in print.

    Oliver Ellsworth, in the Connecticut Convention, stated clearly the practice then intended precisely as it exists in the courts today:

    “This Constitution defines the extent of the powers of the general government. If the general legislature [Congress should at any time overleap their limits the judicial department is a constitutional check. If the United States go beyond their powers, if they make a law which the Constitution does not authorize, it is void; and the judicial power, the National judges, who, to secure their impartiality, are to be made independent, will declare it to be void. On the other hand, if the States go beyond their limits, if they make a law which is a usurpation upon the Federal [National] government the law is void; and upright, independent judges will declare it to be so.”

    “Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.” James Madison, Primary Author of the Constitution, President of the United States

    “Time has proven the discernment of our ancestors; for even these provisions, expressed in such plain English words that it would seem the ingenuity of man could not evade them, are now after the lapse of more than seventy years, sought to be avoided. Those great and good men foresaw that troublous times would arise, when rulers and people would become restive under restraint, and seek by sharp and decisive measures to accomplish ends deemed just and proper, and that the principles of constitutional liberty would be in peril unless established by irrepealable law. The history of the world had taught them that what was done in the past might be attempted in the future.
    The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine involving more pernicious consequences was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism.” The Supreme Court of the United States, 1866

    “Legislators have their authority measured by the Constitution, they are chosen to do what it permits, and NOTHING MORE, and they take solemn oath to obey and support it. . . To pass an act when they are in doubt whether it does or does not violate the Constitution is to treat as of no force the most imperative obligations any person can assume.” Judge Thomas M. Cooley

    The Constitution, by both its general design and its terms as written, limits government to the powers delegated. Immunity from accountability to these limited powers it injures in violation of the law is a power not delegated. The Tenth Amendment forbids it. Our Constitution is a closed legal and logical system that declares itself and the laws made pursuant to it, to be the supreme law of the land, and that is the only law that it allows. There is no room in it for “inherent sovereign immunity”.

    I feel it would be easier to start at the state level requiring arrests and subswequent prosecutions of those who are traitors to the oath required of them to get into the office or position they occupy – and keep to remain in that occupied position as it is a REQUIREMENT of that said position.

    Learn the constitution of the state you are in. It is almost as important as the one that is our government. Then document all instances of corruption of the ‘representatives’ of your state, oath breaking.

    Judges in the USA get their powers from the US Constitution and the state constitutions. They are REQUIRED to ONLY follow constitutional law; and are supposed to make sure that all laws, etc are pursuant to the US Constitution. When it is discovered that one is not, immediately start working to remove them from that position.

    Prosecution time! Stay safe and Detention Free.

Leave a Reply

© 2012 www.oathkeepers.org | Oath Keepers Corp Address: 5130 S. Fort Apache Rd - Las Vegas, NV 89148