Too far in

​

          On Nov. 26, 1979, Elmer B. Staats, Comptroller General of the United States, had time stamped a memo he submitted to Thomas Eagleton, the Chairman on the Appropriations Committee's Subcommittee on Agriculture, Development and Related Agencies. In addition to other things mentioned in this memo is Staats' recommendation on how to use data from different agencies to create databases that would be able to provide aggregated data via programs and departments. He explicates a difference between what a "department" is versus what a "program" is and how different parameters exist for amount and kind of data compiled by and necessary for access by either a "program" or a "department." Among the many things he mentions specifically is how data compiled in the country's various food assistance programs provides a variety of means for accumulating and categorizing data.

​

         In the memo on page 4, Staats states:

​

          "It is important to recognize that these coding schemes (except for the budget functional categories) are explicitly            not intended to require mutually exclusive classification. A program may be relevant to several policy areas at                  the same time..."

 

          Insofar as the above is correct, then one can see how the classification of data and how it is aggregated can create the conditions for the functionalization of an economy that uses derivatives to accomplish myriad goals with a single transaction. There must be a process whereby the original derivative assignments are made and hence a way that those with access to the necessary level of quantitative and qualitative data can "program" derivative functions as well as track their success.

​

          "For purposes of displaying a budget, a mutually exclusive structure is necessary, because the pieces must add to              the totals. But in oversight and policy analysis, we need something quite different -- the ability to aggregate the                pieces which are relevant to the policy issue being addressed."

 

          This is why it is important to assure that the original classification that is registered with a  regulatory body is accurate and that if there are mischaracterizations they are addressed formally and appropriately. This is the core of what constitutes the major problems with the onset and implementation of the Affordable Care Act, especially in the context of the attendant "economic bailout" via Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and other programs. If something is originally characterized as a "debt" that was defaulted on instead of a "fraud" that included various forms of contractual considerations (all of which would have their own potential data points, including, depending upon the vicinity of their occurrences, particular legal code references) then the long-term applications of using that one transaction or subsequent transactions that were connected to the initially mischaracterized transaction accrue.

 

          This thereby necessitates a consideration of the long-term implications of attempting to intentionally misrepresent a person's contributions or efforts. In the initial roll out of the TARP program, the former OIG of TARP Neil Barofsky discussed in his book "Bailout" how the intention was to work first with individual loans that were in default and from there to attempt to address the misrepresentations around the financiability of the bonds to which they were connected via aggregation. After the approval of TARP, however, there were unilateral decisions at the highest level of the Department of Treasury to instead offer the "bailout" to the major financial institutions responsible for leveraging the loans that were engaged irresponsibly into the economic situation that necessitated the bailout.

 

          In effect the considerations of individuals who had been swindled by members of the banking and financial industry who were not held accountable for their own irresponsibility were supplanted by the "corporate" entities responsible for aggregating their fraud and condoning it as acceptable financial behavior. It is important to understand that at the time the U.S. was adjusting to the dismantling of the protections previously afforded by the barriers between the banking, financial services and insurance sectors. What was actually being leveraged here? The manner of application of the bailout had an effect of creating those institutions and later institutions who held mortgages and loans that were in default as a sort of "parent" class over those to whom the loans and mortgages were issued. The "bailout" was represented at various stages as a "loan" to help circulate money to get other forms of credit going and to introduce other financial options at the time that were not as toxic as what was ostensibly being addressed concerning the default. But what actually happened? While some of the major banks did over time "pay back" the loan, including with interest that allegedly benefitted the Federal government, what happened to the extension of new lines of credit? Where was it "invested?"

 

           Less than two years later what had previously been a rather marginal political issue was then brought in to be centrally implanted into the political paradigm. The early days of what came to be known as the Affordable Care Act were based on a piece of legislation that had been proposed by Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts. Not so ironically, Kennedy died in August of 2009, during which time the focus of his proposed health care bill not only got redefined, but also renamed. It became "Obamacare" and that is how to this day it is defined.

 

          This is important to understand from a database perspective. If evaluated in consideration of the matters brought up in the above-mentioned memo concerning aggregating data by Federal agencies for use in multiple contexts and with different parameters, then we can see how more recent efforts connected to DACA and DAPA as well as whatever was actually being identified in the course of Donald J. Trump's ban on specific "muslim" countries and later on certain "familial" relationships provides significant basis for understanding.

 

          I have already written in other reports and attempted to submit filings, to among others, the Supreme Court of the United States discussing how the Affordable Care Act was NOT about "health insurance" but was rather to be evaluated alongside the economic bailout and various changes to laws and practices concerning "bandwidth" and alleged "debt obligations" as a form of "capital outlay" on the development of the digital economy. The "economy" has significant cross-over with various sectors but by and large was obscured not only in its intention, but also in the processes for its effectuation. I have tracked how these processes for its roll out specifically can be demonstrated via policies outlined in the 1993 Omnibus Appropriations Act concerning "Federal student loan" debt and "default" that can be leveraged by Treasury for up to 25 years as well as ascribements of "bandwidth" that are developed in later pieces of legislation and defined in successive appropriations bills, specifically the 2003 and 2008 appropriations bills. When evaluated linearly and with an eye to the implications of various processes that occurred concurrently between 2008 and 2010 and later, one can see a specific, determinable and strategic process of engaging people in processes of cybernetic enhancement and "coding" it under "security" or "technology" development. However, if you as an individual were so used, then how were YOU characterized? Were you a "default?" Were you a "psychotic?" Were you another form of "troubled asset" that depending upon the sort of "trouble" in which you were engaged was able to be used for multiple derivative financial products based on futures agreements set up using your attempts to access "health care" or "housing?"

 

          Why? What would constitute one group of people being considered to be viable enough to be permitted to be classified as a "technologist" when discussing processes of using radiofrequency to attempt to influence people's ability to attract certain things into their life or respond to other aspects of algorithmic applications in processes of target marketing? Why would other people be diagnosed with a "mental health illness" because they are able to pick up on emergency bandwidths and see what amounts to the application of new programming languages using symbolic data references in the embedded code of emails and text messages they are on the receiving end of without actually using an "interface" like a computer or cell phone? What about people who are having their energetic centers and organs used for bioextractivist processes that attempt to code their neuroprocesses to respond to physical stimuli with one emotional variance or another so as to compel them to project imaging of violence or combat? Who entered what in what database at what time?

 

          Here's another question: how many people were punished for having the wrong kind of sex with the wrong person at the wrong time?

 

          Is that too much?

​

          Ok. We all know that after Sept. 11, 2001 the Patriot Act was implemented. Many people found it harrowing. Many people also understood that it had actually been set up way before Sept. 11, 2001 and following Sept. 11, 2001 it was put into effect before most of the people who voted for it read it all. There are also people who know all about the changes to the Texas Insurance Code that went into effect on Sept. 1, 2001, which would be a ten-day reporting period difference to the requisite Federal regulatory agency before Sept. 11, 2001. Did you know there were many people in ACTUAL intelligence that had data anticipating the very scenario that went down in New York? Let me ask, was their "information" characterized as "intelligence" or was it a "risk-assessment" on underwriting the upcoming changes to the insurance industry? Keep in mind that Texas is the business center of major energy sector corporations, non-profits that provide substantial development and human assistance around the world, and major insurance industry players, including ones that got a major part of the banking bailout seven years later as well as offloaded a significant number of shares in its stock portfolio to the Federal government itself.

 

          How different nearly 20 years later that initial "information" on the 9/11 attacks looks. And, what about the people who were ALREADY protesting against then-unfolding policies set to be implemented by the World Trade Organization, or the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank? Prior to Sept. 11, 2001, those protests were one thing, but afterward? Or rather, were the characterizations of what those protestors were doing ALREADY so characterized but then formally classified in relevant law enforcement and "national security" databases after the implementation of the Patriot Act?

 

          Let's get back to food. The Supreme Court of the United States recently voted that the data compiled by places that accept food stamps was to be protected as a "trade secret" because the sort of data they might be compelled to release may reveal proprietary information about the companies involved with the distribution of food at places that use food stamps (Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, June 24, 2019). I am not even going to discuss the case law. Read the decision yourself. But, I will discuss that in the State of Illinois the more than 20-page food stamp application has a very significant area requesting detailed information an individual who is "Native American" must provide. In addition to other areas, the person is requested to provide information on if they have "ever received any royalties on tribal artifacts." If one compares this with the case law references provided by the Supreme Court of the United States in its decision regarding the "trade secrets" of those who compile data from food stamps programs...

 

          Unfortunately, one way to "characterize" what the Supreme Court did is as a crime that transcends the jurisdiction of the United States of America.

​

          Whose database decides the fate of those whose information is constantly being accessed and distributed to places and people who refuse to identify themselves or their "processes?" Their "secrets" and our "secrets" have different value. See, they get "insurance" in the form of being able to keep their "secrets" protected by law, but what about people who have their genetic data harvested, or are selected based on "demographic" indicators to flip some metrics in a local or longer-term pension or other financial scheme? These schemes include banks and financial institutions that strategically set themselves up for high-level default in order to mischaracterize THEMSELVES as "paying back a bailout" while other people were harvested of their vital data after being fraudulently engaged in deceptive contracts, even and including when they were minors. These schemes include people who were denied the ability to make their own "independent" income to support themselves or participate freely in ANY sort of economy. "Insurance," however, does not provide a long-term sustainable currency. So where do they get what ACTUALLY provides a value for their existence? "Too big to fail" was never the case. Too far in to tell the truth was.

 

          So we get back to the present moment. Who classified the "information" used to put into place the current "stop gap" budget for the rest of the year? What "programs" are being funded and what "departments" are being recognized for aggregation? We live in an "information economy" they say. Last year the President of the United States formally declared that he was initiating a commission to investigate using "cryptocurrencies" for the Federal budget. What is that cryptocurrency? How did it come to be? Who paid for its development? Who is owed for repayment of the obligations incurred in its roll out? It is not the banks or the financial services firms from the United States, but, who are THEY trying to get to pay THEIR bills right now?

​

          You know what does create money? Land. Land can grow food; land can provide housing; land can provide space for a working industrial complex. Depending upon who "owns" the land then certain people can use it to finance other forms of value. But in an information economy, the "land" itself does not provide "information" without the intercession of a person. All the banks and financial services entities have invested in is "insurance." Who is (or will be) paying for America or the companies making money off of America?

​

It is considered from a certain standpoint of psychologization to end something of this sort with questions. I believe I am supposed to be affirmative in some sort of pronouncement in order to demonstrate confidence and then "invite" competition in the form of argumentation. How about this: look at this website; do not even consider if you have seen any other websites. Then understand I have had more than 15 personal identity documents issued and stolen with no response from any agency in over four years. I am on record as having made $1.06 of income in that time. Somebody's database is accruing big time debt.

 

1:55 pm CST
Nov. 26, 2019

 

​

BTW: As today is an anniversary I actually do have a foundation for what could otherwise be a process whereby the U.S. could reconfigure and re-define its "strategic reserves" but I cannot in any manner present this publicly at this time. It would be akin to permitting a gangster to AGAIN attempt to extort me into supporting his political candidate so he can deliver kickbacks to corrupt local law enforcement. I am so sorry they still have not recognized the "value-added" of paying their own taxes on income they earned rather than taxing me for my income which they stole.

 

You want a 23 and if I don't pay you off I get nuked and then I got to actually wait it out until 25 so you can say what? Well, I mean, you served your 25 years of debt service, so just take the "background check" even if it is someone else's life and "don't ask, don't tell" next time you see it play out in someone else's life.

​

I'm nuke-proof.

​

(or will be) 11:34 pm CST on Nov. 30, 2019

​

​

Proofread by 11:45 pm CST on July 3, 2020

​

Proofread by 11:32 am CST on Dec. 3, 2020

​

1:41 pm CST on Jan. 21, 2023

​

4:35 pm CST

Jan. 25, 2024