proteus

Prior to June 30th.... We see PUMPERS... and after June 30th we will see DUMPERS... some say buy, some say sell, some have no idea what to say... But 1 Thing for sure.... This is an Investment, and we must have patience...

I agree report them, I will stand strong for DV, as I am a VET Myself... 3rd battalion, 3rd marines we need to stand together and remain a force to be respected... although I am in fact a newbee.... I have veteran instincts... GO DINARVETS, GO RV,

Here is a LINK to the Letter... Hodges letter to Congress :lol: :lol: :lol:

I really have had no...NOT EVEN ONE... bad experience buying dinar on EBAY... I have acquired over 3M that way and it has always worked perfectly... receiving some within 2 days of payment, but weekends do slow down the mail.. They ship fast, prices are about 1100 - 1200 per M, and i can choose who I want to buy from... GOOD LUCK... :rolleyes:

Ten Important Facts About Capital Gains and Losses IRS Tax Tip 2011-35, February 18, 2011 Did you know that almost everything you own and use for personal or investment purposes is a capital asset? Capital assets include a home, household furnishings and stocks and bonds held in a personal account. When a capital asset is sold, the difference between the amount you paid for the asset and the amount you sold it for is a capital gain or capital loss. Here are ten facts from the IRS about gains and losses and how they can affect your Federal income tax return. 1. Almost everything you own and use for personal purposes, pleasure or investment is a capital asset. 2. When you sell a capital asset, the difference between the amount you sell it for and your basis – which is usually what you paid for it – is a capital gain or a capital loss. 3. You must report all capital gains. 4. You may deduct capital losses only on investment property, not on property held for personal use. 5. Capital gains and losses are classified as long-term or short-term, depending on how long you hold the property before you sell it. If you hold it more than one year, your capital gain or loss is long-term. If you hold it one year or less, your capital gain or loss is short-term. 6. If you have long-term gains in excess of your long-term losses, you have a net capital gain to the extent your net long-term capital gain is more than your net short-term capital loss, if any. 7. The tax rates that apply to net capital gain are generally lower than the tax rates that apply to other income. For 2010, the maximum capital gains rate for most people is 15%. For lower-income individuals, the rate may be 0% on some or all of the net capital gain. Special types of net capital gain can be taxed at 25% or 28%. 8. If your capital losses exceed your capital gains, the excess can be deducted on your tax return and used to reduce other income, such as wages, up to an annual limit of $3,000, or $1,500 if you are married filing separately. 9. If your total net capital loss is more than the yearly limit on capital loss deductions, you can carry over the unused part to the next year and treat it as if you incurred it in that next year. 10. Capital gains and losses are reported on Schedule D, Capital Gains and Losses, and then transferred to line 13 of Form 1040. For more information about reporting capital gains and losses, see the Schedule D instructions, Publication 550, Investment Income and Expenses or Publication 17, Your Federal Income Tax. All forms and publications are available at http://www.irs.gov or by calling 800-TAX-FORM (800-829-3676). Links: Publication 17, Your Federal Income Tax (PDF 2015.9K) Publication 550, Investment Income and Expenses (PDF 516K) ALSO.... Foreign Currency Trading & Tax Laws By Jeanne Young, eHow Contributor updated September 03, 2010 ? IRS tax laws on foreign currency trading deal with loss as well as profit. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) tax laws on foreign currency exchange trading in the foreign exchange (forex) market are somewhat confusing. In addition, the people making the trades have changed. The IRS formulated its tax laws to deal with the retail interbank forex market with professional traders making large trades. However, the larger banks created a variety of retail trading options and opened forex trading to small traders. Around 2000, small traders flowed into the market. Many individual investors make online currency trades for small amounts ranging from $2,000 to $25,000. IRC Section 988 Under Section 988, the IRS treats profits and losses from foreign currency exchange trading as ordinary profits and losses for tax purposes, according to the U.S. tax code. Most forex trades falls under the tax laws in Section 988 by default. Losing traders prefer the Section 988 tax laws because it eliminates capital loss limitations. Thus, most traders can enjoy the full ordinary loss deduction against any type of income by reporting the profit or loss from cash forex trades as other income on line 21 of IRS Form 1040. However, most traders can opt out of the Section 988 election of treating forex trades in that method. The IRS taxes qualifying trades according to Section 1256 laws (see Section 2). Trades on forex over-the-counter (OTC) options do not qualify for Section 1256 tax laws. As of 2010, IRS regulations require traders to opt out of Section 988 by filling out a form at the beginning of the tax year before they know whether they have a profit or loss. Rather than filing the form with the IRS, however, taxpayers file it internally---in other words, in their personal records. Section 1256 Profitable traders prefer the more favorable tax treatment of capital gains and losses on foreign currency exchange trades in major currencies under Section 1256(g). The IRS gives lower tax rates under that section, so it reduces these traders' taxes on trading profits. IRS taxes apply to only 40 percent of any short-term capital gain or loss and 60 percent of any long-term capital gain or loss. Report profit or loss on Form 6781 as "cash forex elected out of IRC 988," according to tax experts Green & Company Inc. In addition, traders using Section 1256 can take a three-year carryback on losses against profits for the prior three years on profits and losses declared under Section 1256. Background The confusion on IRS tax laws on foreign currency exchange trading stems from the lack of one uniform law to govern forex trading. Sections 1256 and 988 have some conflicts because different IRS groups wrote those sections in different decades, according to Green & Company. Traders with specific tax questions about foreign currency trades should consult a tax attorney or an accountant who handles forex trade matters. Read more: Foreign Currency Trading & Tax Laws | eHow.com My link References Cornell University Law School: § 988. Treatment of Certain Foreign Currency Transactions Tax Almanac: Internal Revenue Code: Sec. 1256. Section 1256 Contracts Marked to Market Green & Company Inc.: Forex and Tax Treatment Read more: Foreign Currency Trading & Tax Laws | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/list_6930900_foreign-currency-trading-tax-laws.html#ixzz1PkYs2NvZ

According to the Wall Street Journal, Libyans Search to protect assets Wall Street Journal Link Thought this was interesting, and it sounds kinda like another DINAR COUNTRY that has their currency pegged... ENJOY...

I know I would contribute 1 dinar per hour for valid valuable intel.... and if everyone else would contribute the same amount... maybe a REAL GURU would be tempted to provide REAL INTEL... {@j@} [------] Just an idea...

US Dollar Exchange Rates Euro (EUR) 0.6961 Iraqi Dinar (IQD) 1175.6839 Thai Baht (THB) 30.5764 Vietnamese Dong (VND) 20684.9981 Rates as of 6/11/2011 Market Data: www.exchange-rates.org

US Dollar Exchange Rates Euro (EUR) 0.6961 Iraqi Dinar (IQD) 1175.6839 Thai Baht (THB) 30.5764 Vietnamese Dong (VND) 20684.9981 Rates as of 6/11/2011 Market Data: www.exchange-rates.org Don't know if this is good or bad... but it is different!

It will either stay the same and we'll continue to wait for maturity.. or it will RV at $10.00 (Give or Take 0 to $10.00) and we'll cash in... :D

There have been posts on DinarVETS that state: 1st commerce bank of Texas still sells currency http://www.1cb.com/ Hope this helps, I live in Oregon, so I cannot prove this fact... But that is what they say! :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I WONDER IF THIS MEANS... In ALI's Opinion... That the RV will not happen for at least " a couple of weeks" ??? :rolleyes:

Thanks BONDLADY... Your a mountain High Point, a Pinnacle of inspiration, a saving grace... far above the bemuddled swamp of guru bulls#it... THANKS AGAIN.. for everything you do... we appreciate you.. :D :D

READ This is why Scooter says they want to do away with the FED... To: U.S. Congress LINK to Information This petition calls for the abolishment, by Congress of The Federal Reserve Act of 1913. To return all the rights and profits, from the creation of money to the rightful heirs, the citizens and the U.S. Government. It is outrageous that private banks and the FED can create our money and collect interest on it. If we must pay interest on monies created and loaned, let it be the United States of America that receives it, not some private interest. We have lost our freedom to the private banks that create money out of thin air and enslave the common man to a life of debt. If we are to be indebted let it be to our country and not the bankers. "The States should be applied to, to transfer the right of issuing circulating paper to Congress exclusively, in perpetuum." --Thomas Jefferson to John W. Eppes, 1813. ME 13:276 "[The] Bank of the United States... is one of the most deadly hostility existing, against the principles and form of our Constitution... An institution like this, penetrating by its branches every part of the Union, acting by command and in phalanx, may, in a critical moment, upset the government. I deem no government safe which is under the vassalage of any self-constituted authorities, or any other authority than that of the nation, or its regular functionaries. What an obstruction could not this bank of the United States, with all its branch banks, be in time of war! It might dictate to us the peace we should accept, or withdraw its aids. Ought we then to give further growth to an institution so powerful, so hostile?" --Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, 1803. ME 10:437 Following by Greg Hobbs What Is The Federal Reserve Bank? What is the Federal Reserve Bank (FED) and why do we have it? The FED is a central bank. Central banks are supposed to implement a country's fiscal policies. They monitor commercial banks to ensure that they maintain sufficient assets, like cash, so as to remain solvent and stable. Central banks also do business, such as currency exchanges and gold transactions, with other central banks. In theory, a central bank should be good for a country, and they might be if it wasn't for the fact that they are not owned or controlled by the government of the country they are serving. Private central banks, including our FED, operate not in the interest of the public good but for profit. There have been three central banks in our nation's history. The first two, while deceptive and fraudulent, pale in comparison to the scope and size of the fraud being perpetrated by our current FED. What they all have in common is an insidious practice known as "fractional banking." Fractional banking or fractional lending is the ability to create money from nothing, lend it to the government or someone else and charge interest to boot. The practice evolved before banks existed. Goldsmiths rented out space in their vaults to individuals and merchants for storage of their gold or silver. The goldsmiths gave these "depositors" a certificate that showed the amount of gold stored. These certificates were then used to conduct business. In time the goldsmiths noticed that the gold in their vaults was rarely withdrawn. Small amounts would move in and out but the large majority never moved. Sensing a profit opportunity, the goldsmiths issued double receipts for the gold, in effect creating money (certificates) from nothing and then lending those certificates (creating debt) to depositors and charging them interest as well. Since the certificates represented more gold than actually existed, the certificates were "fractionally" backed by gold. Eventually some of these vault operations were transformed into banks and the practice of fractional banking continued. Keep that fractional banking concept in mind as we examine our first central bank, the First Bank of the United States (BUS). It was created, after bitter dissent in the Congress, in 1791 and chartered for 20 years. A scam not unlike the current FED, the BUS used its control of the currency to defraud the public and establish a legal form of usury. This bank practiced fractional lending at a 10:1 rate, ten dollars of loans for each dollar they had on deposit. This misuse and abuse of their public charter continued for the entire 20 years of their existence. Public outrage over these abuses was such that the charter was not renewed and the bank ceased to exist in 1811. The war of 1812 left the country in economic chaos, seen by bankers as another opportunity for easy profits. They influenced Congress to charter the second central bank, the Second Bank of the United States (SBUS), in 1816. The SBUS was more expansive than the BUS. The SBUS sold franchises and literally doubled the number of banks in a short period of time. The country began to boom and move westward, which required money. Using fractional lending at the 10:1 rate, the central bank and their franchisees created the debt/money for the expansion. Things boomed for a while, then the banks decided to shut off the debt/money, citing the need to control inflation. This action on the part of the SBUS caused bankruptcies and foreclosures. The banks then took control of the assets that were used as security against the loans. Closely examine how the SBUS engineered this cycle of prosperity and depression. The central bank caused inflation by creating debt/money for loans and credit and making these funds readily available. The economy boomed. Then they used the inflation which they created as an excuse to shut off the loans/credit/money. The resulting shortage of cash caused the economy to falter or slow dramatically and large numbers of business and personal bankruptcies resulted. The central bank then seized the assets used as security for the loans. The wealth created by the borrowers during the boom was then transferred to the central bank during the bust. And you always wondered how the big guys ended up with all the marbles. Now, who do you think is responsible for all of the ups and downs in our economy over the last 85 years? Think about the depression of the late '20s and all through the '30s. The FED could have pumped lots of debt/money into the market to stimulate the economy and get the country back on track, but did they? No; in fact, they restricted the money supply quite severely. We all know the results that occurred from that action, don't we? Why would the FED do this? During that period asset values and stocks were at rock bottom prices. Who do you think was buying everything at 10 cents on the dollar? I believe that it is referred to as consolidating the wealth. How many times have they already done this in the last 85 years? Do you think they will do it again? Just as an aside at this point, look at today's economy. Markets are declining. Why? Because the FED has been very liberal with its debt/credit/money. The market was hyper inflated. Who creates inflation? The FED. How does the FED deal with inflation? They restrict the debt/credit/money. What happens when they do that? The market collapses. Several months back, after certain central banks said they would be selling large quantities of gold, the price of gold fell to a 25-year low of about $260 per ounce. The central banks then bought gold. After buying at the bottom, a group of 15 central banks announced that they would be restricting the amount of gold released into the market for the next five years. The price of gold went up $75.00 per ounce in just a few days. How many hundreds of billions of dollars did the central banks make with those two press releases? Gold is generally considered to be a hedge against more severe economic conditions. Do you think that the private banking families that own the FED are buying or selling equities at this time? (Remember: buy low, sell high.) How much money do you think these FED owners have made since they restricted the money supply at the top of this last current cycle? Alan Greenspan has said publicly on several occasions that he thinks the market is overvalued, or words to that effect. Just a hint that he will raise interest rates (restrict the money supply), and equity markets have a negative reaction. Governments and politicians do not rule central banks, central banks rule governments and politicians. President Andrew Jackson won the presidency in 1828 with the promise to end the national debt and eliminate the SBUS. During his second term President Jackson withdrew all government funds from the bank and on January 8, 1835, paid off the national debt. He is the only president in history to have this distinction. The charter of the SBUS expired in 1836. Without a central bank to manipulate the supply of money, the United States experienced unprecedented growth for 60 or 70 years, and the resulting wealth was too much for bankers to endure. They had to get back into the game. So, in 1910 Senator Nelson Aldrich, then Chairman of the National Monetary Commission, in collusion with representatives of the European central banks, devised a plan to pressure and deceive Congress into enacting legislation that would covertly establish a private central bank. This bank would assume control over the American economy by controlling the issuance of its money. After a huge public relations campaign, engineered by the foreign central banks, the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was slipped through Congress during the Christmas recess, with many members of the Congress absent. President Woodrow Wilson, pressured by his political and financial backers, signed it on December 23, 1913. Recommend you all read “The Creature from Jekyll Island” by Edward Griffin, so you understand the FED and how it was created and by whom. The act created the Federal Reserve System, a name carefully selected and designed to deceive. "Federal" would lead one to believe that this is a government organization. "Reserve" would lead one to believe that the currency is being backed by gold and silver. "System" was used in lieu of the word "bank" so that one would not conclude that a new central bank had been created. In reality, the act created a private, for profit, central Banking Corporation owned by a cartel of private banks. Who owns the FED? The Rothschilds of London and Berlin; Lazard Brothers of Paris; Israel Moses Seif of Italy; Kuhn, Loeb and Warburg of Germany; and the Lehman Brothers, Goldman, Sachs and the Rockefeller families of New York. Did you know that the FED is the only for-profit corporation in America that is exempt from both federal and state taxes? The FED takes in about one trillion dollars per year tax free! The banking families listed above get all that money. Almost everyone thinks that the money they pay in taxes goes to the US Treasury to pay for the expenses of the government. Do you want to know where your tax dollars really go? If you look at the back of any check made payable to the IRS you will see that it has been endorsed as "Pay Any F.R.B. Branch or Gen. Depository for Credit U.S. Treas. This is in Payment of U.S. Oblig." Yes, that's right, every dime you pay in income taxes is given to those private banking families, commonly known as the FED, tax free. Like many of you, I had some difficulty with the concept of creating money from nothing. You may have heard the term "monetizing the debt," which is kind of the same thing. As an example, if the US Government wants to borrow $1 million ó the government does borrow every dollar it spends ó they go to the FED to borrow the money. The FED calls the Treasury and says print 10,000 Federal Reserve Notes (FRN) in units of one hundred dollars. The Treasury charges the FED 2.3 cents for each note, for a total of $230 for the 10,000 FRNs. The FED then lends the $1 million to the government at face value plus interest. To add insult to injury, the government has to create a bond for $1 million as security for the loan. And the rich get richer. The above was just an example, because in reality the FED does not even print the money; it's just a computer entry in their accounting system. To put this on a more personal level, let's use another example. Today's banks are members of the Federal Reserve Banking System. This membership makes it legal for them to create money from nothing and lend it to you. Today's banks, like the goldsmiths of old, realize that only a small fraction of the money deposited in their banks is ever actually withdrawn in the form of cash. Only about 3 or 4 percent of all the money that exists is in the form of currency. The rest of it is simply a computer entry. Let's say you're approved to borrow $10,000 to do some home improvements. You know that the bank didn't actually take $10,000 from its pile of cash and put it into your pile? They simply went to their computer and input an entry of $10,000 into your account. They created, from thin air, a debt, which you have to secure with an asset and repay with interest. The bank is allowed to create and lend as much debt as they want as long as they do not exceed the 10:1 ratio imposed by the FED. It sort of puts a new slant on how you view your friendly bank, doesn't it? How about those loan committees that scrutinize you with a microscope before approving the loan they created from thin air. What a hoot! They make it complex for a reason. They don't want you to understand what they are doing. People fear what they do not understand. You are easier to delude and control when you are ignorant and afraid. Now to put the frosting on this cake. When was the income tax created? If you guessed 1913, the same year that the FED was created, you get a gold star. Coincidence? What are the odds? If you are going to use the FED to create debt, who is going to repay that debt? The income tax was created to complete the illusion that real money had been lent and therefore real money had to be repaid. And you thought Houdini was good. So, what can be done? My father taught me that you should always stand up for what is right, even if you have to stand up alone. If "We the People" don't take some action now, there may come a time when "We the People" are no more. You should write a letter or send an email to each of your elected representatives. Many of our elected representatives do not understand the FED. Once informed they will not be able to plead ignorance and remain silent. This petition will be sent to all members of Congress, do your part and sign this petition. Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution specifically says that Congress is the only body that can "coin money and regulate the value thereof." The US Constitution has never been amended to allow anyone other than Congress to coin and regulate currency. Ask your representative, in light of that information, how it is possible for the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, and the Federal Reserve Bank that it created, to be constitutional. Ask them why this private banking cartel is allowed to reap trillions of dollars in profits without paying taxes. Insist on an answer. Thomas Jefferson said, "If the America people ever allow private banks to control the issuance of their currencies, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their prosperity until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." Jefferson saw it coming 150 years ago. The question is, "Can you now see what is in store for us if we allow the FED to continue controlling our country?" "The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he breaks, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime, and the punishment of his guilt." John P. Curran Reference: 1st PROOF Link 2nd Substantiating Link Sincerely, :D

I have a question... Can someone elaborate on this statement made by DD... 6. Get it in Writing: It’s not necessarily a bad thing to get your representative bank manager to sign and notarize a document/memorandum, one that is created by YOU that assures you your funds coming in won’t be frozen, and that the origin of the incoming wealth is verified and legitimate. Again, this falls in line with giving your bank a heads-up on what’s coming in. You don’t need to do this now. Do it once you have an idea of the new exchange rate, and you have a cash-in date and time. Can someone give me an example of this contract("Get it in Writing").. as I believe most bankers would never put anything like this in writing to anyone... as they would never take a stand and commit putting their name on this type of assurance !!! Thanks ahead of time for your consideration and reply!

Try This... My link This is the Swiss Dukascopy Currency Calculator, I inserted 1000 IQD to be changed to USD: here is what it did.... Amount: 1000 From: IQD To: USD Result: -10.1010

This is what the above mentioned IMF document states should happen on or before JUNE 30th: Financial Sector 12. Financial intermediation is at a very low level in Iraq. A functioning banking sector is essential for the development of a strong private sector. We have begun to embark on our banking sector reform strategy:  A critical step will be to complete the financial restructuring of the two largest stateowned banks, Rafidain and Rasheed, based on their completed financial and operational audits. In this regard, we formed a Bank Reconciliation Unit that comprises technical level staff from the banks, the CBI and the Ministry of Finance, and with the assistance of Ernst and Young (who were the agents of the Ministry of Finance in the external debt restructuring process) to: (i) deal with all legacy external liabilities taking into account the government’s actions in the context of Iraq’s external debt restructuring (ii) indentify and propose to write-off non-performing loans to defunct state-owned enterprises; (iii) propose a course of action for other remaining unreconciled accounts; and (iv) after the balance sheets have been cleaned up, revalue the remaining foreign currency denominated balance sheet items. The BRU will work under the supervision of the Restructuring Oversight Committee (ROC), consisting of the Minister of Finance, the Governor of the CBI, and the Chairman of the BSA. The BRU will send its recommendations for final approval to the respective boards of the two banks. Through this process, we aim to complete the restructuring of the balance sheets of Rafidain and Rasheed by end-June 2011 (a structural benchmark).  Meanwhile, the Ministry of Finance will continue to work closely with the World Bank under its banking sector project to modernize these banks by moving ahead with the plans for their operational restructuring. These banks will operate on a fully commercial basis, on market terms, and the government will refrain from directing any lending. Decisions on the recapitalization of Rafidain and Rasheed will not be made until the restructuring of their balance sheets has been completed and adequate progress has been made in their operational restructuring, especially by establishing an appropriate governance structure and strengthening risk management and control functions. More generally, given the vulnerabilities these (and other) banks face due to operational risks, the CBI will continue to improve its oversight systems and monitor closely the activities of the banks, particularly during the transition process.  The new set of prudential regulations for commercial banks, including those related to minimum capital requirements, liquidity risk, and anti-money laundering, are being implemented. Work on the relevant reporting tables for the banks will be completed soon in consultation with the IMF and other technical assistance providers. Under the auspices of the World Bank banking sector project, we have conducted a full assessment of the banking supervision department, and this report will form the basis of improving this department. 38  The CBI will continue to strengthen the management of its international reserves in line with the adopted reserves management guidelines. The CBI will follow the guidelines to diversify currency composition and establish an appropriate duration and credit risk profile, and build capacity for risk analysis. We will continue to provide monthly reports to the CBI board (and to the IMF) based on the investment criteria established in the guidelines. V. PROGRAM SAFEGUARDS AND MONITORING, DEBT AND DATA ISSUES 13. As we did for the program approval and first review disbursements, we intend to continue to use the domestic counterpart of IMF resources for budget support. As before, the CBI—which is the fiscal agent—will request the IMF to disburse the resources directly into a government account at the CBI. To buttress program safeguards risks we have already taken or will take the following measures:  The CBI appointed an external auditor to conduct special audits of its net international reserves and net domestic assets as of end-June 2010 and this work was completed by mid-January 2011 (a benchmark for end-October 2010). We have also already appointed an international audit firm to conduct the audit of the 2010 CBI financial accounts. In addition, we will request the auditor to also complete special audits of the CBI’s net international reserves and net domestic assets as of December 31, 2010 (a new benchmark for end-May 2011); and provide staff with the draft 2010 audited CBI financial statements and draft management letter (also a new benchmark for end-May 2011).  The recently completed safeguards assessment update made a few recommendations that we will implement: (i) we took a decision and have changed the composition of the CBI’s internal audit committee to have a majority non-executive membership and to operate with a terms of reference in line with Fund recommendations (a benchmark for end-October 2010); (ii) we have appointed an external audit expert to help us assess our internal audit needs; and (iii) we are in the process of selecting a reputable accounting firm to conduct an internal audit of the CBI and to provide assistance to strengthen the CBI’s internal audit function (a benchmark for end-December 2010).  We have amended the Memorandum of Understanding between the CBI and the Ministry of Finance to provide the CBI with the authority to appoint its external auditors and to include a provision that requires the Ministry of Finance to issue promissory notes payable on demand to the Fund promptly following each disbursement under the SBA and to deposit these promissory notes in the IMF securities account with the CBI. 14. Progress has been made in moving toward accepting the obligations of Article VIII, Sections 2(a), 3, and 4, of the IMF’s Articles of Agreement. We have worked with IMF staff to complete the review of exchange laws and regulations and are considering measures to remove the identified exchange restrictions on current international transactions. We remain 39 committed to avoid imposing any restrictions on the making of payments and transfers for current international transactions or introducing any multiple currency practices. 15. We will continue our efforts to resolve outstanding external claims under terms that are consistent with the 2004 Paris Club agreement. Bilateral agreements with thirteen non- Paris Club official creditors have already been signed and are being implemented. Regarding private creditors, most of the commercial debt has been restructured and is serviced as agreed. We also are close to finalizing an agreement with the United States government to settle claims of private US citizens and the Oil-for-Food program has been brought to a close. We expect that the proceeds of the liquidation of the London branch of Rafidain bank will be distributed shortly. 16. Recognizing that the Ministry of Finance and the Central Bank of Iraq have exclusive responsibility for settling Saddam era claims against Iraqi public sector obligors, the Ministry of Finance and the CBI shall appoint a reputable international law firm to perform the following tasks including: monitor the filing of lawsuits in foreign courts against Iraqi defendants seeking recovery of Saddam era claims or the enforcement against Iraqi assets of outstanding court judgments or arbitral awards rendered in respect of such claims; recommend the appointment of competent local counsel to defend such actions in the relevant jurisdictions; coordinate and supervise the activities of such local counsel; act as a central source for information on litigation defenses and strategies in these cases and make this information available to local counsel defending the actions; report regularly to the Ministry of Finance and the CBI on the status of these matters. 17. We will also continue our efforts to improve Iraq’s statistical database. We have recently updated the weights used for calculating the consumer price index using more recent household survey data. Efforts for further improvement will focus especially on government finance statistics, balance of payments statistics, and the sectoral classification in the monetary statistics. Lots of Blah Blah Blah ... but it does say REVALUE...!

Even if it is a LOP on bills ... Isn't this just like moving the decimal point to the left of the currency.. and it would affect all IQD, making the 500 bill worth .50 cents.... and so on... so small denoms would not matter either, they are worth as much less as big bills... just possibly you might be able to hold on to them longer..

it would be nice to see one of the official flyers they passed out...

Here ya go: DUAL CITIZENSHIP http://www.stkittscitizenshiponline.com/ it requires a cash investment and some paperwork... But it sounds very sweet... Hope this helps! Benefits of Dual Citizenship in St Kitts Island... When you acquire citizenship under the St. Kitts & Nevis citizenship program, you and your family enjoy full citizenship. As citizens of St. Kitts & Nevis, you and your family are issued with passports which allow visa-free travel to more than 60 countries worldwide. Of course you have the right to take up residence in St. Kitts & Nevis at any time and for any length of time. You are not liable for taxation, even if you decide to reside in St. Kitts & Nevis, as there are no direct taxes whatsoever. As a Commonwealth citizen, you receive certain preferential treatment in the United Kingdom. For example, your children may enter the United Kingdom to study without first having to apply for student visas. After studying, they may work in the United Kingdom for two years without needing a work permit.

One aspect of a new and improved federal regulatory scheme is the seizure of 401(k) retirement plans and the subsequent government-administered disbursement of the funds. In Chapter 3 of the Annual Report on the Middle Class released in February by Vice President Biden and the White House Task Force on the Middle Class, the Obama administration calls for enhancing the “retirement options” for the middle class by imposing “new regulations to improve the transparency and adequacy of 401(k) retirement savings.” The plan, as sketched in the 43-page document, calls for the creation of something called “Guaranteed Retirement Accounts” (GRAs). Biden slyly shifts the onus for the idea through weasel words typical of the federal government: “Some have suggested the creation of Guaranteed Retirement Accounts (GRAs), which would give workers a simple way to invest a portion of their retirement savings in an account that was free of inflation and market risk, and in some versions under discussion, would guarantee a specified real return above the rate of inflation.” These accounts would be “free of inflation and market risk” because they would be under the direct and absolute control of the federal bureaucracy. There would be no risk because the funds would no longer be moored to the free market and subject to the fluctuations thereof. Rather, the retirement funds of every hard-working American dependent on a 401(k) for their retirement security would be nationalized and made subject to the whims and will of the executive branch. The current administration is practiced in the erection of such straw men to deflect their own socialistic and absolutist intent. The record is clear, however, and since the day of his inauguration, Barack Obama and his congressional co-conspirators have consistently and unapologetically set out to systematically nationalize the economy of the United States: first the banks; then the insurance companies; then the auto industry; then healthcare; and now the piece de resistance, the private savings accounts of millions of middle-class Americans. This is an unlawful usurpation of power unprecedented in the annals of American political history. Coinciding with the publication of the report described above, the Obama White House, together with the Departments of Labor and Treasury, issued a so-called “Request for Information” calling for a detailed analysis of the pros and cons of the “annuitization” of individual 401(k)s. The scheme was set forth in a set of “Proposed Rules” published on February 2, 2010 in the Federal Register. The document reads in part, “While defined contribution plans have some strengths relative to defined benefit plans, participants in defined contribution plans bear the investment risk because there is no promise by the employer as to the adequacy of the account balance that will be available or the income stream that can be provided after retirement.” And furthermore, “The Agencies are considering whether it would be appropriate for them to take future steps for them to facilitate access to, and use of, lifetime income or other arrangements designed to provide designed to provide a stream of income after retirement.” The upshot of that clunky prose is that the Obama administration believes that employers cannot be relied upon to adequately manage the 401(k) retirement accounts it provides for their employees, therefore the federal government will relieve them of that responsibility and take sole discretionary control of those funds, thus eliminating the risk of mismanagement. In other words, the Obama administration is planning to divert the “stream of income after retirement” and channel it right through Washington, D.C. Under the section of the Proposed Rules marked “Background,” the document declares that it is the intent of the agencies considering these changes to further “their efforts to promote retirement security for American workers.” And, to “provide wages that support families, and rise with time and productivity.” Since January 2010, it seems that the only thing rising with time is the likelihood that the economic wealth and might of our once enviable Republic will be methodically eradicated through the exercise by the executive branch of unconstitutional authority over every financial aspect of our nation’s people. While the time for commenting on these Proposed Rules has passed (May 3, 2010 was the deadline), there is yet time for concerned citizens to contact their elected representatives and voice their opposition to President Obama’s proposed seizure of their 401(k) retirement accounts. In response to the White House’s pronouncements, many Republicans in the House of Representatives, including GOP leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), have joined together to defend against the federal assault on the financial freedom of the middle class. Boehner and a cadre of colleagues known as the “House GOP Savings Recovery Solutions Group” (an organization founded by Boehner to, “help Americans protect and rebuild their hard-earned savings as quickly as possible while making sure the federal government does not hinder the process”) have written a memo to the secretaries of Labor and Treasury, imploring them to “take no action” to nationalize the retirement security of millions of Americans, representing trillions of dollars. The text of the letter is reprinted below: Dear Secretaries Solis and Geithner: As members of the Republican Savings Solutions Group, we write today to express our strong opposition to any proposal to eliminate or federalize private-sector defined contribution pension plans, such as 401(k)s, or impose burdensome new requirements upon the businesses, large and small, who choose to offer these plans to their employees. In the Annual Report of the White House Task Force on the Middle Class, Vice President Biden discussed at length the creation of so-called “Guaranteed Retirement Accounts, (GRAs)” which would provide for protection from “inflation and market risk” and potentially “guarantee a specified real return above the rate of inflation” — presumably at taxpayer expense. In the Report, the Vice President recommended “further study of these issues.” The Vice President’s comments are troubling, insofar as they come on the heels of testimony before Congress from supporters of GRAs proposing to eliminate the favorable tax treatment currently afforded to 401(k) plans, and instead use those dollars to fund government-invested GRAs into which all employees would be required to contribute a portion of their salary — again, with a government subsidy. These advocates would, essentially, dismantle the present private-sector 401(k) system, replacing it instead with a government-run investment plan, the size and scope of which remain to be seen. This despite data showing that 90 percent of households have a favorable opinion of the existing 401(k)/IRA system. In light of these facts, we write today to express our opposition in the strongest terms to any effort to “nationalize” the private 401(k) system, or any proposal that would dismantle or disfavor the private 401(k) system in favor of a government-run retirement security regime. Similarly, and more recently, the Departments of Labor and Treasury have jointly issued a “Request for Information” regarding the “annuitization” of 401(k) plans through “Lifetime Income Options.” While we appreciate the Departments’ seeking guidance and information from all parties and stakeholders in advance of regulatory activity, we strongly urge that the Departments not proceed with any regulation in this area before they have carefully and thoroughly considered all of the information received. More specifically, we urge that the Departments take no action to mandate that plan sponsors — often, small businesses — include a “lifetime income” or “annuitization” option if they choose to offer a 401(k) plan to their employees, or that beneficiaries take some or all of their retirement savings in such an option. Data shows that 70 percent of Americans oppose the concept of a mandated annuity or government payout of their 401(k) plan. On a more fundamental level, Congress should not be in the business of choosing “winners” and “losers” among retirement security stakeholders. Instead, we urge the Departments to make it easier for employers to include retirement income solutions in their savings plans and to help workers learn more about the value of their retirement savings as a source of retirement income. Finally, to the extent new mandates and bureaucratic red tape from Washington push small employers out of the business of offering these plans to their employees, we would submit such an effort weakens, rather than strengthens retirement security. We appreciate your consideration of our views in these important matters and stand ready to work with you and the Administration to promote secure and adequate retirement savings for all Americans. Sincerely, House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH)
Rep. John Kline (R-MN) 
Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI) 
Rep. Sam Johnson (R-TX) 
Rep. Dean Heller (R-NV) 
Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-KY) 
Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) 
Rep. Pat Tiberi (R-OH) 
Rep. Bob Latta (R-OH) 
Rep. Erik Paulsen (R-MN) 
Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R-KS) 
Rep. Ed Royce (R-CA) 
Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA) While the goal of Boehner’s group is noble and laudable, the tactics it uses to resist the administration’s attack on middle-class savings seems somehow to justify them, as well. If Congressman Boehner and his allies are genuinely committed to helping “Americans protect and rebuild their hard-earned savings,” then their interest, as well as that of our Republic and the citizens thereof, would be best served by a bold and relentless campaign to drive all branches of the national government to retreat to a place within the borders of their constitutional authority.

Maybe NEWBEE's are actually NEWRU's, because even we can make more sense than GURU's sometimes...