IMMORAL DEBT, JULIAN ASSANGE, AND ECUADOR By Marilyn M. BArnewall There is an extremely interesting concept called odious debt.

Much has been written about it for many years. .. even Aristotle talked of it. In a recent article by Italian writer, Nicola di Cora Modigliani, the concept of immoral debt is mentioned in relationship to Ecuador, Argentina, the U.S.A., and Julian Assange. The article (in Italian) can be found at http://sergiodicorimodiglianji.blogspot.it . The story is difficult to follow because it bounces around in un-timed sequences. It discusses Ecuadorian rejection of debt on the basis of immoral debt (the correct term being odious debt) that occurred in 2008 in the same time sequence he discusses Argentinas early payment of its bond debt in 2012 but he identifies the bond debt as Argentinas IMF debt which it isnt. In other words, the article is confusing and contains some errors. Modiglianis story, however, is important because the concept of odious debt or, if youre an Italian writer immoral debt is extremely interesting to a world of citizen tax payers who believe they are caught in a web of immoral debt which is forcing them into giving up the sovereignty of their nation and forcing them to become labor slaves to a system of economic, oligarchic terrorists. The concept of odious debt may lend itself to an exit strategy for sovereign nations of the world to escape the crushing debt being heaped on the heads of people worldwide. The idea does hold some thoughtful possibilities. Modiglianis story has to do with Julian Assange of Wikileaks fame and the reason the Republic of Ecuador gave him asylum in their United Kingdom Embassy. Everyone had to wonder why Assange sought out the Ecuadorian Embassy. Why Ecuador? Here is what Modigliani says happened to Julian Assange. On 15 June 2012, Julian Assange understands that for him its over. He knows that he will be arrested in Stockholm, picked up at the airport, not by police forces of His Majesty the King of Sweden, but by two officers of the CIA and a US diplomat, using specific formal agreements between the two nations to claim that Assange actively intervened in the NATO conflict in Iraq while the war was in progress. He will then be taken directly to the US, to the state of Texas, and subjected to criminal prosecution for terrorist activities. There will be a demand for the death penalty based on the provisions of the Patriot Act. So Assange consults with his group, and at 9 a.m. on 19 June, enters the Embassy of Ecuador. His team opens negotiations with British agents in London, with the Swedes in Stockholm, and American diplomats in Rio de Janeiro. They agree to let the (London) Olympics pass, after which he can quietly go to South America, just

do not talk about it. But somehow they dont trust the Anglo-Americans and rightly so. So they carry out two masterstrokes on 3 August and 4 August. How does Modigliani get his insights into what Assange is thinking and what hes doing? Theres no way of knowing but thats not the important part of this article. Its just interesting information. Modigliani goes on to say that on 3 August 2012, 16 months ahead of schedule, Argentina President, Cristina Kirchner, went to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) headquarters in Manhattan. Senor Patino, the Foreign Minister of Ecuador, went with her to pay off Argentinas IMF debt. Ecuadors Patino was there because he represents Labour Alianza Bolivariana America, the economic union between Latin America and the Caribbean. I can find no verification for these statements. What I do find is that Argentina paid off a special bondholder fund representing money taken by Argentina when it froze citizen assets and closed its banks at the turn of the 21st century. It is true that since 2002 Argentina has fought the IMFs attempts to impose restrictive measures of economic austerity on the country. The IMF wanted to do what the IMF is known worldwide for doing: It wanted to finance infrastructure, pay for research you know the routine: Make a country borrow and spend money building roads and airports and bridges and other shovel ready projects. Such strategies force any nation deeper and deeper and deeper in debt until it is in economic ruin. Sound familiar? On the other hand, it is equally true that Argentina seems to lack character as a state when it comes to repaying their loans. They seem to believe that banks in other nations ought to lend them money but they can choose not torepay. And that is where the question of odious or immoral debt enters the story. Though readers must wade through misconceptions and misstatements made by Modigliani in his article, it is an important article because it brings the concept of immoral debt to the public eye. Modigliani says A lie is being forced upon the majority of the worlds population by the oligarch elites. This is an important statement because it is true. Another of Modiglianis statements suggests that Julian Assange provided evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the Rothschild/Rockefeller cabal that it gave copies of documented conversations between elitist bankers and others about how to cripple the economies of the nations of South America. The comments that make up the Assange evidence focus on how to take away South Americas energy resources, prevent economic recovery, and force the governments of the continent to pursue a neo-colonialist policies in order that Spain, Italy and Germany can, with British capital, benefit from the difficulties sure to follow when the recommended policies are followed. Anyone who has read

Confessions of an Economic Hit Man will recognize the parallels. If, indeed, Assange and Wikileaks did provide this information to the South American nations, it will enable them to avert numerous economic emergencies. According to the Modigliani article, Assange has found asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London because of this information. It sounds reasonable. And, without intending to, Ecuador (whether or not acting on information provided by Assange to South American nations about the intent of western economies to destroy them and buy them from the ashes for a dime on the dollar) has exposed a great weakness in the world financial systems. On December 16, 2008, Ecuadordorian President Rafael Correa didnt make a scheduled interest payment on private bonds. Ecuador had defaulted in 1998 when going through a financial crisis. This time, however, was different. Correa told the world that his small nation was not going to pay obviously immoral and illegitimate debts. Ecuadors gross domestic product (GDP) is close to 50 billion euros and its immoral debt is about 11 billion euros. Its a small country. But that isnt the point. The immoral debt point made by Rafael Correa, was announced on television on December 12, 2008. He said immoral and illegitimate debts violated the constitution and oppressed his people. The question, then, becomes: What debts are odious or immoral, and which are not? What is an illegitimate debt? President Correa related the Ecuadorian immoral debt to violations of that nations constitution. In America, we can look at mortgage-backed derivatives and millions of unlawful foreclosures and come to the same conclusion. These debts and the government funds loaned to the banksters that created them and who got bailed out by additional funds from the taxed pockets of American citizens can probably make the best claim of immoral or odious debt of any citizens in the world. What else might represent immoral debt? Well, if its anything that is unconstitutional, a claim could be made that the entire Federal Reserve System is unconstitutional. Article One, Section 8 of the United States Constitution says The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United State; Section 8 also says Congress has the responsibility To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;. There is a lawful way to change the Constitution of the United States. It involves both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Each must approve by a two-thirds supermajority vote a joint resolution amending the Constitution. The joint resolution does

not require the signature of the President but is sent directly to the states for ratification. Once ratified by the People, the Constitution is lawfully amended. That is the process put in place by our Founding Fathers. As anyone who is familiar with the history of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 knows, this procedure was not followed. Instead, politicians who supported the concept of a central bank (which America had only briefly on two occasions until 1913) let their opponents go home for Christmas on December 23rd and proceeded to pass this act unconstitutionally. The Congress cannot, under its own limited power, change the Constitution of the United States. The Federal Reserve Act and the banking system that evolved from it have never been constitutional. Foreign nations should beware. They are doing business with an unlawful agency one that could be found in violation of the Constitution and not qualified to create debt in the name of the people of the United States of America immoral or odious debt. Even by-passing the unlawful which means odious and/or immoral debt created by the Federal Reserve System, there is much debt from equally unconstitutional sources. For example, only the Congress has the constitutional (moral) authority to declare war. Could that mean that any debt from non-declared wars represents immoral debt? Eduadors President Rafael Correa says immoral and illegitimate debts violated the constitution of his country and oppressed his people. He refused to pay them. If that is the standard by which we define immoral debt, this Modigliani article, filled with its errors and misinformation (not disinformation it does not appear to be intentionally misleading), is of critical importance. It may have presented to the American people a strategy for getting rid of a lot of debt immoral debt. Before you think that Ive taken leave of my senses, as I said at the beginning of this article there has been much discussion on the subject of odioust debt (as the Paris Club calls it) in fact, even the United States Congress has been talking about it. We havent heard about it, of course. Take a look at H.R. 2634, The Jubilee Act for Responsible Lending here. http://marilynwrites.blogspot.com/ . On April 16, 2008, this Act the House of Representatives passed an amended version of the Jubilee Act for Responsible Lending and Expanded Debt Cancellation. It sounds like what we Americans needs is a good, old fashioned South American style coup by a military that understands the concept of immoral debt. The precedent for it, after all, was set by the President of the United States of America when he declared the debt of Iraq to be immoral debt when we invaded that nation in 2003. I love irony especially when it bites someone in the butt who deserves it.