TETELESTAI Notification List

The TETELESTAI (It is finished) email which will contain the first 800#'s will be posted first on a private page and will be sent out to everyone subscribed to the private page's feed.

If you wish to subscribe to the private page's feed, please visit the TETELESTAI page located HERE and access the private page.

If you're having trouble please give me an email at TetelestaiDC@gmail.com

(Note: The TETELESTAI post is the official "Go" for redemption/exchange.)

Guest Posting & Responding Now Available

Dinar Chronicles is now allowing viewers to guest post and respond to articles. If you wish to respond or speak your mind and write a post/article or about the current situation relating to Iraq, the RV, the GCR and so on. You may now send in an entry.

All you need to do is send your entry to UniversalOm432Hz@gmail.com with these following rules.

The subject line of your email should be: "Entry | (Title of your post) | Dinar Chronicles"

- Proper grammar
- Solely write intel, rumors, news, thoughts, messages regarding Dinarland, Iraq, the RV, the GCR, NESARA/GESARA, the Republic, Spirituality, Ascension and anything that is relating
- Your signature/name/username at the end (If you wish to remain anonymous then you don't need to provide one.)

If you have any questions or wish to communicate with us then please give us an email at UniversalOm432Hz@gmail.com

Send your entry and speak out today!

Follow Dinar Chronicles by Email

Featured Post

Restored Republic via a GCR: Update as of Oct. 24, 2017

Restored Republic via a GCR Update as of Oct. 24 2017 Compiled 12:10 am EDT 24 Oct. 2017 by Judy Byington, MSW, LCSW, ret, CEO, Child Abus...

Tuesday, October 24, 2017

"In Response too BonniB" by Hope Ranger - 10.24.17

Entry Submitted by Hope Ranger at 2:07 AM EDT on October 24, 2017

"Re: Farewell" by BonniB - 10.23.17

BonnieB I thank you for your reply. I was not saying farewell because I am leaving forever I just feel like we are at the end of this ride and that we will all be doing something more important very soon and I wanted to say my farewells before that happened. I will still be around until it happens count on that.

I know there are people out there saying this is all BS, they have been saying that for the entire 8 plus years I have been on this ride. They don't bother me anymore. They used to but now I just laugh at them and say "you will be begging me for money when this happens brother". I don't know what to think about the rates either but this is what I know. When I bought my first dinar I planned on ten cents to the dinar and I bought 1 million dinar so anything over that is a bonus for me. I didn't get greedy I have my original 1 million dinar then I bought 1 million dong and I have 1 100T ZIM. That is all I have. I didn't go out and buy tons of currencies I figured I will make it happen with whatever I get and I still feel that way. If I get 1 penny per ZIM I will be a very happy camper anything over that and I just don't know anyway. I never got into this to be filthy rich I got into it to help friends and family and a then to be able to help a few people along the way. If I can help more people then that will be a bonus for me. I never planned on having trillions of dollars when I first got into this and I still don't. If it happens I know what I will do with it I have plans but I am not going to be disappointed if it doesn't go down that way. If I can retire and take care of my family for the rest of our lives that will be my dream come true. I have expanded my plans somewhat and if I can help more people I know exactly what I am going to do but honestly I never got into this for riches I just wanted to be able to live without owing the cabal anything for the rest of my life and that is still my plan.

Folks this ride has been so up and down and it has been hard to stay grounded. I never planned on hundreds of trillions of dollars but if that happens I know what I will do with that money. My wife is from Central America and I will help as many people in her country as I can with the money I get once I have taken care of my immediate family. The poverty there is unbelievable and I love those people like they were my own so I will help where I can. I will take care of my immediate family and children then go help those people as much as I can. So riches don't mean anything to me I plan on living modestly I just want to NOT owe the cabal one red cent for the rest of my life and if I can do that I will have fulfilled my dream.

So just know I will be around until this happens I just didn't plan on writing anything more because I felt like it was on the verge of happening and I wanted to tell you all that I love you before we all headed for the four corners of the earth. Mission accomplished! I love you all and I will consider you all family forever and if we ever meet, and you tell me your screen name we will share a beer and you can sit at my table and we will share a meal if you so choose. My door will always be open to anyone of you for the rest of my life, which I hope will be long and prosperous as Spock would say. I have shed tears at the deaths of some of our fellow travelers because they didn't get the chance to live out this dream so I am hoping we will all get that chance and very soon.

Love to all,
Hope Ranger

"RISE" - RV Musical Update -10.24.17



Published on Oct 23, 2017

RISE - Radio Remix
Apple Music: http://www.apple.co/2iarvtF
Spotify: http://www.spoti.fi/2ynA61V

© 2017 Roar Records Inc.

China's Grand Ambitions to Dethrone the Dollar

China has grand ambitions to dethrone the dollar. It may make a powerful move this year
  • China is looking to make a major move against the dollar's global dominance, and it may come as early as this year
  • The plan is to price oil in yuan using a gold-backed futures contract in Shanghai, but the road will be long and arduous
Sri Jegarajah | @cnbcSri



Rob Ellis | E+ | Getty Images
A Chinese vessel involved in the oil exploration industry.


China is looking to make a major move against the dollar's global dominance, and it may come as early as this year.

The new strategy is to enlist the energy markets' help: Beijing may introduce a new way to price oil in coming months — but unlike the contracts based on the U.S. dollar that currently dominate global markets, this benchmark would use China's own currency. If there's widespread adoption, as the Chinese hope, then that will mark a step toward challenging the greenback's status as the world's most powerful currency.

China is the world's top oil importer, and so Beijing sees it as only logical that its own currency should price the global economy's most important commodity. But beyond that, moving away from the dollar is a strategic priority for countries like China and Russia. Both aim to ultimately reduce their dependency on the greenback, limiting their exposure to U.S. currency risk and the politics of American sanctions regimes.

The plan is to price oil in yuan using a gold-backed futures contract in Shanghai, but the road will be long and arduous.

"Game changer it is not — at least not yet," said Gal Luft, co-director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, a Washington based think tank focused on energy security. "But it is another indicator of the beginning of the glacial, and I emphasize the word glacial, decline of the dollar."

Beijing faces skeptical global oil markets and global perceptions it exerts too much state control. Those factors will hinder its drive to build a viable oil pricing benchmark that's able to compete with more established benchmarks like West Texas Intermediate or Brent (both dollar-denominated).

The architects of the "petro-yuan" face an uphill struggle in dislodging the "petrodollar" and, with it, more than four decades of U.S. dollar-priced oil. Attracting interest from entrenched and active markets in Europe, the U.S. and the Middle East — used to price more than two-thirds of the world's oil worth trillions of dollars – poses another major challenge.

"Many, many futures contracts are launched because they make some sense from a logical market point of view and they get a lot of attention. But then they die because the key is liquidity," said Jeff Brown, president at FGE, an international energy consultant.

There are really only a handful of truly global oil contracts from which all else is based, Brown explained, adding: "It will be extraordinarily difficult to change that."

Level playing field?

Another obstacle standing in the path of China's ambitions to price oil in yuan is the currency itself. The yuan is not yet fully convertible, it's fixed daily, prone to intervention and subject to capital controls.

Given that regime of tight control over the currency, many global players are likely to assume a yuan-denominated oil benchmark would be firmly under Beijing's thumb.

"My biggest reservations are the role of the Chinese central government, potential state intervention and favoritism toward Chinese companies," said John Driscoll, director of JTD Energy Services in Singapore and a former oil trader whose career spans nearly 40 years.

"Will the contract create a level playing field? The biggest challenge in global oil markets may be ensuring that no country or entity garners a dominant advantage," Driscoll added. "China may be world's fastest growing and most formidable energy consumer, but its central government plays a dominant role in the energy sector."

Beijing is likely to lean heavily on state-owned oil companies to adopt the yuan-based contract in an effort to drum up activity and generate sufficient liquidity — the lifeblood of any financial instrument. But despite the scale they bring, involving such state-backed players risks discouraging participants outside China.

Final stage

The main hope for the survival of a yuan-based oil futures contract, according to FGE's Brown, is that the government pushes the Chinese national oil companies onto the exchange.

Still, he added, "Most counterparties will not want anything to do with this contract as it adds in a layer of cost and risk. They also don't like contracts with only a few dominant buyers or sellers and a government role."

Beijing is plowing ahead regardless, and state-run media reported in September the plan was "moving swiftly."

Yuan pricing and clearing of crude oil futures is the "beginning" of a broader strategic push "to support yuan pricing and clearing in commodities futures trading," Pan Gongsheng, director of the State Administration of Foreign Exchange, said last month.

To support the new benchmark, China has opened more than 6,000 trading accounts for the crude futures contract, Reuters reported in July.

'Well-advanced'

The market's response to the yuan-priced oil benchmark is likely to be lukewarm at first, "but could grow over time, especially if it sparks other commodity hedging tools," said Rachel Ziemba, managing director of emerging markets at Roubini Global Economics.

China is likely to approach its main crude oil suppliers in the Middle East, Russia and Asia — some of who already accept the yuan as payment — to price their cargoes off a Chinese benchmark.

"The U.S. coverage is dropping off," said Juerg Kiener, managing director and chief investment officer of asset manager Swiss Asia Capital. "Iraq, Russia and Indonesia have all joined in non-dollar trades."

The petro-yuan is "well-advanced" and already "structurally in place," Kiener added: "As China is an importer it will push harder to get yuan contracts."

Source: CNBC

General Kelly: An Old Colonel Looked at me

An Old Colonel Looks at General Kelly

A thousand years ago when I was about to begin my military career, a wise old retired Marine colonel, a veteran of the carnage at Tarawa, gave me some advice.


BY THOMAS E. RICKS | OCTOBER 23, 2017, 9:57 AM



White House Chief of Staff John Kelly speaks during a White House briefing Oct. 19 in Washington, D.C. (Win McNamee/Getty Images)

By Col. Robert Killebrew, U.S. Army (Ret.)

A thousand years ago when I was about to begin my military career, a wise old retired Marine colonel, a veteran of the carnage at Tarawa, gave me some advice. Paraphrased here, he said:

So you want to be a career soldier? Good for you. But remember that the longer you stay in uniform, the less you will really understand about the country you protect. Democracy is the antithesis of the military life; it’s chaotic, dishonest, disorganized, and at the same time glorious, exhilarating and free — which you are not.

After a while, if you stay in, you’ll be tempted to say, “Look, you civilians, we’ve got a better way. We’re better organized. We’re patriotic, and we know what it is to sacrifice. Be like us.” And you’ll be dead wrong, son. If you’re a career soldier, you may defend democracy, but you won’t understand it or be part of it. What’s more, you’ll always be a stranger to your own society. That’s the sacrifice you’ll be making.

I’ve been thinking a lot about that old colonel in the aftermath of White House Chief of Staff John Kelly’s remarkable press conference the other day over the president’s call to the widow of an Army soldier killed in Niger. There’s been a lot of commentary about the general’s attitude toward civilians who hadn’t sacrificed — who weren’t of the “one percent” who had — and it seems to me that most of it misses the point. Masha Gessen’s New Yorker article, “John Kelly and the Language of the Military Coup,” comes close, given President Donald Trump’s tendency to hire retired generals who complement his own authoritarian leanings. Certainly we need to be alert for the next three years — having at Trump’s elbow a retired general who disdains civilians should raise some concerns.

But the larger point that strikes me, as a retired infantryman, is the self-pity in the general’s tone. Look at us; we’ve made sacrifices that you don’t appreciate. The only good American is one in uniform, or, ultimately, the ones under tombstones in Arlington. Sadly, this kind of sad, pitying flag-waving impresses too many of my fellow citizens the same way that the insubordinate Douglas MacArthur did in the 1950s — and MacArthur is said to be a favorite of Trump’s.

Let’s be frank. There’s nothing “glorious” or “sacrificial” about choosing to be a soldier. We give up personal freedom for the privilege of serving our country, and we enter a closed-off profession that is enormously satisfying, but can also be physically, emotionally, and intellectually demanding. We accept the risk that some of us get killed or wounded. In return, the country gives us decent pay, an early retirement — some bodies get pretty broken up in twenty or thirty years — and health care. It’s not a bad deal.

But the other sacrifice — the one the colonel talked about — is that few of us quite fit into the “dishonest, disorganized and glorious” mess is American democracy. That makes us good bureaucrats and maybe good chiefs of staff, but not someone who has a gut-level understanding of democracy — the role of a free press, for example, or the give and take of backroom dealing. We chose the life we lived. Being part of the “one percent” doesn’t make us any more entitled than any other citizen. And while we’re happy that the public respects military service, too much respect makes us a little uneasy, for the reasons the old colonel said. We are privileged to serve, not the other way around.

Kelly is understandably upset that Trump — acting on the general’s advice — publicly fumbled a call to a young widow. Part of the general’s problem is that he serves a president without empathy for anyone but himself. Another is that the same president has now politicized Kelly’s private grief.

But that odd press conference has exposed Kelly’s emotional, personal disdain for the citizens he served in uniform and still serves in a sensitive political post. His remarks lead me to wonder if he really understands that soldiers are the servants of democracies, not some special race apart. A MacArthur or a George Patton, disdainful or ignorant of democracy but close to the president is dangerous to the Republic and is unbecoming his distinguished service in a profession that doesn’t need anyone’s pity.

Source: Foreign Policy

Pentagon on Niger Ambush 'We're there because ISIS and Al-Qaeda are'

'We're there because ISIS and Al-Qaeda are': The Pentagon gives new details on Niger ambush

David Choi



Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Joseph Dunford, concludes his briefing about the Niger operation at the Pentagon, October 23, 2017. Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Joseph Dunford discussed the battle that left four US troops killed in Niger.

Although Dunford shed some light on the fight, many details, such as why US forces were unable to locate Johnson's body for two days, were left in the dark.

Dunford asked for "a bit of patience" as the investigation continues.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Joseph Dunford addressed reports that officials were not "forthcoming" on the information surrounding the battle in Niger that killed four US troops and wounded two, during a press conference at the Pentagon on Monday.

Although Dunford offered a general timeline of events involving the 12-person Special Forces detachment and 30 Nigerien partner forces, he refused to speculate on many details until the full investigation ran its course.

In the mid-morning of October 3, around 50 local ISIS-affiliated tribal fighters attacked the coalition force, and the ensuing battle lasted until the evening of October 4, Dunford said. He stressed that US troops were conducting a reconnaissance mission to gather intelligence and that intelligence reports said that contact with an enemy force was "unlikely."

Asked why US troops were there accompanying Nigerien forces, Dunford noted that US forces would "only accompany partner forces when the chances of enemy contact are unlikely."

"If we have a specific threat to the homeland and local forces are unable to deal with that threat, United States forces are going to deal with that threat," Dunford said. "But the bias is towards enabling local African partners to conduct operations in Africa."

Approximately one hour after taking fire from militants armed with rocket-propelled grenades, small arms, and civilian vehicles outfitted for combat, US troops called in support. French Mirage jets responded about 30 minutes later, according to Dunford.

It is still unclear whether the jets were armed with bombs, or what effect they had on the battle.

Dunford also remarked on the time gap from the moment US troops came under attack, to the arrival of reinforcements.

"The one thing I would push back on hard is, I'm not putting any pressure on that unit," Dunford said. "I make no judgment as to how long it took for them to ask for support."

A remotely-piloted aircraft was also dispatched immediately, however, it only relayed intelligence on the incident and reportedly did not strike at targets, Dunford continued.



Myeshia Johnson, wife of US Army Sergeant La David Johnson, who was among four special forces soldiers killed in Niger, kisses his coffin at a graveside service in Hollywood, Florida on October 21, 2017. REUTERS/Joe Skipper


US casualties were evacuated following the firefight by French helicopters, but it wasn't until the evening of October 6 that Sgt. La David Johnson's body was recovered by Nigerien forces, Dunford said. Although Johnson's body was reportedly found one mile from the scene of the ambush, according to administration officials in a CNN report, Dunford declined to comment on specifics until the investigation was concluded.

Around 800 US troops are operating in Niger, along with 4,000 French troops in West Africa, Dunford said. US forces have reportedly been in the region for more than 20 years and are stationed there to "defeat violent extremism in Africa," in addition to dealing with the "global threat with foreign fighters.

"This area is inherently dangerous," Dunford said. "We're there because ISIS and Al-Qaeda are operating in that area."

The White House has been criticized for its delayed response in addressing the US casualties following the battle. President Donald Trump delivered his first remarks about 12 days after the attack, and was further mired in controversy after details of his call to Johnson's widow unfolded.

According to Dunford, the White House was notified on the evening of October 4, as soon as Johnson was reported missing. The White House then released a statement saying that Trump was notified of the incident.

After conferring with Defense Secretary James Mattis, Dunford said the two agreed there would be a sense of urgency to the investigation on the incident, but would also prioritize it so that the "investigation is accurate."

"We owe the families as much information," Dunford said.

Lawmakers seem intent on receiving more information on the battle. Sen. John McCain, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has threatened to issue a subpoena.

On Wednesday, McCain said that the White House was not being upfront about the Niger ambush, and said he would like the information his committee "deserves and needs."

"I haven't heard anything about it, to tell you the truth, except that they were killed," McCain said in a Daily Beast report on Tuesday.

Source: Business Insider

Even the Military Doesn't Know Why 4 US Troops Died in Niger

What relation does this have to the RV? We don't know yet. ~ Dinar Chronicles

Why did 4 US troops die in Niger? Even the military doesn’t know.


Updated by Zack Beauchamp@zackbeauchampzack@vox.com
Oct 23, 2017, 6:15pm EDT



Mark Wilson/Getty Images

The mysterious deaths of four US Special Forces troops during an early-October mission in Niger has gone from a military tragedy to a roaring political controversy because of President Donald Trump’s feud with the widow of one of the soldiers killed in the operation. The Pentagon just made things even murkier.

On Monday, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Joseph Dunford — the military’s highest-ranking officer — gave the most detailed account of the situation yet, including a timeline of the events that led to the killings of Sgt. La David Johnson and three other Green Berets. But what was most striking in his remarks was how little even the Pentagon’s top officer appeared to know about how and why the mission in the West African nation of Niger went so badly wrong.

Over and over again, Dunford repeated that he only had limited information about what actually happened in Niger. On perhaps the biggest outstanding question — how the elite US soldiers ended up coming into contact with hostile forces during what was ostensibly a noncombat mission — he professed complete ignorance, promising answers after the military concludes a lengthy internal investigation.

It felt, in many ways, like a repeat of the early days after the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya: a situation where something went badly wrong but it’s not immediately obvious who’s to blame.
What we learned about the Niger raid — and what we didn’t

At its core, the US presence in Niger is about counterterrorism. Since the George W. Bush administration, the US has been working with governments in heavily Muslim West Africa to counter local Islamist groups. The US presence there ramped up considerably under the Obama administration, which sent special forces to train and assist local partners in countering both al-Qaeda and ISIS groups operating in the region. The first US troops arrived in Niger specifically in 2012.

Johnson and the rest of his 12-man squad were Green Berets, a branch of the Army designed specifically for training foreign militaries. They were sent out with Nigerien troops on October 3 for what, according to Dunford, was supposed to be a fairly routine operation.

"It was planned as a reconnaissance mission,” Dunford said. “Chances of enemy contact [were deemed] unlikely.”

That assessment turned out to be catastrophically wrong. The soldiers spent the night of October 3 in the field — Dunford wasn’t clear on whether this was planned or improvised — and came into contact with enemy forces the next day, October 4.

"I DON'T KNOW HOW THIS ATTACK UNFOLDED”

The enemies, Dunford said, were “local, tribal fighters” affiliated with the local ISIS group, the Islamic State in the Greater Sahel (ISGS). He provided no identifying information beyond that.

After an hour of fighting, Johnson’s squad requested backup. The nearest air assets were French Mirage jets — France has an even larger counterterrorism presence in West Africa, its former colonial fiefdom, than the US. It took half an hour for French jets to get ready, and another half-hour for them to arrive on scene. Ground reinforcements from the Nigerien military followed sometime afterward.

Sometime during these hours of fighting, three soldiers — Staff Sgt. Bryan Black, Staff Sgt. Jeremiah Johnson, and Staff Sgt. Dustin Wright — were killed or fatally wounded. Sgt. La David Johnson went missing during the chaos; the US spent two days searching for his body. It isn’t clear whether Johnson died during the attack or some time afterward.

And that was basically all Dunford would confirm.

“Everything beyond what I told you,” he said, “would be speculation."
What we don’t know about Niger is more important than what we do

If that account is unsatisfying to you, you’re not alone (Defense Secretary Jim Mattis has reportedly been personally impatient for more answers). Dunford openly acknowledged during the presser that a lot of the vital details about the mission were still unknown, including:
  1. Were the US troops given faulty intelligence before the mission that led them to erroneously conclude it was low risk?
  2. Did the mission change from simple reconnaissance to something else? And if so, on whose orders?
  3. How did they basically lose a US soldier for two days?
  4. Why did it take a full hour before the troops on the ground called for help?
  5. Why did the US have to rely on French aircraft to save its troops?
These questions, according to Dunford, are all going to be investigated internally. For now, though, the information is just extremely limited: Something clearly went wrong, but nobody is really sure yet what it was.

"I don't know how this attack unfolded,” Dunford said bluntly, in one of the most honest moments of the presser.

This is eerily similar to the early days of the Benghazi attack. After US Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and three other US citizens were killed on September 11, 2012, the American public rightly demanded answers about what they were doing in a chaotic Libyan city and how it led to such a disaster.

These legitimate questions quickly gave way to a partisan witch hunt, in which Republicans in Congress repeatedly and fruitlessly attempted to pin the blame for Stevens’s death on President Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Today, the word “Benghazi” is as or more likely to conjure up that unseemly political spectacle as the actual tragedy.

If Obama or Clinton were president when four more Americans died in an African country under murky conditions, we’d no doubt be seeing a repeat performance. With Trump in office, Republicans are less likely to repeat this performance, but have an opportunity to provide real oversight; Sen. John McCain has already talked about issuing subpoenas to the Pentagon for more details about the mission. McCain, though, has been standing largely alone on his side of the aisle — in raising questions both about the mission itself and about Trump’s inexplicable and cruel fight with the family mourning a soldier who died on his watch.

Source: Vox

Dunford: We Owe the Country, Info About the Niger Ambush

Joint Chiefs Chairman Dunford: We Owe the Country, Especially Families of the Fallen, More Info About Niger Ambush

by Ken Meyer | 5:24 pm, October 23rd, 2017

General Joseph Dunford held a press conference at the Pentagon today, where he announced the the government should provide more information about the Niger Ambush where four American soldiers lost their lives this month.

After the joint chiefs chairman laid out an updated timeline on the attack that killed Sgt. La David Johnson and his three colleagues, he faced questions about why the government’s investigation hasn’t clarified more details about the operation. When CNN’s Jim Sciuttoasked his questions to Dunford, he noted how the Trump Administration has suggested that the press “shouldn’t ask such tough questions” to military figures.

Dunford responded by saying questions about transparency were fair, and that the government owes the public information about what the military is trying to accomplish in Niger and around the world.

“I think first and foremost in this particular case we owe the families as much information as we can find out about what happened,” said Dunford. “And we owe the American people an explanation of what their men and women were doing at this particular time.”

Dunford went on to say he expects military investigators to debrief Gold Star families about the deaths of their loved ones, and that the Armed Forces owe Americans “transparency” when further information is clarified.

“[The American people] should know what the mission is and what we’re trying to accomplish when we’re there,” the general said.

Dunford said the four American soldiers were killed in a firefight after they engaged ISIS militants during a reconnaissance mission in hostile territory. The fighting went on for “several hours,” though Dunford said that the troops requested an airstrike only an hour after making initial contact with the enemy.

Enemy casualties have not been determined as of yet, but five Nigerian partners were killed along with the American forces.

Dunford said that the White House was notified about the ambush shortly after the troops’ bodies went missing, and their retrieval was accomplished through an international recovery effort.

As the press conference continued, Dunford was asked about those who have compared the Niger ambush to the Benghazi embassy attack. The chairman’s response: “I personally see no utility in comparing this incident to any other incident. We lost 4 Americans in this incident, we had 2 others wounded, that makes it a big deal to me…I personally am not comparing this to any other incident.”

Source: Mediaite

Disclamer:

We are in compliance with, "Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use."

All rights reserved go to their respective holders. We do not own the intellectual property shown on this website, the respective holders own that privilege unless stated otherwise.

We do not endorse any opinions expressed on the Dinar Chronicles website. We do not support, represent or guarantee the completeness, truthfulness, accuracy, or reliability of any content or communications posted on Dinar Chronicles.

Dinar Chronicles is not a registered investment adviser, broker dealer, banker or currency dealer and as such, no information on the website should be construed as investment advice. We do not intend to and are not providing financial, legal, tax, political or any other advice to any reader of the website. This website is...Read More