Showing posts with label US. Show all posts
Showing posts with label US. Show all posts

Friday, June 11, 2010

The US Economy is on life support

The Commerce Department said today that retail sales fell by 1.2 percent in May. Although this was a surprise to many economists it has been no surprise to the millions of Americans who are looking for a job, or those that have already thrown in the towel and given up, or for the millions still facing foreclosure.

The US economy has been brought to its knees by the inevitable failure of any meaningful and insightful judgment coming from the Obama administration. Both the president and congress have thrown money in the wrong direction, wasting resources that may cause the US government to find itself in the same place as Greece within the next few years. Yes the banks were saved but at the expense of the US population.

Now after throwing trillions at the banks and a small token at the people, the Federal Reserve under Bernanke is completely lost in its own quagmire of confusion; the system is so completely over run by the bank elite that there is no place in this administration for common sense.

Five banks that set this collapse in motion each KNEW Obama would bring taxpayer aid to their survival. Those banks were Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Deutsche Bank AG, Bear Stearns Cos, Citigroup Inc., and JP Morgan Chase & Co., traders from these banks actually met and devised the instruments to bet against the subprime securities they were themselves promoting, and by playing both sides of the table they couldn’t lose. It was a Las Vegas style Gamble and they took out insurance, literally, taking down AIG and a host of other smaller insurance companies.

Why then did they need a government bailout? Primarily because they actually bankrupted AIG which caused Timothy Geithner from the New York Fed to coerce AIG to pay the banks in full for their second party CDS’s, thus allowing these same banks to be made whole with the exception of Bear Stearns. Why was Bear allowed to fall when the others were not?

Former Bear Stearns chief executive James Cayne, the chairman and CEO said the firm became the first major victim of the financial crisis due to “unfounded rumors”, not because of risky exposures to mortgage-related products with free-falling values.

Bear Stearns in March 2008 experienced essentially a run on the bank as creditors and the markets lost confidence in the institution. Regulators scrambled to find a buyer for the collapsing firm, resulting in a sale to none other than JPMorgan Chase & Co for $10 a share.

Maybe it’s just a coincidence that Bear Stearns was brought to its knees by rumors and ended up in the hands of JP Morgan. In 1907 JP Morgan began a series of rumors that the New York Banks were insolvent causing a similar run which essentially gave Morgan control, and what was accomplished was that which Morgan sought the beginning of the Federal Reserve System where Wall Street actually took control of the US Government.

The belief is that J.P. Morgan actually wanted Bear Stearns. So they arranged it by rumors and a sale, just as they did with Washington Mutual.

On April 17, 2010 the former head of the chief banking regulatory agency that oversaw failed Washington Mutual told lawmakers that the giant savings and loan collapsed because of a run on the bank, not failures by him or other regulators.

Who started the rumors that cause a run on Washington Mutual? Another coincidence Washington Mutual was taken over by non other that JP Morgan Chase who bought it for $2 billion.

Phil Angelides (Crisis Commission) in January accused Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein of treating clients unfairly for creating -- and then betting against -- subprime mortgage-backed securities. And this is essentially what each of these banks did.

Could the US economy have been saved?

Absolutely if that were the real intent of the Obama Administration! But Obama and Congress were to focused on their financial backers to see the forest for the trees, they threw money at the banks, and AIG with the latter allowing the foreclosures to continue, thus giving the banks a twofold profit, the bail out money allowing them to loan it back to the government and the foreclosure where they were paid by AIG and the other institutions that were foolish enough to guarantee these insane investments.

Obama and Congress could have used the same money to bailout both the Banks and the Borrowers, they could have provided the money to the banks per each loan that was modified to reduce the principal and interest. Thereby stopping the onslaught of foreclosures and maintaining a jobs market because there would not have been the financial impact on the economy.

The US Government because they have been substantially absorbed by Wall Street, is now tinkering on the brink of financial collapse. And this collapse is what should have allowed of Wall Street.

Friday, May 28, 2010

While the Banks control Congress, the American people remain the real losers.

“The bold effort the present (central) bank had made to control the government ... are but premonitions of the fate that await the American people should they be deluded into a perpetuation of this institution or the establishment of another like it.” Andrew Jackson

It was 1836, and the central bank had attempted to take control of the Federal government, sensing the power the bank asserted over the nation and the influence its money contained over the destiny of its citizens Jackson vowed to shut the bank. He succeeded!

Now more than170 years later we find ourselves once more embroiled in a struggle against the banking interest over control of the US government and even the destiny of America as a nation. We are failing! And as we fail, we present a new decade of enslavement for not only ourselves but a season of global instability.

It was 1907, and 71 years after Jackson made the nation aware, when JP Morgan set in motion one of the greatest scams America could ever envision, the great panic leading to the passage of the Federal Reserve Act, where Wall Street took control of America.

Until this panic congress had been reluctant to allow the Banks to control the issuance of our money, mainly due to the constituency who at the time understood the real nature of Bankers and mainly held them to a high level of distrust. Morgan and his allies set in motion rumors that created an atmosphere of fright, the rumors were calculated to cause a run on New York’s prominent banks. Morgan then rode to the rescue bringing in some 100, million of Rothschild’s gold to save the day, his white horse made him a stunning figure, and continued his legend as the leading banker of his day.

But it didn’t stop there JP Morgan Jr. attempted the unthinkable, too actually over through the US government. It was 1934 and Morgan led and financed the failed attempt to over through the legitimate presidency of Franklin Roosevelt, though it failed it showed the true character of Americas leading bankers, and showed them as the real villains of American free enterprise, Morgan and his other allies such as chemical industrialist Irénée du Pont, their avowed purpose to form a fascist government.

Now that fight continues at the treasury where some want what Obama and his co-harts don’t, real Bank reform. Let’s face it Congress is completely dominated by Wall Street money and that money means influence amounting to control. Today Money buys loyalty, and there is little money on Main Street to even buy a hot dog. So the loyalty of congress and yes even the president himself goes to Wall Street insiders. Like JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs.

Deputy Treasury Secretary Neal Wolin reiterated Thursday that he would like to see the "Volcker rule" included in the bank reform bill now being finalized, and reconciled in congress, the thrust of the “Volcker rule” would separate banking from proprietary trading, a revisit to Glass Steagall. Since the FED under Greenspan and as he was directed by his association with JP Morgan, Glass Steagall was dumped by the FED and later by Congress and Clinton.

Yes to reinstate Glass Steagall would be a beginning, but there is so much more required. And America sadly lacks the stomach for a real fight.

Thursday, February 18, 2010

False Prophets of War!

Were the Taliban an enemy of the US?

Was Bin Laden responsible for the 9/11 World Trade Center attack?

These are two questions that have daunted the American psyche since the US attacked Iraq under “knowingly” false pretenses. Allegations of weapons of mass destruction, the US government knew did not exists, were the cause that beat a war drum and marshaled the might of our military against a lesser army, in short we wanted Iraq’s Oil and we took it.

We also wanted the Unocal Pipeline across Afghanistan, and as discussions faltered we forced the Taliban out to put our own puppet in, now that Pipeline has been secured.

Our latest focus, the Caspian Sea‘s rich oil resources, so Iran is another enemy that must be dealt with, allegations of uranium enrichment has become the drum beat and propaganda of this seemingly inevitable confrontation.

With war after war as our centerpiece, we have become bullies of the world, sacking the resources of nations at our will. As the early Roman warrior, and before them Alexander we seek global dominance. America does not free mankind through democracy it enslaves it through that illusion.

We have become that which we abhor most, terrorists, war mongers, and politically totalitarian. We are the American generation of imperialists who chant the illusion of democracy, while we torture our victims in the name of salvation.

Yet, just as war with Iran is not necessary, neither were Afghanistan or Iraq.

After almost 9 years of continuous war, documents have been declassified and released that establish, the US made a false case to attack not only the Taliban, and initiated a war of choice, but were actually the terrorists we seek to destroy.

Evidence is now available from multiple sources, including recently declassified U.S. State Department documents, which shows that the Taliban regime led by Mullah Mohammad Omar imposed strict isolation on Osama bin Laden after 1998 to prevent him from carrying out any plots against the United States.

The evidence contradicts claims by top Barack Obama administration officials that Mullah Omar was complicit in Osama bin Laden's involvement in the al Qaeda plot to carry out the Sep. 11, 2001 terrorist attack. It also bolsters the credibility of Taliban statements in recent months asserting that it has no interest in al Qaeda's global jihadist aims.

Mullah Omar's willingness to allow bin Laden to remain in Afghanistan was conditioned from the beginning, according to documents, on two prohibitions on his activities: bin Laden was forbidden to talk to the media without the consent of the Taliban regime or to make plans to attack U.S. targets.

In retaliation for the bombings of two U.S. Embassies in East Africa on Aug. 7, 1998 The US Government believing Bin Laden guilty, in August 1998 engaged in cruise missile strikes against bin Laden run training camps in Afghanistan. This attack by the US appears to have had a dramatic impact on Mullah Omar and the Taliban regime's policy toward bin Laden.

Two days after the strike, Omar unexpectedly entered into a phone conversation with a US State Department official and one of his aides, he told the U.S. official he was unaware of any evidence that bin Laden "had engaged in or planned terrorist acts while on Afghan soil". The Taliban leader said he was "open to dialogue" with the United States and asked for evidence of bin Laden's involvement, according to the State Department cable reporting the conversation.

Only three weeks after Omar asked for evidence against bin Laden, the al Qaeda leader sought to allay Taliban suspicions by appearing to accept the prohibition by Omar against planning any actions against the United States.

In an interview with al Jazeera, (The mid east version of CNN), bin Laden stated "There is an opinion among the Taliban that we should not move from within Afghanistan against any other state, he added "This was the decision of the Commander of the Faithful, as is known." Mullah Omar had taken the title "Commander of the Faithful"

During September and October 1998, the Taliban apparently sought to position itself to turn bin Laden over to the Saudi government by obtaining a ruling from the Afghan Supreme Court that bin Laden was guilty of the Embassy bombings.

In a conversation with the U.S. chargé in Islamabad on Nov. 28, 1998, Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil, Omar's spokesman and chief adviser on foreign affairs, referred to a previous Taliban request to the United States for evidence of bin Laden's guilt to be examined by the Afghan Supreme Court, (according to the U.S. diplomat's report to the State Department).

Accordingly with Omar’s request, the US failed to provide the Afghan Supreme Court such evidence supporting their claim that bin Laden was involved. The court thus ruled that no evidence had been presented warranted the conviction of bin Laden.

Muttawakil said the court trial approach had "not worked" but suggested that the Taliban regime was now carrying out a strategy to "restrict [bin Laden's] activities in such a way that he would decide to leave of his own volition."

Meanwhile, the US Media and public officials were blaming the Taliban of protecting bin Laden.

In the face of a new Taliban hostility, bin Laden sought to convince Mullah Omar that he had given his personal allegiance to Omar as a Muslim. In April 2001 bin Laden referred publicly to having sworn allegiance to Mullah Omar as the "Commander of the Faithful".

Even in summer 2001, as the Taliban regime became increasingly dependent on foreign jihadi troop contingents, including Arabs trained in bin Laden's camps, for its defense against the military advances of the Northern Alliance, Mullah Omar found yet another way to express his unhappiness with bin Laden's presence.

In Late January, Geoff Morrell, the spokesman for Defense Secretary Robert Gates, suggested that the United States could not negotiate with Mullah Omar, because he has "the blood of thousands of Americans on his hands," implying that he had knowingly allowed bin Laden's planning of the 9/11 attacks. Yet no such evidence exists to support the US storyline. In fact this story seems to be wholly inaccurate in face of what we now know.

It is more likely that the US wanted to attack and remove the Taliban, and after we succeeded, the Taliban now appear to be waging war in retribution.

Why did we really invade Afghanistan?

We knew that the Taliban were not protecting Bin Laden and we had no information that Bin Laden was behind the World Trade Center attack, but we do know this the hijackers were all Saudi Nationals, and we needed oil and lots of it

In 2001, the U.S imported 54% of the oil it required, importing 11-12 million barrels a day and producing about 8-9 million a day. The US was consuming about 20 million barrels of oil daily.

Of those imports, 48% came from the Western Hemisphere and 30% came from the Persian Gulf region, with the rest came from Africa and Europe.

The Persian Gulf Region contains 590 billion barrels of known reserves. Add Iran, Libya and Algeria and you have another 130 billion barrels. This enormous pool of oil that stretches from Algeria to Iran is estimated at 720 billion barrels. The reserves expected from the Caspian Sea in Central Asia will be added to this total shortly. Those reserves are estimated to be another 44 billion barrels of oil reserves and possibly more.

The Afghanistan war is about securing the territory through which the oil and gas pipelines will have to pass through in order to ensure Russia, China and Iran are out-maneuvered in the last great wars for the last of the global oil supplies on planet Earth. Iran and Russia within the past month have secured a cooperative agreement over the Caspian oil reserves and have possibly out maneuvered the US interests.

Unocal a company now owned by Chevron in 1995, entered the picture and began negotiations with the Taliban to construct an oil pipeline:

Unocal signed a tentative agreement with the Turkmenistan government to research the possibilities of constructing an oil pipeline to Pakistan by way of Afghanistan. As the project developed, Unocal began to seek an agreement with the Taliban, who had recently risen to power, to construct a pipeline across their country. On two separate occasions, in February and December 1997, Taliban officials were flown to the US to meet with, and be wined and dined by, Unocal executives. One of those executives was claimed to have been Hamid Karzai (Currently the US Installed President of Afghanistan) Although Karzai denies his involvement with Unocal, there is strong evidence to support his connections.

Background on Karzai, Bush and UNOCAL

This information is quoted from an article by the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), globalresearch.ca, January 23, 2002 (Reprinted here with fair use permission)

According to Afghan, Iranian, and Turkish government sources, Hamid Karzai, the interim Prime Minister of Afghanistan, was a top adviser to the El Segundo, California-based UNOCAL Corporation which was negotiating with the Taliban to construct a Central Asia Gas (CentGas) pipeline from Turkmenistan through western Afghanistan to Pakistan.

Karzai, the leader of the southern Afghan Pashtun Durrani tribe, was a member of the mujaheddin that fought the Soviets during the 1980s. He was a top contactor for the CIA and maintained close relations with CIA Director William Casey, and then Vice President George HW Bush, and the Pakistani Inter Service Intelligence (ISI) Service. Later, Karzai and a number of his brothers moved to the United States under the auspices of the CIA.

According to Middle East and South Asian sources Karzai serve the agency's interests, as well as those of the Bush Family and their oil friends in negotiating the CentGas deal.

When one peers beyond all of the rhetoric of the White House and Pentagon concerning the Taliban, a clear pattern emerges showing that construction of the trans-Afghan pipeline was a top priority of the Bush administration from the outset, and why we invaded Afghanistan.

Although UNOCAL claims it abandoned the pipeline project in December 1998, the series of meetings held between U.S., Pakistani, and Taliban officials after 1998, indicates the project was never off the table.

Note: According to European intelligence sources; Meetings between the Taliban and the US Government over the pipe line are said to have continued even after the September 11, attack and the beginning of the war.

Governments lie, and we are the ultimate victims of their treachery.