7:30 Camberra
3:30 San Francisco
0:30 New York, Montreal
+1:30 Rio de Janeiro, Porto Alegre
+ 5:30 Rabat
+ 5:30 Paris, Bruxelles
+ 9:30 Antananarivo
+ 11:30 New DelhiCNN - Video: World Leaders Don’t Shake Bush’s Hand
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRMAAXNHkh8&eurl=http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message669592/pg1
Lets send all Love, Wisdom and Truth of Eternity to G.W. Bush :)
{Consulter} l'article avec son forum.
THE WEB OF DEBT - The shocking Truth about our money system and how we can break free
EXPLODING THE MYTHS ABOUT MONEY
Our money system is not what we have been led to believe. The creation of money has been "privatized," or taken over by a private money cartel. Except for coins, all of our money is now created as loans advanced by private banking institutions — including the private Federal Reserve. Banks create the principal but not the interest to service their loans. To find the interest, new loans must continually be taken out, expanding the money supply, inflating prices — and robbing you of the value of your money.
Not only is virtually the entire money supply created privately by banks, but a mere handful of very big banks is responsible for a massive investment scheme known as "derivatives," which now tallies in at hundreds of trillions of dollars. The banking system has been contrived so that these big banks always get bailed out by the taxpayers from their risky ventures, but the scheme has reached its mathematical limits. There isn’t enough money in the entire global economy to bail out the banks from a massive derivatives default today. When the investors realize that the "insurance" against catastrophe that they have purchased in the form of derivatives is worthless, they are liable to jump ship and bring the whole shaky edifice crashing down.
Web of Debt unravels the deceptions in our money scheme and presents a crystal clear picture of the financial abyss towards which we are heading. Then it explores a workable alternative, one that was tested in colonial America and is grounded in the best of American economic thought, including the writings of Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln. If you care about financial security, your own or the nation’s, you should read this book.
http://www.webofdebt.com
{Consulter} l'article avec son forum.
Washington secretly authorized military raids on 20 countries since 2004
By Bill Van Auken 11 November 2008
Since 2004, the Bush administration has secretly authorized military raids against up to 20 countries without any declaration of war or even any explicit congressional authorization for armed action, according to a report published Monday in the New York Times.
The report, which cites recent attacks on targets in Pakistan, Syria and Somalia, establishes that under an order issued by then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and approved by President George W. Bush in the spring of 2004, the US military’s Special Operations forces were given license to attack alleged al Qaeda targets “anywhere in the world.”
Citing unnamed senior US officials, the Times reported that the authorization provided a “sweeping mandate to conduct operations in countries not at war with the United States.” It confirmed that the US military has used the authority to “carry out nearly a dozen previously undisclosed attacks.” Among the attacks carried out under the order was the October 26 raid on the Syrian village of Sukkiraya, near the Iraqi border, in which four US attack helicopters participated. Two of the helicopters landed Special Forces troops while the other two provided covering fire. The troops shot at civilians working on a farm, killing eight, including four children, and wounding a number of others. The raid sparked demonstrations in Damascus and the Syrian government denounced it as a “war crime” and a “terrorist act of aggression.”
According to the Times account, the raid, ostensibly aimed at an individual involved in smuggling fighters into Iraq, was not the first time that the US military had carried out such an operation on Syrian territory.
Similarly, on September 3, a US strike force believed to be composed of Navy Seals was helicoptered into Pakistan’s Waziristan region, near the Afghan border, to attack three houses. Between 15 and 20 people were killed in the raid, reportedly including eight women and children.
The Times report also established that this was not the first such attack on Pakistani soil. It revealed that in 2006, a similar Navy Seal team raided a compound in Pakistan’s Bajaur region, an operation that was filmed by a pilotless Predator drone and watched in real time by officials at the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center in Langley, Virginia.
The September 3 operation, in which at least 20 people were killed, was launched based on another secret order signed by Defense Secretary Robert Gates last July with Bush’s approval. The order directed the military—in collaboration with the Central Intelligence Agency—to prepare cross-border raids by Special Operations forces into Pakistan’s tribal areas. The authority for these operations was based on the previous order issued in 2004. A January 2007 strike carried out by AC-130 gunships against southern Somalia, in which scores of civilians were killed, was also conducted under the authority of the executive order. Special Operations troops were subsequently landed in the area near the Kenyan border to sift through the rubble to determine if any of those killed by the aircrafts’ heavy cannons were actually targeted Islamist militants.
In addition to the raids that were carried out, the Times reports, up to a dozen more had been planned but were then scrapped after administration officials decided that they were “too risky” or “too diplomatically explosive.” The decision authorizing these operations, known as “Al Qaeda Network Exord” (for executive order), represented a practical corollary to the so-called “Bush doctrine,” which arrogated to the United States the “right” to wage aggressive war anywhere in the world in the name of a global struggle against terrorism. In enunciating this doctrine in a June 2002 speech at the US Military Academy at West Point, Bush spoke of the need for the US military to “be ready to strike at a moment’s notice in any dark corner of the world.” What is involved in many of these operations is the use of special task forces known as “hunter-killer teams,” in essence assassination squads. In most of them, however, the military has utilized air support resulting in the deaths of large numbers of civilians.
The Times report traces the executive order back to a campaign by Rumsfeld to take over operations that had traditionally been carried out by the US Central Intelligence Agency, whose utilization of such methods had earned it the nickname “Murder Inc.” Rumsfeld, the paper reported, “pressed hard to unleash the military’s vast firepower against militants outside the combat zones of Iraq and Afghanistan.”
While the Times account describes the order issued by Rumsfeld as “secret” and “classified,” there is every reason to suspect that, like the orders involving the use of waterboarding, extraordinary rendition, domestic spying and other criminal actions associated with the Bush administration’s “global war on terror,” the directive authorizing the US military to freely conduct raids in violation of the sovereignty of nations across the globe was made known to and received tacit approval from the Democratic leadership in Congress. Moreover, any illusion that such practices are about to fade into history with the end of the Bush administration and the coming to office of Barack Obama in January would be wholly unfounded.
The Democratic president-elect made his advocacy of precisely such raids against targets in Pakistan a persistent theme in his campaign for the Democratic nomination and the presidency. Moreover, his platform prominently features the call for not only the expansion of US troop strength by another 100,000 soldiers and Marines, but also the “building up” of the military’s Special Operations forces for just such acts of aggression.
Obama’s advisers, the Democratic leadership in Congress and the Bush administration are all sending signals that the shift in administrations will be characterized more by continuity than any radical change in US foreign policy. This was spelled out most clearly by Obama foreign policy adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, who served as US national security advisor in the Carter administration, playing a key role in the US strategy of promoting and funding the war by Islamist forces—elements of which went on to found al Qaeda—against the Soviet-backed regime in Afghanistan.
Speaking to Deutsche Welle last Friday, Brzezinski cautioned against expectations of “a dramatic change” in US foreign policy. “You have to think of foreign policy as, for example, a boat moving on the sea,” he said. “A huge ocean liner doesn’t change its course in the way that a fast motor boat does. Therefore it is not possible for the United States to dramatically change every one of its policies.”
Meanwhile, on Saturday, Vice President Dick Cheney delivered a speech to cadets at the Virginia Military Institute in which he described “jihadists” as a “strategic threat to the United States” on a par with that once posed by Nazi Germany. He vowed an unending war against them, while promising a “smooth and graceful transition of power to President-Elect Obama and Vice President-Elect Biden, as they take up the duty of protecting America.”
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/nov2008/oper-n11.shtml
{Consulter} l'article avec son forum.
By Aamir Latif, IOL Correspondent
Six people were killed in the Bannu strike, the first US missile attack outside the rugged tribal regions. (Reuters)
ISLAMABAD — American, Pakistani and Afghan troops are conducting a coordinated operation to hunt down Al-Qaeda and Taliban militants along the Afghan border.
"Pakistan doesn’t have the drone technology. Therefore, we have to depend on them (US forces)," a senior Pakistani government official told IslamOnline.net, requesting anonymity for the sensitivity of the issue.
The latest such attack targeted a house in the northwestern Bannu district, the first US missile strike outside the rugged tribal regions.
"The attack is part of a coordinated operation jointly launched by Pakistani and US forces along Pak-Afghan border," confirmed the government official.
"It killed six foreigners, including key Al-Qaeda leader Abdullah Azam."
Secret Pakistan-US Deal
The latest strike came five days after two missiles fired from a US drone aircraft killed 10 alleged militants in the North Waziristan region.
The American army has conducted nearly 39 drone attacks inside Pakistan during the past ten months killing hundreds of tribesmen, including children and women.
Colonel John Spiszer, who commands the 1st Infantry Division’s 3rd Brigade, told reporters in Kabul that the operation, codenamed Lion heart, takes cooperation between US, Afghan and Pakistani forces to "the next level."
The Pakistani government official confirmed that the joint operation is part of a clandestine tactic agreement between Islamabad and Washington.
The deal, reportedly clinched after President Asif Zardari’s first official visit to Washington in September, allows US drones to strike targets inside the restive tribal belt where suspected Al Qaeda and Taliban militants are reportedly taking shelter.
Under the understanding, Pakistan will continue to publically complain about the strikes and Washington would never acknowledge them.
The Pakistani government denies any such deal insisting that Pakistan is a sovereign country and no body would be allowed to attack its soil.
No Limits
"If Pakistan does not take any serious action then we should get ready for the drone attacks on Islamabad," warns Yusufzai.
Sources claim that under the ongoing joint operation, the ISAF forces based in Afghanistan have the right to attack inside Pakistani territory on "cogent information."
However, Major General Ather Abbas, the Director General of the Inter Services Public Relations (ISPR), denies any permission to the ISAF forces to attack on Pakistani territory.
"Only Pakistani troops will conduct any operation within our territory. No other country will be allowed to do that."
Pakistani and ISAF officials came up with different versions on a US drone attack on Angoor Adda area of South Waziristan on Sunday, November 16.
An ISAF statement said that after its post in the northeastern Paktika province had come under two separate rocket attacks from a location within Pakistan it attacked the "enemy position" in Pakistan.
The Pakistani army spokesman refutes the story.
"The ISAF had engaged the fleeing militants on the Afghan side of the border and informed a Pakistani post on the Pakistan-Afghan border."
But defense and security analysts do not buy the government’s claim that the operation Lion Heart binds US troops to operate within Afghanistan.
"The Bannu attack has proved that this operation has no limits," Rahimullah Yusufzai, a Peshawar-based expert on Afghan affairs, told IOL.
"They (US troops) will strike wherever they want. They don’t give any importance to Pakistan’s protest because they know that it will take no action except issuing statements."
Yusufzai sees the first ever US strike outside the restive border area as a worrying sign.
"This is very dangerous. Earlier, they were attacking the tribal areas only, but now they have revealed their intentions. If Pakistan does not take any serious action then we should get ready for the drone attacks on Islamabad."
The expert suggest Pakistan should follow Syria and taken a serious action against US strikes on its soil.
"Just compare the tone of the Syrian government and our government. Both governments have protested US attacks on their respective territories, but their tone was totally different," he said.
"The Pakistani government instead of taking any concrete step is busy defending US attacks on its own soil.
"The US does not give any weight to our protest because it knows that it will not do anything against it."
{Consulter} l'article avec son forum.
Source : "The Dawn"
By Our Correspondent
WASHINGTON, Nov 19: The United States is seeking alternative supply routes for Nato troops in Afghanistan, including a tortuous overland journey from Europe, The Washington Post reported on Wednesday.
The United States currently uses the Karachi-Khyber Pass route for supplying 67,000 foreign troops stationed in Afghanistan, including 32,000 Americans. Nearly half of US forces operate under Nato command.
About 75 per cent of Nato and US supplies bound for Afghanistan — including petrol, food and military equipment — are transported overland through Pakistan.
Last week, Pakistan was forced to suspend supplies after militants launched back-to-back assaults on US convoys and hijacked 13 trucks.
The supplies resumed on Monday after Pakistan beefed up security along the route that passes through the lawless tribal region. But the attacks forced the Pentagon to expedite its efforts for developing alternative routes.
The Post has obtained US Defence Department documents showing that the Pentagon is seeking far longer, but possibly safer, alternate routes through Europe, the Caucasus and Central Asia.
In September, the US Transportation Command sent a notice to potential contractors saying that “strikes, border delays, accidents and pilferage” in Pakistan and the risk of “attacks and armed hijackings” in Afghanistan posed “a significant risk” to supplies for Western forces in Afghanistan.
The Post noted that supplying troops in landlocked Afghanistan had long been the Achilles’ heel of foreign armies, most recently the Soviets, whose forces were nearly crippled by Mujahideen attacks on vulnerable supply lines.
The Post noted that last week’s attacks on supply trucks in the Khyber Agency was one in a series in recent months that had cost Nato suppliers millions in losses this year. In March, insurgents set fire to 40 to 50 Nato oil tankers near Torkham. A month later, Taliban raiders made off with military helicopter engines valued at about $13 million.
Forced by these attacks, the United States has already begun negotiations with countries along what the Pentagon has called a new northern route.
An agreement with Georgia has been reached and talks are ongoing with Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, according to an Oct 31 Pentagon document. “We do not expect transit agreements with Iran or Uzbekistan,” the Transportation Command told potential contractors.
{Consulter} l'article avec son forum.
“If we would learn what the human race really is...we need only observe it at election time.” - Mark Twain
Maybe, it’s the Joe Lieberman effect! He’s in, he’s out, he’s back in the Democratic Party fold again. It is all so confusing. So is the fact that the Philadelphia Phillies, finally, won the World Series this year and the massive financial meltdown by the banksters on Wall Street! Who can know for sure? Here’s what the record shows: Alan Keyes, a perennial candidate for public office in a number of states, including Maryland, has recently filed a law suit in Sacramento, CA. It seeks to stop that state from casting its “electoral votes” for Prez-Elect Barack Obama, until he proves that he is a “natural born” citizen of the U.S. Sounds like a sore loser to me. Mr. Keyes, as a Republican, ran against the Prez-Elect for the U.S. Senate seat in Illinois, in 2004. Sen. Obama gave him a good thumping by getting over 63 percent of the vote. Is Mr. Keyes looking to get some sweet revenge by filing this case?
The evidence is compelling that the Prez-Elect was born in the Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women and Children, in Honolulu, Hawaii, on Aug. 4, 1961. Hawaii was a state at that time. Sen. Obama’s mother, Ann Dunham, who died in 1995, was an American by birth. She hailed from Wichita, Kansas. His dad, Barack Obama, Sr., was from Kenya. His parents divorced in 1964. In 1967, the Prez-Elect then moved to Indonesia with his stepfather, Lolo Soetoro and his mother. In 1971, he returned to Hawaii, to live with his grandparents, Madelyn and Stanley Dunham, who for all practical purposes, raised him. Obama’s father died in 1982. (1)
Thanks to a neutral web site, FactCheck.org., for shining some light on the birth certificate controversy. (2) It has made a copy of Sen. Obama’s birth certificate, (Certification of Live Birth), that is in the possession of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), and reproduced it on line. FactCheck also produced an item from the “Honolulu Register” newspaper, dated, August 13, 1961. It shows the birth of “a son” to Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama, on Aug. 4, 1961. It even gives the parents’ home address. FactCheck also underscores that the officials in Honolulu responsible for maintaining birth records at the Health Department have seen the original birth certificate and “verified” that it is a valid document. (2) Such evidence is, indeed, cumulative and very persuasive. You would think it would have silenced the critics, but it hasn’t.
Background: The original lawsuit that started this brouhaha was filed in a federal court in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in August, 2008. It charged that Sen. Obama wasn’t eligible to be president, since he was “born in Kenya.” The U.S. Constitution mandates that only a “natural born citizen” of this country is qualified for that office, (Art. 2, Sec. 1). The defendants named in that case were Sen. Obama and the National Democratic Committee (DNC), among others. The trial judge, on Oct. 25, 2008, dismissed the suit saying that the plaintiff, Philip H. Berg, didn’t have “standing to sue.” Mr. Berg immediately appealed the judge’s decision to the Supreme Court, where his Petition for a Writ of Certiorari was recently denied by Justice David Souter, on Nov. 3, 2008. (3)
I think any Plaintiff, Mr. Keyes or Mr. Berg, is going to have a long, legal road to travel in this kind of case based on what I’ve read. As I write, however, the legal action over it has reportedly attracted millions of hits to various internet sites. You would think that the fastest way to finally resolve any doubts was for the DNC to produce to the court a certified copy of Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate, under affidavit, and under seal, from Hawaii. Did the DNC do that? No, it didn’t. It filed a motion to get the federal case tossed out, without it having been decided on the merits. Its strategy worked, but is that result good for the Prez-Elect?
Mr. Berg, the plaintiff in the Philadelphia litigation, is a former Deputy Attorney General for Pennsylvania. (3) The birth certificate dispute will now bounce along in the court system, both state and federal. Suits have been filed in twelve other state and federal courts by various plaintiffs throughout the country. More importantly, this matter will also drag on in the Court of Public Opinion. Shouldn’t this issue be laid to rest before the inauguration, set for Jan. 20, 2009?
If the DNC had produced a copy of the certified birth certificate, the Philadelphia federal court case would have become a legal “slam dunk.” (Pardon my use of that expression, ex-CIA Boss, George Tenet!) The DNC’s failure to do so has heated up the Internet and has some folks screaming wild things, such as: Obama’s name should be taken off the ballot in all fifty states!
What exactly are the critics claiming? They are alleging that the “Certification of Live Birth” posted on the Web, now on two different sites, is a fake, and not the real McCoy. (3) (4) (5)
On the “Certification of Live Birth” posted on Sen. Obama’s site, (6) and FactCheck, (2), Obama’s father’s race is shown as “African.” African isn’t a race. Obama’s mother is listed as “Caucasian,” since she was of the White race. The “African” designation for Obama’s father made that certificate questionable in the eyes of some naysayers. (4) (5) But, FactCheck’s explanation makes more sense. It says that the Department of Health officials by tradition have left it up to the parents of a newborn child to “identify” their respective races. (2)
Others on the Net are claiming, that the online document produced on Sen. Obama’s site is a creature of “Photoshop!” They use the term: “photoshopped.” They also insist that a “Certification of Live Birth” isn’t an “official” birth certificate. (4) (5) Many of the questions raised by these critics have been answered, in detail, by FactCheck. (2)
FactCheck underscores that a “Certification of Live Birth,” is the “short form” used by the state of Hawaii’s Health Department. It added: “The long form is drawn up by the hospital and includes additional information such as birth weight and parents’ hometowns...Hawaii...does not give the option to request a photocopy of your long-form birth certificate, but their short form has enough information [in it] to be acceptable to the [U.S.] State Department.” (2)
The crux of the matter, however, is the authenticity of the original birth certificate of Sen. Obama, which sooner or later, must be submitted either to a court of law and/or in the Court of Public Opinion. Sen. Obama online “Certification of Live Birth” hasn’t, unfortunately, resolved the dispute, it has only intensified it.
This brouhaha can be over in a New York minute. The longer the DNC delays coming up with Sen. Obama’s original “Birth Certificate,” the more questions are going to be raised. One web site, which is supportive of the Philadelphia lawsuit, has over one million, four hundred thousand hits. Go check it out for yourselves. (4) Mr. Berg claims millions of hit on his site. (3)
Sen. Obama is on track to be the 44th president of the U.S. Mr. Berg wants to see a certified copy of his “original” birth certificate. I think the facts shows that the Prez-Elect is “eligible.” Isn’t it in his best interest to set the record straight?
Suggested compromise: The DNC should submit to a judge, in one of the pending cases, preferably in the federal system—a State-of-Hawaii approved, legally sanctioned copy of the “original” long form birth certificate of Sen. Obama. The judge should then answer this question: “Is this birth certificate valid or not?” I believe the answer will be a resounding “Yes!” Case closed! (7)
Notes:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama#Early_life_and_career 2. http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html 3. http://www.obamacrimes.com/ 4. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyspCRmJv7w 5. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIsQJNTvlUE&feature=related and http://lamecherry.blogspot.com/2008/08/proof-barack-obama-birth-certificate-is.html 6. http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate 7. At press time, a case out of New Jersey, that questions “Barack Obama’s citizenship,” has been scheduled for a “conference” at the U.S. Supreme Court. See, http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=81484
©2008, William Hughes, All Rights Reserved.
William Hughes’ videos can be found at: http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=liamh2. His latest book, “Saying ‘No’ to the War Party,” is available on Amazon. Email Contact: liamhughes@comcast.net.
{Consulter} l'article avec son forum.
Radio Venezuela en Vivo http://radiovenezuelaenvivo.blogspot.com/ radiovenezuelaenvivo@gmail.com
Programming — Programmation — Programação SATURDAY/SAMEDI/SABADO 22/11/2008
00:00 Caracas
7:30 Camberra
3:30 San Francisco
0:30 New York, Montreal
+1:30 Rio de Janeiro, Porto Alegre
+ 5:30 Rabat
+ 5:30 Paris, Bruxelles
+ 9:30 Antananarivo
+ 11:30 New Delhi
08:30 / 10:30 a.m. Français
Avec toute l’équipe francophone de Radio Venezuela en Vivo
8h30 – 9h30 Chronique de l’année 2008 9h30 – 10h30 Cadre institutionnel : Perspectives et enjeux politiques
10:30 / 12:30 a.m. English
Background to elections Gregory Wilpert, editor Venezuela Analysis Iain Bruce, Telesur, author of book on Venezuela Michael Lebowitz, author of Built it Now, Socialism for the 21st Century
12:30 / 02: 30 p.m. Portugués
Resumo dos acontecimentos mais importantes da Venezuela em 2008 Valentina Figuera Fortalecimento do Poder Popular e eleições representativas Michael Fox e Silvia Leindecker
SUNDAY/DIMANCHE/DOMINGO 23/11/2008
07:30 / 08:30 a.m. Français
L’importance des élections régionales et municipales dans un Etat fédéral
Flash info et interventions en direct de nos correspondants
Avec Romain Migus (Fondation CESE), Arnaud Rubi (Ecole Vénézuelienne de Planification), Julien Rebotier (IHEAL) Modérateur: Christophe Abramovsky
08:30 / 09:30 a.m. Portugués
Resumo das candidaturas Importância estratégica das eleições regionais e municipais da Venezuela Interesse do império americano em certas regiões do pais Valentina Figuera
09:30 / 10:30 a.m. English
Media round up Reports from the voting booths James Suggett, Venezuela Analysis
10.30 / 12:00 a.m. Français
Avec toute l’équipe francophone de Radio Venezuela en Vivo
Coup de projecteur sur Les forces en présence
Flash info et interventions en direct de nos correspondants
12:00 / 01:30 p.m. English
Reports from the voting booths Michael Fox, independent journalist and director of “Beyond Elections” which focuses on experiences of participatory democracy in Venezuela and other countries Australian solidarity brigade
01:30 / 02:00 p.m. Français
Dernières infos en direct
Avec Yannick Lacoste (LCR) et Pascal Toulouse ( Université Central du Venezuela)
02:00/3:00 pm English
Live from the streets with Janet Duckworth and Fred Fuentes
03:00 / 04:00 p.m. Français
La voix de la rue: le point de nos correspondants avec Sarah Testard, Arnaud Rubi (FEVP), Sebastien Brulez (La voix du Sud) Moderateur: Romain Migus (CESE)
04:00 / 05:00 p.m. English
Round off the day Interview with PSUV militants Reports from the voting booths
05.00 / 06.00 p.m. Français
L’importance de ces élections régionales et municipales du point de vue de l’intégration régionale
Avec Yannick Lacoste (LCR), Arnaud Rubi (FEVP), Pascal Toulouse (UCV), Modérateur: Christophe Abramovsky
06:00 / 07:00 p.m. English
Tamara Pearson, Venezuela Analysis Direct reports from tally room in National Electoral Court
07:00 / 08:00 p.m. Français
Démocratie représentative, où en est la participation ?
Flash info
Romain Migus (CESE), Sebastien Brulez (La voix du Sud) Modérateur: Christophe Abramovsky
08:00 / 09:00 p.m. Portugués Français English
Resultados ao vivo Les résultats en direct Update on results
09:00 / 10:00 p.m. English
Federico Fuentes, Green Left Weekly Janet Duckworth, Miranda International Centre And interviews with international observers and PSUV militants
10:00 / 11:00 p.m. Français Avec toute l’équipe francophone de Radio Venezuela en Vivo
Analyse des résultats à chaud
{Consulter} l'article avec son forum.
Warren Buffets Berkshire’s Credit Risk Soars on $37 Billion Bet (Update2)
By Erik Holm and Shannon D. Harrington
Nov. 18 (Bloomberg) — The cost of protecting against default by Warren Buffett’s AAA rated Berkshire Hathaway Inc. has almost tripled in two months, a sign of just how skittish investors have become amid the global financial crisis.
The cost to protect against Berkshire being unable to meet its debt payments, based on credit-default swaps, is more than four times that of rival insurer Travelers Cos. At those levels, the swaps are typical of companies rated Baa3 by Moody’s Investors Service, one level above junk. The price may have risen on concern that the billionaire’s firm could lose a $37 billion bet on world stock market values more than a decade from now.
``That’s just so stupid,’’ said Mohnish Pabrai, head of Pabrai Investment Funds and a Berkshire shareholder. The swap buyers are projecting ``present circumstances into infinity’’ and concluding Buffett’s bet will cost the company $40 billion, Pabrai said. ``It will never happen,’’ he said.
For the swaps to pay off, Berkshire would have to exhaust its $33.4 billion cash hoard, and Buffett’s decades-long record as the world’s most successful investor would have to come to a cataclysmic end. President-elect Barack Obama seeks him out for advice and the world’s biggest firms, including Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and General Electric Co., turned to Berkshire for capital and the prestige that comes with Buffett’s backing.
Buyers of default protection are being charged 1.45 percentage points more for Berkshire swaps than for insurance against Allstate Corp. Allstate last month had its credit grade cut by Fitch Ratings after hurricane claims and declines in its investments caused a $923 million third-quarter loss. Berkshire has remained profitable amid the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, and wouldn’t pay out on its stock market bets, if it lost them, until at least 2019.
Unlikely Target
``If you were going to start picking companies that are going to default, you probably wouldn’t put Berkshire at the top of the list, so it’s totally unexpected to see them there,’’ said Jeff Matthews, author of ``Pilgrimage to Warren Buffett’s Omaha’’ and founder of Greenwich, Connecticut-based hedge fund Ram Partners LP. Of the swaps, he said: ``I wouldn’t buy them, and yet it’s there.’’
Standard & Poor’s said Buffett’s bet on the stock indexes wouldn’t cause a liquidity crisis. Berkshire spokeswoman Jackie Wilson said she had passed along requests for comment to Buffett. The stock fell below $100,000 a share for the first time in two years last week and has dropped about 33 percent this year.
Buffett’s Bets
The cost of protection on Berkshire debt has jumped to 415 basis points from 140 basis points two months ago, according to CMA Datavision. That translates to $415,000 a year to protect $10 million for five years. The median for companies rated Baa3 was 348 basis points yesterday, according to data from Moody’s capital markets research group. Credit-default swaps, used to hedge against losses or to speculate on the ability of companies to repay their debt, rise as investor confidence deteriorates.
The increase may be tied to a series of bets that Buffett has taken on four stock indexes across the globe, including the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index, according to Berkshire shareholders. Buffett sold contracts to undisclosed buyers for $4.85 billion that protect the buyers against declines in those markets.
Under the agreements, Berkshire will pay as much as $37 billion if, on specific dates beginning in 2019, the market indexes are below the point where they were when he made the agreements. By Sept. 30, Omaha, Nebraska-based Berkshire had written down the contracts by $6.73 billion as the S&P declined for a fourth straight quarter.
`Greater Gains’
``I believe these contracts, in aggregate, will be profitable,’’ Buffett said in a statement in May, reiterating comments from his letter to shareholders in February. ``We are always ready to trade increased volatility in reported earnings in the short run for greater gains in net worth in the long run. That is our philosophy in derivatives as well.’’
A total of 2,450 credit-default swaps had been sold on Berkshire as of Nov. 14, protecting a net amount of $4.7 billion, according to data from the Depository Trust & Clearing Corp., which runs a central registry for the derivatives.
Buyers of derivatives typically aren’t disclosed, and representatives at 20 potential buyers including insurers and pension funds either didn’t know who was involved or declined to respond.
Buyers of the credit-default swap protection on Berkshire may include the companies that stand to gain if Buffett loses on the stock bets, said Matthews. They may be hedging their gains against Berkshire by entering into separate agreements to ensure they recover some funds if Berkshire is unable to pay, he said.
`Mass Destruction’
The increase in perceived credit risk contradicts Buffett’s record of building Berkshire over 40 years from a failing textile maker into a $145 billion company with businesses ranging from carpet making to utilities.
Buffett has at times decried derivatives as ``financial weapons of mass destruction’’ and criticized their complexity and popularity. Berkshire hasn’t disclosed which stock indexes besides the S&P are covered under the contracts or how they’re structured.
Berkshire, which typically gets about half its profit from insurance, on Nov. 7 posted its fourth straight quarterly profit drop, the longest streak of declines in more than a decade, on hurricane costs and investment losses. Further declines in debt and equity markets reduced shareholders’ equity, a measure of assets minus liabilities, by $9 billion in October, after the third quarter ended, the company said.
Berkshire’s stock decline this year compares with a slide of 41 percent in the S&P 500. Berkshire shares rose in 17 of the past 20 years.
Not `Crazy’
Buffett may use the $4.85 billion paid to Berkshire in the derivative deals to buy stock or make acquisitions.
``Shareholders should rejoice that he was able to obtain that capital to invest on such attractive terms for years before the chance comes that he’ll have to pay,’’ said Tom Russo, a partner at Gardner Russo & Gardner, whose largest holding is Berkshire stock, in an interview this month. Still, he said, the increasing cost of Berkshire credit protection in the swaps market ``isn’t crazy in light of the way the markets performed.’’
American International Group Inc., the insurer that needed $150 billion from the U.S. government to stay afloat, nearly was forced into bankruptcy by derivatives. As credit rating firms lowered their grades on AIG, the New York-based firm was required to post collateral to show it could meet its obligations to the counterparties who took the opposite side on their bets.
No Collateral Damage
Berkshire may have to post collateral on some derivatives ``under certain circumstances, including a downgrade of its credit rating below specified levels,’’ the firm said in a regulatory filing this month. Damien Magarelli, a credit analyst for Standard & Poor’s in New York, said the losses are merely an ``accounting loss.’’
``They’ve had no collateral requirements to date and the losses are not viewed by us as a cash loss,’’ Magarelli said. ``It is not something that would be creating any type of liquidity issues or near term cash payments.’’
Berkshire’s AAA rating is the highest available. ``If Berkshire isn’t triple A, I’m not sure which company would be,’’ Buffett said in May.
To contact the reporters on this story: Erik Holm in New York at eholm2@bloomberg.net; Shannon D. Harrington in New York at sharrington6@bloomberg.net
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aOlI1xoNnrPQ&refer=home
{Consulter} l'article avec son forum.
Cheney, Gonzales indicted
11/18/2008 @ 7:21 pm
Filed by RAW STORY
A Texas grand jury has indicted outgoing Vice President Dick Cheney and former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on charges related to alleged abuse of prisoners in Willacy County federal detention facilities, CNN reported.
"The vice president has not received an indictment," Cheney spokeswoman Megan Mitchell countered to CNN.
Cheney’s stake in the Vanguard Group, which holds interests in the private prison companies that run the detention centers, was cited in the indictment. Cheney is accused of a conflict of interest and "at least misdemeanor assaults" on detainees through his ownership interest.
Gonzales is accused of using his position during his time as Attorney General to block an investigation into abuses at the detention centers, located in south Texas.
Democratic state Senator Eddie Lucio Jr. is also named in the indictment, Willacy County District Attorney Juan Angel Guerra said. Lucio’s attorney, Michael R. Cowen, called Guerra a "one-man circus." "In the March 2008 Democratic Primary," he added, "70 percent of the Willacy County voters elected to remove Juan Guerra...Now, with only a few weeks left in his term, Mr. Guerra has again chosen to misuse his position in an attempt to seek revenge on those who he sees as political enemies."
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Cheney_Gonzales_indicted_1118.html
{Consulter} l'article avec son forum.
The head of the secret service of the German State of Brandenburg who also is the chairman of the Conference of Interior Ministers in Germany broke the news on the weekend that "Scientology will not be banned" in Germany. A year ago plans in this direction had been announced broadly and reported about internationally. A secret 46-page report on Scientology of the German internal secret service, Office for Protection of the Constitution was leaked to the media earlier last month and revealed that the German government had not found any evidence for criminal or anti-constitutional activities of the Church of Scientology and strongly recommended not to start a banning procedure.
The news agency ddp reports on 15 November 2008 (a somewhat english translation): Schönbohm: Scientology will not be banned
Berlin. The controversial Scientology Organization may not be in fear of being banned in Germany. “We have come to the result that a banning would not be helpful”, the Brandenburg minister of interior Schonbohm said to Welt am Sonntag according to a report. Schonbohm is chairman of the Conference of Ministers of Interior (CMI) that is coming together in Potsdam on Wednesday. Last year the CMI conference had ordered the Secret Service to check for a ban per the association law. Schönbohm now said to have had a sceptical viewpoint since the very beginning. “We tend to forbid ideas when thinking them to be not fully correct. But we live in a liberal and democratic society where freedom of opinion is of high value”, he said. He wishes more trust in democracy. “I consider someone a coward who believes seriously to be at risk because of 5.000 Scientologists”, Schönbohm said.
http://diepresse.com/home/panorama/...
More information in the German and French media: http://www.welt.de/wams_print/artic... http://www.morgenpost.de/printarchi... http://www.pr-inside.com/de/sciento... http://www.la-croix.com/afp.static/... http://www.tsr.ch/tsr/index.html?si...
{Consulter} l'article avec son forum.
On Tuesday, Nov. 18, 2008, a rally by hotel workers, and their supporters, was held in front of the City Hall, in Baltimore, MD. It was part of a “Hotel Workers Rising Campaign,” which seeks to bring “equality to the men and women who cook, clean and serve in hotels throughout North America,” according to the group’s press release. Since April, 2006, the workers at the Sheraton Baltimore City Center Hotel, owned by Columbia Sussex, have been “without a contract.” They are calling for “a boycott of their own hotel,” the press release further stated. For background on this campaign for economic justice, please see: http://www.hotelworkersrising.org/. After the rally, the activists marched to the Sheraton City Center Hotel, near Harborplace, which is about seven blocks west of the City Hall. Trent Leon-Lierman served as the organizer of the spirited event and Ms. Roxy Herbekian was the moderator.
{Consulter} l'article avec son forum.
Why abolish the Federal Reserve?
The Federal Reserve is an unconstitutional private institution (see U.S. Constitution, Section 8, Clause 5) that drains the wealth of the American people through the inflationary process.
We aim to take the mystery and intimidation out of learning basic economics, so the American people are no longer at the mercy of the Federal Reserve. Every day that passes we are one day closer to economic collapse.
The time to educate is NOW!
Despite silence on the topic by the “mainstream” Presidential candidates (with the exception of Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Dennis Kucinich), every day it becomes more and more apparent that the number one issue in our country is the economy and the falling dollar. Who is to blame for this? Who is printing all the money that drives down the value of our dollar? Who controls the interest rates upon which the fate of our banks, credit cards, loans, mortgages, and lives depend? Are these guys elected by the people? How are they held accountable for their actions? Who is gaining from their inflationary policies? How long has this been going on? These are very important questions to ask yourself.
One needn’t be an economist to understand: the Federal Reserve is neither federal, nor do they have any reserves. Our dollars are no longer backed by gold or silver. It is a “fiat” currency, and every economy that has used fiat currency in the past has ultimately collapsed.
We interact with money every day of our lives. Understanding the American financial system is KEY to gaining true freedom and prosperity.
http://www.abolishthefederalreserve.com/
{Consulter} l'article avec son forum.
It’s Only America Bleeding By David Glenn Cox
To what do I owe the pleasure of this company? What is owed to me and to what account do I owe by the nature of my birth? Solemn allegiance and my blood poured out on foreign fields for the honor and glory of brass buttons and medal-resplendent generals?
A promise? A dream? A promise is a note for some other time, and a dream was never real in the first place. So open up the envelope and find what you’ve won: nothing. To think, you’ve worked your whole life in a marriage with the country of your birth only to find yourself no more than a concubine, thrown over for another, younger and cheaper.
If I were a German autoworker my wage would be $33.44 per hour with four weeks vacation a year. If I were a Japanese autoworker I’d earn $25.60 an hour plus an annual bonus, a bonus that last year ranged between $17,000 to $22,000. If I were so unfortunate as to be an American autoworker I’d start out at $14.00 an hour and top out at $28.00 per hour. I say unfortunate because Americans hate UAW members, those fat, lazy Americans trying to feed their families and pay their taxes.
The chairman of Goldman Sachs gave himself a $70 million bonus last year, or about what that fat, lazy American autoworker would earn in 1,200 years. The whole board of directors gave themselves between $60 to $65 million each as bonuses, not including their regular salaries. They didn’t work nights or second shifts, never listened to the foundry’s hammer pound. This year they have been praised by Treasury Secretary Paulson for forgoing their bonus for“this year.” Paulson called them “wise and prudent” while keeping their jobs in a company that has lost $4.00 to $5.00 dollars per share.
Conservatives and Wall Street experts say that we should just let GM go into bankruptcy so that the company can escape its labor contracts. To throw the cost of GM pensioners onto the back of the Pension Guarantee Trust Corporation. You see, big government was the answer after all… when it suits them. The company wins, Wall Street wins, then the company can void all the contracts of the less profitable dealers nationwide, at will, and bring unemployment to thousands whose fault it was to choose the wrong place to work.
It’s only America bleeding, but pay them no mind, it’s just another self-inflicted wound. Just another girl cutting herself because she hates what she sees in the mirror. Just another family with the utilities turned off. Just another family trying to feed themselves on our national minimum wage, a wage that has remained frozen for nine years. Now Goldman Sachs, they’re wise and prudent, but talk to me about it in eight more years. Meanwhile, the poor French with their socialism must eke out a living on a minimum wage of $10.71 with the cost their healthcare paid for by the government.
Give me liberty or give me death; in America you’ll get both. Wall Street eyes the Korean model where autoworkers earn $7.50 per hour and 20% are contracted workers who earn $3.60 per hour. Since 1987, unions have been legal in Korea, but when push comes to shove during labor negotiations, the police round up the labor leaders, pushing and shoving and them into jail cells for protective custody.
Citibank, in an effort to remain profitable, is eliminating 53,000 jobs. Thanks a lot for all your years of service, now get lost. Citi stands in line for their share of the bailout money and has come up with another great idea. Let’s raise credit card interest rates on our customers. We have to, you know, to cover our losses. The customers must pay for the company’s mistakes; the taxpayers must bail them out to cover the company’s mistakes. But let’s blame the auto workers union, their decent wages and retirement packages are destroying an industry with their insistent demands for living wages.
Now Japanese auto manufactures, operating in non-union states, have a more enlightened relationship with their employees. The have an open door management policy; any employee with a grievance can go straight to company management and complain. If, for example, an American employee at one of Toyota’s manufacturing plants were to ask why Toyota’s Japanese employees were given $20,000 bonuses but not its American employees, management would hear them out before showing them that ever-open door.
Because we can, they would answer. Because we can shut down this whole factory if we choose to. We would still have to pay for the millions of dollars worth of equipment we’ve invested in. But you? You, we would just show to the door and be done with you. If one of our million dollar machines were to break down, we would spend tens of thousands of dollars to have it fixed. But you? You must pay for most of your own healthcare and invest in your own retirement. Those machines are valuable, but you… there’s the door.
A mother that hates her own children, a mother that sleeps with foreign men and introduces them as uncles. A mother that cares more about the gold coins left on the nightstand, yet tells her children that they should love their mother. A mother that praises bank presidents and despises autoworkers and all workers and anyone that can’t buy her a drink or show her a good time.
The German autoworkers are asking for an 8% raise this year, and the Japanese autoworkers a 5% raise. And their American counterparts? Yeah, right, they’re destroying the whole fabric of the economy with their high wages, or so we are told. In Korea, labor leaders are in hiding.
What do we owe a country that claims so vociferously that it owes us nothing in return? That builds billion-dollar aircraft to protect us from men in mud huts but doesn’t want to lift a finger to defend our jobs. Billion-dollar missile defense shields to defend people who can’t afford to keep their heat on. Eight children have died in the last two weeks in house fires where the utilities were turned off. Meanwhile, bank presidents are praised and workers are reviled and thrown out by the thousands with the trash. God bless America.
{Consulter} l'article avec son forum.
John F. Kennedy vs The Federal Reserve
On June 4, 1963, a virtually unknown Presidential decree, Executive Order 11110, was signed with the authority to basically strip the Federal Reserve Bank of its power to loan money to the United States Federal Government at interest. With the stroke of a pen, President Kennedy declared that the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank would soon be out of business. The Christian Law Fellowship has exhaustively researched this matter through the Federal Register and Library of Congress. We can now safely conclude that this Executive Order has never been repealed, amended, or superceded by any subsequent Executive Order. In simple terms, it is still valid.
When President John Fitzgerald Kennedy - the author of Profiles in Courage -signed this Order, it returned to the federal government, specifically the Treasury Department, the Constitutional power to create and issue currency -money - without going through the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank. President Kennedy’s Executive Order 11110 [the full text is displayed further below] gave the Treasury Department the explicit authority: "to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury." This means that for every ounce of silver in the U.S. Treasury’s vault, the government could introduce new money into circulation based on the silver bullion physically held there. As a result, more than $4 billion in United States Notes were brought into circulation in $2 and $5 denominations. $10 and $20 United States Notes were never circulated but were being printed by the Treasury Department when Kennedy was assassinated. It appears obvious that President Kennedy knew the Federal Reserve Notes being used as the purported legal currency were contrary to the Constitution of the United States of America.
"United States Notes" were issued as an interest-free and debt-free currency backed by silver reserves in the U.S. Treasury. We compared a "Federal Reserve Note" issued from the private central bank of the United States (the Federal Reserve Bank a/k/a Federal Reserve System), with a "United States Note" from the U.S. Treasury issued by President Kennedy’s Executive Order. They almost look alike, except one says "Federal Reserve Note" on the top while the other says "United States Note". Also, the Federal Reserve Note has a green seal and serial number while the United States Note has a red seal and serial number.
President Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963 and the United States Notes he had issued were immediately taken out of circulation. Federal Reserve Notes continued to serve as the legal currency of the nation. According to the United States Secret Service, 99% of all U.S. paper "currency" circulating in 1999 are Federal Reserve Notes.
Kennedy knew that if the silver-backed United States Notes were widely circulated, they would have eliminated the demand for Federal Reserve Notes. This is a very simple matter of economics. The USN was backed by silver and the FRN was not backed by anything of intrinsic value. Executive Order 11110 should have prevented the national debt from reaching its current level (virtually all of the nearly $9 trillion in federal debt has been created since 1963) if LBJ or any subsequent President were to enforce it. It would have almost immediately given the U.S. Government the ability to repay its debt without going to the private Federal Reserve Banks and being charged interest to create new "money". Executive Order 11110 gave the U.S.A. the ability to, once again, create its own money backed by silver and realm value worth something.
Again, according to our own research, just five months after Kennedy was assassinated, no more of the Series 1958 "Silver Certificates" were issued either, and they were subsequently removed from circulation. Perhaps the assassination of JFK was a warning to all future presidents not to interfere with the private Federal Reserve’s control over the creation of money. It seems very apparent that President Kennedy challenged the "powers that exist behind U.S. and world finance". With true patriotic courage, JFK boldly faced the two most successful vehicles that have ever been used to drive up debt:
1) war (Viet Nam); and,
2) the creation of money by a privately owned central bank. His efforts to have all U.S. troops out of Vietnam by 1965 combined with Executive Order 11110 would have destroyed the profits and control of the private Federal Reserve Bank.
Executive Order 11110
AMENDMENT OF EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 10289 AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE PERFORMANCE OF CERTAIN FUNCTIONS AFFECTING THE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY. By virtue of the authority vested in me by section 301 of title 3 of the United States Code, it is ordered as follows:
SECTION 1. Executive Order No. 10289 of September 19, 1951, as amended, is hereby further amended - (a) By adding at the end of paragraph 1 thereof the following subparagraph (j): "(j) The authority vested in the President by paragraph (b) of section 43 of the Act of May 12, 1933, as amended (31 U.S.C. 821 (b)), to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury not then held for redemption of any outstanding silver certificates, to prescribe the denominations of such silver certificates, and to coin standard silver dollars and subsidiary silver currency for their redemption," and (b) By revoking subparagraphs (b) and (c) of paragraph 2 thereof. SECTION 2. The amendment made by this Order shall not affect any act done, or any right accruing or accrued or any suit or proceeding had or commenced in any civil or criminal cause prior to the date of this Order but all such liabilities shall continue and may be enforced as if said amendments had not been made.
JOHN F. KENNEDY THE WHITE HOUSE, June 4, 1963
Once again, Executive Order 11110 is still valid. According to Title 3, United States Code, Section 301 dated January 26, 1998:
Executive Order (EO) 10289 dated Sept. 17, 1951, 16 F.R. 9499, was as amended by:
EO 10583, dated December 18, 1954, 19 F.R. 8725;
EO 10882 dated July 18, 1960, 25 F.R. 6869;
EO 11110 dated June 4, 1963, 28 F.R. 5605;
EO 11825 dated December 31, 1974, 40 F.R. 1003;
EO 12608 dated September 9, 1987, 52 F.R. 34617
The 1974 and 1987 amendments, added after Kennedy’s 1963 amendment, did not change or alter any part of Kennedy’s EO 11110. A search of Clinton’s 1998 and 1999 EO’s and Presidential Directives has also shown no reference to any alterations, suspensions, or changes to EO 11110.
The Federal Reserve Bank, a.k.a Federal Reserve System, is a Private Corporation. Black’s Law Dictionary defines the "Federal Reserve System" as: "Network of twelve central banks to which most national banks belong and to which state chartered banks may belong. Membership rules require investment of stock and minimum reserves." Privately-owned banks own the stock of the FED. This was explained in more detail in the case of Lewis v. United States, Federal Reporter, 2nd Series, Vol. 680, Pages 1239, 1241 (1982), where the court said: "Each Federal Reserve Bank is a separate corporation owned by commercial banks in its region. The stock-holding commercial banks elect two thirds of each Bank’s nine member board of directors".
The Federal Reserve Banks are locally controlled by their member banks. Once again, according to Black’s Law Dictionary, we find that these privately owned banks actually issue money:
"Federal Reserve Act. Law which created Federal Reserve banks which act as agents in maintaining money reserves, issuing money in the form of bank notes, lending money to banks, and supervising banks. Administered by Federal Reserve Board (q.v.)".
The privately owned Federal Reserve (FED) banks actually issue (create) the "money" we use. In 1964, the House Committee on Banking and Currency, Subcommittee on Domestic Finance, at the second session of the 88th Congress, put out a study entitled Money Facts which contains a good description of what the FED is: "The Federal Reserve is a total money-making machine. It can issue money or checks. And it never has a problem of making its checks good because it can obtain the $5 and $10 bills necessary to cover its check simply by asking the Treasury Department’s Bureau of Engraving to print them".
Any one person or any closely knit group who has a lot of money has a lot of power. Now imagine a group of people who have the power to create money. Imagine the power these people would have. This is exactly what the privately owned FED is!
No man did more to expose the power of the FED than Louis T. McFadden, who was the Chairman of the House Banking Committee back in the 1930s. In describing the FED, he remarked in the Congressional Record, House pages 1295 and 1296 on June 10, 1932:
"Mr. Chairman, we have in this country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal reserve banks. The Federal Reserve Board, a Government Board, has cheated the Government of the United States and he people of the United States out of enough money to pay the national debt. The depredations and the iniquities of the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal reserve banks acting together have cost this country enough money to pay the national debt several times over. This evil institution has impoverished and ruined the people of the United States; has bankrupted itself, and has practically bankrupted our Government. It has done this through the maladministration of that law by which the Federal Reserve Board, and through the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it".
Some people think the Federal Reserve Banks are United States Government institutions. They are not Government institutions, departments, or agencies. They are private credit monopolies which prey upon the people of the United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers. Those 12 private credit monopolies were deceitfully placed upon this country by bankers who came here from Europe and who repaid us for our hospitality by undermining our American institutions.
The FED basically works like this: The government granted its power to create money to the FED banks. They create money, then loan it back to the government charging interest. The government levies income taxes to pay the interest on the debt. On this point, it’s interesting to note that the Federal Reserve Act and the sixteenth amendment, which gave congress the power to collect income taxes, were both passed in 1913. The incredible power of the FED over the economy is universally admitted. Some people, especially in the banking and academic communities, even support it. On the other hand, there are those, such as President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, that have spoken out against it. His efforts were spoken about in Jim Marrs’ 1990 book Crossfire:"
Another overlooked aspect of Kennedy’s attempt to reform American society involves money. Kennedy apparently reasoned that by returning to the constitution, which states that only Congress shall coin and regulate money, the soaring national debt could be reduced by not paying interest to the bankers of the Federal Reserve System, who print paper money then loan it to the government at interest. He moved in this area on June 4, 1963, by signing Executive Order 11110 which called for the issuance of $4,292,893,815 in United States Notes through the U.S. Treasury rather than the traditional Federal Reserve System. That same day, Kennedy signed a bill changing the backing of one and two dollar bills from silver to gold, adding strength to the weakened U.S. currency.
Kennedy’s comptroller of the currency, James J. Saxon, had been at odds with the powerful Federal Reserve Board for some time, encouraging broader investment and lending powers for banks that were not part of the Federal Reserve system. Saxon also had decided that non-Reserve banks could underwrite state and local general obligation bonds, again weakening the dominant Federal Reserve banks".
In a comment made to a Columbia University class on Nov. 12, 1963,
Ten days before his assassination, President John Fitzgerald Kennedy allegedly said:
"The high office of the President has been used to foment a plot to destroy the American’s freedom and before I leave office, I must inform the citizen of this plight."
In this matter, John Fitzgerald Kennedy appears to be the subject of his own book... a true Profile of Courage.
This research report was compiled for Lawgiver. Org. by Anthony Wayne
What is the Federal Reserve Bank?
What is the Federal Reserve Bank (FED) and why do we have it?
by Greg Hobbs November 1, 1999
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.
Continue to read: http://www.john-f-kennedy.net/thefederalreserve.htm
{Consulter} l'article avec son forum.
By Brian McAfee
The conditions in the democratic republic of Congo are dire for millions of its people despite the fact that the Congo has more mineral wealth than any other part of the African continent. Over a quarter of a million people are displaced because of the civil war currently raging in the eastern part of the country. Women and children have been primary targets of both sides in the conflict with rape used as a weapon by both sides. The war between the government forces and "the Congress in Defense of the People" has overrun numerous small towns and villages targeting civilians, killing the men, raping the women, and in some cases, forcing the children to become child soldiers.
In the midst of this scenario there are mining encampments extracting cobalt, copper, diamonds, gold, silver, and zinc as well as uranium and timber. None of the massive wealth that the "Democratic" Republic of Congo have been allowed to reach the majority of the Congolese population that live in abject poverty. The outside acquisition of Congolese resources, many would say theft of, began in the Belgium colonial period of the Congo from 1885-1960.
In 1961, the Congo upon holding its first free election chose Patrice Lamumba. Lamumba wanted to use the country’s resources to improve the lives of the Congolese people and develop relations with other poor people around the world. Shortly after his election as prime minister, Lamumba said "We are not alone. Africa, Asia, and free and liberated people from every corner of the world will always be found at the side of the Congolese." Within a year, Patrice Lamumba was assassinated and replaced by Mobutu Sese Seko, who acquiesced to U.S. mining and hegemonic interests.
While Mobutu is no longer there, the mining interests are and the humanitarian needs that cry out are not being addressed sufficiently. The U.S. could and should step up to the plate. We owe it to them many times over. The humanitarian organizations such as Oxfam, UNICEF, and DIAKONIE Emergency Aid are having some positive impact, but from the reports coming out of the region, much more is needed and time is a factor.
Why do the majority of people in one of the richest places on earth continue to live in abject poverty?
{Consulter} l'article avec son forum.
http://www.creative-i.info/?p=2196
by Sarah Meyer, UK researcher
http://indexresearch.blogspot.com
"Cowardice asks the question, ’Is it safe?’ Expediency asks the question, ’Is it politic?’ Vanity asks the question, ’Is it popular?’ But, conscience asks the question, ’Is it right?’ And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular but one must take it because one’s conscience tells one that it is right." Martin Luther King, Jr.
{Consulter} l'article avec son forum.
Seoul—The United States will withdraw about 20 Apache attack helicopters from South Korea for redeployment in Iraq and Afghanistan next year, the U.S. military said Sunday.The U.S. has notified South Korea of its plan to re-station one of the two Apache battalions in South Korea to make the unit available for rotational deployment to Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. military command in Seoul said in a statement.Each Apache battalion is comprised of some 20 helicopters, according to U.S. military spokesman Kim Yong-kyu.
It was not immediately clear when the Apaches would be withdrawn from South Korea. The U.S. plans to send 12 A-10 attack aircraft and two MH-53 helicopters to South Korea next March to temporarily replace the departing Apaches, Kim said.“The U.S. remains fully committed to the defense of the Republic of Korea and the overall security and stability of the region,” the statement quoted Lt. Gen. Joseph Fil, chief of the 8th U.S. Army in South Korea, as saying.
The departing Apache helicopters will be stationed at Fort Carson, Colorado, before their new operational deployment in the fall of 2009, according to the U.S. statement.The U.S. has about 28,500 troops in South Korea as deterrence against communist North Korea. Technically, the two Koreas are still at war, because their 1950-53 Korean War ended in an armistice, not a peace treaty.
{Consulter} l'article avec son forum.
SOurce : "Pakistan Observer"
By Akhtar Jamal
Islamabad—An Israeli intelligence site claimed Sunday that “US president-elect Barack Obama, European and Russian heads of states in Washington G20 conference were briefed over the weekend about a probable early al Qaeda attack.”
Isreali intelligence news site, “Debka”, also claimed that “Obama and his team have been advised that a new al Qaeda strike is highly probable in the United States or against a key US target in Europe, North Africa or the Middle East.”
However, there was no indication from the American official or media about such a possible attack or conspiracy.
The “Debka” claim coincided with a regional intelligence report that Israeli Mossad and Indian RAW regional chiefs have held an important meeting in a European capital and discussed “possible preparatory reaction” to a new mystery yet to unfold. Regional watchers have also cautioned against fast growing strategic and secret cooperation between certain foreign elements in the neighorbood of Pakistan.
DEBKA report claimed that al Qaeda’s Yemen base, a reliable barometer for Osama bin Laden’s schemes, issued a Directive to All Fighters in Arabia on Nov. 9 presaging a major operation in the United States that will “change the political and economic world” and be “far bigger than 9/11.”
Israeli source claimed that the Al Qaeda “notice said the operation “is very near” and “precise instructions were in the hands of “the fighters, who are already on their way to America” armed with bin Laden’s orders. The pretext offered for the attack is the rejection by the US and Europe of al Qaeda’s four-year old truce offer whose original pre-condition was the withdrawal of their armies from Iraq and Afghanistan.
On Nov. 14 Times Online also quoted US CIA chief Micheal Hayden as expressing fears that “AL Qaeda may launch an attack” during transition period.
According to Times General Michael Hayden, director of the CIA, this week acknowledged that there were dangers during a presidential transition when new officials were coming in and getting accustomed to the challenges. But he added that no “real or artificial spike” in intercepted transmissions from terror suspects had been detected.
The report added that President Bush has repeatedly described the acute vulnerability of the US during a transition. “The Bush Administration has been defined largely by the 9/11 attacks, which came within a year of his taking office”, Times report added.
Times also quoted Lord West of Spithead, the Home Office Security Minister as speaking recently of a “huge threat”, saying: “There is another great plot building up again and we are monitoring this.”
Regional geo-strategic observers were still unable to translate the so-called Al Qaeda “warning” coming via Israeli sources but several experts expressed fears that “a new 9/11-style conspiracy” was in the making to revive the strategic objectives at a time when “change” in the White House and Pentagon was imminent.
Some observers also took the warning as a fresh move to push for a new offensive against certain Islamic states already at odds with hawks in U.S., Israel and India.
Some American liberal sources are also expressing fear that “a big bang might hit the United States before transition of power in the United States.
{Consulter} l'article avec son forum.
Source : "The Dawn"
By Ibrahim Shinwari and Syed Irfan Raza
LANDI KOTAL/ISLAMABAD, Nov 16: The government is likely to allow resumption of supplies to International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) in Afghanistan and reopen the Peshawar-Torkham highway on Monday.
An official said on Sunday that security forces would escort convoys carrying fuel and other goods from Tahkt Bai to the border town of Torkham.
On Nov 10, a group of militants hijacked 13 trucks carrying supplies for Nato forces and World Food Programme, on the main highway in Jamrud. The group claimed to be working for Tahreek-i-Taliban Pakistan’s chief Baitullah Mehsud.
The local administration suspended supplies for allied forces in Afghanistan after closing the 52-kilometre Peshawar-Torkham highway.
Sources in the tribal administration said that the highway had been closed to prepare a new security plan. They said that Frontier Corps and Khasadars would escort the convoys. The number of troops has been increased at various checkposts on the highway.
About 300 to 400 heavy vehicles carrying supplies for Nato forces and goods of transit trade go to Afghanistan via the Torkham border checkpost every day.
The sources said that transportation of goods via Torkham had witnessed a sharp decline since January due to growing militancy and attacks on convoys in the area.
Militants sold the grain looted from the convoy hijacked on Nov 10 at cheap rates in the local market and paraded the two looted Humvees as war “booty”.
The centre has directed the provincial government and the political agent of Khybar Agency to protect the supply line in the area amid reports that Afghan President Hamid Karzai has renewed his offer of talks to Taliban chief Mullah Omar.
Khyber Agency officials said they had appealed to the federal government to provide more military assistance in view of the Taliban build-up in the area, but no help had been received.
The US military sends 75 per cent of supplies for its troops in Afghanistan through Pakistan, including 40 per cent of fuel used by them.
There are only two major routes for supplies to Afghanistan from the Karachi port — one via Khyber Pass and the other through Chaman linking the Afghan city of Kandahar.
Both routes have come under attack with dozens of fuel trucks torched this year and four US helicopter engines worth more than $13 million stolen in September. More than 30 fuel tankers have been destroyed in bomb attacks this year.
The vulnerability of routes was further brought home to Nato when Islamabad itself cut off fuel supplies to the western forces in Afghanistan for several days in September in response to a raid by US forces inside Pakistan.
It is reported that Nato has been trying to reach deals with Afghanistan’s other neighbours for alternative supply routes.
Taliban commander Mustafa Kamran Hijrat is reportedly to have stated that his men will continue to seize convoys carrying goods for Nato and American troops. “We are waging a holy war and we shall continue the struggle by every means.”
Hijrat claims to have hundreds of fighters under his command, but local officials estimate his strength at no more than 200 men.
{Consulter} l'article avec son forum.
Why a World State is inevitable: Anarchy and the Logic of Recognition
By Alexander Wendt
ABSTRACT In the past 3000 years there has been an exponential reduction in the number of independent polities in the world system. this paper argues that this process will continue until there is only one state left, that a world state is inevitable. The argument is explicitly teleological, and based on a neo-Hegelian interpretation of the logic of anarchy. A scientific teleology can be extracted from self organization theory, which combines micro-level dynamics with Macro-level boundary conditions to explain developmental trajectories. The state is then defined as a legitimate monopoly on organized violence grounded in mutual recognition. At the micro-level the struggle drives the process of world state formation. At the macro level anarchy structures this struggle, generating a tendency for war to become increasingly costly. The resulting teleology moves through five stages, each responding to the instabilities of the one before: a system of states, a society of states, world society, collective security, and the world state.
Continue to read: http://www.civitatis.org/pdf/wstate.pdf
{Consulter} l'article avec son forum.
| {Site réalisé avec le logiciel SPIP} | {BELLACIAO - EN} | {Site Map} |