Is The U.S. Economy Being Tanked By Mistake or By Intent? by Bill Sardi

Is The U.S. Economy Being Tanked By Mistake or By Intent?

by Bill Sardi

Recently by Bill Sardi: Who Is Left Holding the Bag on US Debt?

The government wants Americans to believe the greatest economic collapse in history was the result of ineptness and mistakes yet still have confidence in their financial institutions.

Should American bankers be let off the hook because they self-declare, before an investigational panel, that the failure of their newly invented risk swaps and other highly leveraged investment schemes was simply due to “mistakes”? Not malfeasance – just every-day mistakes? Bankers just fell asleep at the helm at a critical juncture in American history. Is that what we are being led to believe?

Oh well, it’s just 18 million American homes that now lay empty in the wake of unprecedented foreclosures, and the bankers have collected obscene bonuses for reckless lending of their depositors’ money. It’s like the captain and crew of a ship saying, not to worry, twenty-percent of the passengers were lost overboard, but this was due to unavoidable mistakes, and then being rewarded with bonuses when they reach port.


FULL ARTICLE

Advertisements

The New American Plutocracy

by Paul Kurtz
The following article is from Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 20, Number 4.

Plutocracy: (1) government by the wealthy, (2) a controlling class of the wealthy. From the Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos, wealth, and kratia, advocate of a form of government.

I am deeply troubled by the fact that in the upcoming presidential and congressional elections there is little or no debate on what I consider to be a central issue for the American future: the emergence of a new and powerful plutocracy wedded to corporate power. Regrettably, none of the major candidates will deign to even discuss this vital question. Only Ralph Nader has identified it. But he has largely been ignored or parodied by the mass media. Typically, Paul Krugman, op-ed columnist for the New York Times, has ridiculed Nader precisely for his attacks on “corporate power.” Senator John McCain did raise the issue of the special interests and soft money corrupting the political process. But he has been rebuffed and has climbed into the same bed with Bush. Many do not consider Nader to be a viable candidate, for the Green Party does not represent an effective political coalition. Neither Free Inquiry nor the Council for Secular Humanism can endorse political candidates, but this should not preclude me from presenting my own personal views about the deeper humanist issues at stake.

A plutocracy is defined as “government by the wealthy.” The critical question that should concern us is whether the United States is already a plutocracy, and what can be done to limit its power. This question, unfortunately, will not be taken seriously by most voters-but it damned well ought to be.

Ancient Greek democracy lasted only a century; the Roman republic survived for four, though it was increasingly weakened as time went on. As America enters its third century we may well ask whether our democratic institutions will survive and if so in what form.

As readers of these pages know, I have been concerned by the virtually unchallenged growth of corporate power. Mergers and acquisitions continue at a dizzying pace, as small and mid-sized businesses and farms disappear; independent doctors, lawyers, and accountants are gobbled up by larger firms; and working men and women are at the mercy of huge global conglomerates, which downsize as they export jobs overseas.

I have also deplored the emergence of the global media-ocracy, whereby a handful of powerful media conglomerates virtually dominate the means of communication. A functioning democratic society depends upon a free exchange of ideas; today fewer dissenting views are heard in the public square, as diversity is narrowed or muffled.

Full Article

Real concentration camps USA: Our immigrant-detention system is spiraling out of control

By David Neiwert~Crooks and Liars

See Video Here (At Puppetgov)

Jackie Mahendra points out an Associated Press story describing some of the most recent information about how we’re detaining illegal immigrants — and it’s profoundly disturbing:

The U.S. detention system for immigrants has mushroomed in the past decade, creating a costly building boom in an effort to sweep up criminals and ensure that illegal immigrants are quickly deported.

However, an Associated Press computer analysis of the entire detention population on a Sunday night in January found that most did not have a criminal record and many were not about to leave the country soon — voluntarily or through deportation.

A U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement database, obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, showed a U.S. detainee population of exactly 32,000 on the evening of Jan. 25.

Of those, 18,690 immigrants did not have a criminal conviction, including for illegal entry or low-level crimes such as trespassing. More than 400 of those with no criminal record had been incarcerated for at least a year. A dozen had been held for three years or more; one man from China had been locked up for more than five years.

Almost 10,000 had been in custody longer than 31 days, the average detention stay.

For an up-close look at what’s going on at these detention centers, check out Breakthrough Media’s incredibly informative site, Homeland Guantanamos, which describes the detention system we’ve created in response to right-wing agitation about illegal immigration. You know, the same right-wingers who are now stewing over non-existent FEMA concentration camps.

The video below also explores the subject in some depth, focusing on the situation in Illinois.

Goldman Sachs – THE WORLD’S BIGGEST PONZI SCHEME

Taken from a comment by “Calltoaccount”, which was taken from Institutional Risk Analytics, blogged by http://www.cjr.org

Res Ipsa Loquitor: Here’s the real story that’s been conveniently swept under the rug.

From Reuters: QUESTION: Did Goldman do any due diligence on AIG before buying credit default swaps (CDS) from it?

ANSWER: “We do extensive due diligence on all our counterparties.” –  posted 4/2/09 by Karl Denninger

(Credit Barry Ritholtz and Institutional Risk Analytics, the original source)

WHOAH!

In fact, our investigation suggests that by the time AIG had entered the CDS fray in a serious way more than five years ago, the firm was already doomed. No longer able to prop up its earnings using reinsurance because of growing scrutiny from state insurance regulators and federal law enforcement agencies, AIG’s foray into CDS was really the grand finale. AIG was a Ponzi scheme plain and simple, yet the Obama Administration still thinks of AIG as a real company that simply took excessive risks. No, to us what the fraud Bernard Madoff is to individual investors, AIG is to the global financial community.

As with the phony reinsurance contracts that AIG and other insurers wrote for decades, when AIG wrote hundreds of billions of dollars in CDS contracts, neither AIG nor the counterparties believed that the CDS would ever be paid. Indeed, one source with personal knowledge of the matter suggests that there may be emails and actual side letters between AIG and its counterparties that could prove conclusively that AIG never intended to pay out on any of its CDS contracts.

Read that folks.

Then read it again.

Then read it AGAIN.

More excerpts:

There are two basic problems with side letters. First, they are a criminal act, a fraud that usually carries the full weight of an “A” felony in many jurisdictions. Second, once the side letter is discovered by a persistent auditor or regulator examining the buyer of protection, the transaction becomes worthless. You paid $6 million to AIG to shift risk via the reinsurance, but the side letter makes clear that the transaction is a fraud and you lose any benefit that the apparent risk shifting might have provided.

And finally, the last nail in the coffin:

The key point is that neither the public, the Fed nor the Treasury seem to understand is that the CDS contracts written by AIG with these various non-insurers around the world were shams – with no correlation between “fees” paid and the risk assumed. These were not valid contracts as Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, Treasury Secretary Geithner and Economic policy guru Larry Summers claim, but rather acts of criminal fraud meant to manipulate the capital positions and earnings of financial companies around the world.

Indeed, our sources as well as press reports suggest that the CDS contracts written by AIG may have included side letters, often in the form of emails rather than formal letters, that essentially violated the ISDA agreements and show that the true, economic reality of these contracts was fraud plain and simple. Unfortunately, by not moving to seize AIG immediately last year when the scandal broke, the Fed and Treasury may have given the AIG managers time to destroy much of the evidence of criminal wrongdoing.

Only when we understand how AIG came to be involved in CDS and the fact that this seemingly illegal activity was simply an extension of the reinsurance/side letter shell game scam that AIG, Gen Re and others conducted for many years before will we understand what needs to be done with AIG, namely liquidation. Seen in this context, the payments made to AIG by the Fed and Treasury, which were then passed-through to dealers such as Goldman Sachs (NYSE:GS), can only be viewed as an illegal taking that must be reversed once the US Trustee for the Federal Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York is in control of AIG’s operations.

Thank you Timmy, thank you Ben Bernanke, thank you Henry Paulson, thank you George Bush and thank you President Obama.

If this is true every one of you needs to go to prison.

After those of you still in your positions are impeached.

Again, for the simple who need it in one sentence:

AIG was a Ponzi scheme plain and simple, yet the Obama Administration still thinks of AIG as a real company that simply took excessive risks. No, to us what the fraud Bernard Madoff is to individual investors, AIG is to the global financial community.

Distilled to one sentence: The bailout of AIG is equivalent to the US Taxpayer bailing out Madoff’s admitted (and now convicted) Ponzi Scheme.

PS: This isn’t MY analysis, this is the analysis of Institutional Risk Analytics. If you don’t understand who they are, you should – they’re one of the most-respected groups out there when it comes to banking system analysis. If they’re willing to print something this damning….

Posted by Calltoaccount on Sat 18 Jul 2009 at 09:40 AM

Kissinger Calls for Iran Attack if Color Revolution Fails

Infowars
June 21, 2009

It is sincerely creepy to watch master globalist criminal Henry Kissinger call for an invasion of Iran in this BBC new clip. Herr Kissinger says that if the color revolution fails — and it is now obvious the protests in Iran are orchestrated by the CIA and the usual “democracy” NGO suspects — an outside alternative will have to be used in the name of “regime change,” in other words shock and awe à la Baghdad.

It is significant Kissinger went on television and said this — it means flattening Iranian cities and killing babies is more than likely the position of the globalists if the “green revolution” currently underway fails. Kissinger is a big muckamuck Bilderberger and David Rockefeller minion.

Attacking Iran, as the neocons have long called for, will prove to be disastrous. The Iranians will shut down the Strait of Hormuz where around 60% of the world’s oil passes if they are attacked by the United States. This will take down the world economy overnight.

But then the globalists and banksters want to take down the world economy so they can impose their globalist banking and control structure. Attacking Iran and killing thousands will kill two birds with one stone.

Bilderberg Fears Losing Control In Chaos-Plagued World

Factsnews – We typically do not repost from Infowars repeatedly, but we feel that Bilderberg 2009 is a very significant event for the Patriot Movement and a disastrous event for the Bilderbergs.

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Monday, May 18, 2009

Investigative journalist Daniel Estulin, whose information from inside Bilderberg has routinely proven accurate, states that the global elite’s plan to completely destroy the economy and ultimately lower global population by two thirds has stoked fears even within Bilderberg itself that the fallout from such chaos could ultimately result in the globalists losing their control over the world.

In a telephone interview, Estulin re-iterated his original points about Bilderberg’s 2009 agenda, which were released in a pre-meeting booklet to members. These include the notion that investors, whipped up into a false state of euphoria by the belief that the economy is recovering, are being suckered into ploughing their money back into the system as a set up for “massive losses and searing financial pain in the months ahead” as the stock market reverses its uptrend and plummets to new lows.

One of Bilderberg’s main topics of conversation at this year’s meeting was whether to oversee a long period of economic stagnation or to quickly sink the economy with a rapid depression.

Estulin called the “bank stress tests” recently conducted as being “little more than a shameless hoax based on the irrational assumption that the economy wont get as bad as it already is.”

Bilderberg are also intent in pushing through the Lisbon Treaty despite it being rejected by countries in Europe who allowed their population to vote on the issue, and are prepared to manufacture demonization campaigns against anti-EU pressure groups, namely the Libertas organization fronted by Declan Ganley.

One of Bilderberg’s primary concerns according to Estulin is the danger that their zeal to reshape the world by engineering chaos in order to implement their long term agenda could cause the situation to spiral out of control and eventually lead to a scenario where Bilderberg and the global elite in general are overwhelmed by events and end up losing their control over the planet.

Estulin said that the economic crisis is a vastly greater threat than a mere recession and that, as long as the present structure of the global economy remains the same, it will ultimately lead to a massive population reduction of two thirds within a generation or two.

Estulin said that such a massive crisis would bring many unknowns that “Scare and frighten some of the more savvy members of the Bilderberg inner circle who are wondering how far they have actually gone not only to destroy the world but perhaps even destroy themselves,” adding that this subject was a topic of conversation at this year’s meeting.

Estulin highlighted a phrase that he first ran across in Bilderberg documents many years ago but only came to understand more recently following the 2002 meeting in Chantilly Virginia, the term “demand destruction”.

Estulin said that a source connected to the World Bank explained to him that, “You destroy demand by destroying the world economy on purpose – which is what we’re witnessing right now,” added Estulin, “destruction of the world economy on purpose.”

Listen to Estulin’s interview with The Corbett Report http://www.infowars.com/bilderberg-fears-losing-control-in-chaos-plagued-world/#mce_temp_url#

Chatham House Rule

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Chatham House Rule is a rule that governs the confidentiality of the source of information received at a meeting. Since its refinement in 2002, the rule states[1]

When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed.

The rule originated in June, 1927, at what is now best known as Chatham House (formally known as the Royal Institute of International Affairs) with the aim of guaranteeing anonymity to those speaking within its walls in order that better international relations could be achieved. It is now used throughout the world as an aid to free discussion. The original rule was refined in October 1992 and again in 2002.

Meetings, or parts of meetings, may be held either “on the record” or “under the Chatham House Rule”. In the latter case, the participants are understood to have agreed that it would be conducive to free discussion that they should be subject to the rule for the relevant part of the meeting. The success of the rule may depend on it being considered morally binding, particularly in circumstances where a failure to comply with the rule may result in no sanction.

The Rule allows people to speak as individuals, and to express views that may not be those of their organizations, and therefore it encourages free discussion. Speakers are then free to voice their own opinions, without concern for their personal reputation or their official duties and affiliations.

The Chatham House Rule resolves a boundary problem faced by many communities of practice, in that it permits acknowledgment of the community or conversation while protecting the freedom of interaction that is necessary for the community to carry out its conversations.

*********************************************************************************
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1085589.html
“There is no official list of who’s who in Bilderberg and there are no press conferences about the meetings. This is because the group operates under the“Chatham House Rule,” and no details of what goes on inside are released to the press.”

This secrecy has led to many claims that the Bilderberg Group are the world’s real “kingmakers,” and, some even suggest, behind the global financial crisis.