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

Barack Obama’s Stealth Socialism

By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY

During his NAACP speech earlier this month, Sen. Obama repeated the term at least four times. “I’ve been working my entire adult life to help build an America where economic justice is being served,” he said at the group’s 99th annual convention in Cincinnati.

And as president, “we’ll ensure that economic justice is served,” he asserted. “That’s what this election is about.” Obama never spelled out the meaning of the term, but he didn’t have to. His audience knew what he meant, judging from its thumping approval.

It’s the rest of the public that remains in the dark, which is why we’re launching this special educational series.

“Economic justice” simply means punishing the successful and redistributing their wealth by government fiat. It’s a euphemism for socialism.

In the past, such rhetoric was just that — rhetoric. But Obama’s positioning himself with alarming stealth to put that rhetoric into action on a scale not seen since the birth of the welfare state.

In his latest memoir he shares that he’d like to “recast” the welfare net that FDR and LBJ cast while rolling back what he derisively calls the “winner-take-all” market economy that Ronald Reagan reignited (with record gains in living standards for all).

Obama also talks about “restoring fairness to the economy,” code for soaking the “rich” — a segment of society he fails to understand that includes mom-and-pop businesses filing individual tax returns.

It’s clear from a close reading of his two books that he’s a firm believer in class envy. He assumes the economy is a fixed pie, whereby the successful only get rich at the expense of the poor.

Following this discredited Marxist model, he believes government must step in and redistribute pieces of the pie. That requires massive transfers of wealth through government taxing and spending, a return to the entitlement days of old.

Of course, Obama is too smart to try to smuggle such hoary collectivist garbage through the front door. He’s disguising the wealth transfers as “investments” — “to make America more competitive,” he says, or “that give us a fighting chance,” whatever that means.

Among his proposed “investments”:

• “Universal,” “guaranteed” health care.

• “Free” college tuition.

• “Universal national service” (a la Havana).

• “Universal 401(k)s” (in which the government would match contributions made by “low- and moderate-income families”).

• “Free” job training (even for criminals).

• “Wage insurance” (to supplement dislocated union workers’ old income levels).

• “Free” child care and “universal” preschool.

• More subsidized public housing.

• A fatter earned income tax credit for “working poor.”

• And even a Global Poverty Act that amounts to a Marshall Plan for the Third World, first and foremost Africa.

Full Article

Police to investigate News of the World phone-hacking claims

By: David Batty
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 9 July 2009 11.55 BST
Article history

The Metropolitan police is to examine allegations that journalists from theNews of the World and other newspapers repeatedly used criminal methods to get stories through mobile phone hacking.

The assistant commissioner, John Yates, is to “establish the facts” about the claims and will report back later today, the police commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson, said today.

The move came after the Guardian revealed Rupert Murdoch’s News Group Newspapers had paid out more than £1m to settle legal cases that threatened to reveal evidence of the journalists’ activities.

The payments secured secrecy over out-of-court settlements in three cases that threatened to expose evidence that Murdoch journalists used private investigators to illegally hack into the mobile phone messages of public figures to gain unlawful access to confidential personal data, including tax records, social security files, bank statements and itemised phone bills. Cabinet ministers, MPs, actors and sports stars were all targets of the private investigators.

The suppressed legal cases are linked to the jailing in January 2007 of a News of the World reporter, Clive Goodman, for hacking into the mobile phones of three royal staff, an offence under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. At the time, News International said it knew of no other journalist who was involved in hacking phones and that Goodman had acted without their knowledge.

Scotland Yard and the Crown Prosecution Service now face serious questions over their handling of the inquiry into phone hacking and the News of the World, which led to the jailing of Goodman and Glenn Mulcaire, a private investigator who had worked for News Group.
Full Article

A Civil War: Obama’s Gift to Pakistan

By Ali Khan.

June 17, 2009 “MWC” — -A civil war is brewing in Pakistan. Thanks to President Barack Obama, who is shifting the American war from Iraq to “the real enemies” operating from Afghanistan and Pakistan. Cash-strapped Pakistan could not defy Obama persuasion and decided to wage a war against its own people, the Pashtuns inhabiting the Northern Province and the tribal areas of Waziristan.

Decades ago, Pakistan waged a similar war against its own people, the Bengalis in East Pakistan. In 1971, the Pakistani military charged to wipe out Mukti Bahini, a Bengali resistance force, paved the way for the nation’s dismemberment. In 2009, the military is charged to eliminate the Taliban, a Pashtun resistance force. History is repeating itself in Pakistan—as it frequently does for nations that do not learn from past mistakes.

With a willful caricature of the Pashtuns, who are successfully resisting the occupation of Afghanistan, Obama advisers are forcing Pakistan, a subservient ally, to help win the war in Afghanistan. This help is suicidal for Pakistan. The civil war will unleash intractable sectarian, ethnic, and secessionist forces. As the warfare intensifies in coming months, Pakistan will face economic meltdown. If the civil war spins out of control, Pakistan’s nuclear assets would pose a security threat to the world, in which case Pakistan might forcibly be denuclearized.

Full Article

Dashing Fabricated Hopes: The Meaning of Ahmadinejad’s Victory

By Pierre Tristam

June 14, 2009 “Pierre’s Middle East Issues Blog” — It’s been a little weird, if not embarrassing, to witness the reactions of the American press to the Iranian election in the last 24 hours.

There was the initial rush of expectation–that “change” was as much in the Iranian air as it had been in the American last fall, an equivalence so wrong on so many fronts that it managed to obscure the essential truth of the Iranian election: there never was a significant ideological difference between Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Mir Hossein Mousavi. Only a tonal one. But the Los Angeles Times was content to blare this headline: “Iranians ready to decide presidency — and maybe much more.”

There was the added irony of the LATimes’ sub-headline: “The winner will play a key role in possible talks over Iran’s nuclear program and support for militant groups,” the implication being that if Mousavi were the winner, maybe he’d rein back the militants. But it was Mousavi who, as Iran’s prime minister in the 1980s, helped build those militant groups into international terrorist forces, sending money, weapons and manpower to Lebanon to beef up Hezbollah and telegraphing their targets, including that string of American and European hostages Hezbollah held for most of the decade—and Mousavi traded for, haggling over anti-tank missiles and money with Oliver North and Bud McFarlane, in the infamous Iran-contra affairs.

Still, the paper in Los Angeles, not to mention the New York Times and the Washington Post, have blithely referred to Mousavi as a “moderate” throughout the election campaign, accepting at face value his apparent conversion, if only because he kept his antipathy for the United States relatively silent.

But Slate’s Samuel Rosner was closer to reality: The Iranian president isn’t the one who decides Iran’s fate, or foreign policy, or domestic policy, for that matter. It’s Ali Khamenei, the “supreme leader,” who does. But the big papers kept up the charade (“As Iran Votes, Talk of a Sea Change,” went The New York Times), as if willing the fantasy.

Full Article

US Media Campaign to Discredit Iranian Election

By Charting Stock
http://informationclearinghouse.info

See also:- Lights turned off on media after elections: The AFP news agency reported that Iran’s wireless telephone network was shut down at 5:30pm GMT (10:00pm in Tehran), just as incumbent president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was making a television appearance to congratulate himself on a “great victory”.

See also:- Landslide or Fraud? The Debate Online Over Iran’s Election Results: We will bring you updates throughout the day and encourage Iranian readers to share their thoughts and experiences with us.

June 13, 2009 “Charting Stocks” — -Was the Iranian election a fraud? That’s what our great western media sources want us to believe. While scanning through the coverage, I could not find one mainstream news article which covered the election results in an objective, unbiased manner. Either prominently displayed  in the title or first paragraph, each of the articles suggest the election was a fraud. The obvious question arises – If their electoral system can’t be trusted, why were they watching the results so “closely” in the first place?  I’d probably  find better things to do then obsess over the results of a rigged game, but hey that’s just me.

It’s worth noting that Iran, unlike the US, does not use electronic voting machines which are easily tampered with. They actually have paper ballots. It’s also important to point out the health of their electoral process. They had an 85% turnout! We, “the champions of democracy” turnout only a fraction of that percentage for our presidential elections. In fact 2 out of 3 American citizens find something better to do during election day.

Reuters  Iran’s election result staggers analysts

Hard-liner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad defeated moderate challenger Mirhossein Mousavi by a surprisingly wide margin in Iran’s presidential election, official results showed on Saturday. Mousavi derided the tally as a “dangerous charade.’

Fox News: U.S. Monitoring Iran’s Election Results

U.S. officials are casting doubt over the results of Iran’s election, in which the government declared President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the winner Saturday…U.S. analysts find it “not credible  [Notice the usual UN-NAMED “US Officials and Analysts]

MSNBC: Violence flares as Ahmadinejad wins Iran vote

Riot police battled with protesters Saturday as officials announced that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had won a landslide election victory. His opponent denounced the results as ‘treason’….Ahmadinejad had the apparent backing of the ruling theocracy.

CNN: Ahmadinejad wins landslide in disputed election

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been declared the big winner in the country’s election, but his chief rival and supporters in the Tehran streets are crying foul.

NY Times: Ahmadinejad Is Declared Victor in Iran

The Iranian government declared an outright election victory for President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Saturday morning, and riot police officers fought with supporters of the opposition candidate, Mir Hussein Moussavi, who insisted that the election had been stolen.

Time Magazine: Protests Greet Ahmadinejad Win in Iran: ‘It’s Not Possible!

Iran’s Interior Minister announced Saturday that incumbent president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had won 63.29% of the vote in the nation’s closely watched presidential poll. The announcement, greeted with widespread skepticism by Iranian opposition supporters and by foreign analysts, has brought thousands of people onto the streets where they have encountered a strong police presence and the threat of violence.

Was the election stolen? According to the Iranian Interior Minister Sadeq Mahsouli, there has been no ‘written complaint’ about voter fraud. He declared that the presidential elections were conducted in a manner that ruled out the possibility of voter fraud. “No violations that may have influenced the vote have been reported, and we have received no written complaint,” he said in response to a question posed by an Italian reporter.

It’s also worth mentioning that contrary to what our media would have us believe, Ahmadinejad doesn’t have much power in Iran. The President is not the most powerful person in the country. He is not the commander in chief and  does not control the army and the intelligence and security services. He does not have the power to go to war. Those powers are reserved for the supreme leader of Iran Ayatollah Khomeini.

How the spooks took over the news

This is an edited extract from “Flat Earth News: an award-winning reporter exposes falsehood, distortion and propaganda in the global media”, published by Chatto & Windus. In his controversial new book, Nick Davies argues that shadowy intelligence agencies are pumping out black propaganda to manipulate public opinion – and that the media simply swallow it wholesale

Onthe morning of 9 February 2004, The New York Times carried an exclusive and alarming story. The paper’s Baghdad correspondent, Dexter Filkins, reported that US officials had obtained a 17-page letter, believed to have been written by the notorious terrorist Abu Musab al Zarqawi to the “inner circle” of al-Qa’ida’s leadership, urging them to accept that the best way to beat US forces in Iraq was effectively to start a civil war.

The letter argued that al-Qa’ida, which is a Sunni network, should attack the Shia population of Iraq: “It is the only way to prolong the duration of the fight between the infidels and us. If we succeed in dragging them into a sectarian war, this will awaken the sleepy Sunnis.”

Later that day, at a regular US press briefing in Baghdad, US General Mark Kimmitt dealt with a string of questions about The New York Times report: “We believe the report and the document is credible, and we take the report seriously… It is clearly a plan on the part of outsiders to come in to this country and spark civil war, create sectarian violence, try to expose fissures in this society.” The story went on to news agency wires and, within 24 hours, it was running around the world.

There is very good reason to believe that that letter was a fake – and a significant one because there is equally good reason to believe that it was one product among many from a new machinery of propaganda which has been created by the United States and its allies since the terrorist attacks of September 2001.

For the first time in human history, there is a concerted strategy to manipulate global perception. And the mass media are operating as its compliant assistants, failing both to resist it and to expose it.

Full Article