WMR’s intelligence sources have reported that the Obama administration has authorized an economic war against Venezuela in order to destabilize the government of President Hugo Chavez.
After a successful coup against Chavez ally, President Manuel Zelaya of Honduras, and the very thin 51-49 percent electoral win by Chile’s billionaire right-winger Sebastian Pinera on January 17, a buoyed Obama White House has given a green light for political operatives in Venezuela, many of whom operate under the cover of non-governmental organizations (NGOs), to set the stage for massive street demonstrations to protest Chavez’s devaluation of the bolivar, Venezuela’s currency.
Chavez devalued the bolivar by 50 percent to make Venezuelan oil exports less expensive, thus boosting revenue for his country. However, the devaluation has also seen price rises and inflation in Venezuela and the CIA and its subservient NGOs have wasted little time in putting out stories about consumers rushing to the stories ahead of an increase in consumer products, with imported flat-screen televisions being the favorite consumer item being hyped by the corporate media as seeing a huge price increase and long lines at shopping malls favored by the Venezuelan elites.
The state has exempted certain consumer goods such as food, medicines, school supplies, and industrial machinery from being affected by the bolivar’s devaluation through a different exchange rate and price controls, but it is the price increases on televisions, tobacco, alcohol, cell phones, and computers that has the anti-Chavez forces in Venezuela and abroad hyping the ill-effects on the Venezuelan consumer.
To battle against businessmen who are trying to capitalize on the devaluation of the bolivar, Chavez has threatened to close and possibly seize any business that gouges the consumer by inordinately raising prices. The first target of a temporary closure was a Caracas store owned by the French firm Exito.
International investment analysts praised Chavez’s decision to devalue the bolivar and said the decision was overdue considering the fall of oil prices worldwide. However, the CIA and NGOs, many aligned with George Soros’s Open Society Institute and the U.S. National Endowment for Democracy are planning large street demonstrations against Chavez’s handling of the economy.
National Assembly elections are scheduled for September but the Obama administration has decided that if Chavez can be removed now, his allies in Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Paraguay, and some Caribbean island states will quickly abandon Chavez’s alternative to American-led Western Hemisphere financial contrivances and free trade pacts, the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA).
The Obama planners then see Cuba, once again, being isolated in the hemisphere and ripe for increased U.S. political pressure. Cuba was placed on the list of 14 countries requiring additional airline passenger screening as part of the policy to pressure and isolate Cuba. There is a possibility that with the outbreak of U.S.-inspired violence in the streets of Venezuela, that nation could join Cuba on the list as the 15th country.
The Obama administration’s assault is two-fold: economic and political. Pressure is being applied against the gasoline chain Citgo, which is owned by the Venezuelan state oil company, PDVSA, and Venezuelan investment favorability ratings. Politically, the U.S. is overtly and covertly funneling money to anti-Chavez groups through the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and groups affiliated with George Soros.
There is also a small military component to Obama’s strategy of undermining Chavez. U.S., P-3 Orion overflights of Venezuelan airspace from bases in Aruba and Curacao are designed to intimidate Chavez and activate Venezuelan radar and command, control, communications, and intelligence (C3I) systems to gather electronic and signals intelligence data that would be used by the United States to jam Venezuelan military networks in the event of a U.S.-inspired uprising against Chavez by U.S. loyalists embedded in the Venezuelan military, police, PDVSA, and media. The U.S. is also stoking cross-border incursions into Venezuela by Colombian paramilitaries to gauge Venezuela’s border defenses. Last November, Colombian right-wing paramilitary units killed two Venezuelan National Guardsmen inside Venezuela in Tachira state. Weapons caches maintained by Colombians inside Venezuela have been seized by Venezuelan authorities. Venezuela has also arrested a number of Colombian DAS intelligence agents inside Venezuela.
Obama signed a military agreement with Colombia that allows the United States to establish seven air and naval bases in Colombia. An additional agreement by Obama with Panama will see the U.S. military return to that nation to set up two military bases.
It is estimated that some 25 percent of Venezuelans are likely Fifth Columnists who would take part in a revolt against Chavez. Many of them based in the Venezuelan oil-producing state of Zulia and the capital of Maracaibo, where successive U.S. ambassadors in Caracas have stoked secessionist embers and where the CIA and U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency have concentrated much of their efforts. In November, Venezuelan police arrested in Maracaibo, Magaly Janeth Moreno Vega, also known as “The Pearl,” the leader of the right-wing United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC), which has been directly linked to Colombia’s pro-U.S. President Alvaro Uribe and members of his government, including former Colombian Attorney General Luis Camilo Osorio Isaza, appointed by Uribe as Colombia’s ambassador to Mexico.
AFRICAN revolutionaries now have to sleep with one eye open because the United States of America is not stopping at anything in its bid to establish Africom, a highly-equipped US army that will be permanently resident in Africa to oversee the country’s imperialist interests.
Towards the end of last year, the US government intensified its efforts to bring a permanent army to settle in Africa, dubbed the African Command (Africom) as a latest tool for the subtle recolonisation of Africa.
Just before end of last year, General William E. Garret, Commander US Army for Africa, met with defence attaches from all African embassies in Washington to lure them into selling the idea of an American army based in Africa to their governments.
Latest reports from the White House this January indicate that 75 percent of the army’s establishment work has been done through a military unit based in Stuttgart, Germany, and that what is left is to get an African country to host the army and get things moving.
Liberia and Morocco have offered to host Africom while Sadc has closed out any possibility of any of its member states hosting the US army.
Other individual countries have remained quiet.
Liberia has longstanding ties with the US due to its slave history while errant Morocco, which is not a member of the African Union and does not hold elections, might want the US army to assist it to suppress any future democratic uprising.
Sadc’s refusal is a small victory for the people of Africa in their struggle for total independence but the rest of the regional blocs in Africa are yet to come up with a common position. This is worrying.
The US itself wanted a more strategic country than Morocco and Liberia since the army will be the epicentre of influencing, articulating and safeguarding US foreign and economic policies.
The other danger is that Africom will open up Africa as a battleground between America and anti-US terrorist groups.
Africom is a smokescreen behind which America wants to hide its means to secure Africa’s oil and other natural resources, nothing more.
African leaders must not forget that military might has been used by America and Europe again and again as the only effective way of accomplishing their agenda in ensuring that governments in each country are run by people who toe their line.
By virtue of its being resident in Africa, Africom will ensure that America has its tentacles easily reaching every African country and influencing every event to the American advantage.
By hosting the army, Africa will have sub-contracted its military independence to America and will have accepted the process that starts its recolonisation through an army that can subdue any attempts by Africa to show its own military prowess.
The major question is: Who will remove Africom once it is established? By what means?
By its origin Africom will be technically and financially superior to any African country’s army and will dictate the pace for regime change in any country at will and also give depth, direction and impetus to the US natural resource exploitation scheme.
There is no doubt that as soon as the army gets operational in Africa, all the gains of independence will be reversed.
If the current leadership in Africa succumbs to the whims of the US and accept the operation of this army in Africa, they will go down in the annals of history as that generation of politicians who accepted the evil to prevail.
Even William Shakespeare would turn and twist in his grave and say: “I told you guys that it takes good men to do nothing for evil to prevail.”
We must not forget that Africans, who are still smarting from colonialism-induced humiliation, subjugation, brutality and inferiority complex, do not need to be taken back to another form of colonialism, albeit subtle.
Africom has been controversial on the continent ever since former US president George W. Bush first announced it in February 2007.
African leaders must not forget that under the Barack Obama administration, US policy towards Africa and the rest of the developing world has not changed an inch. It remains militaristic and materialistic.
Officials in both the Bush and Obama administrations argue that the major objective of Africom is to professionalise security forces in key countries across Africa.
However, both administrations do not attempt to address the impact of the setting up of Africom on minority parties, governments and strong leaders considered errant or whether the US will not use Africom to promote friendly dictators.
Training and weapons programmes and arms transfers from Ukraine to Equatorial Guinea, Chad, Ethiopia and the transitional government in Somalia, clearly indicate the use of military might to maintain influence in governments in Africa, remains a priority of US foreign policy.
Ukraine’s current leadership was put into power by the US under the Orange Revolution and is being given a free role to supply weaponry in African conflicts.
African leaders must show solidarity and block every move by America to set up its bases in the motherland unless they want to see a new round of colonisation.
Kwame Nkrumah, Robert Mugabe, Sam Nujoma, Nelson Mandela, Julius Nyerere, Hastings Kamuzu Banda, Kenneth Kaunda, Augustino Neto and Samora Machel, among others, will have fought liberation wars for nothing, if Africom is allowed a base in Africa.
Thousands of Africans who died in colonial prisons and in war fronts during the liberation struggles, will have shed their blood for nothing if Africa is recolonised.
Why should the current crop of African leaders accept systematic recolonisation when they have learnt a lot from colonialism, apartheid and racism? Why should the current crop of African leaders fail to stand measure for measure against the US administration and tell it straight in the face that Africa does not need a foreign army since the AU is working out its own army.
African leaders do not need prophets from Mars to know that US’s fascination with oil, the war on terrorism and the military will now be centred on Africa, after that escapade in Iraq.
A cursory look at the map of region will show that Yemen is one of the most strategic lands adjoining waters of the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Peninsula. It flanks Saudi Arabia and Oman, which are vital American protectorates. In effect, Uncle Sam is “marking territory” – like a dog on a lamppost. Russia has been toying with the idea of reopening its Soviet-era base in Aden. Well, the US has pipped Moscow in the race.
The US has signaled that the odyssey doesn’t end with Yemen. It is also moving into Somalia and Kenya. With that, the US establishes its military presence in an entire unbroken stretch of real estate all along the Indian Ocean’s western rim. Chinese officials have of late spoken of their need to establish a naval base in the region. The US has now foreclosed China’s options. The only country with a coastline that is available for China to set up a naval base in the region will be Iran. All other countries have a Western military presence. (are western military puppet governments)
The American intervention in Yemen is not going to be on the pattern of Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama will ensure he doesn’t receive any body bags of American servicemen serving in Yemen. That is what the American public expects from him. He will only deploy drone aircraft and special forces and “focus on providing intelligence and training to help Yemen counter al-Qaeda militants”, according to the US military. Obama’s main core objective will be to establish an enduring military presence in Yemen. This serves many purposes.
A new great game begins
First, the US move has to be viewed against the historic backdrop of the Shi’ite awakening in the region. The Shi’ites (mostly of the Zaidi group) have been traditionally suppressed in Yemen. Shi’ite uprisings have been a recurring theme in Yemen’s history. There has been a deliberate attempt to minimize the percentage of Shi’ites in Yemen, but they could be anywhere up to 45%.
More importantly, in the northern part of the country, they constitute the majority. What bothers the US and moderate Sunni Arab states – and Israel – is that the Believing Youth Organization led by Hussein Badr al-Houthi, which is entrenched in northern Yemen, is modeled after Hezbollah in Lebanon in all respects – politically, economically, socially and culturally.
Yemenis are an intelligent people and are famous in the Arabian Peninsula for their democratic temperament. The Yemeni Shi’ite empowerment on a Hezbollah-model would have far-reaching regional implications. Next-door Oman, which is a key American base, is predominantly Shi’ite. Even more sensitive is the likelihood of the dangerous idea of Shi’ite empowerment spreading to Saudi Arabia’s highly restive Shi’ite regions adjoining Yemen, which on top of it all, also happen to be the reservoir of the country’s fabulous oil wealth.
Saudi Arabia is entering a highly sensitive phase of political transition as a new generation is set to take over the leadership in Riyadh, and the palace intrigues and fault lines within the royal family are likely to get exacerbated. To put it mildly, given the vast scale of institutionalized Shi’ite persecution in Saudi Arabia by the Wahhabi establishment, Shi’ite empowerment is a veritable minefield that Riyadh is petrified about at this juncture. Its threshold of patience is wearing thin, as the recent uncharacteristic resort to military power against the north Yemeni Shi’ite communities bordering Saudi Arabia testifies.
The US faces a classic dilemma. It is all right for Obama to highlight the need of reform in Muslim societies – as he did eloquently in his Cairo speech last June. But democratization in the Yemeni context – ironically, in the Arab context – would involve Shi’ite empowerment. After the searing experience in Iraq, Washington is literally perched like a cat on a hot tin roof. It would much rather be aligned with the repressive, autocratic government of Saleh than let the genie of reform out of the bottle in the oil rich-region in which it has profound interests.
Obama has an erudite mind and he is not unaware that what Yemen desperately needs is reform, but he simply doesn’t want to think about it. The paradox he faces is that with all its imperfections, Iran happens to be the only “democratic” system operating in that entire region.
Iran’s shadow over the Yemeni Shi’ite consciousness worries the US to no end. Simply put, in the ideological struggle going on in the region, Obama finds himself with the ultra-conservative and brutally autocratic oligarchies that constitute the ruling class in the region. Conceivably, he isn’t finding it easy. If his own memoirs are to be believed, there could be times when the vague recollections of his childhood in Indonesia and his precious memories of his own mother, who from all accounts was a free-wheeling intellectual and humanist, must be stalking him in the White House corridors.
Israel moves in
But Obama is first and foremost a realist. Emotions and personal beliefs drain away and strategic considerations weigh uppermost when he works in the Oval Office. With the military presence in Yemen, the US has tightened the cordon around Iran. In the event of a military attack on Iran, Yemen could be put to use as a springboard by the Israelis. These are weighty considerations for Obama.
The fact is that no one is in control as a Yemeni authority. It is a cakewalk for the formidable Israeli intelligence to carve out a niche in Yemen – just as it did in northern Iraq under somewhat comparable circumstances.
Islamism doesn’t deter Israel at all. Saleh couldn’t have been far off the mark when he alleged last year that Israeli intelligence had been exposed as having kept links with Yemeni Islamists. The point is, Yemeni Islamists are a highly fragmented lot and no one is sure who owes what sort of allegiance to whom. Israeli intelligence operates marvelously in such twilight zones when the horizon is lacerated with the blood of the vanishing sun.
Israel will find a toehold in Yemen to be a god-sent gift insofar as it registers its presence in the Arabian Peninsula. This is a dream come true for Israel, whose effectiveness as a regional power has always been seriously handicapped by its lack of access to the Persian Gulf region. The overarching US military presence helps Israel politically to consolidate its Yemeni chapter. Without doubt, Petraeus is moving on Yemen in tandem with Israel (and Britain). But the “pro-West” Arab states with their rentier mentality have no choice except to remain as mute spectators on the sidelines.
Some among them may actually acquiesce with the Israeli security presence in the region as a safer bet than the spread of the dangerous ideas of Shi’ite empowerment emanating out of Iran, Iraq and Hezbollah. Also, at some stage, Israeli intelligence will begin to infiltrate the extremist Sunni outfits in Yemen, which are commonly known as affiliates of al-Qaeda. That is, if it hasn’t done that already. Any such link makes Israel an invaluable ally for the US in its fight against al-Qaeda. In sum, infinite possibilities exist in the paradigm that is taking shape in the Muslim world abutting into the strategic Persian Gulf.
It’s all about China
Most important, however, for US global strategies will be the massive gain of control of the port of Aden in Yemen. Britain can vouchsafe that Aden is the gateway to Asia. Control of Aden and the Malacca Strait will put the US in an unassailable position in the “great game” of the Indian Ocean. The sea lanes of the Indian Ocean are literally the jugular veins of China’s economy. By controlling them, Washington sends a strong message to Beijing that any notions by the latter that the US is a declining power in Asia would be nothing more than an extravagant indulgence in fantasy.
In the Indian Ocean region, China is increasingly coming under pressure. India is a natural ally of the US in the Indian Ocean region. Both disfavor any significant Chinese naval presence. India is mediating a rapprochement between Washington and Colombo that would help roll back Chinese influence in Sri Lanka. The US has taken a u-turn in its Myanmar policy and is engaging the regime there with the primary intent of eroding China’s influence with the military rulers. The Chinese strategy aimed at strengthening influence in Sri Lanka and Myanmar so as to open a new transportation route towards the Middle East, the Persian Gulf and Africa, where it has begun contesting traditional Western economic dominance.
China is keen to whittle down its dependence on the Malacca Strait for its commerce with Europe and West Asia. The US, on the contrary, is determined that China remains vulnerable to the choke point between Indonesia and Malaysia.
An engrossing struggle is breaking out. The US is unhappy with China’s efforts to reach the warm waters of the Persian Gulf through the Central Asian region and Pakistan. Slowly but steadily, Washington is tightening the noose around the neck of the Pakistani elites – civilian and military – and forcing them to make a strategic choice between the US and China. This will put those elites in an unenviable dilemma. Like their Indian counterparts, they are inherently “pro-Western” (even when they are “anti-American”) and if the Chinese connection is important for Islamabad, that is primarily because it balances perceived Indian hegemony.
The existential questions with which the Pakistani elites are grappling are apparent. They are seeking answers from Obama. Can Obama maintain a balanced relationship vis-a-vis Pakistan and India? Or, will Obama lapse back to the George W Bush era strategy of building up India as the pre-eminent power in the Indian Ocean under whose shadow Pakistan will have to learn to live?
US-India-Israel axis
On the other hand, the Indian elites are in no compromising mood. Delhi was on a roll during the Bush days. Now, after the initial misgivings about Obama’s political philosophy, Delhi is concluding that he is all but a clone of his illustrious predecessor as regards the broad contours of the US’s global strategy – of which containment of China is a core template.
The comfort level is palpably rising in Delhi with regard to the Obama presidency. Delhi takes the surge of the Israeli lobby in Washington as the litmus test for the Obama presidency. The surge suits Delhi, since the Jewish lobby was always a helpful ally in cultivating influence in the US Congress, media and the rabble-rousing think-tankers as well as successive administrations. And all this is happening at a time when the India-Israel security relationship is gaining greater momentum.
United States Defense Secretary Robert Gates is due to visit Delhi in the coming days. The Obama administration is reportedly adopting an increasingly accommodative attitude toward India’s longstanding quest for “dual-use” technology from the US. If so, a massive avenue of military cooperation is about to open between the two countries, which will make India a serious challenger to China’s growing military prowess. It is a win-win situation as the great Indian arms bazaar offers highly lucrative business for American companies.
Clearly, a cozy three-way US-Israel-India alliance provides the underpinning for all the maneuvering that is going on. It will have significance for the security of the Indian Ocean, the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Peninsula. Last year, India formalized a naval presence in Oman.
All-in-all, terrorism experts are counting the trees and missing the wood when they analyze the US foray into Yemen in the limited terms of hunting down al-Qaeda. The hard reality is that Obama, whose main plank used to be “change”, has careened away and increasingly defaults to the global strategies of the Bush era. The freshness of the Obama magic is dissipating. Traces of the “revisionism” in his foreign policy orientation are beginning to surface. We can see them already with regard to Iran, Afghanistan, the Middle East and the Israel-Palestine problem, Central Asia and towards China and Russia.
Arguably, this sort of “return of the native” by Obama was inevitable. For one thing, he is but a creature of his circumstances. As someone put it brilliantly, Obama’s presidency is like driving a train rather than a car: a train cannot be “steered”, the driver can at best set its speed, but ultimately, it must run on its tracks.
Besides, history has no instances of a declining world power meekly accepting its destiny and walking into the sunset. The US cannot give up on its global dominance without putting up a real fight. And the reality of all such momentous struggles is that they cannot be fought piece-meal. You cannot fight China without occupying Yemen.
The inauguration of the Dauletabad-Sarakhs-Khangiran pipeline on Wednesday connecting Iran’s northern Caspian region with Turkmenistan’s vast gas field may go unnoticed amid the Western media cacophony that it is “apocalypse now” for the Islamic regime in Tehran.
The event sends strong messages for regional security. Within the space of three weeks, Turkmenistan has committed its entire gas exports to China, Russia and Iran. It has no urgent need of the pipelines that the United States and the European Union have been advancing. Are we hearing the faint notes of a Russia-China-Iran symphony?
The 182-kilometer Turkmen-Iranian pipeline starts modestly with the pumping of 8 billion cubic meters (bcm) of Turkmen gas. But its annual capacity is 20bcm, and that would meet the energy requirements of Iran’s Caspian region and enable Tehran to free its own gas production in the southern fields for export. The mutual interest is perfect: Ashgabat gets an assured market next door; northern Iran can consume without fear of winter shortages; Tehran can generate more surplus for exports; Turkmenistan can seek transportation routes to the world market via Iran; and Iran can aspire to take advantage of its excellent geographical location as a hub for the Turkmen exports.
We are witnessing a new pattern of energy cooperation at the regional level that dispenses with Big Oil. Russia traditionally takes the lead. China and Iran follow the example. Russia, Iran and Turkmenistan hold respectively the world’s largest, second-largest and fourth-largest gas reserves. And China will be consumer par excellence in this century. The matter is of profound consequence to the US global strategy.
Lord Christopher Monckton warns that the secretive draft version of the Copenhagen climate change treaty represents a global government power grab on an “unimaginable scale,” and mandates the creation of 700 new bureaucracies as well as a colossal raft of new taxes including 2 percent levies on both GDP and every international financial transaction.
Speaking with The Alex Jones Show, Monckton, who is in Copenhagen attending the UN climate summit, said that when he attempted to obtain a copy of the current draft of the negotiating text agreement, he was initially rebuffed before he threatened an international diplomatic incident unless the document was forthcoming.
“I insisted and it took about 10 minutes and they consulted each other with three or four of them arguing over it – none of them would produce the document….I said I know this treaty exists because this is what the conference is all about,” said Monckton.
Only after Monckton threatened repercussions was he handed the the current draft of the treaty, and the details it contained are perhaps a clue as to why the UN officials were so keen to keep it under wraps.
“Once again they are desperately trying to conceal from everybody here the magnitude of what they’re attempting to do – they really are attempting to set up a world government,” said Monckton, adding that the word “government” was no longer used but the process of further centralization of power into global hands was clearly spelled out in the treaty.
Monckton said that the new world government outlined in the treaty would be handed powers to, “Tax the American economy to the extent of 2 percent GDP, to impose a further tax of 2 percent on every financial transaction….and to close down effectively the economies of the west, transfer your jobs to third world countries – all of that is still in the treaty draft.”
As the leaked document out of Copenhagen reported on by the London Guardian revealed yesterday, this massive new system of global taxation will be paid not to the UN, but directly into the coffers of the World Bank.
“The draft hands effective control of climate change finance to the World Bank; would abandon the Kyoto protocol – the only legally binding treaty that the world has on emissions reductions; and would make any money to help poor countries adapt to climate change dependent on them taking a range of actions,” reported the Guardian.
Monckton illustrated the size of the new taxes being proposed by noting they amounted to at least half of the entire US defense budget.
“This is how they are going to fund this vast new government they’re setting up,” said Monckton, adding that he counted around 700 new bureaucracies that would be created as a result of the treaty, which would be bankrolled by taxpayers even outside of the raft of new taxes the treaty would create.
Monckton outlined how the new taxes would be enforced, stating, “They’re going to auction allowances to emit greenhouse gases and if you don’t buy an allowance to emit greenhouse gases, you won’t be allowed to emit them,” adding that the text contained a provision for a “uniform global levy of $2 dollars per ton of CO2 for all fossil fuel emissions,” as well as an additional tax on every commercial plane journey, except ones that go in or out of poorer countries.
There would also be a “global levy on international monetary transactions – that means every transfer of money across borders will be taxed,” said Monckton, adding that this would be on top of the GDP tax.
Lord Monckton: Obama may sign a “Copenhagen Agreement” instead of Treaty
In a brief video released on the Internet, Lord Christopher Monkton is seen giving a speech today in Copenhagen warning that President Obama will try to use his Executive Authority to sign an agreement, rather than a treaty, to commit the United States to undertake measures against climate change that will seriously damage the freedoms and prosperity of America.
Monkton states, “President Obama is going to come here (Copenhagen) and sign the Copenhagen Agreement.” He says it’s no longer being called a treaty specifically because US Senators “know they can’t get a treaty through the US Senate.” Monkton continues explaining, “so, President Obama is going to sign this agreement by his executive authority and he will then put it through both houses of Congress by a vote of simple majority.”
Monkton states that this executive agreement will stand “with almost the same force as a treaty” under the US Constitution. The one large difference, Monkton however notes, is that an Executive Agreement can be repealed by a following president, but a treaty cannot be repealed. Therefore, The British Lord and science adviser to former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher noted, “one power that President Obama does not have is to commit the United States unilaterally to measures of a scale and horror envisaged in this treaty or agreement…”
The recent “climategate” revelations provided the basis for especially condemning closing comments from the internationally famous climate sceptic and campaigner against climate hysteria.
Monkton emphasized, “there is no longer any basis whatsoever for saying that any action is required over the climate. We have seen now in the climategate that a couple of dozen bad and extremely malevolent and unpleasant scientists – this clique, this cabal, this conspiracy, because that is what it is, have tried to bend, fiddle and fudge the data, year after year and they’ve now been caught and exposed by the activities of one gallant whistleblower at this very moment when we now know that the climate fraud is the fraud that we all expected it to be.”
Monckton concluded with a warning that the president, “either unaware or aware and uncaring wishes to sign” American “freedom and prosperity away.”
The EPA declares itself the regulator of CO2 emissions, allowing itself to cut CO2 emissions without the approval of Congress, bypassing legislation that is currently stalled in the Senate.
Obama’s administration formally declared that CO2 is a dangerous pollutant and will “endanger the public health and welfare of the American people” empowering the EPA to regulate across the country under the law of the Clean Air Act that seeks emissions cut by roughly 17 percent by 2020.
The ruling was welcomed at the opening day of the talk in the Danish capital; “This is very significant in the sense that if…the Senate fails to adopt legislation (on emissions), then the administration will have the authority to regulate,” Yvo de Boer, head of the UN Climate Change Secretariat, told Reuters in Copenhagen.
But top congressional republican James Inhofe warned that EPA’s new “endangerment finding” will “lead to a wave of new regulations, new bureaucracy that will wreak havoc on the American economy and destroy millions of jobs and of course consumers to pay more for electricity and gasoline”. Many republicans are calling for the EPA to rebuke its claims that CO2 is a dangerous pollutant.
Lisa Jackson, the EPA administrator said the move to declare CO2 a toxic pollutant “relied on decades of sound, peer-reviewed, extensively evaluated scientific data”. Jackson denied any manipulation was carried out by the ClimateGate scientists saying that there’s “nothing in the hacked emails that undermines the science upon which this decision is based”.
President Barack Obama and Al Gore will be attending the Copenhagen conference late next week to further push the illusion that CO2 is a toxic gas. On the same day of the EPA’s announcement, Al Gore visited the White House.
The Copenhagen globalists including the EPA base their entire argument on the back of the UNIPCC’s CRU scientists which are involved in one of the greatest scandals in modern science, ClimateGate which consists of; Manipulation, Deception, Suppression of Evidence, including having AGW-skeptics fired and removed from the peer-reviewed process and of course breaking FOIA requests by deleting emails and urging other scientists to do so as well. [Source]
With that in mind, EPA’s decision to call CO2 a dangerous pollutant falls flat on its face. The entire Copenhagen summit is all about creating another bubble by the same crooks that gave us the dot-com bubble and the subprime mortgage crisis; Enron and Goldman Sachs.
From a massive cap-and-trade derivatives scheme, to a global carbon tax, this is all about plummeting what’s left of the U.S. economy and shutting down life on the planet by reducing CO2 in the atmosphere.
WITHOUT CO2 THERE IS NO LIFE!
“CO2 is not a pollutant. In simple terms, CO2 is plant food,” notes John R. Christy, professor of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Alabama. “The green world we see around us would disappear if not for atmospheric CO2. These plants largely evolved at a time when the atmospheric CO2 concentration was many times what it is today. Indeed, numerous studies indicate the present biosphere is being invigorated by the human-induced rise of CO2. In and of itself, therefore, the increasing concentration of CO2 does not pose a toxic risk to the planet.”
In fact, as S. Fred Singer, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia has noted, an increase in CO2 would raise GNP and therefore average income. “It’s axiomatic that bureaucracies always want to expand their scope of operations. This is especially true of EPA, which is primarily a regulatory agency,” writes Singer.
The EPA is may soon be tasked with regulating life in the United States at the behest of a coterie of globalists who are keen to limit economic and industrial activity and check the growth of the herd which they despise and want to scale back to 500 million, as they have proudly announced on the Georgia Guidestones. [Source]
Fox News Analysis: ClimateGate, EPA Ruling, Copenhagen
Exxon, the largest oil company in the world has stated that it prefers a carbon tax to a cap and trade system–again–this time, specifically in Australia. This comes on the heels of news last week that Australia’s parliament rejected a cap and trade system for curbing emissions–there won’t be another vote on the bill for at least 3 months (Aussies voted ‘no’ again!). So what’s behind Exxon’s vocal pro-carbon tax stance?
“A carbon tax is more transparent to consumers, will achieve greater environmental benefits and is more difficult to manipulate than a cap-and-trade program,” John Dashwood, chairman of Exxon’s Australian unit, said in speech notes e- mailed ahead of an address today in Melbourne.
A little puzzling is the fact that Australia’s proposed carbon cap featured relatively low emission reduction targets–as low as 5% reduction from 2000 levels by 2020. Hardly a demanding commitment, at least in the short term (this is why many members of Australia’s own Green party voted against the cap and trade themselves–it wasn’t strict enough).
Nonetheless, some economists, along with experts like James Hansen and Al Gore, prefer the carbon tax option. Throw in Exxon Mobil, and you’ve got yourself an eclectic band of misfits. Economists (and presumably Exxon) argue that the tax is a more efficient and inexpensive way to curb carbon. From Bloomberg:
Imposing a global carbon tax would ease pressure on the climate more cheaply than emissions trading, according to a study released last week by Danish professor Bjoern Lomborg. A $0.50 tax for each ton of emissions may generate $1.51 in avoided climate damage, compared with costs as high as $68 per ton, resulting in 2 cents of avoided damage, under some emissions-mitigations models, the study said.
Another possible reason for Exxon’s sudden support could be good old fashioned political gamesmanship–the idea of a carbon tax is potentially extremely unpopular (as is anything that includes the word “tax” in its moniker). If the company has reason to believe a carbon tax is very unlikely to actually pass Australian parliament, it can voice support for it and appear environmentally inclined without having to make any actual adjustments. However, Exxon makes for a powerful voice of support, and having the oil giant in favor could draw other businesses’, politicians’, and citizen support for a carbon tax, which could eventually create stricter regulations on the oil giant than a cap would.
Oil Companies Support Global Warming Hoax, Not Skeptics
A common charge leveled against global warming skeptics is that they are on the payroll of transnational oil companies, when in fact the opposite is true, oil companies are amongst the biggest promoters of climate change propaganda, emphasized recently by Exxon Mobil’s call for a global carbon tax.
According to Exxon Mobil chief executive Rex Tillerson, the cap and trade nightmare being primed for passage in the Senate doesn’t go far enough – Tillerson wants a direct tax on carbon dioxide emissions, essentially a tax on breathing since we all exhale this life-giving gas.
In a speech last month, Tillerson brazenly called out the cap and trade agenda for what it was, an effort to impose a carbon tax camouflaged only by a slick sales pitch and deceptive rhetoric.
“It is easier and more politically expedient to support a cap-and-trade approach, because the public will never figure out where it is hitting them,” said Tillerson. “They will just know they hurt somewhere in their pocketbook,” he added, pointing out that he disagreed with this convoluted method of introducing a carbon tax, arguing instead that it would be more successful to openly propose a straight carbon tax.
Tillerson firmly expressed Exxon’s support for climate change alarmists in stating, “I firmly believe it is not too late for Congress to consider a carbon tax as the better policy approach for addressing the risks of climate change.”
Exxon’s push for a carbon tax was restated last week by its vice president for public affairs Ken Cohen, who told a conference call that he wants a climate policy that creates “certainty and predictability, which is why we advocate a carbon tax.”
Exxon Mobil and their ilk are not concerned about a carbon tax eating into their profits because they know they won’t have to pay it – the tab will be picked up by the ignorant taxpayer at the fuel pump at an inflated cost which if anything will hand the transnational oil cartels an even bigger cut.
Ideologically, Al Gore and Exxon Mobil are on exactly the same page – the only difference between the oil companies and global warming alarmists is the squabble over who will get to sink their teeth into the taxpayer and reap the dividends of the climate change scam.
The apparent bottom line in a paper published in the South African Journal of Science is that South Africa’s gold industry is on final deathwatch, despite claims of massive existing below-ground reserves. Chris Hartnady, research and technical director of Cape Town earth sciences consultancy Umvoto Africa, has found that South Africa’s Witwatersrand goldfields are around 95% exhausted, and anticipates that production rates should fall permanently below 100 tonnes a year within the coming decade.
Gold production from the Witwatersrand, the biggest known gold field in the world, peaked at around 1,000 tonnes in 1970 and has declined ever since. Hartnady says that while initially (1970-1975) the decline was “quite precipitous”, it has been interrupted by only short periods of slight trend reversal (1982-1984 and 1992-1993).
Leon Esterhuizen, a London-based specialist analyst at RBC Capital Markets, has reacted to the research by saying that “South African gold is dying — this is not new news”, but adds “that it may be dying faster than we currently believe is novel”. On the levels of reserves, Hartnady finds that the South African “residual gold reserve” after production through 2007 is only 2 948 tonnes, a little less than three times the 1970 production figure, and much less than 10% of the officially cited reserve
The country’s gold reserves are less than half of the current United States Geological Survey (USGS) estimate of 6 000 tonnes, and the country is not first, but fourth in world rankings, after Australia (5,000 tonnes), Peru (3,500 tonnes) and Russia (3,000 tonnes), Hartnady’s research shows. The USGS currently cites South Africa’s gold reserves at around 6,000 tonnes, while SA claims a 36,000 tonnes reserve base figure (or about 40% of the global total). Hartnady’s findings are based on Chamber of Mines figures and mathematical modeling pioneered by the distinguished American geologist M. King Hubbert.
Esterhuizen comments that “most recent indications from Harmony (even with gold bullion at new dollar records over USD 1,133/oz) is that its old shafts – effectively the Free State gold field – are dying. DRDGold has got Blyvooruitzicht on life support and is trying to get permission to keep the plug in for a little bit longer (with everything around Blyvooruitzicht now having been shut down), while Pamodzi Gold’s demise and Simmer & Jack’s failure at Buffelsfontein just proves the point — all of this, at record gold prices in rand terms”.
Pastor Lindsey Williams, an insider of the elite who predicted accurately that oil prices would fall to $50 a barrel appeared on the Alex Jones show recently. He said he was told by the financial elite that the U.S. dollar will completely collapse in 2012 and that after 2 years “you will be so poor that you will not be able to rebel”. “In their timeline, inflation will escalate over a period of 2 years,” “gold and silver are all you can rely on! The elite don’t use paper, they laugh at it, it means nothing to them, gold and silver is their currency, and gold and silver will continue to escalate rapidly”.
According to Lindsey he is also worried that within 2 years you won’t even recognize America anymore; “within 2 years you will not recognize the united states of America,” that ” in 2 years everyone will be working for the federal government”. He said it will get so bad that banks all around the world will collapses leaving only 9 major banks in place.; “did you know that they want to narrow it down to 9 major banks?”.
He said after the collapse, the United States will start another major war that will eclipse the Iraq war; “I’m still shaking, I’m am appalled, he said ‘war is planned after 2 years’, folks, they plan these things!” “they have war planned in 2012 or somewhere along in that area and he even told me where it was going to start, how it was going to happen, what would happen”. “It will begin in the middle east, it will spread to the entire world” “Folks, if you have not risen up and rebelled against the tyrants within 2 years… our republic is gone”.
Gold prices clawed back above $1,060 an ounce Wednesday as oil rallied and the euro rose above $1.50 for the first time in 14 months.
The metal continued to take heart from a steadily falling dollar. Investors were turning to gold as the depreciation of global currencies threatened the value of paper assets.
Weak physical demand among jewelers and exchange-traded funds has put gold at the mercy of the currency markets, traders said.
Spot gold was at $1,062.70 an ounce at 3:07 p.m. EDT compared with $1,054.00 late Tuesday in New York.
U.S. December gold futures settled up $4.80 at $1,063.40 an ounce on the COMEX division of the New York Mercantile Exchange.
Prices have been tracking the euro-dollar exchange rate, with gold reaching record highs of $1,070.40 last week as the dollar hit its lowest level in over a year versus the single currency.
“Gold does not seem to have a mind of its own,” said Afshin Nabavi, head of trading at MKS Finance in Geneva. “It all depends on the euro.”
The dollar touched a one-month low against sterling and the euro broke above $1.50 as expectations for low U.S. interest rates weighed on the greenback.
Oil jumped more than 3 percent toward $82 a barrel on Wednesday, its highest level in a year, due to a drawdown in U.S. refined oil inventories and as a rise in U.S. equities which showed optimism about the economy and a potential rebound in energy demand.
However, physical demand for gold remained slow as high prices put off buyers. In India, the world’s biggest gold consumer last year, buyers stuck to the sidelines as demand linked to last week’s festival period petered out.
Among other precious metals, spot silver was at $17.75 an ounce against $17.45.
After the Independent reported that Middle Eastern oil producers, plus China, Japan and France have all agreed to start trading oil using a basket of currencies – instead of the dollar – starting in 9 years, spokesmen for those governments denied it.
The Independent’s reporter explained why the governments were denying the rumor.
But now the governments themselves are starting to admit that they are switching out of the dollar.
For example, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said Wednesday that Russia is ready to consider using the Russian and Chinese national currencies instead of the dollar in bilateral oil and gas dealings. As Russia’s newspaper RIA Novosti writes:
Russia is ready to consider using the Russian and Chinese national currencies instead of the dollar in bilateral oil and gas dealings, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said on Wednesday.
The premier, currently on a visit to Beijing, said a final decision on the issue can only be made after a thorough expert analysis.
“Yesterday, energy companies, in particular Gazprom, raised the question of using the national currency. We are ready to examine the possibility of selling energy resources for rubles, but our Chinese partners need rubles for that. We are also ready to sell for yuans,” Putin said.
And Iran’s Press TV reports that Iran wants to completely drop the dollar from its foreign exchange:
Since October 2007, Iran has received 85 percent of its oil revenues in currencies other than the US dollar and Tehran is determined to find a substitute for the US dollar for the rest of its 15 percent of oil revenues, the report added.
This story is confirmed by the Tehran Times, which notes:
As I have repeatedly noted, many countries have been moving out of the dollar for years. The process is simply accelerating.
In line with this plan, Iran has informed Japan that it should use the yen instead of dollars to pay for the oil it buys from the Islamic Republic.
In addition, Iran has decided to open a bourse for oil and gas transactions in currencies other than the U.S. dollar, especially the euro.
Leftist Latin American leaders have agreed on using a new intra- regional trading currency, dubbed as Sucre, instead of the US dollar.
Bolivian President Evo Morales, who hosted leaders of the Bolivarian Alternative for Latin America and the Caribbean (ALBA), said that the “document is approved.”
During the seventh ALBA summit, the leaders agreed on the currency reform as well as approving plans to impose economic sanctions against the coup leaders in Honduras, AFP reported.
The currency, Sucre, is named after Jose Antonio de Sucre who fought for Spain’s independence alongside Venezuelan hero Simon Bolivar in the early 19th century.
Sucre is scheduled to be rolled out in 2010 in a non-paper form.
The nine members of ALBA, conceived by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, are Cuba, Dominica, Venezuela, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Honduras, Saint Vincent and Antigua, Bolivia and Barbuda.
The bloc also agreed to replace the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes, which is in charge of arbitrating international disputes and has probed a large number of contract disputes between Western energy firms and members of ALBA.
ALBA, which has already lost many of its members, including Ecuador, is echoing the moves of the European Union and its introduction of euro.
World Bank and IMF Join Global Attack on U.S. Dollar
In an interview with Bloomberg’s Jim Efstathiou Jr., Barack Obama’s energy adviser, Jason Grumet, said if elected Obama will classify carbon dioxide as a dangerous pollutant. Obama will tell the Environmental Protection Agency that it may use the 1990 Clean Air Act to set emissions limits, according to Grumet, and he will likely do this immediately upon taking office, David Bookbinder, chief climate counsel for the Sierra Club told Bloomberg.
“The U.S. has to move quickly domestically so we can get back in the game internationally,” Grumet said. In other words, an Obama administration would impose draconian carbon emission regulations on the American people and “help clear the deadlock in talks on an international agreement to slow global warming,” according to Rajendra Pachauri, head of a United Nation panel of climate-change scientists. Negotiators from almost 200 countries will meet in December in Poznan, Poland, to discuss ways to limit CO2, that is to say they will work on a global carbon taxation structure.
A global carbon tax is not so much about limiting CO2 as it is a scheme designed to pay for world government and corporate globalization. “The Climate Change Control Bill strongly supported by Obama calls for an international governing regime to monitor and regulate carbon dioxide and ‘carbon footprints’ from discovery, to production, to consumption at a cost of $50 trillion globally and at a cost of $8 trillion for US taxpayers, all to be paid for by a global tax, whose monies will be used to establish a world government body,” writes Patrick Briley.
Obama has worked closely on this global taxation and world government scam under the cover of environmentalism with Zbigniew Brzezinski, Al Gore, and former communist leader Mikhail Gorbachev, an advocate of the so-called Earth Charter and the author of Manifesto for Earth. Brzezinski co-founded the Trilateral Commission with David Rockefeller in 1973. Rockefeller and fellow globalist Maurice Strong of Canada were instrumental in the creation of the Earth Charter. As noted above, the Sierra Club will play a decisive role in Obama’s administration. The organization takes money from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and is closely aligned with the United Nations Environmental Program. Strong was UNEP’s first executive director.
It is a well documented fact the environmental movement receives huge disbursements from chartered institutions such as the Rockefeller Foundation, Ford Foundation, W. Alton Jones Foundation, Turner Foundation, The Pew Charitable Trusts, the David and Lucille Packard Foundation, the Alfred W. Mellon Foundation, and others, including Bill and Melinda Gates, the Heinz family and the Carnegie Corporation. It is no mistake foundation funded environmental groups are now calling for a global carbon tax structure and an international governing regime to monitor and regulate carbon dioxide, as this serves the plan of their masters well.
An Obama administration will kick this scheme into warp drive and hasten the implementation of a world government of the sort members of the global elite have worked toward for many years. A phony environmental crisis, with carbon emissions playing the role as chief villain, is a perfect storm for the global elite. “We are on the verge of a global transformation,” David Rockefeller once quipped. “All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.”
France: Turmoil Must Not Affect Climate Change Bill
France and Germany urged smaller European Union economies not to use the world financial meltdown as an excuse to gut legislation that aims to combat global warming with deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.
French Environment Minister Jean-Louis Borloo said at an EU environment ministers’ meeting that “the European Union must keep its leadership role” in climate change to nudge the United States and others into a global deal on slashing emissions.
The bill, which aims to cut EU greenhouse gas emissions 20 percent by 2020, is to be adopted in December. The EU hopes it will lead to a deal that month at UN climate negotiations in Poznan, Poland.
“We cannot afford to delay,” German Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel said.
In last-minute objections, Italy said the bill would hurt its industries because Chinese and US competitors face no equivalent emission burdens. Italian officials pushed for a clause that would force the European Commission to do a new cost analysis of the climate change bill in 2009.
Poland, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia say they have already made great cuts in carbon emissions since emerging from communism.
Borloo said “there was a very strong willingness” to work toward a deal by December.” But, he added, “the financial markets crisis must not delay this. The EU must keep its leadership role or there will be no point in going to Poznan.”
The financial turmoil has triggered fears of a global recession that would make governments less eager to get major polluters such as energy generators, steel makers and cement producers to pay billions into a cap-and-trade emissions scheme.
The EU cap-and-trade program could impose up to 50 billion euros ($68.8 billion) a year in polluter fees.
EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas said critics exaggerated the costs.
“Approving the EU bill in December will be consistent with tackling the financial crisis,” because it will promote investments in clean energy, creating jobs and easing the EU’s dependence on oil imports, he said.
The European Commission estimates the cost of the climate change bill at 0.5 percent of the bloc’s gross national product by 2020.
Essential surveillance kit for the new green police: the Energy Saving Partnership has taken out a patent on Heatseekers, thermo-imaging vehicles which, at full potential, have the capacity to identify 1,000 properties an hour, or 5,000 properties a night, that are leaking carbon.
“Once the property has been scanned, a dedicated team of energy advisers will visit householders to show them the thermal image scan of their homes,” says Inspector Knock-on-the-Door.
Lindsey Williams Predicted Oil Will Be $50 a Barrel Insider of the Global Elite was told:“Price of crude oil is going down to $50 a barrel. . . gas will be $2 to $2.50 a gallon” (1st video @ 7:11). “The entire Arab world will be bankrupt” (2nd video @ 7:34) “. . . you are going to shout and dance on the street at $2 a gallon and mark my words within 3-4 weeks time you are going to shutter in your boots because the dollar is going to go to zero, they’ll have an excuse to bring in the North American Union, they will be able to issue a new currency . . .” (3rd video)
Oil prices fell to 17-month lows at $63 a barrel Monday in Asia as investors weighed Friday’s OPEC output cut against growing evidence of a severe global economic slowdown that would undermine crude demand.
Light, sweet crude for December delivery fell 32 cents to $63.83 a barrel in electronic trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange by midday in Singapore.
Investors brushed off a 1.5 million barrel-a-day cut announced by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries on Friday, focusing instead on falling crude demand as economies across the globe reel from the impact of a credit crisis.
On Friday, oil fell $3.69 to settle at $64.15. Prices have plunged 57 percent from a record $147.27 on July 11.
“The mood is fairly negative reflecting worry about the international economic outlook,” said David Moore, a commodity strategist at Commonwealth Bank of Australia in Sydney. “If there is further weak economic data in the U.S. or Europe, prices could come under more downward pressure.”
Iran’s OPEC governor Mohammad Ali Khatibi said Sunday a reduction in production “will be considered” at the group’s next meeting in Algiers in December — a meeting that might even be held early if necessary.
“I thought the OPEC cut was a fairly decisive act, but concerns of recession in the major economies remain dominant,” Moore said. “OPEC’s cut does take a step toward tightening the market.”
Why is gold dropping right now when anyone in their sane mind would expect it to rise? The simple answer to this question is, “because Comex-gold isn’t gold” – and because it deceptively pretends to be ‘the’ price-setter for real gold.
Gold is gold, paper is paper, and “Comex gold” is nothing but paper masquerading as gold while simultaneously pretending to be the price-setting medium for actual gold in the world. Now, finally, Comex-gold is in the process of being unmasked.
The real supply and demand determinants for Comex gold are not actual gold investors but fund managers . Fund managers are inextricably intertwined with the world of contract-based credit instruments. They use bet on Comex gold contracts to hedge their other (currently horrendously losing) bets with something they all, in their in-bred belief in paper markets, believe will ‘go up’ in value while everything else is going down.
However, these very same fund managers and their paper-bound investment psychology are the exclusive reason why Comex gold is dropping in these times when everyone (including fund managers) expects gold to rise. As already stated, though, and as they now finally realize to their own dismay, Comex-gold just isn’t gold – and that causes even further selling.
Two Losing Bets, Compounded
Fund managers’ other bets are losing money fast, now, so they need to raise cash to keep up the overall value of their respective funds, so they can earn their management bonuses and avoid getting booted for lack of relative performance. Guess what they cash in on? The very same Comex paper-gold they mistakenly bought as a ‘hedge’, of course.
Meanwhile, real investors in real gold are enjoying their shopping spree – except that the spree turned into a treasure hunt as the shelves and display cases of gold dealers look more and more like the supermarket shelves in the old Soviet Union – bare.
This is the only ‘bare-market’ in real gold the world will see for a long, long time to come.
With this split, this disconnect, between Comex illusion and gold reality, one thing or the other will have to give, and it won’t be physical gold that gives.
The system built up around the reputation of Comex-gold as being a price-setting mechanism for real gold plays right into the hands of the financial establishment. The establishment depends for its (now increasingly meager) existence on the illusion that gold “isn’t living up to its promise” as a real inflation and disaster hedge. The implication, of course, is that investors might as well stay in the computer blip and paper world.
As the Comex gold price illusion drops, many retail investors are still persuaded to keep their money circulating in the paper world, and that ultimately feeds the system. Of course, by now that ‘feeding’ mechanism looks more like life-support, but try and unhook someone who is on life-support. The results are dramatic, inevitable, immediate – and final.
Yet, even on life-support, the system is deteriorating at a catastrophic pace. It would be hilarious to watch if it wasn’t for the fact that we are all depending on this phony system for our real-life support. Without credit freely circulating through the commercial paper universe, for example, grocery stores won’t have food on their shelves, there won’t be gas a the gas station, and your bank will be shut. Cash doesn’t transfer very well without the bank settlement process.
China Blames Wall Street Meltdown On Fed Overissuance Of Currency
Paul Joseph Watson & Yihan Dai Prison Planet September 19, 2008
China’s state media today reports on the real reason behind the Wall Street meltdown and a subject that the mainstream US media dare not mention – the Federal Reserve’s overissuance of currency – which the Chinese say is part of a wider agenda to justify increased control over the global economy.
The Bush administration today announced a plan to use hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money to buy up up bad mortgages and other debts. The process of injecting more fiat money into an already over-inflated system had the desired effect – the Dow Jones shot up 450 points – but the dollar, following a brief jump, began to plummet.
According to numerous Chinese state media news sources today, the Federal Reserve’s continued zeal for propping up the market by injecting illusory liquidity is part of an agenda to gain trust and grease the skids for increased government intervention in financial markets.
China Finance , China News and Chaobao Financial News, all state owned media outlets, slammed the Fed for taking action that will only make long term economic conditions worse and devalue the dollar by “creating money that does not exist which leads to the inflation of liquidity,” a policy contrary to China’s position as a holder of vast reserves of US dollars.
The analyst quoted by Chaobao Financial News highlighted “that when there is market failure, the paramount purpose of government intervention should be saving the market for the benefit of the people: Relief, Recovery and then Reform,” and that “Protecting the rights of people who are suffering in the housing market and as a result of high oil prices should be treated as a priority.”
The analyst added that by concentrating on saving just a few large financial companies, the Fed is creating wider financial chaos while arousing anger and suspicion by “only protecting and encouraging large companies’ wrong doing.”
CEIBS Professor of Economics and Finance Xu Xiaonian told a conference yesterday that “The fundamental source of Wall Street’s meltdown is caused by Federal Reserve overissuing currency.” He cautioned that the US government has already exceeded its scope in terms of intervention compared with their usual policy.
Similar sentiments were echoed by economist Zuo Xiaolie, who said that the amount of money injected into the market will have little real impact, but that such measures are a “Narrow minded way that the Federal Reserve uses to diversify the pressure of currency adjustment to other countries, which leads to the devaluation of the dollar, causing imbalance in the global economy.”
“The amount of money that has been put into the market can not fundamentally save the market,” said Xiaolie, adding that the move was merely part of an agenda to “regain the trust and justify future further intervention in the economy.”
On Wednesday, China’s official People’s Daily newspaper, the voice of the ruling Communist party, said that the US had unleashed economic “weapons of mass destruction” and set off a “financial tsunami” by allowing Wall Street lenders to trade in subprime debts and unstable financial derivatives, according to a Press TV report.
China has previously threatened to liquidate its vast holding of US treasuries, amounting to $1.33 trillion, if Washington imposes trade sanctions to force a yuan revaluation. The Communist power has also repeatedly expressed its anger at the Fed’s indifference to the weakening dollar. If China were to dump the dollar it would likely set in motion a chain of events that would lead to a collapse of the greenback.
We know we are in trouble when the Chinese Communist Party sound like bastions of sound money policy and fiscal conservatism in comparison to the Bush administration and the Federal Reserve, who in creating more money out of thin air continue to bail out their friends on Wall Street while the economic future of hundreds of millions of American citizens is sold down the river.
China accuses U.S. of financial Weapons of Mass Destruction
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two largest mortgage finance companies, “don’t have any net worth,’’ billionaire investor Warren Buffett said.
“The game is over’’ as independent companies said Buffett, the 77-year-old chairman of Berkshire Hathaway Inc., in an interview on CNBC today. “They were able to borrow without any of the normal restraints. They had a blank check from the federal government.’’
Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae touched 20-year lows yesterday on the New York Stock Exchange on speculation a government bailout will leave the stocks worthless. U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson won approval from Congress last month to pump emergency capital into the companies, which account for more than half of the $12 trillion U.S. mortgage market.
Fannie and Freddie mispriced their products and “kept existing because they had the federal government behind them,’’ Buffett said. Omaha, Nebraska-based Berkshire had been among the largest holders of Freddie until about 2001, when it became apparent the company wasn’t being run well, he said.
The “official” debt of the United States is only around $10 trillion dollars as of August 6, 2008. This is a manageable number; we could pay it off in a few decades if we quit buying luxuries like food and clothing, and take a few other minor economy measures. Unfortunately, the “$10 trillion” number was produced by government accounting, which among other things allows one to ignore Social Security, Medicare, and the new prescription drug benefit. This is like ignoring rent, food, and utilities in your household budget… it will lead to a few bounced checks. Our real debt is about ten times higher.
Who says so? The President of the Dallas Federal Reserve, Richard W. Fisher. In a May speech at the Commonwealth Club of California, he states that the US national debt is close to $100 trillion. You can read his whole speech at the Federal Reserve web site.
The Real Debt
Here is what he said regarding the actual US debt:
“Add together the unfunded liabilities from Medicare and Social Security, and it comes to $99.2 trillion over the infinite horizon. Traditional Medicare composes about 69 percent, the new drug benefit roughly 17 percent and Social Security the remaining 14 percent.”
Interested readers will notice that the new prescription drug benefit is projected to be more fiscally crushing than all of Social Security.
Mr. Fisher points out that this $99.2 trillion will be a bit of a burden to pay off:
“Let’s say you and I and Bruce Ericson and every U.S. citizen who is alive today decided to fully address this unfunded liability through lump-sum payments from our own pocketbooks, so that all of us and all future generations could be secure in the knowledge that we and they would receive promised benefits in perpetuity. How much would we have to pay if we split the tab? Again, the math is painful. With a total population of 304 million, from infants to the elderly, the per-person payment to the federal treasury would come to $330,000. This comes to $1.3 million per family of four—over 25 times the average household’s income.”
You do have $1.3 million in your pocket, right? What, are you some kind of deadbeat?
Speaking of deadbeats, the “$99.2 trillion” estimate does not include the subprime bailout. So for those who like large round numbers, by the end of 2008 the real National Debt should be large, round, and about $100 trillion.
The former US national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, has called on the world community to isolate Russia in protest over its campaign in the Caucasus, likening its tactics to those of “Hitler or Stalin”.
Brzezinski, who was the national security adviser under President Jimmy Carter from 1977 to 1981, and is now an occasional adviser to the Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, said the Russian prime minister, Vladimir Putin, was “following a course that is horrifyingly similar to that taken by Stalin and Hitler in the 1930s”.
He said that Putin’s “justification” for splitting up Georgia – because of the Russian citizens living in South Ossetia – could be compared to when Hitler used the alleged suffering of ethnic Germans in the Sudetenland as a pretext for annexing Czechoslovakia in 1938.
In an interview with the conservative German daily Die Welt, he said even more striking were the parallels between Putin’s strategy against Georgia and Stalin’s invasion of Finland in 1939, describing both as “the undermining of the sovereignty of a small, democratic neighbouring state through the use of violence”. He added: “Georgia is to an extent the Finland of today, both morally and strategically.”
Polish-born Brezinski, 80, who earned a reputation as a hardliner due to his anti-Soviet politics, said the world was now being confronted with the question as to how it should react to Russia and what he saw as its efforts to “reincorporate old Soviet areas into the Kremlin’s sphere of control”. He said at the heart of the issue was access to oil and specifically who controlled the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline which runs through Georgia.
“If Georgia no longer has its sovereignty it means not only that the west is cut off from the Caspian Sea and Central Asia, but we can also assume that Putin will exercise a similar strategy against Ukraine if he faces resistance. He’s already publicly voiced threats against Ukraine.”
As revealed in a July article in the Atlanta Journal Constitution: “A large contingent of Georgia Army National Guard soldiers flew to the Republic of Georgia on Sunday for joint military exercises at a time when tension is brewing in the region”.
And you won’t hear it on the tv news, but Georgia started the war.
It is clear that the U.S. has been behind Georgia’s military adventures.
McCain
McCain’s top foreign affairs advisor was until very recently a high-level Georgian lobbyist , a neocon, and a key player in pushing fake intelligence and the Iraq war. He is a hawk who is very good at starting wars.
Obama’s top foreign policy advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, wrote in his book The Grand Chessboard, that the top priority for the U.S. was seizing control of Eurasia and its rich oil resources.
“Ever since the continents started interacting politically, some five hundred years ago, Eurasia has been the center of world power.”- (p. xiii)
“It is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America. The formulation of a comprehensive and integrated Eurasian geostrategy is therefore the purpose of this book.” (p. xiv)
“How America ‘manages’ Eurasia is critical. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world’s three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa’s subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world’s central continent. About 75 per cent of the world’s people live in Eurasia, and most of the world’s physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for about three-fourths of the world’s known energy resources.” (p.31)
It is clear that the US is following Brzezinski’s playbook for Eurasia.
Indeed, this is exactly what Mikhail Gorbachev was referring to when he wrote:
“By declaring the Caucasus, a region that is thousands of miles from the American continent, a sphere of its ‘national interest,’ the United States made a serious blunder.”
Bottom line: Both McCain and Obama’s top foreign policy advisors want a war. And, obviously, the other neocons and assorted hawks want one also. Indeed, the U.S. is now sending troops into Georgia under the pretense of giving “humanitarian aid”.this (which provides some insights, but may be over-the-top).
See also thisand this (which provides some insights, but may be over-the-top).
Brezezinski’s Georgia Puppets Attack Russia – World War Three In Sight
Clearly playing the role of the aggressor, the NATO puppet regime of Mikhail Saakashvili has carried out a midnight sneak attack against Russian peacekeepers in the province of South Ossetia. Those peacekeepers have been there for 15 years under an agreement with Georgia. Saakashvili is a protégé and creature of Zbigniew Brzezinski, the foreign policy boss of the Barack Obama presidential campaign. As is explained in my book Obama- The Postmodern Coup: The Making of a Manchurian Candidate, Saakashvili was brought to power in 2003-2004 by a people power coup or CIA color revolution, directed by the Brzezinski clan and financed by George Soros, one of Obama’s key financial backers. In a very real sense, it is the Obama campaign which has attacked Russia in South Ossetia.
Responding to this provocation, Russia has struck back powerfully, hurling the Georgian military into full retreat. The 3000% increase in Georgian military spending on US military hardware since 2004 has not had the desired effect. But the Georgians have killed a score of Russian troops and shot down several aircraft. Russia is blockading the Georgian Black Sea coast and has already sunk a Georgian warship. The US regime, the butchers of Iraq, are now whining that the Russian response is “disproportionate,” and that regime change is inadmissible! McCain responded by aggressive posturing against Russia scripted by Ian Brzezinski, as expected. At the Olympics, Bush had a heated exchange with Russian Prime Minister Putin over the Georgian aggression. Bush has dropped his plans to attack Iran and North Korea, and is now slavishly following Brzezinski’s orders by concentrating on provoking Russian and China.
Most interesting is the response of Brzezinski’s other puppet, Obama. The Messiah first intoned that it was necessary to show restraint, and stop the armed conflict. He talked then to NSC Director Hadley, Saakashvili, Rice, and unspecified foreign policy advisers – undoubtedly the Brzezinskis, Zbig and Mark. Notice Obama’s failure to talk with a single Russian leader – he failed to bring anybody together this time. Then Obama switched to a full warmonger line, identical to that of Bush: Obama now lied that Russia had invaded Georgian sovereignty and encroached on Georgian sovereignty. Obama’s spokesman, Ben Rhodes, added that Russia was responsible for the conflict. This goes to show that Obama is a ticket to World War III on the Brzezinski Plan, the crackpot design to break up Russia and China, securing another century for the Anglo-American world empire. Because Brzezinski’s strategic insanity unfolds on a scale more vast than that of the neocons, Obama is indeed a far bigger warmonger than Bush.
The United States is sending fresh supplies of weapons to Georgia from its base in the Jordanian port of Aqabah. That’s according to the Israeli newspaper – Maariv.
The paper says the US began flying weapons from the transport hub on Saturday.
According to Maariv, the US is hiring Russian-made freight planes belonging to UTI Worldwide Inc. to transport arms and ammunition to Georgia. The paper says the Pentagon is redirecting supplies to Tbilisi that were earmarked for Iraq.
The Aqabah terminal is used by the US to supply troops in Iraq. The American military relies on the hub mainly because it’s safer to use Aqabah than Iraq’s own ports in the Persian Gulf.
Georgia stocks a wide range of weapons from many sources. This is a strategic move in case Russia were to block off the channels through which it gets its military supplies.
Israel has provided Georgia with military assistance amid an ongoing armed conflict in the breakaway region of South Ossetia.
The Israeli web site Debkafiles which is believed to have close links with the regime’s intelligence and military sources, reported that last year, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili had commissioned from Israeli security firms up to 1,000 military advisers to train the country’s armed forces.
According to the report, the Israeli advisors also helped Tbilisi with military intelligence and security operations. Georgia also purchased weapons, intelligence and electronic warfare systems from Israel.
The report added the Israeli advisers were deeply involved in the Georgian army’s preparations to attack and capture the capital of South Ossetia on Friday.
The web site quoted “its military experts” as saying a project to pump Caspian oil and gas to the Turkish terminal of Ceyhan instead of the Russian pipeline network is in the interest of Tel Aviv.
The regime therefore has been negotiating with Turkey, Georgia, Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan to go ahead with the construction of pipelines to transfer oil to terminals in Ashkelon and Eilat.
The report added that Moscow had demanded Tel Aviv to halt its military assistance to Georgia and even warned the regime of a diplomatic row.
Israel, however, said that its military cooperation with Georgia had been “defensive.”
Georgia captured the capital of South Ossetia on Friday, triggering a response from Russia which has stationed its peacekeepers in the breakaway region since the 1990s conflicts.
Ties between the two former Soviet republics have been strained over several issues, including Georgia’s NATO membership bid.
Many experts say the military conflict between Georgia and South Ossetia is not in Russia’s interests. The Former Georgian Foreign Minister Salome Zurabishvili says the United States could be partly responsible for the violence in South Ossetia.
In an interview with the France-Presse news agency she commented on the possible reasons behind the military conflict.
“There are many Americans in Georgia training the military forces of the country and monitoring the situation. As I understand, they also supervise the strategic corridor – the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline.
Russian President Medvedev announced a halt to his country’s military operation in Georgia. But there are reports of continued bombings. And he said that Russian troops are still cleared to “eliminate” any enemy remaining in the contested region of South Ossetia.
The AP reports that “hours before the Russian announcement, Russian forces bombed the crossroads city of Gori and launched an offensive in the part of separatist Abkhazia still under Georgian control, sending in 135 military vehicles – including tanks – and tightening the assault on the beleaguered nation.” In Poti, a port city in western Georgia, a New York Times correspondent heard bombs falling around an hour after Mr. Medvedev’s statement.
Russian defense official Anatoly Nogovitsyn tells the Times that Russian military actions could continue. “If you receive the order to cease fire, this would not mean that we would stop all operations, including reconnaissance operations,” he said.
Russia Prepares for Naval Blockade of Georgia, Bombs Major Oil Supplier to the West
Ships are grouping in the Black Sea near the Georgian aquatic border. A unnamed naval source has said that the move is necessary to prevent arms deliveries to Georgia by sea. He added that the naval blockade of Georgia will help avoid escalation of military actions in Abkhazia. Radio station Echo of Moscow reports that several Georgian Internet publications have confirmed that the Russian Black Sea fleet is regrouping. Witnesses say that several Georgian military vessels attempted to approach the coast of Abkhazia. The Interfax correspondent in Sukhumi reports that the Georgian attempt was countered by the Russian Black Sea Fleet, which opened preventative fire. The Interfax information was confirmed by enforcement bodies in Abkhazia.
Apparently, after Georgian forces were repulsed from Tskhinvali, air connections with Georgian were broken and Georgian military activity was suppressed and Russia began economic suppression.
Georgia in the meantime is accusing Russia of attempting to blow up the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline. Georgian Minister of Economic Development Ekaterina Sharashidze stated that Russian Air Force planes attacked the pipeline, but missed their target. “That makes it clear that the targets of the Russian military were not only Georgian economic objects, but international objects on Georgian territory,” she said. Reports were received throughout the day that Russian military planes struck targets in Georgia, however, they were military, not economic.
The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline runs a total of 1768 km., of which 443 km. stretches through Azerbaijan, 249 km. through Georgia and 1076 km. through Turkey. Construction of the pipeline began in 2003 and it began to pump oil on May 18, 2005. About 1 million barrels of oil per year are pumped through the pipeline. Construction of the pipeline cost $4 billion, not counting the filling of the pipeline, financial servicing or interest costs. The shareholders in the pipeline are BP (30,1%), AzBTC (25%), Chevron (8,9%), StatoilHydro (8,71%), ТРАО (6,53%), ENI (5%), Total (5%), Itochu (3,4%), Inpex (2,5%), ConocoPhillips (2,5%) and Hess (2,36%).
Georgia resumes shelling of S. Ossetia, troops shooting refugees after call for peacetalks
Authorities in South Ossetia say Georgian troops have shelled the road being used for evacuating people from the conflict zone, according to Russian Interfax news agency. Attacks are continuing in the South Ossetian region, despite claims from Georgia that it was imposing a ceasefire.
There have been several explosions in the South Ossetian capital, Tskhinvali, after it came under a renewed shelling attack. Several Russian troops have been wounded.
It said that Russian forces have shot down a Georgian military plane in South Ossetia in the area around Eredvi.
Russian humanitarian aid has begun to arrive in the breakaway region’s capital.
Tskhinvali is back under peacekeepers’ control, as Russian troops disarm Georgians, who still remain in the city.
Moscow is sending more troops to South Ossetia. And military investigators have already started working in Tskhinvali to collect evidence of war crimes.
1600 civilians are thought to have died in South Ossetia. 15 Russian peacekeepers were killed with 70 others were wounded. Georgia claims 50 of its troops have been killed, and around 300 wounded.
Russian news agencies say the Defense Ministry is claiming to have sunk a Georgian missile boat that was trying to attack Russian navy ships in the Black Sea.
Russia’s Defense Ministry refused to comment on the Sunday reports to The Associated Press and Georgian officials could not immediately be reached.
If confirmed, the incident could mark a serious escalation of the fighting between Russia and Georgia over the separatist Georgian province of South Ossetia.
“Georgian missile patrol boats today made two attempts to attack Russian military ships. The Russian ships opened fire in response and as a result, one of the Georgian ships carrying out the attack was sunk,” the ITAR-Tass news agency quoted a ministry spokesman as saying.
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says the nation would be safe under a Barack Obama presidency and that she is ruling out a shot at the vice presidency under either Obama or Republican John McCain.
In an interview with Politico and Yahoo News released Thursday, Rice was asked if she would feel secure with a president Obama.
“Oh, the United States will be fine,” she responded. “I think that we are having an important debate about how we keep the country safe,” she said, pointing to the Middle East and Iraq.
Banks borrowed a record amount of funds from the Federal Reserve in the latest week as the year old credit crisis took a persistent toll, while the commercial paper market continued to contract, signaling tough conditions for short term borrowers.
Banks’ primary credit borrowings averaged $17.45 billion per day in the latest week, the second straight week this had hit a record and up from $16.38 billion the previous week, Fed data showed on Thursday.
Zimbabwe will drop 10 zeros from its hyper-inflated currency — turning 10 billion dollars into one — the country’s reserve bank said Wednesday. President Robert Mugabe threatened a state of emergency if businesses profiteer from the country’s economic and political unraveling.
Shop shelves are empty and there are chronic shortages of everything including medication, food, fuel, power and water. Eighty percent of the work force is unemployed and many who do have jobs don’t earn enough to pay for bus fare.