Insider trading in lead up to the Great Crash of 2008
Insider trading should be investigated concerning all the stock sales by CEOs and others during the lead-up to the Great Crash of 2008. Why the big sell-off right before the crash if it wasn't insider trading?
As always, the RLCC isn't looking to punish. We simply want everyone to come to the realization that the system is wrong, not simply that it needs a change in direction. It needs replacing.
The system built upon selfishness is inherently wrong and will never work. It hasn't worked. It has resulted in much more harm than good everywhere on the planet. In fact, leading people to believe that selfishness is the natural state of humanity is wrong and always damaging.
Commercial defaults on mortgages are going to send shock waves
Commercial defaults on mortgages are going to send shock waves throughout the global economy if the regulators don't speed way up to handle the situation.
Credit card defaults will shock too
With the lack of needed action, there is no way that any area of credit or finance is going to escape the waves in the economy that only started with the bolder of homeowner-mortgage interest-rate resets. We are seeing the waves circling the globe at alarming speed and washing over everything, leaving destruction and collapse.
Credit card companies and holders are just inline to be slammed by the waves.
America Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC): Illegally unregistered agent of a foreign government (Israel): Spy network
The America Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is an agent of Israel, a foreign government. It should be registered as such. It had spies working for it who were caught funneling secret documents from the Pentagon to Israel. AIPAC was let off by the Bush administration. The spies have avoided prosecution by insisting on a public trial airing all the secret documents. Courts though have a long history of cases involving top-secret documents the contents of which were not exposed during trial.
One of the spies has been hired by Daniel Pipes at the neocon so-called think tank "The Middle East Forum."
(Source: "Now I've Seen Everything: A spy goes to work for a thinktank," by Justin Raimondo. Antiwar.com. November 28, 2008.)
Dahr Jamail on Obama foreign-policy team throwbacks and retreads
As with Barack Obama's economic team, his foreign-policy team is made up of hawk throwbacks and retreads
On November 17, Obama promised on CBS News 60 Minutes to shut down the Guantanamo Bay concentration camp, while his advisers are simultaneously crafting a plan to create a brand new system of "Preventive Detention" and "National Security Courts." Preventive detention facilities do not give people the right to challenge their own detention, which is essentially what the Guantanamo Bay gulag has been all about - detaining people without charging them with a crime, and without trial. All we have at the moment is a suggestion of brand change, but nothing about policy change.
Obama promises to restore the moral stature of the United States. He has John Brennan and Jami Miscik, former intelligence officials under George Tenet, leading his review of intelligence agencies and making recommendations to the new administration. Brennan supported warrantless wiretapping and kidnapping (extraordinary rendition) and Miscik was involved with the politicized intelligence alleging WMDs in Iraq. They were both part of the team that provided the phony intelligence when Tenet informed Bush during the lead up to the Iraq invasion that the intelligence to support it was a "slam dunk." The incoming administration has also revealed that there will be no attempt to bring criminal charges against government officials who authorized or engaged in torture during the Bush presidency.
The new Defense team is being led by former Deputy Defense Secretary John P. White, who is the chair of the Kennedy School of Middle East Initiative at Harvard, and Michele Flournoy, president of the Center for a New American Security famed for the Iraq bombing and sanctions under President Bill Clinton.
On that note, let us note that Obama has already made it clear he refuses to "rule out" using mercenary companies in war zones, he has labeled Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a "terrorist organization," he plans to escalate the war in Afghanistan, and he has pledged to use unilateral force in Pakistan to defend US interests.
Obama's running mate, Joe Biden, despite having stated that his vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq was "mistaken," was an important facilitator of the war. He has also shamelessly championed the absurd idea of partitioning Iraq into three areas based primarily on ethnicity and religion (Balkanization).
Nor let us forgive the apparent selection of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. She was an ardent supporter of her husband's sanctions and bombing campaign against the people of Iraq throughout the 1990s, and she supported the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which helped lay the groundwork for George W. Bush's invasion in 2003. As a US Senator, Hillary Clinton said, "Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile-delivery capability and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaida members ... I want to insure that Saddam Hussein makes no mistake about our national unity and our support for the president's efforts to wage America's war against terrorists and weapons of mass destruction." [Hillary is a dangerous person to have as the Secretary of State.]
Other so-called liberal hawks either in or advising Obama's team include the likes of Madeleine Albright, a war criminal who, as Bill Clinton's US Ambassador to the United Nations, was asked on 60 Minutes if she thought the price of 500,000 Iraqi children killed by the sanctions was worth the price to contain Saddam Hussein and said she thought that the price was "worth it." [She has openly apologized for what calls the dumbest thing she ever said.]
The list is long, but I will just mention two more of note. Martin Indyk, the founder of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, spent years working for AIPAC [see: AIPAC spies above] and served as Clinton's ambassador to Israel and Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs, while also playing a major role in developing US policy toward Iraq and Iran. In addition to his work for the US government, he has worked for the Israeli government, and with the neo-conservative think-tank the Project for the New American Century - which devised the US blueprint for global domination.
The idea of Obama keeping Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense is equally disturbing. Let us remember, it is Gates who supports a new generation of nuclear weapons at a time when even George Shultz and Henry Kissinger are calling for nuclear abolition. Gates wants to apply his surge approach to Afghanistan, and while he has criticized the massive budget and influence of the Pentagon, when he had the chance to rectify both problems, he has refused to do so. For example, in his FY 2009 budget request - the last he will be officially responsible for - he added $36 billion, an increase former CENTCOM commander Anthony Zinni noted, "is roughly equivalent to the entire budget for International Affairs."
At the height of the Roman Empire, Rome had 39 foreign military outposts. The British had 38 at their peak. The US, in the twilight of her lust for empire, currently has just over 730 according to the Department of Defense.
(Source: "Learning to Lead," by Dahr Jamail. Dahr Jamail Dispatches. November 26, 2008.)
We've already coveredas White House Chief of Staff on this blog. He is deeply in bed with the AIPAC.
Russian Shkval torpedoes
I had written the following to a friend just a few days ago: "The Russians also have some incredibly advanced torpedoes that are highly secret. They have shared some of the technology with the Iranians."
Read this that includes the mentioning of Shkval torpedoes: "Iran would 'hit US warships' at war." Press TV. November 30, 2008.
Interesting timing isn't it.
India's Mumbai massacre
Why all the shootings in Mumbai? This would seem to fall right in the hands of the U.S. plan to do more attacking in Afghanistan and Pakistan. There is a planned surge in Afghanistan of some 20,000 U.S. troops. Obama has already said he would attack inside Pakistan at will regardless of Pakistan government opposition. Pakistan has nuclear weapons that the U.S. likely would like to take away from Pakistan. India no doubt would like that too. So, the timing of the attacks in Mumbai if done by Muslims, would appear to be incredibly stupid. It just gives India and the U.S. more reason to cooperate and to step up efforts against Pakistan. Therefore, one must not rule out the possibility that the attackers were not actually Mujahideen trained by elements of the Pakistani government known at the top of that government.
Before minds are made up, we should see more evidence. We need to see more evidence before ruling out U.S. instigation or incitement, etc., also.
Why would Pakistan train Muslims in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir to attack in India when the Pakistanis know it would only lead to more U.S. intervention in Pakistan and more U.S.-India cooperation? It makes no sense. The Pakistanis have been worried about the U.S. attacking inside Pakistan (at least publicly they claim to be against the attacks) and about U.S. nuclear deals with India. Why would Pakistan do the dumbest thing it could in the face of those issues? Maybe it's a price they have been forced to pay somehow.
We don't trust the leadership of any of the nations involved. U.S. clandestine operatives have been known to infiltrate groups to incite them to violence so that the U.S. could come to dominate the resulting fractured societies. The U.S. creates the pretext for bringing military action, etc. We can't know who the attackers were or are very well.
The U.S. is shown itself capable of erasing people's memories (de-patterning) and creating new, obedient killers. There is no doubt that the killers were drug-crazed and sociopathic.
Of course, the more that militant radical Muslims attack around the world, the more the U.S. will be financially bled.
(See: "'No regrets': Captured terrorist's account of Mumbai massacre reveals plan was to kill 5,000." Daily Mail. December 1, 2008.)
Ethnic and religious unrest in Nigeria: Hundreds die in Nigerian riots. Nigerian mosque receives 367 bodies (so far) after clashes.
As much focus is on the horrible events in Mumbai, Nigeria has also experienced a massacre. In a wave of savage butchery, Muslims and so-called Christians attacked each other's people and property, shooting and hacking hundreds of people to death and burning cars and buildings. Many victims were innocents. The violence and destruction was reportedly over election results between the ANPP (Muslim party) and the PDP (Christian party).
Nigeria is a large sub-Saharan country with huge oil reserves primarily in the "Christian" South. The country is split about 50/50 Muslim/Christian, North/South. The violence and destruction occurred in the center region ("Middle Belt") in a mini-clash of civilizations, if one can rightly call either civilized.
Such massacres have flared up before in Nigeria. Hundreds were killed in 2001 and again in 2004.
Nigeria is also the scene of many oil-platform hostage-takings, as the Black indigenous peoples struggle with White-owned, foreign oil corporations to share the wealth from Nigeria's oil.
The nation's leadership has been corrupted by oil money. It's why oil is often referred to as a curse, as in "the curse of oil."
Of course, carbon-fuel burning also pollutes the planet and results in greenhouse gas buildup leading to global warming.
(Reference: "Death toll in Nigeria rises, army restores calm," by Randy Fabi. Reuters. November 30, 2008.)
The planned Great Crash of 2008
It is amazing that few realize people created a huge bubble they burst, ruining people, and who had properly positioned themselves to be left sitting pretty in relative terms and will swoop in at the bottom of the market to buy up the economy at bargain-basement rates (on the money transferred to them from those who are not rich) consolidating the economy further into their fewer and fewer hands. Those are the plutocrats pulling the strings from behind the scenes. They are the monopolists at heart who are the reason anti-trust laws were passed.
It is amazing how so many people believe that this crash is just the result of incompetence rather than conspiracy.
Read: "Every Trick in the Book," (by Mike Whitney; Information Clearinghouse; November 29, 2008), which is a scathing attack on the system but without the tiniest sense that Mike knows just how evil, evil is.
It is very interesting and telling that the laissez-faire anarchists (the purest form of selfishness going) are the ones who really reveal most often that behind the Federal Reserve is also pure selfishness in the form of what those Libertarians call crony capitalism.
Why can't people without selfish hearts also see it? I am reminded of the saying, "It takes one to know one." However, I'm no Libertarian capitalist. Of course, how did Jesus know the demons to cast them out? How could he see the spiritually deaf and dumb spirits? How could those spirits hear him and obey while only those who hear the truth also hear his voice?
This is so convoluted and irrational for so many, but it doesn't trip me up. It's just the way it is. It's the truth.
All the public figures are simply front men for the plutocrats calling the real shots. Arguments are held in public and in private that are made public, but in the real meetings there is no such debate. There are only orders given and assignments made.
If the public gains too much clout, the superrich turn the media to turn the public against the public's own interest.
How can people be so blind to this obvious truth? How can they actually buy into the statements being made that the Greenspans and others were caught unaware by the Crash? Well, plausible deniability is such that only God can know who is and who is not ultimately a truly repentant former dupe of evil.
The Machiavellians love this. The neocons use it to the max. The truth though is that results show everyone who everyone else really is.
We will see whether Alan Greenspan really was surprised that the self-regulation he pushed didn't work. We will see it by the positions he takes for the rest of his life. He can't really hide behind plausible deniability for the rest of existence.
Rule of law and justice?
Forget revenge. Think rule of law and justice.
If there is any kind of God in the universe, then George W. Bush must go to prison. When he does, then and only then should God bless America.
(Source: "," by Joel S. Hirschhorn. American Chronicle. November 29, 2008.)
No, this is totally wrong. God wants repentance, Joel. What you should be calling for is George to repent and atone with every last bit of his being and with everything he can muster. God isn't going to bless America for putting George in prison. Yes, his crimes are huge; however, where will you draw the line when it comes to putting people in prison? Why do to George what he did to others? Everyone is taken in his iniquity who hasn't repented in earnest, unless he or she is just a babe.
Bill Kristol apparently loves torture
One last thing: Bush should consider pardoning-and should at least be vociferously praising-everyone who served in good faith in the war on terror, but whose deeds may now be susceptible to demagogic or politically inspired prosecution by some seeking to score political points. The lawyers can work out if such general or specific preemptive pardons are possible; it may be that the best Bush can or should do is to warn publicly against any such harassment or prosecution. But the idea is this: The CIA agents who waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and the NSA officials who listened in on phone calls from Pakistan, should not have to worry about legal bills or public defamation. In fact, Bush might want to give some of these public servants the Medal of Freedom at the same time he bestows the honor on Generals Petraeus and Odierno. They deserve it.
(Source: "Kristol Calls On Bush To Pardon Torturers And Wiretappers, Reward Them With Medal Of Freedom," by Faiz Shakir. Think Progress. November 29, 2008.)
Who served in good faith torturing people? No one served in good faith doing that. There isn't one person who was waterboarding who didn't know he was doing evil and breaking the law. The War on Terror is the spiritual war against Bill Kristol.
As far as I'm concerned, the vast majority of people aren't game to score political points. They just want to send a strong signal that torture and the other illegalities will not go unpunished.
Bush can issue preemptive pardons. Of course, if he can do that, he can pardon anyone for anything at any time into the future. He can pardon the unborn. It's ridiculous.
He can forgive everyone the same way that I can. However, that's spiritual. It will only work if he means it, which requires what he hasn't done that is repent. It does not take its authority from the U.S. Constitution as the highest law for that law is not higher than the New Commandment.
Bill Kristol is a Machiavellian. He's an unabashed neocon. He's Straussian. The Big Lie and Plato's so-called noble lie are fine with him.
Barack Obama's Birth Certificate
[UPDATE: There's a new link at the end of this section.]
I think it is heading in the right direction that there is an. However, is there a legal requirement that the number be blacked out? Well regardless, this won't satisfy everyone, nor should it have to on the mundane level, frankly.
There are pending suits regarding this matter, and the only right thing for Barack to do is to supply the court with a certified copy of his Birth Certificate with nothing blacked out. If he can't do that, something is really wrong and he should not be allowed to assume the office.
As for the debate about the meaning in the U.S. Constitution of "natural-born," if the mother is pregnant and a U.S. citizen and has the baby outside the U.S., what's the law? The Naturalization Act of 1795 says that to be "natural-born," one must be born in the United States. Barack Obama needs to have been born in the U.S. to be allowed to be President.
John McCain, for instance, was not born in the United States. He was born in Panama.
The Supreme Court has apparently dismissed several of the lawsuits concerning this issue on the grounds that U.S. citizens don't have legal standing to bring such a suit. However, every U.S. citizen has the legal standing to challenge whether or not someone seeking the Office of the President is a natural-born citizen. Otherwise, anyone could make the claim of being a natural-born citizen and no U.S. citizen or group of citizens could demand proof. Who has standing to enforce the U.S. Constitution if the people do not? The Supreme Court is corrupt.
This is the best thing I could find on the subject: "" Fact Check. August 21, 2008. Updated: November 1, 2008
It doesn't satisfy everyone though.
I'm satisfied in the mundane with the proviso that it needs to be verified in Hawaii by officers of the court. This issue needs to be put to rest. In fact, it would make perfect sense to me if Chief Justice Roberts would go personally to do just that with the blessing of the other justices. Perhaps he could take the most "liberal" associate justice with him. Otherwise, this issue will just continue adding to the poison.
Oh, the system is so wrong. It will never work.
Change They Can Litigate
The fringe movement to keep Barack Obama from becoming president.
By David Weigel
Posted Thursday, Dec. 4, 2008, at 4:25 PM ET
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)