The Tonka Report

Real News In A Changing World

Archive for February 2010

Why The Stimulus Plan Failed: Exposing The Keynesian Fiscal Myth

leave a comment »

February 17, 2010: Brian Reidl / National Review Online – September 7, 2009

Conservatives have correctly declared President Obama’s $787 billion “stimulus” a flop. In a January report, White House economists predicted the bill would create (not merely save) 3.3 million jobs. Since then, 2.8 million jobs have been lost, pushing unemployment toward 10 percent.

Yet few have explained correctly why the stimulus failed. By blaming the slow pace of stimulus spending (even though it’s ahead of schedule), many conservatives have accepted the premise that government spending stimulates the economy. Their thinking implies that we should have spent much more by now.

History proves otherwise. In 1939, after a doubling of federal spending failed to relieve the Great Depression, Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau said that “we have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. . . . After eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started . . . and an enormous debt to boot!” Japan made the same mistake in the 1990s (building the largest government debt in the industrial world), and the United States is making it today.

This repeated failure has nothing to do with the pace or type of spending. Rather, the problem is found in the oft-repeated Keynesian myth that deficit spending “injects new dollars into the economy,” thereby increasing demand and spurring economic growth. According to this theory, government spending adds money to the economy, taxes remove money, and the budget deficit represents net new dollars injected. Therefore, it scarcely matters how the dollars are spent. John Maynard Keynes famously asserted that a government program paying people to dig and then refill ditches would provide new income for those workers to spend and circulate through the economy, creating even more jobs and income. Today, lawmakers cling to estimates by Mark Zandi of Economy.com that on average, $1 in new deficit spending expands the economy by roughly $1.50.

If that were true, the record $1.6 trillion in deficit spending over the past fiscal year would have already overheated the economy. Yet despite this spending, which is equal to fully 9 percent of GDP, the economy is expected to shrink by at least 3 percent this fiscal year. If the spending constitutes an injection of “new money” into the economy, we may conclude that, without it, the economy would contract 12 percent — hardly a plausible claim.

If $1.6 trillion in deficit spending failed to slow the economy’s slide, there’s no reason to believe that adding $185 billion — the 2009 portion of the stimulus bill — will suddenly do the trick. But if budget deficits of nearly $2 trillion are insufficient stimulus, how much would be enough? $3 trillion? $4 trillion?

This is no longer a theoretical exercise. The idea that increased deficit spending can cure recessions has been tested, and it has failed. If growing the economy were as simple as expanding government spending and deficits, then Italy, France, and Germany would be the global economic kings. And there would be no reason to stop at $787 billion: Congress could guarantee unlimited prosperity by endlessly borrowing and spending trillions of dollars.

The simple reason government spending fails to end recessions is that Congress does not have a vault of money waiting to be distributed. Every dollar Congress “injects” into the economy must first be taxed or borrowed out of the economy. No new income, and therefore no new demand, is created. They are merely redistributed from one group of people to another. Congress cannot create new purchasing power out of thin air.

This is intuitively clear in the case of funding new spending with new taxes. Yet funding new spending with new borrowing is also pure redistribution, since the investors who lend Washington the money will have that much less to invest in the economy. The fact that borrowed funds (unlike taxes) must later be repaid by the government makes them no less of a zero-sum transfer today.

Even during recessions — when total production falls, leaving people with less income to spend — Congress cannot create new demand and income. Any government spending that increases production at factories and puts unemployed individuals to work will be financed by removing funds (and thus idling resources) elsewhere in the economy. This is true whether the unemployment rate is 5 percent or 50 percent.

For example, many lawmakers claim that every $1 billion in highway stimulus will create 47,576 new construction jobs. But Congress must first borrow that $1 billion out of the private economy, which will then lose a roughly equivalent number of jobs. As transportation-policy expert Ronald Utt has explained, “the only way that $1 billion of new highway spending can create 47,576 new jobs is if the $1 billion appears out of nowhere as if it were manna from heaven.” Removing water from one end of a swimming pool and dumping it in the other end will not raise the overall water level. Similarly, moving dollars from one part of the economy to the other will not expand the economy. Not even in the short run.

Consider a simpler example. Under normal circumstances, a family might put its $1,000 savings in a certificate of deposit at the local bank. The bank would then lend that $1,000 to the local hardware store. This would have the effect of recycling that spending around the town, supporting local jobs. Now suppose that, induced by an offer of higher interest rates, the family instead buys a $1,000 government bond that funds the stimulus bill. Washington spends that $1,000 in a different town, creating jobs there instead. The stimulus bill has changed only the location of the spending.

The mistaken view of fiscal stimulus persists because we can easily see the people put to work with government funds. We don’t see the jobs that would have been created elsewhere in the economy with those same dollars had they not been lent to Washington.

In his 1848 essay “What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen,” French economist Frédéric Bastiat termed this the “broken window” fallacy, in reference to a local myth that breaking windows would stimulate the economy by creating window-repair jobs. Today, the broken-window fallacy explains why thousands of new stimulus jobs are not improving the total employment picture.

Keynesian economists counter that redistribution can increase demand if the money is transferred from savers to spenders. Yet this “idle savings” theory assumes that savings fall out of the economy, which clearly is not the case. Nearly all individuals and businesses invest their savings or put it in banks (which in turn invest it or lend it out) — so the money is still being spent somewhere in the economy. Even in this recession, with tightened lending standards, banks are performing their traditional role of intermediating between those who have savings and those who need to borrow. They are not building extensive basement vaults to hoard cash.

Since the financial system transfers savings into investment spending, the only savings that drop out of the economy are those dollars literally hoarded in mattresses and safes — and there is no evidence that this is occurring en masse. And even if individuals, businesses, and banks did distrust the financial system enough to hoard their dollars, why would they suddenly lend them to the government to finance a stimulus bill?

Once the idle-savings theory collapses, so does all the intellectual support for government spending as stimulus. If there are no idle savings to acquire, then the government is merely borrowing purchasing power from one part of the economy and moving it into another part of the economy. Washington becomes nothing more than a pricey middleman, redistributing existing demand.

Even foreign borrowing is no free lunch. Before China can lend us dollars, it must acquire them from us. This requires either attracting American investment or raising the Chinese trade surplus (and the American trade deficit). The balance of payments between America and other nations must eventually net out to zero, which means government spending funded from foreign borrowing is zero-sum.

I’ve purposely ignored the Federal Reserve, which actually can inject cash into the economy, but not in a way that constitutes stimulus. Congress can deficit-spend; Treasury can finance the deficit spending by issuing bonds; and the Federal Reserve can buy those bonds by printing money. Any economic boost is then due to the Federal Reserve’s actions, not the deficit spending — and of course the Federal Reserve will have to raise interest rates, slowing the economy again, to bring the resulting inflation under control.

If government spending doesn’t cause economic growth, what does? Growth happens when more goods and services are produced, and the only true source of this is an expanding labor force combined with high productivity. High productivity in turn requires educated and motivated workers, advanced technology, adequate infrastructure, physical capital such as factories and tools, and the rule of law.

Government spending could boost long-run productivity through investments in education and infrastructure — but only if politicians could target those investments better than the private sector would. And it turns out that politicians cannot outsmart the marketplace. Mountains of academic studies show that government spending generally reduces long-term productivity.

Furthermore, most government programs that could increase productivity don’t work fast enough to counteract a recession. Education spending cannot raise productivity until its student beneficiaries graduate and enter the work force. It can take more than a decade to build new highways and bridges.

The only policy proven to increase productivity in the short term is to lower tax rates and reduce regulation. Businesses can grow only through consistent investment and an expanding, skilled workforce. Cutting marginal tax rates promotes these conditions, by creating incentives to work, save, and invest.

It’s happened before. In 1981, President Reagan inherited an economy stagnating under the weight of 70 percent marginal income-tax rates. Under Reagan, the top rate fell to 28 percent, and the subsequent surge in investment and labor supply created the strongest 25-year economic boom in American history.

Such tax-rate reductions are superior to tax rebates designed to “put money in people’s pockets.” Rebates — like government spending — simply redistribute existing dollars. They don’t increase productivity because they don’t change incentives: No one has to work, save, or invest more to get a tax rebate. The 2001 and 2008 rebates failed because Congress borrowed money from investors and foreigners and redistributed it to families. Not surprisingly, any new personal-consumption spending was matched by corresponding declines in investment spending and net exports, and the economy remained stagnant.

If conservatives wish to provide economic leadership, they must get this argument right. The stimulus is not failing because it is too small or because too much of it is being saved. It’s failing because Congress can only redistribute existing demand, not create new demand. This recession will eventually end. The more serious, long-term danger is that President Obama’s Europeanization of the economy will bring the same slow growth, stagnant wages, job losses, high taxes, and lack of competitiveness that have plagued Western Europe, leaving the United States at an ever-growing disadvantage with Asian countries not so afflicted.

To prevent this, conservatives and free marketeers will need to promote policies that support long-term prosperity. The first step will be articulating why big government does not bring economic growth.

The Tonka Report Editor’s Note: And to be sure, the current fiscal policy of the global bankers and the Federal Reserve is to bankrupt this nation… – SJH

Link to original article below…

http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=MTViNmZiZmQ4NmMxM2Y5NmEzNWIwYWRmNmNhMWJlY2I=

Another Tsunami Of Foreclosures Is Forecast By The End Of 2010

leave a comment »

February 17, 2010: Jim Puzzanghera and Don Lee / Los Angeles Times – February 16, 2010

Reporting from Washington – Experts fear that a new wave of foreclosures will hit this year as prolonged unemployment makes it difficult for millions of homeowners to pay their mortgages — and many of them aren’t likely to get much help from a federal program aimed at keeping them in their houses.

Banks participating in the Home Affordable Modification Program, announced a year ago this week by President Obama, have been slow to turn temporarily reduced mortgage payments into permanent ones. “The overarching sense is that the mortgage modification process has not worked that well,” said Bert Ely, an independent banking consultant.

Obama administration officials acknowledge that the $75-billion program, which offers banks cash incentives to reduce payments, has had growing pains, and they said they were considering revisions to make it more effective.

Still, the program is expected to show continued progress when data from January are released Wednesday after a strong push by Treasury Department officials to get banks to make more of the modifications permanent. For example, Bank of America Corp., the nation’s largest servicer of mortgages, said Tuesday that it had increased the number of permanent mortgage modifications to 12,700 last month from 3,200 in December. BofA said an additional 13,700 permanent modifications were in their final stage.

But that’s a drop in the bucket considering that BofA holds about 1 million mortgages that are at least 60 days delinquent. About 4 million homeowners nationwide are 90 days or more delinquent on their mortgages or in foreclosure proceedings, according to Moody’s Economy.com, which analyzes data from credit reporting company Equifax Inc.

Trial modifications and other delays have kept many of those mortgages out of foreclosure, but by the end of this year, 2.4 million borrowers are expected to lose their homes, said Celia Chen, a housing economist at Economy.com. That would be up from 2.1 million foreclosures and short sales last year and five times the annual numbers earlier in the decade.

It’s unclear when those distressed properties would hit the market, but their large numbers are likely to push home prices back down this year, to a bottom in the fourth quarter, Chen said. And that would make things worse for the 25% of homeowners who already owe more on their mortgages than their houses are worth. The biggest blows will be felt in California, Florida, Nevada and other states where home prices have dropped the most and the ranks of struggling homeowners have swelled.

As of December, 11.4% of California homeowners were 90 days or more late on their loans, according to First American CoreLogic, a Santa Ana real estate data firm. That compares with a delinquency rate of 8.4% nationwide.

Despite an increasing number of foreclosure-prevention efforts, lawmakers and community advocates say they haven’t seen enough improvement. “Outreach isn’t happening,” said Hyepin Im, president of Korean Churches for Community Development, a Los Angeles group that has sought to help hundreds of Asian American borrowers who are struggling to avert foreclosure.

At the outset, banks didn’t screen borrowers before giving them trial modifications, she said. “Then at the end they don’t give very clear answers why they’re not getting permanent modifications. . . . There’s very little transparency.”

A report last week by Moody’s Investors Service called the Obama administration modification program’s effect “underwhelming.” But administration officials said the program was on track to reduce payments for 3 million to 4 million homeowners through 2012. As of Dec. 31, the program had helped get 787,231 home loans modified for three months and had helped make an additional 66,465 modifications permanent.

Officials noted that not all homeowners are eligible — the program is only for owner-occupied homes, and excludes a variety of mortgages, including jumbo loans. And the administration continues to make changes, including a requirement added last month that homeowners document their income before a trial modification is granted.

But the program continues to draw criticism. Banks have complained they’ve had trouble getting homeowners to provide the necessary documents. Frustrated homeowners have complained of bureaucratic runarounds from their servicers. Federal watchdog agencies have criticized the program. And last month the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee announced an investigation.

The Tonka Report Editor’s Note: And here is why the banks are not helping homeowners. What a freakin’ scam! Watch the video at the link below… - SJH

http://www.thinkbigworksmall.com/mypage/player/tbws/23088/1472743

Link to original article below…

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-mortgage-mods17-2010feb17,0,7573498.story

Three Huge Corporations Leave The US Climate Action Partnership

leave a comment »

February 17, 2010: Judson Berger / FOX News – February 16, 2010

The sudden pullout of three corporate giants from a leading alliance of businesses and environmental groups could be the death knell for climate change legislation languishing on Capitol Hill…

ConocoPhillips, BP America and Caterpillar announced Tuesday they will pull out of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, citing complaints that the bills now in Congress are unfair to American industry. BP spokesman Ronnie Chappell said Tuesday’s announcements are not a statement on the likelihood that climate change legislation will fail. “I would never speculate as to what would happen with a pending piece of legislation,” Chappell said. But he said the bills on the table no longer “conform” with what USCAP envisioned for a climate change bill. He said the legislation — including one bill that passed the House but is stalled in the Senate — does not provide adequate protections to U.S. refineries. If any bills are passed, they will result in more oil imports, the closure of U.S. refineries and the loss of U.S. jobs. Plus he said it’s too hard on the transportation sector. 

“We do not believe that the bills now pending in Congress conform to the USCAP blueprint, in that a disproportionate share of the emissions reductions and disproportionate share of the cost fall on the transportation sector and on transportation consumers and motorists,” he said. Both BP America and Caterpillar were founding members of the group.

ConocoPhillips CEO Jim Mulva also said in a statement that the House and Senate bills “disadvantaged the transportation sector and its consumers” and “unfairly penalized” domestic refineries that would have to face international competition on an unbalanced playing field. “We believe greater attention and resources need to be dedicated to reversing these missed opportunities, and our actions today are part of that effort,” he said. 

The companies described their withdrawal from the group as a way to advocate for climate change legislation in other ways. “We believe that U.S. action on energy and climate legislation in 2010 will preserve and create American jobs, secure our energy future and generate new investment in the global clean energy economy,” the statement said. The statement noted that while three companies were leaving, others have recently joined and USCAP “expects to add new members in the coming months.” 

The push for climate change legislation has been hampered by more than just concern over its impact on the U.S. economy. The record snowfall this year in Washington, D.C., and other areas of the country has fueled skeptics who see the snow-covered capital as evidence that global warming is a myth, though scientists argue that temperatures have risen over the long term and that extreme weather — even snow — can be a symptom of climate change. 

The U.N. Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December ended with a non-binding agreement. And that was preceded by controversy over leaked e-mails from a British climate research center that appeared to show scientists discussing ways to obscure certain climate data. Add to that Republican Scott Brown’s election to the U.S. Senate from Massachusetts in January — a win that broke the Democrats’ 60-vote filibuster-proof majority. 

The conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute seized on the departure of the three companies from USCAP as a sign that “cap-and-trade legislation is dead in the U.S. Congress and that global warming alarmism is collapsing rapidly.”

The Tonka Report Editor’s Note: This could very well be a ruse to signify that Big Oil is not on board with the climate change cap and trade scam, when in fact they have been funding it all along. Al Gore is the major stock holder in Occidental Oil founded by his father, which is the fifth largest oil company in the world… – SJH 

Link to original article below…

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/16/major-firms-pull-climate-change-alliance/

False Flag Alert: Is Obama Being Blackmailed Into Attacking Iran?

leave a comment »

February 16, 2010: Paul Joseph Watson and Alex Jones / Prison Planet.com - February 16, 2010

Establishment media talking points from every direction strongly indicate that a false flag attempt on President Obama’s life is being considered, to be blamed on patsies from either the “extreme” right or left, in order to silence dissent in America and blackmail Obama into launching a military assault on Iran.

Throughout the presidential campaign, the public was constantly told that Obama was an assassination target and that his safety was always in jeopardy, a claim that was given credibility after numerous odd secret service security lapses at public events where Obama really was put in danger occurred, whether intentionally or otherwise. This had the effect of training people to accept the inevitability of someone making an attempt on the President’s life at some point down the line.

“Since Mr Obama took office, the rate of threats against the president has increased 400 per cent from the 3,000 a year or so under President George W. Bush, according to Ronald Kessler, author of In the President’s Secret Service,” reported the London Telegraph.

The “gatecrashers” story also served to increase awareness about Obama being vulnerable to attack by people who can seamlessly slip through security and get face to face with the President relatively easily.

Meanwhile, the corporate media and its operatives like Glenn Beck on the phony right-wing side and establishment liberals on the phony left were busy manufacturing ready-made patsies upon which the false flag would be blamed.

Beck forwarded 9/11 truthers as the main threat to the President’s life in a ludicrous continuation of his debunked premise that people who question the official 9/11 story are somehow terrorists themselves, despite the fact that there is not one single example of a 9/11 truther committing a crime or an act of violence in pursuit of their cause.

Lumping them in with radical violent revolutionaries, Beck cited Van Jones in claiming that 9/11 truthers surround the Obama administration and strongly implied that they plan to kill Obama for failing to fulfill their aim of collapsing the system. Watch the clip…

By hyping the threat of assassination, Beck was not only using it to demonize political groups, he was introducing the idea as a foreseeable scenario to his millions of unhinged sycophantic viewers, subtly implying that they should even try it.

Beck’s role in attempting to neutralize 9/11 truth is a measure of how successful the movement has been in taking away the tool of false flag terror from the establishment. By repeating this mantra, Beck is parroting White House talking points that stretch back to 2006. Recall that Beck was one of several neo-con talk show hosts summoned to get their marching orders from the White House in August 2007.

A document cited by President Bush in his September 2006 speech at the Capital Hilton Hotel on how to ‘win the war on terror’ cited conspiracies as one of the wellsprings of terrorism. The strategy document threatens to “address” and “diminish” the problems conspiracy theories are causing the government in fulfilling their agenda, in a similar vein to Obama regulation czar Cass Sunstein’s 2008 paper which called for banning free speech in order to crush “conspiracy theories”.

Meanwhile, the establishment left has constantly exploited, exaggerated, and outright concocted stories about Tea Party members, Ron Paul supporters and other “right wing extremists” taking guns to Obama public events in an effort to fearmonger about the President being at risk of an assassination attempt.

Beck has played both sides of the scam, proclaiming that the threat could come from “White supremacists or “9/11 Truthers” that would also like to destroy the country, and they will work with anyone they can.”

The fact that these talking points are coming from both sides of the phony political paradigm strongly suggests that a false flag is being prepared in the form of an attempt on Obama’s life that will either be blamed on the “extreme” left or the “extreme” right.

If such an incident were to occur, it would undoubtedly be exploited to the maximum by the establishment and used to silence the deafening dissent now being voiced by Americans of all political persuasions. Presuming he would survive such an attempt, it would also reinvigorate Obama’s popularity overnight and instantly provide him with the political capital needed to pursue what would otherwise have been massively unpopular policies.

People have lost all confidence in the system and the big government agenda is collapsing. The establishment needs this kind of event in order to make the people rally round the state once again.

It is clear that the neo-cons are holding Obama hostage and issuing a thinly veiled threat by repeating the mantra that the only way to save his political career and his presidency is to attack Iran. There is undoubtedly a mountain of dirt being held back regarding Obama’s past that is being used to blackmail the President into following the new world order agenda – the same as with any President before him.

A schism between hawks in the Obama administration aligned with Zionist Israel and more sober individuals is clearly causing division over how to deal with Iran, prompting Obama to warn the Israeli government that it should not launch a military attack on the Persian nation.

The neo-cons are essentially telling Obama that they will destroy him if he doesn’t follow their orders, but that they will defend him if he does play ball and launch an assault on Iran.

But a military attack launched by a President who promised peace can only enlist the support of the public if it is justified by a significantly shocking pretext – which from every indication seems likely to be an assassination attempt on Obama.

We don’t issue such bold and serious warnings lightly. A month before the swine fu outbreak, Alex Jones warned that a hoax pandemic was being prepared and that’s exactly what followed. Jones also famously predicted that a false flag attack was being readied to be blamed on Bin Laden six weeks before it happened on 9/11.

Watch the videos below in which Alex Jones explains where the next false flag threat is coming from and how it is connected to Glenn Beck’s repeated demonization of 9/11 truthers as terrorists who want to kill Obama…

The Tonka Report Editor’s Note: The media talking points have indeed set this scenario up in incremental fashion to precondition the desired response from the sheeple in order to continue on with their NWO agenda. Be sure of this however, Obama is not a victim here, he is a willing puppet being used in the larger scheme of things in the globalists’ push for their scientific dictatorship… – SJH 

Link to original article below…

http://www.infowars.com/obama-is-being-blackmailed-into-attacking-iran/

Newsweek Article “Know Your Conspiracies” Thoroughly Debunked

leave a comment »

February 16, 2010: Paul Joseph Watson / Prison Planet.com – February 15, 2010

Newsweek has published what undoubtedly amounts to the most feeble, sophomoric, and embarrassing hit piece ever written, penned by an intern fresh out of college who pathetically attempts to dismiss manifestly provable conspiracies with one sentence throwaway jibes that sound like the fodder of an immature and misinformed middle school debate team.

The author of the hit piece, entitled Know Your Conspiracies, NEWSWEEK’s guide to today’s trendiest, hippest, and least likely fringe beliefs, is one David A. Graham, a 2009 graduate of Duke University and a Newsweek intern since August, a fresh face obviously keen to prove to his bosses that he’ll make for a good journalistic whore so as to seamlessly blend in with the rest of the corporate hacks at the magazine. Unfortunately for Graham, his first mistake was to believe that Newsweek’s reputation alone as a trusted source of information was enough to excuse his lazy journalism and complete lack of research into any of the topics raised. Sadly, since nobody trusts the mainstream media anymore, merely attempting to dictate what constitutes reality by glibly scoffing “enough said” to dismiss a claim does not equate to a thorough debunking, Mr. Graham.

That’s how Graham “debunks” the 9/11 truth movement, prefacing it with, “Not even the staunchest mainstream George W. Bush bashers believe this one.” Graham was obviously too busy making the coffee for his colleagues to take note of an October 2006 CBS/New York Times poll that found that only 16% of Americans thought the government told the truth about 9/11 and the intelligence prior to the attacks. No less than six of the ten 9/11 Commissioners are on record as saying the official story is a fraud and yet Graham classes skepticism towards the official story as one of his “fringe beliefs”.

Another “fringe belief” thrown in amongst stupid speculation about Sarah Palin’s baby is the notion that Goldman Sachs was involved in and benefited from the financial collapse. “While Goldman may have profited, that alone doesn’t prove malice or conspiracy,” scoffs Graham.

Oh really? This office tea boy obviously didn’t take the time to read a multi-part eXposé written by Greg Gordon of McClatchy Newspapers, in which it was voluminously documented how Goldman Sachs, “In 2006 and 2007…peddled more than $40 billion in securities backed by at least 200,000 risky home mortgages, but never told the buyers it was secretly betting that a sharp drop in U.S. housing prices would send the value of those securities plummeting.”

“Goldman’s sales and its clandestine wagers, completed at the brink of the housing market meltdown, enabled the nation’s premier investment bank to pass most of its potential losses to others before a flood of mortgage defaults staggered the U.S. and global economies. Only later did investors discover that what Goldman had promoted as triple-A rated investments were closer to junk,” writes Gordon.

No “malice” or “conspiracy” there, Mr Graham? Goldman Sachs betting on a housing collapse right before it happened while telling their buyers everything was hunky dory? No “malice” involved in that one, eh?

Graham’s shoddily bias and vacuous perspective is laid bare when he tries to gloss over the collapsing anthropogenic global warming fraud within the confines of a one sentence tantrum. “Deniers have long taken advantage of scientists’ cautious statements, and “Climategate” breathed new life into the movement, but the science stands: warming is real, and it’s caused by human actions,” he sneers.

In reality, former lead authors of the UN IPCC are now coming forward to state that the “world may not be warming” and the scientist at the center of the Climategate scandal admits there has been no global warming since 1995, as endless scandal after scandal offers mountains of evidence that the progenitors of AGW have been exaggerating and lying about man’s contribution to climate change for decades.

But perhaps Graham’s most egregious falsehood arrives when he dismisses the United Nations’ desire to regulate CO2 emissions as part of a global government power grab as another baseless yarn. A similar faux pas was committed by Time Magazine’s Jonathan Kay, an article Graham links to, in a similarly weak hit piece written earlier this month.

According to Kay, a one world government run by the United Nations that will implement greenhouse gas taxes is another “toxic fantasy” of those crazy Tea Party lunatics, a view shared by Graham. In that case, I guess we must have all just imagined UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon’s December 16 2009 Los Angeles Times interview during the Copenhagen summit in which he stated, “We will establish a global governance structure to monitor and manage the implementation of this.”

Ban Ki-moon’s October 2009 New York Times editorial  in which he wrote that efforts to impose restrictions on CO2 emissions, “Must include an equitable global governance structure” is also a figment of the imagination if you subscribe to Kay and Graham’s world view.

Yes – shocking as it is – top globalists like Herman Van Rompuy, Gordon Brown, Al Gore and others have all publicly and repeatedly called for a new world order and a global government. This is why even Bloomberg writers like David Reilly and former Democratic advisors like Dick Morris are finally admitting that the “conspiracy theorists” were right after all – a secret cabal of bankers and industrialists really does run the world.

Of course, if you still believe Graham and Kay’s fairytale make-believe world in which there is no “new world order” and no march towards a “global government” which would include a “global currency”, then the following You Tube compilation of top power brokers saying those very things since the 1950’s doesn’t exist either…

By number eight, Graham has ceased even bothering to form a glib sentence to “debunk” the topic at hand, and responds to the “conspiracy theory” about government internment camps with just four words, “Too silly to discuss.”

Just as well that Market Watch didn’t deem a $385 million contract awarded to KBR by the Department of Homeland Security in January 2006 “too silly to discuss”. The contract was for KBR, the engineering and construction subsidiary of Halliburton, to build detention facilities inside America that would allow authorities to deal with “an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs.”

Project Censored, who also didn’t regard the announcement as “too silly to discuss,” placed the story at number 14 for 2006’s most censored stories. It was explored in depth by numerous prominent and respected writers, including Peter Dale Scott, who highlighted how such “new programs” were a continuation of martial law provisions that first came to light during the Iran Contra scandal in the 1980’s. Scott also made the connection to former Attorney General John Ashcroft’s 2002 call for U.S. citizens to be detained as enemy combatants in detention camps, a story also considered not “too silly to discuss” by the Los Angeles Times’ Jonathan Turley, a professor of law at the George Washington University Law School.

Graham returns to back-slapping his peers at Time Magazine with the claim that Time did not advocate licenses to use the Internet, linking to a two paragraph blog written by Time’s Michael Scherer entitled Despite Reports, TIME Still Not Advocating Internet Driver’s Licenses.

“Time published a story reporting on a Microsoft executive who’d like to see licensing to combat anonymity. Broadcasting such a controversial proposal—regardless of its merits—is quite the opposite of censorship, as Time’s Michael Scherer rightly explained,” Graham smugly proclaims. “The story is not true, of course, but who wants to get in the way of such fun conspiracies?,” smarts Scherer.

Both Scherer and Graham are obviously banking on their audience not actually reading the original Time article to which they refer, in which author Barbara Kiviat clearly does advocate and endorse a licensing system for Internet users.

Kiviat waxes lyrical about how society introduces more laws and regulations as it grows. “There is no reason to think the Internet shouldn’t follow the same pattern,” she writes. “But we’re entitled to anonymity on the Internet!” Really? Are you? Why do you think that?” she asks elsewhere, clearly endorsing stricter controls similar to those first proposed at the Davos Economic Forum earlier this year.

Anyone who reads Kiviat’s article in full comes away with the impression that she, and her publisher Time Magazine, endorse the call for Internet licensing. Scherer did not “rightly explain” anything! He lied through his teeth.

How much more ludicrous can this get? Is Newsweek going to start lecturing us about the “fringe belief” that the sun comes up every morning. That’s not too far removed from Graham’s overriding theme that powerful men never conspire to do bad things to increase their power and that governments are angelic and anyone who says otherwise is expressing a “fringe belief”.

As the excellent George Washington’s Blog explains, the corporate media’s denunciation of “conspiracy theories” is a process in diffusing criticism of the powerful in government or business…

“The government spied on American citizens (even before 9/11 … confirmed here and here), while saying “we don’t spy”. The government tortured prisoners in Iraq, but said “we don’t torture”.

“In other words, high-level government officials have conspired to cover up the truth. The bottom line is that the power of the state is used to crush criticism of major government policies and actions (or failures to act) and high-level government officials.

“Pay attention, and you’ll notice that criticism of “conspiracy theories” is usually aimed at attempting to protect the state and key government players. The power of the state is seldom used to crush conspiracy theories regarding people who are not powerful . . . at least to the extent that they are not important to the government.”

Indeed, if “conspiracy theories” are merely “hip” and “trendy” examples of mindless gossip, as Graham’s article portrays, then why does White House regulation czar Cass Sunstein want to slap a tax on them or even ban them outright?

We are of course familiar with their tired old clichés and smear tactics, but what the mainstream still fails to grasp is the fact that the majority of Americans no longer trust them, so the sophomoric catch phrases just aren’t going to get the job done anymore.

A September 2009 Pew Research Center poll found that, “Trust in news media has reached a new low, with record numbers of Americans saying reporting is inaccurate, biased and shaped by special interests.” The poll found that just 29% of Americans still trusted the corporate media.

By labeling manifestly provable facts, such as the absolutely self-evident and admitted push for a system of global governance as “conspiracy theories” and claiming they are false, the corporate media is only committing seppuku and dispensing with any credibility they had left.

In that case, we invite Mr. Graham, Mr. Kay, Time and Newsweek to continue to lecture us about how overwhelmingly documented facts are baseless “conspiracy theories,” because in doing so they are only making themselves and the corporate media look utterly stupid. Enough said.

The Tonka Report Editor’s Note: There is nothing more powerful than truth for all of those who seek it, embrace it, and defend it. Truth, is indelible… – SJH 

Link to original article below…

http://www.prisonplanet.com/newsweek-powerful-people-do-bad-things-too-silly-to-discuss.html

JCS Chairman Mullen: “Option To Attack Iran Is Still On The Table”

leave a comment »

February 15, 2010: Defence Professionals (Defpro.org) – February 15, 2010

U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, attended a press conference after his arrival to Israel and made it clear that all options are on the table. “We would operate all our forces for Israel.” “Politically, it is prohibited in any way that Iran will have nuclear weapons”, said Mullen during a press conference convened on Sunday evening only hours after his arrival to Israel.

“Right now, diplomatic efforts continue,” he explained, but did not rule out military option, “The option to attack Iran is still on the table, but we’re not there yet.” “It is very difficult to expect the pace of the Iranian government, I am very concerned with their use of rhetoric and their uranium enrichment program,” said Mullen. “Iran undermines the stability of the region – also in Yemen and Afghanistan. The U.S. government has very serious intentions to impose harsh sanctions and I very much hope that it will end the conflict.”

Mullen also noted that according to the American assessment Iran could obtain a nuclear bomb from one year to three years. However, Mullen stressed that, “conflict with Iran would be a big problem for everyone. I worry about the unintended consequences of an attack. While every situation has limits, we’re not there yet. The diplomatic efforts must be exhausted until the end.”

We Are Close Partners

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the U.S military referred to Israel’s security and made it clear that the U.S. stands behind it. “Israel supports the policy that Obama leads. The Chief of the General Staff Gabi Ashkenazi made this clear to me in a meeting a few weeks ago. That does not mean we are not worried. We have appreciation for Israel and we can take care of its security.”

Additionally Admiral Mullen stressed that between Israel and the U.S. there is real cooperation. “This important relationship with Israel grows stronger every day,” he said. “We are close partners, since the establishment of the state. I am aware of the needs of Israel in every step. I’m here to understand the perspective of those who live here. I worry about the stability and the possibility for instability in the region. We will operate all our forces to have a stable and secure Israel and for the people of Israel.”

Mullen was also asked about the possibility that Israel would attack Iran, and he answered, “Israel’s sovereignty is important to us. We would not hurt Israel’s sovereignty or any other country’s. We worked hard in recent years to improve our abilities in different areas, here in Israel and elsewhere in the region, including the Persian Gulf. Improving capabilities is not a response, but collaboration – all the improvements are only defensive.”

Mullen’s Request: A meeting with the Israeli Delegation to Haiti

During his visit, Admiral Mullen will hold a private meeting with Lt. Gen. Ashkenazi, as well as a briefing with senior commanders of the General Staff, including Deputy Chief of the General Staff, Maj. Gen. Benny Gantz, Head of Israel Defense Intelligence, Maj. Gen. Amos Yadlin, Head of Strategic Planning Directorate, Maj. Gen. Amir Eshel, and the military attaché to Washington, Maj. Gen. Gadi Shamni. The discussion will focus on cooperation between the two militaries and mutual security challenges. In addition, Admiral Mullen will meet with Minister of Defense Ehud Barak.

Admiral Mullen will be greeted at the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) General Headquarters in Rabin Base, Tel Aviv (Kirya), by an honor guard consisting of IDF soldiers from the ground, air and naval forces, to the sound of the national anthems of Israel and the United States of America.

Admiral Mullen will also visit the Yad VaShem Holocaust Memorial and Museum, where he will pay respects to the memory of the victims of the Holocaust. At his request, Admiral Mullen will see members of the IDF rescue delegation to Haiti, and hear about their professional experiences with regard to rescue operations and field medical treatment.

The Tonka Report Editor’s Note: As the U.S. military coup of Haiti continues to ensure dominance of the Caribbean and seal off access to the Gulf of Mexico via the Atlantic, the key third piece of the multi-part geographical puzzle in the Middle East (Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan) is about to fall into place with the attack of Iran, thus plunging what’s left of the American economy into full blown depression and this former Republic into a militarized police state under the directorate of a corporate-fascist dictatorship as WWIII begins. Unless we say, No! Weapons of war are rendered useless with no soldiers to pull the triggers… - SJH   

Link to original article below…

http://www.defpro.org/news/details/13160/

Will Obama’s Record War Budget Lead To ‘Victory’ In Afghanistan?

leave a comment »

February 15, 2010: Jack A. Smith / Global Research - February 14, 2010

President Barack Obama has increased the Pentagon’s perennially-bloated annual spending spree to its greatest magnitude since World War II $708 billion. Congress eventually will overwhelmingly approve Obama’s war budget request for fiscal year 2011, which takes effect in October.

The Obama administration’s funding recommendation was announced Feb. 1 (2010). The next day Reuters reported that “Shares of major U.S. defense contractors rose on Monday after the Obama administration unveiled a defense budget… that seeks a 3.4 percent increase in the Pentagon’s base budget and $159 billion to fund missions in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.”

Also released Feb. 1 was the Pentagon’s Congressionally-mandated Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), which calls for a considerable expansion of U.S. military power, especially in bolstering counterinsurgency and counterterrorism campaigns. The QDR is a strategic guide for America’s present and future wars, updated every four years. The new version remains based on an interventionist foreign/military policy that has not changed in essence since the early Cold War years. As described by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, the 2011 war budget reflects the QDR’s call for “rebalancing America’s defense posture by emphasizing capabilities needed to prevail in current conflicts, while enhancing capabilities that may be needed in the future.”

In addition to the Pentagon request, President Obama also seeks a supplementary $33 billion this year for “Overseas Contingency Operations,” the bureaucratically bland title chosen to replace the Bush Administration’s “War on Terrorism.” The title is about all that has changed in the “terrorism” wars since Bush left office except for the new administration’s grave expansion of the Afghan conflict.

The additional money is to pay for the 30,000 troops Obama most recently ordered to Afghanistan, bringing U.S. troop strength to over 100,000, joined by over 40,000 NATO troops, and scores of thousands of mercenaries and contractors. This war is said to cost about $1 million per U.S. soldier per year.

The Obama Administration’s $708 billion for fiscal 2011 compares to the $680 billion President Obama approved for this year, which itself was 4.1% higher than President George W. Bush’s $651 billion funding for fiscal 2009. A decade ago annual “defense” spending was $280 billion.

At minimum not including the expensive Pentagon infrastructure that supports America’s wars in the Middle East and Central Asia the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan adventures is over $1 trillion so far. Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz estimated two years ago that the final cost to the U.S. of both wars, when all aspects are included, will be over $3 trillion.

The amount of money Washington is spending in Afghanistan alone this year, according to the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation Feb 1, is “more than any other country in the world spends on defense, with the exception of China,” with four times more people and a defense budget less than one-fifth that of the United States.

Addressing Washington’s war money, writer and global analyst Chalmers Johnson comments “It is virtually impossible to overstate the profligacy of what our government spends on the military.”

Total U.S. annual “security” spending is over twice that acknowledged in the annual Pentagon budget. Omitted are many expenses from veteran’s benefits, homeland security, and interest on past military debts, to nuclear weapons, the cost of America’s intelligence agencies, and war-related spending absorbed by other government departments.

This means that the U.S., which contains 4.54% of the world’s population, accounts for over 50% of global military expenditures, thus spending more on “security” than all the other countries combined. America’s main and seemingly only enemy is al-Qaeda, with perhaps 2,000 decentralized adherents worldwide with varying degrees of commitment and ability.

In his State of the Union Address last month, President Obama specifically exempted “security” money from the “freeze” on many domestic expenses in the national budget, which amounts to some $3.8 trillion, the highest annual amount on record. About a third of this total $1.3 trillion, another record is in excess of tax receipts and will be paid with interest, along with many trillions more, by future generations of Americans.

In the interim, China and a few other countries are expected to continue lending money to a debt-ridden Uncle Sam who refuses to introduce a system of progressive taxation to absorb the intemperate accumulation of wealth by the richest 10% of Americans households (which in 2007 enjoyed a net worth of 71.4% of all the assets in the country), or to substantially cut military spending for aggressive wars of choice.

America’s hugely disproportionate war funding is more the product of an economic construct known at military Keynesianism (excessive government spending for militarism in order to foster capitalist economic growth) than the official myth of being surrounded by a multitude of formidable enemies. Most of the war money Commander in Chief Obama requested will be directed to Iraq and Afghanistan. The budget includes:

$25 billion for 10 new Navy ships; $11 billion for 43 more F-35 fighter planes;  $10 billion for missile defense;  $56 billion for the Pentagon’s “Black Budget” (classified programs known only by code names);  $7 billion (to the Department of Energy) for nuclear weapons;  Funding to increase the size of the of the 56,000 Special Operations Command by 2,800  fighters, plus new equipment;   $10 billion to buy more Army and Marine helicopters for small-scale wars;  Money for enough new advanced unmanned drones to increase seek-and-destroy missions by 75%, including doubling production of the advanced MQ-9 Reaper and 26 extended-range Predators (spending for these drones jumps from $877.5 million in 2010 to $1.4 billion in 2011);  Many billions to train, equip and pay for the U.S.- controlled Afghan and Iraq armies;  $1.2 billion more to Pakistan for counterinsurgency;  $140 million to Yemen to fight al-Qaeda.  Additional billions will be spent in Afghanistan, as in Iraq, buying off the armed opposition and bribing officials.

The industry portion of the military-industrial complex is delighted with Obama, according to Todd Harrison, a Senior Fellow for Defense Budget Studies, at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment. In an interview conducted Feb. 4 by the Council on Foreign Relations, he said of the new war budget:

The Tonka Report Editor’s Note: And just exactly what is the United States’ military objective? Oil, opium, and to block Russia (Bear) and China (Dragon) from encroaching into the Middle East – Israel in particular…

“And the number of the horsemen were two hundred thousand thousand: and I heard the number of them.

“And thus I saw the horses in the vision, and them that sat on them, having breastplates of fire, and of jacinth, and brimstone: and the heads of the horses were as the heads of lions; and out of their mouths issued fire and smoke and brimstone.

By these three was the third part of men killed, by the fire, and by the smoke, and by the brimstone, which issued out of their mouths.” - Revelation 9:16-18 KJV

Two hundred thousand thousand = 200,000,000. The Battle of Armageddon is to take place in the Valley of Megiddo in northern Israel. Think about it…SJH 

Link to entire article below…

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17610

ClimateGate: CRU Scientist Admits No Global Warming Since 1995

leave a comment »

February 15, 2010: Jonathon Petre / Daily Mail – February 14, 2010

Data for vital ‘hockey stick graph’ has gone missing.

There has been no global warming since 1995.

Warming periods have happened before – but NOT due to man-made changes.

The academic at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information. Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers. Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’. The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.

Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon. And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.

The admissions will be seized on by sceptics as fresh evidence that there are serious flaws at the heart of the science of climate change and the orthodoxy that recent rises in temperature are largely man-made.

Professor Jones has been in the spotlight since he stepped down as director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit after the leaking of emails that sceptics claim show scientists were manipulating data.

The raw data, collected from hundreds of weather stations around the world and analysed by his unit, has been used for years to bolster efforts by the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to press governments to cut carbon dioxide emissions.

Following the leak of the emails, Professor Jones has been accused of ‘scientific fraud’ for allegedly deliberately suppressing information and refusing to share vital data with critics.

Discussing the interview, the BBC’s environmental analyst Roger Harrabin said he had spoken to colleagues of Professor Jones who had told him that his strengths included integrity and doggedness but not record-keeping and office tidying.

Mr Harrabin, who conducted the interview for the BBC’s website, said the professor had been collating tens of thousands of pieces of data from around the world to produce a coherent record of temperature change. That material has been used to produce the ‘hockey stick graph’ which is relatively flat for centuries before rising steeply in recent decades.

According to Mr Harrabin, colleagues of Professor Jones said ‘his office is piled high with paper, fragments from over the years, tens of thousands of pieces of paper, and they suspect what happened was he took in the raw data to a central database and then let the pieces of paper go because he never realised that 20 years later he would be held to account over them’.

Asked by Mr Harrabin about these issues, Professor Jones admitted the lack of organisation in the system had contributed to his reluctance to share data with critics, which he regretted.

But he denied he had cheated over the data or unfairly influenced the scientific process, and said he still believed recent temperature rises were predominantly man-made.

Asked about whether he lost track of data, Professor Jones said: ‘There is some truth in that. We do have a trail of where the weather stations have come from but it’s probably not as good as it should be. ‘There’s a continual updating of the dataset. Keeping track of everything is difficult. Some countries will do lots of checking on their data then issue improved data, so it can be very difficult. We have improved but we have to improve more.’

He also agreed that there had been two periods which experienced similar warming, from 1910 to 1940 and from 1975 to 1998, but said these could be explained by natural phenomena whereas more recent warming could not. He further admitted that in the last 15 years there had been no ‘statistically significant’ warming, although he argued this was a blip rather than the long-term trend.

And he said that the debate over whether the world could have been even warmer than now during the medieval period, when there is evidence of high temperatures in northern countries, was far from settled.

Sceptics believe there is strong evidence that the world was warmer between about 800 and 1300 AD than now because of evidence of high temperatures in northern countries. But climate change advocates have dismissed this as false or only applying to the northern part of the world.

Professor Jones departed from this consensus when he said: ‘There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia.

‘For it to be global in extent, the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.

‘Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today, then obviously the late 20th Century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm than today, then the current warmth would be unprecedented.’

Sceptics said this was the first time a senior scientist working with the IPCC had admitted to the possibility that the Medieval Warming Period could have been global, and therefore the world could have been hotter then than now.

Professor Jones criticised those who complained he had not shared his data with them, saying they could always collate their own from publicly available material in the US. And he said the climate had not cooled ‘until recently – and then barely at all. The trend is a warming trend’.

Mr Harrabin told Radio 4’s Today programme that, despite the controversies, there still appeared to be no fundamental flaws in the majority scientific view that climate change was largely man-made.

But Dr Benny Pieser, director of the sceptical Global Warming Policy Foundation, said Professor Jones’s ‘excuses’ for his failure to share data were hollow as he had shared it with colleagues and ‘mates’. He said that until all the data was released, sceptics could not test it to see if it supported the conclusions claimed by climate change advocates.

He added that the professor’s concessions over medieval warming were ‘significant’ because they were his first public admission that the science was not settled.

The Tonka Report Editor’s Note:  The global warming fraud is coming apart at the seams. Jones can’t find the data for the already scientifically discredited “hockey stick graph”? Kind of like Donald Rumsfeld stating on September 10, 2001 that the Pentagon could not account for $2 trillion missing just before a missile took out the entire accounting department of the Pentagon the next day on 9/11… – SJH

Link to original article below…

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

Federal Reserve Bank Of New York Subpoenaed In AIG Fraud Case

leave a comment »

February 15, 2010: Frank Gaffney  / Big Government (Breitbart) – February 10, 2010

Here’s the latest in the question of the New York Fed, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and the AIG bailout, as we’ve covered here at Big Government before (here and here).

Last year, Iraq war vet Kevin Murray brought a lawsuit against the Treasury Department and Ben Bernanke (Murray vs. Geithner, et al) for its acquisition of AIG– a scheme that made the US taxpayer the world’s largest provider of Shariah-compliant insurance products.

Lawyers David Yerushalmi and The Thomas More Law Center’s Robert Muise found, in the course of discovery, that that was just the tip of the iceberg. Yerushalmi and Muise quickly realized that, in acquiring 77.9% of AIG, the New York Fed may have set up an illegal trust, with the knowledge that what they were to do was illegal. Tuesday, Murray’s attorneys issued a subpoena for the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

Here’s the latest update from David Yerushalmi:

“Now that the court has allowed us to amend the complaint to add additional bad acts by the government (done and filed today) and at the same time rejected the government’s efforts to stay discovery and to end run to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, and while we await the court’s ruling on our motion to force Secretary Geithner to sit for a 3-hr deposition, we have today sent out for service the following Subpoena for the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

“This deposition will effectively allow us to learn the government’s rationale (however lame) of the How and Why of the invalid and illegal trust used to gain control over AIG.

“We are expecting a battle over this one because the real skeletons of this deal are here at the NY Fed where at the time (Sept-Dec 08) Secretary Geithner served as the president and de facto Treasury Secretary, having been tapped by Obama as the new administration awaited the inauguration in Jan 2010. To understand this, read through the attachments (Notice of Service of Subpoena Commanding Deposition Testimony and the Production of Documents, Electronically Stored Information, or Tangible Things) at the substantive information we are seeking. The rest, as they say, is just commentary.”

In the meantime, America awaits a ruling on whether Treasury Secretary Geithner will have to tell “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth” in a three-hour deposition.

Here are the questions from the subpoena:

1. The decision(s) to provide government financing to and otherwise bailout American International Group, Inc. (hereinafter “AIG”) and how the financing bailout was structured.

a. This matter specifically includes decisions regarding how and why the original financing provided by the government was funds provided by the FRBNY in the form of a credit facility;

b. This matter specifically includes the decision by the Fed to authorize the FRBNY to loan $85 billion to AIG pursuant to Section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. § 343);

c. This matter specifically includes decisions requiring AIG to grant the FRBNY a pledge on assets and to transfer to the AIG Credit Facility Trust (hereinafter “Trust”) Series C preferred shares, which provided the Trust, inter alia, 79.9% (later reduced to 77.9%) of any dividend payments by AIG and of any aggregate voting rights of AIG common stock;

d. This matter specifically includes the decision to establish the Trust on behalf of the U.S. Treasury and to include section 1.03 in the AIG Credit Facility Trust Agreement granting the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System authority to terminate the Trust or amend its terms;

e. This matter specifically includes all subsequent decisions regarding the structuring of the government financing and bailout of AIG, including the decisions about when, how, and why to use (1) funds authorized by the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, 12 U.S.C. § 5201 et seq. (hereinafter “EESA”); (2) funds not authorized by EESA, but otherwise under the control or authority of the U.S. Treasury and/or Treasury Department; (3) funds under the control or authority of the Federal Reserve Board; (4) funds under the control or authority of the FRBNY; and/or (5) any other funds under the control or authority of any other entity or agency subject to the direction and/or control of the U.S. Treasury and/or Treasury Department, the Federal Reserve Board, and/or the FRBNY.

f. This matter specifically includes the actual and permissible use(s) of funds from any government source (including the FRBNY) by AIG.

2. The information made available to the Office of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (hereinafter “SIGTARP”) established by EESA, including information and communications to and from SIGTARP regarding the actual and permissible use(s) of funds from any government source (including the FRBNY) by AIG.

3. The facts, including communications, related to the FRBNY’s knowledge of and/or information about Islamic law (i.e., Shariah), Shariah-compliant financial products, the Shariah obligation of jihad (i.e., kinetic war and/or terrorism), the Shariah obligation of dawa (i.e., the effort to both convert non-Muslims to adherence to Shariah and/or the effort to convert all political systems or political orders to Shariah-adherent political systems), and the use of Muslim charitable donations by individuals and/or Islamic and/or Shariah-compliant financial institutions to support jihad and/or dawa, including the use of donations by certain Muslim charitable organizations to support terrorist activity.

The Tonka Report Editor’s Note: Now if I understand this correctly, the NY Fed acquired AIG using nearly $100 billion of stolen U.S. taxpayer’s money and then laundered that money through a trust to fund jihadists to help finance the fraudulent “war on terror” against Americans. If this indeed is the case, add extortion, money laundering, murder, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and treason to the charges!SJH

Link to original article below…

http://biggovernment.com/fgaffney/2010/02/10/federal-reserve-bank-of-new-york-subpoenaed-in-aig-fraud-case/

Obama Shatters Yet Another Campaign Promise: Executive Orders

leave a comment »

February 15, 2010: Paul Joseph Watson / Prison Planet.com - February 15, 2010

In the face of rapidly growing populist anger, the Obama administration has signaled that it will fall back on a form of power well known to all successful dictators – rule by decree – and that Obama will use the very instrument he campaigned against to ram through the new world order agenda – Executive Orders, and lots of them.

“With much of his legislative agenda stalled in Congress, President Obama and his team are preparing an array of actions using his executive power to advance energy, environmental, fiscal and other domestic policy priorities,” reports the New York Times.

Despite the fact that Obama campaigned on the platform of eliminating abuse of executive powers which occurred under Bush, he is on course to pass more executive orders than Bush did during his eight years in the White House.

During a May 2008 campaign event in Colorado, Obama promised to “not use signing statements as a way of doing an end run around Congress,” and yet the administration’s announcement that they will use not merely signing statements, but wholesale Executive Orders, as a means of enforcing what Congress refuses to pass, is exactly that – an end run around the Constitution.

The government is keenly aware of the depth of unpopularity for measures like cap and trade, health care, bailouts, and other big government initiatives, which is why they are moving to rush them through by authoritarian decree before we see mass national strikes, protests and civil unrest.

Obama’s promise on signing statements was completely contradicted by his aides last month, who said that he “still reserves the right to ignore sections of bills he considers unconstitutional if objections have been lodged previously by the executive branch,” reports the NY Times.

Indeed, back in August the Times‘ Charlie Savage wrote that Obama “has issued signing statements claiming the authority to bypass dozens of provisions of bills enacted into law since he took office,” thereby doing exactly what he promised not to.

Over the course of his two terms in office, Bush had a total of 289 Executive Orders. After a little over a year in office, Obama has already passed 39 Executive Orders, meaning he is on course to be in the 300’s presuming he is re-elected in 2012.

Perhaps Obama’s most notorious Executive Order is the Establishment of the Council of Governors, which creates a body of ten state governors directly appointed by Obama who will work with the federal government to help advance the “synchronization and integration of State and Federal military activities in the United States”.

Critics have expressed fears that the order further blurs the lines between state and federal power, as well as greasing the skids for more military involvement in domestic affairs, and has stoked fears that Obama may be laying the groundwork for his promised “national civilian security force”.

Hopefully, since Obama has broken just about every major promise he made during the campaign, while not scaling back but expanding U.S. military operations abroad, his agenda to create what many have denounced as a brown shirt domestic cadre, not too far removed from the ominous  “green police” depicted in the recent Audi commercial, will also fall by the wayside in the face of vociferous populist anger towards his policies.

Obama Exposed: Another Campaign Lie

The Tonka Report Editor’s Note: At this point, it ought to be quite clear to everyone that Barack Hussein Obama (aka Barry Soetero) is a criminal imposter and a traitor of this country posing as President of the United States of America. Many of us vociferously warned everyone of this fraud 2 years agoImpeach! – SJH

Link to original article below…

http://www.infowars.com/obama-breaks-yet-another-key-campaign-promise/

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 63 other followers