Mark Stapleton
-
Posts
1,846 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Mark Stapleton
-
-
"I'm convinced we can make the case," said Schrade, who is assembling a legal team to challenge the verdict that put Sirhan, now 64, behind bars.
From what I have read, Sirhan Sirhan probably did not fire the shots that killed RFK. Nevertheless there seems to be no question whatsover that he was in possession of a gun and had fired multiple shots at the same time that RFK was killed. So he is hardly an innocent man. Situation far different than that of LHO who may have been as he declared "a patsy". No one grabbed LHO in the sixth floor window and took a rifle away from him.
What are you clinging to, Tim?
Both LHO and SS were patsies. The media has lied its head off for forty years. The mainstream media controlled everything the public saw or heard in the 60's.
-
Scott Ritter's latest piece about an attack on Iran. Compulsive reading as usual:
-
A research paper by the world's second-largest hedge fund suggesting that the "large financial crisis" is just about to begin is apparently causing jitters amongst the self-styled Masters of the Universe...
http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2008/07/16...writedowns.html
[My emphasis]
The large financial crisis has just begunU.S. study estimated losses of financial institutions at $1.6 trillion dollars
by Marco Zanchi
Those that assume the misery is coming to an end are wrong. When it comes to writedowns, losses and raising fresh capital, the crisis has only just begun for banks. Losses are expected to reach $1.6 trillion, only a fraction of which have been uncovered. This is the conclusion of a confidential study made available to (the Swiss newspaper) Sonntagszeitung.
But that is not everything. While banks give their word of honor that no further capital is needed, the paper by Bridgewater Associates says: "We have big doubts that financial institutions will be able to obtain enough new capital in order to cover the losses. This will worsen the credit crunch. "
"If everything they say is true," says Charles Wyplosz, a professor at the University of Geneva, " a number of financial institutions will face bankruptcy." The research paper is ‘hot ‘in professional circles not only because of its content, but also because of the originator; Bridgewater Associates is the second-largest hedge fund in the world. The people behind it are brilliant, first among them Ray Dalio, who founded the company more than thirty years ago.
$26.6 trillion of debt is considered risky
The company is one of the big names in the industry. Their macro-analyses especially have weight in central banks - some central banks are customers of Bridgewater. When asked, the Swiss National Bank replied that they do not comment on such studies on principle.
What is at risk for the banks? In order to identify the dimensions of the crisis for financial institutions, Bridgewater has calculated the expected losses on a wide range of risky credit-based U.S. assets such as mortgages, credit- or credit card-receivables. Then, one would need to know basically who had how much on the books. The total value of these risky comes to $26.6 trillion dollars. The losses on these assets would then sum to $1.6 trillion dollars, if all of the assets were valued at market prices and not marked to model, writes Ray Dalio.
Traditional credit loans are not on the balance sheet at market prices, because they are not traded. The loss, when applied to the $26.6 trillion face value of assets, is an impairment of 6 percent. If market prices rise, the size of the loss is reduced; If prices fall, the losses increase.
US credit institutions are holding the largest losses.
Bridgewater has calculated that, so far, financial institutions have only acknowledged losses of $400 billion. Non-US banks - especially UBS - have provided the lion’s share of that at $238 billion. Therefore, the greatest expected future losses should be at U.S. credit institutions. This includes names such as Citigroup, Bank of America and JP Morgan Chase and many smaller institutions unknown here in Switzerland.
Why? That’s because lending is their core business, and they hold the majority of the assets. But, it is also because a large part of the losses are in the form of traditional bank loans, and, unlike securitized mortgages, these are not traded. So, their value has not been corrected on the balance sheet. "If we assess [the validity of] current market prices, we have a long way to go, because these institutions have only acknowledged one-sixth of their expected losses resulting from the credit crisis," writes Bridgewater. Five-sixths comes to nearly $500 billion.
The big question is: Can the banks plug these holes from the losses with new equity capital? Alone for the U.S. banks named above, we are talking about $400 billion, estimates Bridgewater. The banking industry does not have enough healthy institutions to absorb the sick. Meanwhile bank shares are in freefall. And the Middle Eastern Sovereign Wealth Funds have lost the appetite.
The international interdependence makes everything much more complicated
If the banks, as Dalio fears, do not succeed in mobilizing enough fresh capital, they would be forced to sell assets - and in a cyclical downturn at that. That could trigger a classic death spiral downwards, as sales of assets would pressure their share prices, which in turn weakens the banks' balance sheets and further sales would be necessary. "Once again we have a mountain of distressed assets to sell, which is enormous in comparison with any conceivable demand [for those assets]," says Dalio.
Exacerbating the situation is the fact that, in the Spring, "smart" investors bought large quantities of securitized loans, as their prices fell - in the hope of snapping up a bargain. If the prices continue to drop, these investors will come under severe pressure, especially many who are using borrowed funds.
What’s gotten Dalio so pessimistic? The United States is stuck in a large debt-relief process, a "classic deleveraging," as Japan was in the nineties or as many countries during the world economic crisis in the 30s or developing countries during their debt crises. Only this time everything is much more complex, primarily because of the enormous international interdependence of the financial services industry. Making things worse, U.S. consumers are overly indebted and access to cheap money is blocked now.
Moreover, the United States is dependent on foreign capital in order to finance their lifestyle. "The outlook for the dollar is bleak. Very, very bleak, " a former central banker said to Sonntagszeitung.
The real downturn in the U.S. is only beginning
So far, the financial problems resulting from the financial crisis have been large, but the economic ones have been small, because economic problems follow financial ones with a time delay. After liquidity injections by the U.S. central bank induced a short uptick from March to June, the economy and financial system of the USA should now be on the threshold of a real slowdown, he says. The poor credit environment crisis in the real economy resulting from the financial crisis will now have a negative reciprocal effect on the financial sector.
Phase one of the credit crisis was marked by the collapse of the real estate market in the U.S. and the crash in the market for subprime mortgages. Phase two - a kind of calm before the storm - began with the rescue of the U.S. investment bank Bear Stearns in mid-March. This phase came to an end in June, when optimism in the financial markets waned again. Now phase three is set to start. "Bridgewater is on the pessimistic side, no question," says George Magnus, Senior Economic Adviser at UBS in London, "but Bridgewater is absolutely right."
Nice post, Jan. Bridgewater should know.
The Anglo economies, and the US in particular, are about to be hit by an anvil like Wile-e-Coyote in the Road Runner cartoons.
Unlike all previous economic downturns in the modern era, this one contains an additional sting in the tail--there's no cheap energy left. i.e. the economy can't be resuscitated (barring a breakthrough discovery).
Realism shouldn't be confused with pessimism. There's massive social dislocation imminent. Survivalists will have their day in the sun.
-
Bill, as a serious threat, how does Conyers letter to Bush rate? Would there be sufficient momentum in the House to support the proceedings or is it a threat that could not be backed up effectively. In other words is it something Bush can safely ignore, or must take most seriously?
David
Well, there are those, like Kuchnick and John Judge, who would like Conyers to bring the Impeachment Articles out of Committee and onto the floor of the House immediately.
If Conyers is going to wait until Bush invades Iran, then it might not ever happen.
If Bush wants to invade Iran during the last hours of his watch, he won't care about being impeached.
The way impeachment works, if I remember correctly, the Judiciary Committee must vote first, then the House of Reps, and if the measures pass both, then it goes to the Senate for the proceedings.
If Conyers isn't going to let it out of Committee, like he sat on the Cheney impeachment, then it won't ever happen.
BK
Bill,
What do the articles say about impeachment if Israel attacks Iran, while America stands watch?
-
The biggest danger in electing McCain is the certainty that America's military Keynesianism will continue to accelerate, with all its resultant economic inequities. It's now running at over half a trillion per annum. If it weren't for America's addiction to oil, there would be no need for this egregious largesse granted to the MIC---surely adequate maintenance of eight thousand odd nukes and the capacity to deliver them anywhere would be ample deterrent to any attacker.
McCain has pre-emptively attacked Obama, claiming he would typify the big taxing, big spending Democrat template. This is gross hypocrisy coming from such an avid supporter of military spending which exceeds that of all other nations combined. To Republicans, any spending on social programs is waste. They hate social welfare but fully embrace corporate welfare. Corporate bailouts sometimes sound like telephone numbers. Tax breaks for billionaires are also just another form of corporate welfare.
Obama has stated he intends to force wealthy Americans to share the burden. Since a severe recession appears certain and a depression is possible, average Americans would be crazy not to give him a chance to implement this promise. What does McCain offer? Zilch.
-
Bilderbergs? Obama's been a busy boy, and his comments on Jerusalem are profoundly stupid and dangerous:No, I Can't! Obama and The Israeli Lobby
by Uri Avnery
Global Research, June 7, 2008
AFTER MONTHS of a tough and bitter race, a merciless struggle, Barack Obama has defeated his formidable opponent, Hillary Clinton. He has wrought a miracle: for the first time in history a black person has become a credible candidate for the presidency of the most powerful country in the world.
And what was the first thing he did after his astounding victory? He ran to the conference of the Israel lobby, AIPAC, and made a speech that broke all records for obsequiousness and fawning.
That is shocking enough. Even more shocking is the fact that nobody was shocked.
IT WAS a triumphalist conference. Even this powerful organization had never seen anything like it. 7000 Jewish functionaries from all over the United States came together to accept the obeisance of the entire Washington elite, which came to kowtow at their feet. All the three presidential hopefuls made speeches, trying to outdo each other in flattery. 300 Senators and Members of Congress crowded the hallways. Everybody who wants to be elected or reelected to any office, indeed everybody who has any political ambitions at all, came to see and be seen.
The Washington of AIPAC is like the Constantinople of the Byzantine emperors in its heyday.
The world looked on and was filled with wonderment. The Israeli media were ecstatic. In all the world's capitals the events were followed closely and conclusions were drawn. All the Arab media reported on them extensively. Aljazeera devoted an hour to a discussion of the phenomenon.
The most extreme conclusions of professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt were confirmed in their entirety. On the eve of their visit to Israel, this coming Thursday, the Israel Lobby stood at the center of political life in the US and the world at large.
WHY, ACTUALLY? Why do the candidates for the American presidency believe that the Israel lobby is so absolutely essential to their being elected?
The Jewish votes are important, of course, especially in several swing states which may decide the outcome. But African-Americans have more votes, and so do the Hispanics. Obama has brought to the political scene millions of new young voters. Numerically, the Arab-Muslim community in the US is also not an insignificant factor.
Some say that Jewish money speaks. The Jews are rich. Perhaps they donate more than others for political causes. But the myth about all-powerful Jewish money has an anti-Semitic ring. After all, other lobbies, and most decidedly the huge multinational corporations, have given considerable sums of money to Obama (as well as to his opponents). And Obama himself has proudly announced that hundreds of thousands of ordinary citizens have sent him small donations, which have amounted to tens of millions.
True, it has been proven that the Jewish lobby can almost always block the election of a senator or a member of Congress who does not dance - and do so with fervor - to the Israeli tune. In some exemplary cases (which were indeed meant to be seen as examples) the lobby has defeated popular politicians by lending its political and financial clout to the election campaign of a practically unknown rival.
But in a presidential race?
THE TRANSPARENT fawning of Obama on the Israel lobby stands out more than similar efforts by the other candidates.
Why? Because his dizzying success in the primaries was entirely due to his promise to bring about a change, to put an end to the rotten practices of Washington and to replace the old cynics with a young, brave person who does not compromise his principles.
And lo and behold, the very first thing he does after securing the nomination of his party is to compromise his principles. And how!
The outstanding thing that distinguishes him from both Hillary Clinton and John McCain is his uncompromising opposition to the war in Iraq from the very first moment. That was courageous. That was unpopular. That was totally opposed to the Israel lobby, all of whose branches were fervidly pushing George Bush to start the war that freed Israel from a hostile regime.
And here comes Obama to crawl in the dust at the feet of AIPAC and go out of his way to justify a policy that completely negates his own ideas.
OK he promises to safeguard Israel's security at any cost. That is usual. OK he threatens darkly against Iran, even though he promised to meet their leaders and settle all problems peacefully. OK he promised to bring back our three captured soldiers (believing, mistakenly, that all three are held by Hizbullah - an error that shows, by the way, how sketchy is his knowledge of our affairs.)
But his declaration about Jerusalem breaks all bounds. It is no exaggeration to call it scandalous.
NO PALESTINIAN, no Arab, no Muslim will make peace with Israel if the Haram-al-Sharif compound (also called the Temple Mount), one of the three holiest places of Islam and the most outstanding symbol of Palestinian nationalism, is not transferred to Palestinian sovereignty. That is one of the core issues of the conflict.
On that very issue, the Camp David conference of 2000 broke up, even though the then Prime Minister, Ehud Barak, was willing to divide Jerusalem in some manner.
Along comes Obama and retrieves from the junkyard the outworn slogan "Undivided Jerusalem, the Capital of Israel for all Eternity". Since Camp David, all Israeli governments have understood that this mantra constitutes an insurmountable obstacle to any peace process. It has disappeared - quietly, almost secretly - from the arsenal of official slogans. Only the Israeli (and American-Jewish) Right sticks to it, and for the same reason: to smother at birth any chance for a peace that would necessitate the dismantling of the settlements.
In prior US presidential races, the pandering candidates thought that it was enough to promise that the US embassy would be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. After being elected, not one of the candidates ever did anything about this promise. All were persuaded by the State Department that it would harm basic American interests.
Obama went much further. Quite possibly, this was only lip service and he was telling himself: OK, I must say this in order to get elected. After that, God is great.
But even so the fact cannot be ignored: the fear of AIPAC is so terrible, that even this candidate, who promises change in all matters, does not dare. In this matter he accepts the worst old-style Washington routine. He is prepared to sacrifice the most basic American interests. After all, the US has a vital interest in achieving an Israeli-Palestinian peace that will allow it to find ways to the hearts of the Arab masses from Iraq to Morocco. Obama has harmed his image in the Muslim world and mortgaged his future - if and when he is elected president.
SIXTY FIVE years ago, American Jewry stood by helplessly while Nazi Germany exterminated their brothers and sisters in Europe. They were unable to prevail on President Franklin Delano Roosevelt to do anything significant to stop the Holocaust. (And at that same time, many Afro-Americans did not dare to go near the polling stations for fear of dogs being set on them.)
What has caused the dizzying ascent to power of the American Jewish establishment? Organizational talent? Money? Climbing the social ladder? Shame for their lack of zeal during the Holocaust?
The more I think about this wondrous phenomenon, the stronger becomes my conviction (about which I have already written in the past) that what really matters is the similarity between the American enterprise and the Zionist one, both in the spiritual and the practical sphere. Israel is a small America, the USA is a huge Israel.
The Mayflower passengers, much as the Zionists of the first and second aliya (immigration wave), fled from Europe, carrying in their hearts a messianic vision, either religious or utopian. (True, the early Zionists were mostly atheists, but religious traditions had a powerful influence on their vision.) The founders of American society were "pilgrims", the Zionists immigrants called themselves "olim" - short for olim beregel, pilgrims. Both sailed to a "promised land", believing themselves to be God's chosen people.
Both suffered a great deal in their new country. Both saw themselves as "pioneers", who make the wilderness bloom, a "people without land in a land without people". Both completely ignored the rights of the indigenous people, whom they considered sub-human savages and murderers. Both saw the natural resistance of the local peoples as evidence of their innate murderous character, which justified even the worst atrocities. Both expelled the natives and took possession of their land as the most natural thing to do, settling on every hill and under every tree, with one hand on the plow and the Bible in the other.
True, Israel did not commit anything approaching the genocide performed against the Native Americans, nor anything like the slavery that persisted for many generations in the US. But since the Americans have repressed these atrocities in their consciousness, there is nothing to prevent them from comparing themselves to the Israelis. It seems that in the unconscious mind of both nations there is a ferment of suppressed guilt feelings that express themselves in the denial of their past misdeeds, in aggressiveness and the worship of power.
HOW IS it that a man like Obama, the son of an African father, identifies so completely with the actions of former generations of American whites? It shows again the power of a myth to become rooted in the consciousness of a person, so that he identifies 100% with the imagined national narrative. To this may be added the unconscious urge to belong to the victors, if possible.
Therefore, I do not accept without reservation the speculation: "Well, he must talk like this in order to get elected. Once in the White House, he will return to himself."
I am not so sure about that. It may well turn out that these things have a surprisingly strong hold on his mental world.
Of one thing I am certain: Obama's declarations at the AIPAC conference are very, very bad for peace. And what is bad for peace is bad for Israel, bad for the world and bad for the Palestinian people.
If he sticks to them, once elected, he will be obliged to say, as far as peace between the two peoples of this country is concerned: "No, I can't!"
Nice article, Jan.
AIPAC, Bilderbergs--how many masters does a President have to serve?
I hope Obama was just paying lip service to both of them but realisation of a nightmare scenario might soon occur anyway, courtesy of Israel (who else?).
-
P.S. I just noticed that Obama made a special visit today to speak to a pro-Israel lobby and tell them they have nothing to fear from him. Hmmm... Maybe he's afraid of them...
I'll bet he is, Pat---and the fear would be mutual, I suspect.
I saw snippets of that AIPAC rally, too. I couldn't help notice HRC's speech was almost apologetic in tone and concluded with 'Barack Obama will be a great friend to Israel'. We'll see. Perhaps Obama will tolerate an elephant in the living room or perhaps he won't.
p.s. the AIPAC symbol is interesting---an intriguing blend of the Israeli and US flags.
-
I agree with Mosely regarding Mossad's involvement in the deaths of JFK and RFK, although I think the era of wholesale US political assassinations is in the past. For political assassinations to succeed in the present day era, it would require present day equivalents of LBJ and JEH to be prominent in American public life. These two, along with the US media, were the main architects of the coverup and suppression of evidence, imo, and without high level domestic co-ordination of the all important coverup, then no assassination plan can proceed.
Of course, should Obama prove to be the real deal---and all indications are that he is---then present day equivalents of these two characters may be found and positioned accordingly. It would need to be a plot of fiendish cleverness because in Obama's case, unlike that of JFK and RFK, a highly skeptical and well informed section of the public are in nervous anticipation of just such an event. The plotters would not have the element of surprise on their side this time.
-
In looking at other article titles in Israel News, I got the distinct impression that it's an anti-Israel website. But I guess they couldn't call it Anti-Israel News if they want to maintain any subtlety.
Anti-Israel or just honest?
It's a fine line.
IMO it has a dishonest name. If a "news" website is going to be anti-Israel or "just honest" about Israel, it should be up front about it instead of using what sounds like an establishment name.
It had me fooled initially. As I was reading the article, I was wondering why an article that is so blase or accepting of the Mossad going around assassinating whomever it pleases would appear on an "establishment" website. Then I looked around and saw that it is not "establishment" at all. The Jerusalem Post, for example, might view the Mossad quite differently (whether honestly or not).
Splitting hairs, Ron. Israel e-news is an apt description of what lies within the site, although maybe it should be called 'the Israel e-news that Rupert and friends don't want you to read'.
There are plenty of articles on the web that are blase and accepting of the CIA assassinating whomever they please, and this barely raises an eyebrow.
-
I agree, but with a caveat (of sorts). Obama is about the best we can get now under the current tragicly flawed and Elite-controlled system. Perhaps he even secretly harbors visions to try to move things toward more bottom-up Democracy, as did JFK - another flawed political figure, but a breath of fresh air compared to what came before, after and were the alternatives. JFK paid the ultimate price for his 'hubris' as seen by those who feel they really rule. Obama might, sadly, meet a similar fate. I agreee, Obamas advisors are problematic [more so that the few more progressive ones, like Powers, were forced to step-down], but he is (for better or for worse) trying, by playing 'politics' to make some [albeit minor] changes. While I condemn his distancing himself from Rev. Wright, the very fact he once embraced him, does say some positive things about Obama. He is not going to be the light of the World and no champion of TRUE Democracy, and might well pay as high a price as did JFK should he try to stray from the bounds his 'sadvisors' and 'backers' will set for him...but he also might just give us [uSA and to some extent the World] enough breathing room to make our moves for true change. He will not lead it, I think, but may follow if the People lead. A W would not follow anything but the worst of the worst in the Deep Political Establishment. I think there is a small chance that Obama would welcome being 'led' by the People toward things more progressive. [Or am I dreaming, based upon my wishes?! Time will tell]
One thing we can say is that Obama appears to be more left-wing that JFK was in 1960. JFK changed, maybe Obama will also. If he does, he really will be in danger of being assassinated.
Yes, let's hope Obama develops into a JFK clone when in office. There's nothing else to hang your hat on anyway.
He'll inherit a poisoned chalice of problems which will threaten America's social cohesion. Whether this will make it more difficult for Obama than it was for JFK remains to be seen. The timing's just about right. He can potentially put himself up there with Lincoln and Kennedy, before he shares their fate.
-
In looking at other article titles in Israel News, I got the distinct impression that it's an anti-Israel website. But I guess they couldn't call it Anti-Israel News if they want to maintain any subtlety.
Anti-Israel or just honest?
It's a fine line.
-
Interesting article by Ian Mosley in the Israel News today:
http://www.israelenews.com/view.asp?ID=2216
Ever since the Middle Ages, there has always been one act which has been strictly prohibited. It is forbidden to speak of the death of the King.
British Communist and Nobel Laureate Doris Lessing is 88 years old, and has either decided she’s old enough to disregard the taboo, or else she’s gone senile and has forgotten this taboo exists. Lessing told an interviewer for a Swedish newspaper that ‘If Barack Obama becomes the next US president he will surely be assassinated.’ Obama, who is vying to become the first black president in US history, ‘would certainly not last long, a black man in the position of president. They would murder him,’ Lessing, 88, told the Dagens Nyheter daily.”
The article goes on: “Lessing, who won the 2007 Nobel Literature Prize, said it might be better if Obama’s Democratic rival Hillary Clinton were to succeed in her bid to become the first woman president of the United States. ‘The best thing would be if they (Clinton and Obama) were to run together. Hillary is a very sharp lady. It might be calmer if she were to win, and not Obama,’ she said.”
Ms. Lessing is delusional if she thinks Obama will be assassinated by the Klan.
The US Government stamped out any organized illegal activity by the Klan and similar organizations decades ago. The Feds have gone on to persecute and harass LEGAL pro-White organizations to this day. Lessing is completely wrong about a threat from any racialist organization, but there may be other threats out there much more real.
Most assassinations in recent history have been done by rogue elements in our government or the MOSSAD. One little known fact is that JFK had opposed Israel’s secret nuclear weapons program while his successor Lyndon Johnson turned a blind eye to it (and even refused to allow US carrier aircraft to shoot down Israeli fighters attacking the USS Liberty).
The patsy for the JFK assassination, Lee Harvey Oswald, refused to go down quietly. Oswald was loudly protesting that he was a patsy during his two days in jail. Oswald was himself assassinated two days after JFK by Jack Ruby (formerly Jacob Rubenstein). The assassination of Bobby Kennedy by Sirhan Sirhan appeared to be an early mind-control assassination, meant to create hostility between the US and Palestinians.
Arlen Spector (now a quasi-Republican Senator) invented the “single-bullet theory” to help cover up the JFK assassination. Lyndon Johnson appointed Gerald Ford to head the investigation even though Johnson considered Ford a bungling incompetent. Ford was later the target of two assassination attempts after he was appointed president with vice president Nelson Rockefeller.
Established governments almost never in the past used assassination as a tool until the rise of mind-control assassination techniques. Even then, assassination appeared to be largely a tool by rogue elements of the CIA to eliminate political undesirables within the US. Only the Israelis appear inclined to assassinate foreign politicians since they are immune from criticism in the Western press, and the MOSSAD has been largely successful at blaming certain terrorist events and assassinations on the Muslims.
The Bush and Clinton crime families seem to have their own private assassins working for them. The Clintons left a body trail from Arkansas to Washington, DC. A remarkable number of finance managers for the Clintons died mysteriously –burying any evidence of illegal mob money or foreign donors. Vince Foster famously wound up dead in a park while Clinton operatives ransacked his office. Commerce Secretary Ron Brown, who threatened to go public about Clinton criminal activities, conveniently died as Air Force Two flew into a mountain in Croatia.
George H.W. Bush was vice president for Ronald Reagan, who was shot only two months after becoming president. The shooter, John Hinckley was the son of a major contributor to the Bush campaign. John Hinckley’s brother, Scott was going to have dinner with Bush’s son, Neil, the day of the shooting. George H.W. Bush had earlier been head of the CIA, which was rumored to be experimenting with mind-control assassinations. Perhaps, the younger Hinckley brother was seen as a weak-minded individual, who could be molded into such an assassin.
In the case of George W. Bush, a highly inconvenient woman, Margie Schoedinger, who dated Bush back in Texas, complained in 2002 that she had been kidnapped, drugged and raped. The police actually confirmed that Bush had dated Schoedinger years earlier, but this story never gained national attention. Margie Schoedinger was a Black woman, and Bush’s reputation as a normal, acceptable sort of guy would have been badly shaken if his predilection for dating Black women had become public. Schoedinger actually filed a lawsuit against George Bush claiming that he was behind the drugging and kidnapping. Margie Schoedinger was found dead shortly afterwards in 2003, and no one in the mainstream media has bothered to focus any attention on this death.
And what lies ahead for Barack Hussein Obama? There is widespread suspicion that he will be assassinated during the primary much like Robert Kennedy, clearing the way for Hillary. The assassination of a political candidate is much more forgettable than someone, who goes on to become president. If the Israelis carried out the mind-control assassination of Bobby Kennedy in 1968, then they may be brainwashing another Palestinian (or Saudi or Egyptian) even now. It would be very hard to imagine the Israelis tolerating an American president with the middle name “Hussein.” One key benefit for the Israelis is the fact that most Americans would suspect that Hillary was behind the assassination and not them.
It’s highly possible a significant number of Americans would vote against Hillary if an assassination took place since many would suspect she had a role in it. This could produce a victory for the otherwise unelectable John McCain. The Israelis don’t care if Hillary or McCain becomes president. Both are equally pro-Israel.
If Hillary is ordering the assassination, she will pull it off until it becomes necessary. If she can defeat Obama in the primary, then there’s no point in assassinating him. Hillary may resort to massive vote-stealing to win as she apparently did in New Hampshire.
In view of the high body count associated in the past with people who got in the way of Bill and Hillary Clinton, if I were Obama, I’d be ordering a set of Kevlar underwear.
Right on the money, imo.
Re Bobby, blaming a Palestinian for this was always too cute to be true. So Sirhan believed RFK might have 'turned' US foreign policy into pro-Israel? Very funny. A very successful mind control assassination it was. Not that hard if you control the western media, I guess.
The western media itself is just a giant mind control exercise. Judging by the millions who would laugh at this suggestion, they have been highly successful.
-
I can't remember seeing such an indecent display of unscrupulous egotism and ambition. She needs help, not the Presidency.The shrinking candidacy of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton has all but vanished from the television set, sidelined by bigger news.
I just returned from Savannah Georgia where the word is that Hillary recently went to see a psychiatrist. He asked her what the problem is and she said "Doc, you've got to help me; everyone ignores me," and the psychiatrist said "next patient please."
Sounds like Hillary and her followers expected the nomination and Presidency to be handed to her because she is a woman. Strange reasoning indeed. Apparently, the fact that she is a phony is irrelevent to her followers.
I expect Obama will win in November, no matter who he picks for the ticket. America will turn a new page but it might be too late to salvage much of its former living standards.
I know its a grim forecast but America's such a basket case of social and economic problems that it could take decades to sort it all out, imo. In the meantime, Russia, China and the EU will be running things.
-
Clinton Sees Many Reasons to Stay In
The New York Times
By PATRICK HEALY
May 21, 2008
Rebuffing associates who have suggested that she end her candidacy, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton has made it clear to her camp in recent days that she will stay in the race until June because she believes she can still be the nominee — and, barring that, so she can depart with some final goals accomplished.Mrs. Clinton has disagreed with suggestions, made directly to her by a few friends recently, that her continued candidacy was deepening splits within the Democratic Party and damaging Senator Barack Obama’s chances of emerging as a formidable nominee. She has also disputed the notion that, by staying in, she was unintentionally fostering a racial divide with white voters in some states overwhelmingly supporting her.Rather, in private conversations and in interviews, Mrs. Clinton has begun asserting that she believes sexism, rather than racism, has cast a shadow over the primary fight, a point some of her supporters have made for months. Advisers say that continuing her candidacy is partly a means to show her supporters — especially young women — that she is not a quitter and will not be pushed around....Full story: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/21/us/polit...&ei=5087%0A
Don't tell me she's going to hang around like a putrid odour, spouting that vacuous sexism crap.
After all the diplomatic and gracious comments recently made about her by Obama--she deserved nothing so polite--she's now treating the world to a display of brattish tantrums and denial.
I can't remember seeing such an indecent display of unscrupulous egotism and ambition. She needs help, not the Presidency.
-
There is nothing 'sinister' or suspicious about his comments.
Are you serious?
Mark,
Yes, quite. He is not saying he wants it to happen, but he is saying that it takes something like that to wake people up again to the threat.
He basically says that in the quote Peter posted:
"The correction for that, I suppose, is an attack. And when that happens, then everyone gets energized for another period"......of massive profits.
-
Maybe, David. But if he (Obama) is willing to defy big pharma, the media and the DEA by signing a bill legalising medical cannabis, then he would get my vote.
Interesting article on the subject by Debra Saunders, writing for the San Francisco Chronicle: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...=005&sc=190
In another article, Saunders writes:
Barack Obama is like a shot of Botox. Support him, and you take 10 years off your face. You join the cool crowd. You become one with idealistic kids and Hollywood glitterati.Clinton Democrats can't compete. They're on the outside looking in. They used to be hip. They were the bad boys, who scoffed at finger-wagging conservatives. Now, they have traded in their saxophones for a pantsuit.The glamour is gone. Once, their very politics, the simple fact that they registered as Democrats instead of Republicans, made them better than meat-and-potatoes America. They cared more. They were smarter. They knew how to play the system. They were destined to run things.Now they are trailing behind an upstart junior senator.....Full article: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?.../INN110LINM.DTL
Nice piece from Saunders on the cannabis issue--thanks Mike. And Obama's position on this is intentionally hazy. It has to be. He's got no choice.
And the Clintons are just so twentieth century it's pathetic.
-
There is nothing 'sinister' or suspicious about his comments.
Are you serious?
-
My sense is that white working-class voters will be quite comfortable with Richardson, who comes across as just a regular guy, but a man who sticks by his guns and tries to speak the plain truth. His presence on the ticket will certainly guarantee that one category of voters will be HIGH ON OBAMA:
Makes sense. Obama is being run by the international business oriented Trilats, whereas Richardson got a masters in international affairs from the "universalist" Tufts Fetcher School, was a staffer on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was a former Kissinger State Dept guy, and a former lecturer at Armand Hammer's United World College of the American West and a US Ambassador to the UN (amongst other appointments).
Just the sort of all round regular guy the US working-classes would choose for their champion, eh.
The words, "fixed", "casino", "wheel" and "roulette" spring to mind.
Maybe, David. But if he is willing to defy big pharma, the media and the DEA by signing a bill legalising medical cannabis, then he would get my vote.
-
Very interesting, Terry. Thanks to you (and your brother) for posting this.
As the video suggests, America is in denial. Some on the Forum are in denial-- or in fear of retribution.
The image of America and its branches of power being enslaved by a distant, tiny ally and its vocal diaspora would be highly amusing if it wasn't laced with potentially disastrous consequences for America and the rest of the world.
How many Americans on the Forum will dare to comment on this increasingly apparent truth? Probably not many.
-
On the important issue of Amy Goodman & Democracy Now's stance on 9/11, I think there is another possibility which effectively boils down to pragmatism.
Any journalist suggesting 9/11 was an "inside job" has effectively left the reservation. If such a journalist were to be invited onto MSM, then the only issue, rightly or wrongly, they would ever be questioned about would their "treacherous 9/11 conspiracy theory" belief. So, if Amy Goodman was even to admit the tiniest possibility that 9/11 was planned and carried out by rogue American elements, she would be finished as a "respectable" journalist and would no longer be allowed to expose all the other injustices that Democracy Now raises.
It's analogous to the position Naomi Klein finds herself in. Her book, "Shock Therapy", may occasionally gets a detail or an emphasis wrong, but imo it is a very powerful and compelling work. Her use of Cameron's electroshock/psychic driving programme to create a human tabula rasa as a metaphor for the Chicago School/neoliberalism's exploitation of natural or manmade disasters to impose devastating economic shock therapy on nations and communities is insightful and resonant.
However, the logic of "Shock Therapy", that certain powerful elites use the "philosophy" of neoliberalism to exploit disaster and restructure economies and nations in their own interests (eg the likes of Citibank, Enron, Jeb Bush etc in the systematic rape and looting of Argentina and its people), leads one to the question: if these people have a readymade blueprint to exploit and profit from natural and manmade catastrophes, would they not consider helping to create those catastrophes themselves?
That is a question that Klein shies away perhaps for the same reason that Goodman won't publicly debate "9/11 was an inside job" theories. They're pragmatic, and both do good and important work whilst staying on the reservation.
Point well made, imo.
Better for all concerned they stay inside the tent, and avoid participating in MSM's smearing of CT's. MSM's treatment of official dissenters has all the paranoia of the Inquisition.
p.s. I'm seeing '9-11 was an inside job' bumper stickers everywhere lately.
-
I hope that Obama doesn't consider HRC as a running mate, because I don't want her near the White House again.
This is now the big issue, as I think HRC's campaign is over. Maybe she's clinging on like a rabid bulldog to get herself onto a joint ticket.
I agree this would be a terrible option, Chris. It delivers the dreaded Dealey Plaza option to the elites and, coincidentally, HRC has already glowingly invoked the memory of Lyin' Lyndon during the nomination campaign.
-
It's no secret that the current US Administration supports Israeli regional hegemony, by any and all means. In fact, the current US government would support anything Israel tells them to support.
Public opinion is proving more difficult to mould however. A new generation of Jews and non-Jews alike know a brutal occupation when they see one and they know who controls the MSM. The hardline Zionist opinion shapers and spin merchants are getting a bit worried as they can see reason and logic emerging on the horizon. Watch for the increasingly shrill hysteria as they realise they've lost the debate to common sense.
An individual named Melanie Phillips has revealed where she's coming from. She's got lots of shrill but no logic or compassion as she claims the Palestinians are an 'artificial' people who can be collectively punished because they are a 'terrorist population'.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/05/08/8810/
Published on Thursday, May 8, 2008 by The Independent/UK
The Loathsome Smearing of Israel’s Critics
by Johann Hari
In the US and Britain, there is a campaign to smear anybody who tries to describe the plight of the Palestinian people. It is an attempt to intimidate and silence — and to a large degree, it works. There is nobody these self-appointed spokesmen for Israel will not attack as anti-Jewish: liberal Jews, rabbis, even Holocaust survivors.
My own case isn’t especially important, but it illustrates how the wider process of intimidation works. I have worked undercover at both the Finsbury Park mosque and among neo-Nazi Holocaust deniers to expose the Jew-hatred there; when I went on the Islam Channel to challenge the anti-Semitism of Islamists, I received a rash of death threats calling me “a Jew-lover”, “a Zionist-homo pig” and more.
Ah, but wait. I have also reported from Gaza and the West Bank. Last week, I wrote an article that described how untreated sewage was being pumped from illegal Israeli settlements on to Palestinian land, contaminating their reservoirs. This isn’t controversial. It has been documented by Friends of the Earth, and I have seen it with my own eyes.
The response? There was little attempt to dispute the facts I offered. Instead, some of the most high profile “pro-Israel” writers and media monitoring groups — including Honest Reporting and Camera — said I an anti-Jewish bigot akin to Joseph Goebbels and Mahmoud Ahmadinejadh, while Melanie Phillips even linked the stabbing of two Jewish people in North London to articles like mine. Vast numbers of e-mails came flooding in calling for me to be sacked.
Any attempt to describe accurately the situation for Palestinians is met like this. If you recount the pumping of sewage onto Palestinian land, “Honest Reporting” claims you are reviving the anti-Semitic myth of Jews “poisoning the wells.” If you interview a woman whose baby died in 2002 because she was detained — in labour — by Israeli soldiers at a checkpoint within the West Bank, “Honest Reporting” will say you didn’t explain “the real cause”: the election of Hamas in, um, 2006. And on, and on.
The former editor of Israel’s leading newspaper, Ha’aretz, David Landau, calls the behaviour of these groups “nascent McCarthyism”. Those responsible hold extreme positions of their own that place them way to the right of most Israelis. Alan Dershowitz and Melanie Phillips are two of the most prominent figures sent in to attack anyone who disagrees with the Israeli right. Dershowitz is a lawyer, Harvard professor and author of The Case For Israel. He sees ethnic cleansing as a trifling matter, writing: “Political solutions often require the movement of people, and such movement is not always voluntary … It is a fifth-rate issue analogous in many respects to some massive urban renewal.” If a prominent American figure takes a position on Israel to the left of this, Dershowitz often takes to the airwaves to call them anti-Semites and bigots.
The journalist Melanie Phillips performs a similar role in Britain. Last year a group called Independent Jewish Voices was established with this mission statement: “Palestinians and Israelis alike have the right to peace and security.” Jews including Mike Leigh, Stephen Fry and Rabbi David Goldberg joined. Phillips swiftly dubbed them “Jews For Genocide”, and said they “encourage” the “killers” of Jews. Where does this come from? She says the Palestinians are an “artificial” people who can be collectively punished because they are “a terrorist population”. She believes that while “individual Palestinians may deserve compassion, their cause amounts to Holocaust denial as a national project”. Honest Reporting quotes Phillips as a model of reliable reporting.
These individuals spray accusations of anti-Semitism so liberally that by their standards, a majority of Jewish Israelis have anti-Semitic tendencies. Dershowitz said Jimmy Carter’s decision to speak to the elected Hamas government “border[ed] on anti-Semitism.” A Ha’aretz poll last month found that 64 per cent of Israelis want their government to do just that.
As US President, Jimmy Carter showed his commitment to Israel by giving it more aid than anywhere else and brokering the only peace deal with an Arab regime the country has ever enjoyed. He also wants to see a safe and secure Palestine alongside it — so last year he wrote a book called Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. It is a bland and factual canter through the major human rights reports. There is nothing there you can’t read in the mainstream Israeli press every day. Carter’s comparison of life on the West Bank (not within Israel) to Apartheid South Africa is not new. The West Bank is ruled in the interests of a small Jewish minority; it is bisected by roads for the Jewish settlers from which Palestinians are banned. The Israeli human rights group B’tselem says this “bears striking similarities to the racist Apartheid regime”. Yet for repeating these facts in the US, Carter has widely called “a racist”. Several universities have even refused to let the ex-President speak to their students.
These campus battles often succeed. Norman Finkelstein is a political scientist in the US whose parents were both Jewish survivors of the Warsaw ghetto and the Nazi concentration camps. They lost every blood relative. He made his reputation exposing a hoax called From Time Immemorial by Joan Peters which claimed that Palestine was virtually empty when Zionist settlers arrived, and the people claiming to be Palestinians were mostly impostors who had come from local areas to cash in. Finkelstein showed it to be scarred by falsified figures and gross misreading of sources. From that moment on, he was smeared as an anti-Semite by those who had lauded the book. But it was when Finkelstein revealed two years ago that Alan Dershowitz had, without acknowledgement, drawn wholesale from Peters’ hoax for his book The Case For Israel, that the worst began. Dershowitz campaigned to make sure Finkelstein was denied tenure at his university. He even claimed that Finkelstein’s mother — who made it through Maidenek and two slave-labour camps — had collaborated with the Nazis. The campaign worked. Finkelstein was let go by De Paul University, simply for speaking the truth.
Are the likes of Dershowitz and Phillips and Honest Reporting becoming more shrill because they can sense they are losing the argument? Liberal Jews — the majority — are now setting up rivals to the hard-right organisations they work with, because they believe this campaign of demonisation is damaging us all. It damages the Palestinians, because it prevents honest discussion of their plight. It damages the Israelis, because it pushes them further down an aggressive and futile path. And it damages diaspora Jews, because it makes real anti-Semitism harder to deal with.
We need to look the witch-hunters in the eye and say, as Joseph Welch said to Joe McCarthy himself: “You’ve done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?”
–Johann Hari
©independent.co.uk
-
We can be assured the same group, and people involved are the same that were used in both cases.
Agreed. The same group planned both assassinations. This is almost a certainty.
IMO, the reason for more focus on JFK is because the events panned out over three days--with two others being assassinated--and consequently the JFK case has more complexity and intrigue than the killing of Bobby (equally tragic that it was). Moreover, there is also the multitude of suspicious deaths which followed DP, a vast array of film and photo evidence and there were more official inquiries. Understandable because JFK was President.
The conspirators learnt a valuable lesson from DP, imo. This time the patsy was carefully groomed to take the fall quietly. Killing LHO was a massive risk they had to take because the stakes were so high. They must have had disturbing memories of that Friday night through Sunday morning.
-
Joe was intimately familiar with the grounds and layout of the Ambassador, as the hotel; it's bars and restaurants, were Joe's steady clients in his employ with Seagrams. Esty LaHive told me that with the crush of people in attendance that night, Joe's knowledge of the back corridors and stairways was what got them in close proximity in their quest to congratulate Senator Kennedy.
Frank Caramelli
April, 2008
So Joe was intimately familiar with the layout of the Ambassador hotel. Hmm...
And he worked for Seagram's, the distillery bought out by the Bronfman family in 1928. The same Bronfman family who were major shareholders in General Dynamics and were closely linked to Meyer Lansky's bootlegging activities and, like Lansky, generous and devoted supporters of Israel.
Permindex, BCI, Tibor Rosenbaum, Clay Shaw, Bloomfield, Bronfman, Lansky, Sonneborn Institute and Montreal. Put them together and what do you get?
Oh that's right---a crazed and devoted supporter of Palestine determined to prevent RFK from swinging towards Israel. After all, the Palestinians were getting such a great deal from America in 1968, weren't they. Sirhan just had to intervene to protect it.
Bobby Kennedy Jr. and Conspiracies to kill JFK & RFK
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted · Edited by Mark Stapleton
Ron, I don't know how they programmed Sirhan, but the 'official' explanation for Sirhan's 'action', keenly promoted by the media, is so transparently absurd, satirical really, that one wonders whether the entire US population was hypnotically programmed to accept whatever the media told them.
I agree with you about the ongoing tragedy of the Kennedy's. It's fear. Whoever killed Jack and Bobby have the morality of drug barons and the families of enemies are fair game.